Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 2011-15 and Ord 1221 ZOA-CUP 10-228 KKE Architects 07-14-2011CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF: • AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-5 REMOVING DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING CONDITION NUMBER 10 THAT THE WARING PLAZA COMMERCIAL CENTER SHALL NOT INCLUDE A SUPERMARKET; AND • THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES TO THE PROJECT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15074 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); AND • A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.30 OF THE ZONING ORDIANCE TO ALLOW SUPERMARKETS NOT EXCEEDING 60,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PC (3) ZONE; AND • EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS. SUBMITTED BY: Kevin Swartz, Assistant Planner APPLICANT: KKE Architects Brian Arial 8 Mills Place Pasadena, CA 91101 CASE NOS: ZOA/CUP 10-228 DATE: July 14, 2011 CONTENTS: Draft Ordinance, Exhibit A Draft Resolution, Exhibit A, Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact Legal Notice Draft Initial Study Traffic Impact Alternative Scenarios Analysis Report, prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers dated June 30, 2011 City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 2 Memo dated July 1, 2011, from the Director of Public Works approving the Traffic Impact Alternative Scenarios Analysis for Vons Supplemental Noise Information Letter by Helix Environmental Planning dated July 7, 2011 Acoustical Analysis Report by Helix Environmental Planning dated November 18, 2010 Resolution 91-5 Conditions #10 and #21 City Council Minutes dated December 13, 1990, January 10, 1991, and February 14, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes dated February 1, 2011 Letters submitted in opposition to and in favor of the project Architectural Review Commission minutes dated August 10, 2010 Plans and Exhibits Recommendation: That the City Council waive further reading and: 1. Adopt Resolution 1\10"-'And a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approve the findings for approval of ZOA/CUP 10-228, subject to the attached conditions. 2. Pass Ordinance No. 1221to second reading, approving an amendment to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code to allow supermarkets not exceeding 60,000 gross square feet as conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC (3) Zone; City Council Meeting, June 23, 2011: At its meeting of June 23, 2011, the City Council continued the issue to the meeting of July 14, 2011, based upon further CEQA review and to come up with a solid backfill plan. On July 1, 2001, Public Works staff completed their review of the Traffic Impact Alternative Scenarios Analysis report for Vons, prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, dated June 30, 2011. Public Works concurs with the findings presented therein and approves the report. As of the date the staff report was written, staff has not seen a written backfill plan that has been accepted by all parties. The applicant is continuing to work with Palms to Pines and will present the backfill plan at the July 14, 2011 City Council meeting. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\WordWons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 3 City Council Meeting, May 12, 2011: At its meeting of May 12, 2011, the City Council continued the issue to the meeting of May 26, 2011, to allow for further CEQA review and to come up with a solid backfill plan. Prior to the May 12, 2011 meeting, a letter was submitted by Robert Bernheimer an attorney representing Palms to Pines shopping center, dated May 12, 2011, stating the CEQA studies were flawed in regard to the traffic and noise studies. The City Council requested the applicant address the concerns outlined in the May 12, 2011 letter and work with staff. As of the date the staff report was written, staff has not seen a written backfill plan that is acceptable to both the applicant and the attorney for the Palms to Pines shopping center. The applicant is continuing to work with Palms to Pines and will present the backfill plan at the May 26, 2011 City Council meeting. Also, at the May 12, 2011 meeting, the applicant withdrew their request to increase the west tower element from 34 feet to 40 feet, and leave the west tower as is. Planning Commission Recommendation: At its meeting of February 1, 2011 the Planning Commission approved the project on a 3-1 vote, with Commissioner Campbell absent. The Planning Commission agreed with the Architectural Review Commission comments and recommendation of the interior and exterior modifications, along with the increase to one architectural element from 34 feet to 40 feet. During the discussioin leading to approval of the project, Commissioner De Luna recommended massing around the tower to add more girth to an apparent narrow base. The Commission also had concerns regarding staff's recommendation of a zoning ordinance amendment to allow supermarkets not exceeding 70,000 gross square feet in a PC (3) zone. after learning that in the PC (3) zone, there is nothing undeveloped land left that would accommodate a 70,000 SG grocery store Commissioner Tanner amended his original motion, to say the maximum allowable square footage in the PC (3) zone would be 60,000 square feet for a grocery store. Architecture Review Commission Recommendation: At its meeting of August 10, 2010, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed and approved the project. The Commission supported the exterior modifications. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he felt the height increase to the west tower was needed and liked what it did from a view standpoint from Highway 111. Commissioners Van Vliet and Lambell also liked the tower increase and agreed with Commissioner Vuksic. The ARC granted approval of the exterior and interior modifications and recommended to the City Council the height increase to the G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 4 west tower on a 4-0-1-1 vote, with Commissioner Touschner abstaining and Commissioners Levin and Stendell absent. Executive Summary: Vons is requesting an amendment to Resolution No. 91-5 removing Department of Community Development Condition of Approval No. 10 that the Waring Plaza Commercial Center not include a supermarket. Approval of staff's recommendation would allow a supermarket in the former Mervyns building at the Waring Plaza Commercial Center. To approve the project, a zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code to allow supermarkets not exceeding 60,000 gross square feet as conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC (3) Zone is also necessary. Zoning restrictions currently prohibit supermarkets larger than 50,000 square feet in the PC (3) zone. Approval of staff's recommendation would allow supermarkets in the PC (3) zone not to exceed 60,000 square feet. In addition, the proposed project involves minor renovations and fagade modifications. The approval of the project also includes the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the project, pursuant to section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Background: A. Property Description: The project site is located at the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive within an existing shopping center. In 1990, Precise Plan 90-13 was filed by DSL Service Company. On February 14, 1991, the City Council approved Resolution No. 91-5 on a 5-0 vote to construct a 190,394 square foot retail and commercial center known as Waring Plaza. There are five vehicular access points to the shopping center: two on Parkview Drive, two on Fred Waring Drive and one on Highway 111. Access to the shopping center is not proposed to be changed. B. Amendment to Condition of Approval Number 10: On February 14, 1991, the applicant, DSL proposed the project to the City Council with Downey Savings and Albertson's contingently signed. Residents of Joshua Road had submitted petitions in opposition of the project due to traffic concerns and the potential Albertson's supermarket. Other residents were encouraged by Albertson's, because of its location and sales tax generation. The City Council did not find a grocery store appropriate at this location, and a condition of approval was added requiring that the center not include a supermarket. Mervyns became the anchor tenant of the center, and occupied the building until 2008 when the company G:\Planning\Kevin SwartMordWons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 5 went bankrupt. The 78,638 square foot building has been vacant since Mervyns left. C. Prohibition of supermarkets over 50,000 gross square feet: On February 28, 1991, the City Council passed Ordinance 636 allowing supermarkets in the PC (3) zone not exceeding 20,000 gross square feet, which accommodated Trader Joe's, but eliminated traditional supermarkets. On January 12, 2006, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 25.30 to allow supermarkets not exceeding 50,000 gross square feet as conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC (3) zone. The amendment allowed specialty food stores (such as Bristol Farms and Whole Foods), which have grown into the 40,000 to 50,000 square foot range. D. General Plan Designation and Zoning: The property is currently designated Regional Commercial (C-R) in the General Plan and is zoned Planned Commercial (PC 3). E. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North: Planned Commercial (PC3) / Commercial South: Planned Commercial (PC3) Toys R Us East: Residential Single Family (R-1) / Single Family Homes West: Planned Commercial (PC3) Commercial Project Description: The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to Resolution No. 91-5 removing Department of Community Development Condition of Approval No. 10 that the Waring Plaza Commercial Center shall not include a supermarket, and a zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code to allow supermarkets not exceeding 60,000 gross square feet as conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC (3) Zone. In addition, the proposed project involves minor renovations and fagade modifications. The applicant has purchased the old Mervyns building, which was the primary anchor tenant for approximately 15 years. Vons is currently located at 72-675 Highway 111, and the chain recently shut down a store in Rancho Mirage on Bob Hope Drive, across from the River. Vons has been looking for a larger space to accommodate the two stores, and has expanded their products including an organic section to compete with specialty markets. Vons recently purchased the property with the intent of remodeling the building to accommodate a new 57,000 square foot supermarket, with the additional square footage GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 6 divided between three future tenants. Vons was unaware of the condition of approval prohibiting supermarkets within the center. Vons would employ approximately 125 employees, whereas the current store at Palms to Pines has 75 employees. The hours of operation are from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday, with delivery hours from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. A. Building Description: The proposed Vons and three additional retail spaces would be located within the existing building; no building expansion is proposed. The existing building is comprised of single story structure roughly square in proportion and surrounded by parking on three sides, with a service area and loading docks located on the north side of the building. The northwest portion of the subject building is connected to another narrow building. The building totals 78,638 square feet, with Vons utilizing 57,000 square feet. The three additional retail spaces are existing and are included Retail Space No. 1 located alone the west side of the subject building and encompassing 16,094 square feet; No. 2 located at the southwest corner of the building and encompassing 3,080 square feet; and No. 3 located at the southeast corner and encompassing 1,980 square feet. Building setbacks are approximately 360 feet from Fred Waring Drive, 270 feet from Highway 111, 84 feet from residential homes to the east and 75 feet from residential homes on the north. The existing enclosed loading area is approximately 45 feet south of a residential neighborhood. The front entrance to the proposed Vons would face Fred Waring Drive. B. Architecture: The applicant is proposing exterior modifications to the building. The project architecture is of a Contemporary architecture design, consisting of new sliding glass doors, new clear bronze windows, two new metal trellises, adding stone veneer on the columns, and new paint colors. The paint colors are Dunn Edwards "Desert Gray", "Bungalow Taupe", "Black", "Flaxseed", and Benjamin Moore "Gargoyle" and "Grant Beige". The applicant recently removed from the design the west tower increase that was approved by the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission. The applicant reported that the change was made to earn broader -based support for the project. C. Landscaping: The current landscaping has not been maintained on -site, and the applicant is proposing to replace and add landscaping where needed. The landscape palette will GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 7 focus on a desert theme, with plants requiring minimal water usage. Preliminary approval from the City's Landscape Specialist has not been granted at this time. A condition of approval has been placed on the project stating that all landscape and lighting for the facility will be strictly on site and will not intrude onto surrounding properties. Other conditions are: that the plant selection is in conformance with the City's Desert Floral Palette and a final landscaping plan must be reviewed and approved by the City's Landscaping Manager before building permits are issued. Analysis: In 1990 some residents on Joshua Road were in favor of a supermarket based on location and sales tax to the City, while others opposed the Albertson's market based on traffic, delivery hours, and noise. The applicant mitigated traffic concerns by installing a cul-de-sac at Joshua Road and adding a pedestrian access gate. This new location will provide residents of the affordable housing communities and single family homes in the area the ability to walk to a supermarket. The proposed new Vons store is not a net increase to business in the city. However, accommodating their request reflects changes in the way grocers position themselves in the market today. Larger stores are able to offer a larger selection of products and the ability to incorporate drugstores, which used to be in separate but adjacent stores. The original condition of approval prohibiting supermarkets conflicts with Condition of Approval No. 21, which allows commercial uses to be approved at an administrative level. Removing the subject condition will eliminate the discrepancy. Since Vons would be located adjacent to residential homes, staff has placed conditions of approval similar to ones that were placed on Bristol Farms and Albertsons, which are also adjacent to residential homes. Additionally, staff believes that removing Condition of Approval No. 10 and allowing a supermarket in the Waring Plaza Center will help revitalize the center, and would attract more shoppers and other businesses as well. Over the past two years the City has tried to address the vacancy of several large buildings, mainly in the PC (3) zone. Representatives of several food stores have approached the City about locating in these prospective vacant spaces. The zoning restrictions prohibit supermarkets larger than 50,000 square feet in the PC (3) zone. Traditional supermarkets have expanded and have grown to 70,000 plus square feet. At the February 1, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, staff originally drafted a zoning ordinance amendment allowing supermarkets smaller than 70,000 square feet as conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC (3) zone. After the Planning Commissioner's comments and research of existing building square footages within the PC (3) zone, staff believes that 60,000 square feet is an appropriate size in the PC (3) zone. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZONCUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 8 For reference purposes, the existing Albertson's supermarket located on the northeast corner of Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Drive is 62,000 square feet, and backs up to residential homes (Hidden Palms). The existing Ralph's supermarket located on Cook Street and Country Club Drive is 58,000 square feet. Other notable large exiting buildings in the PC (3) zone are: Costco (153,000 square feet), Sam's Club (160,000 square feet), Wal-Mart (232,000 square feet), Lowe's (151,000 square feet), Target (134,000 square feet), Sports Authority (51,000 square feet), Toys R Us (53,000 square feet). The 50,000 square foot restriction only accommodates smaller markets such as Trader Joe's, Henry's, Whole Foods, and Bristol Farms. A. Parking: Waring Plaza is designed with a total of 1103 parking spaces throughout the shopping center. The vacant building is 78,638 square feet and Vons would be utilizing 57,000 square feet, leaving 21,100 square feet divided into three tenants. Section 25.58.310 requires 1 parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area for supermarkets, totaling 285 parking spaces. The additional 21,100 square feet is retail and parked at 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, totaling 85 parking spaces. Vons and three additional retail spaces require 370 parking spaces. A total of 382 parking spaces are provided on the Fred Waring side, directly in front of Vons, and do not take away parking spaces from the retail and restaurant uses to the west. Waring Plaza also has a reciprocal parking agreement throughout the retail center and parking efficiencies are typically realized from the size and mix of retail uses. Therefore, adequate parking is provided for this and other uses in the retail center. B. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed project is located within an existing commercial retail center that provides approximately 190,394 square feet of gross leasable space. The subject site is designated C-R (Regional Commercial) on the City General Plan land use map. The site is also located along two major roadways, Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive, which serve as major regional routes and local connectors for commercial, tourist and residential travelers throughout the area. In addition to general retail and apparel stores, the project also includes restaurants and other food and drink establishments. Surrounding land uses include a mix of regional commercial, community commercial uses, with single family and multi -family development to the north and east. Single- family homes are located immediately north and east of the subject building. The proposed supermarket project appears well suited for the existing building and the location, being located at the intersection of two major roadways that provide easy access for a wide market area. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 9 The proposed Vons at Waring Plaza would provide 57,000 square feet and would also provide three additional retail commercial spaces of 16,094 square feet, 3,080 square feet and 1,980 square feet. The proposed Vons would replace the recently closed Vons at the Rancho Las Palms shopping center in Rancho Mirage to the west, and the currently occupied store in the Palms to Pines center to the southwest. Vons may leave behind an empty space when they move from their current location, and that could result in lowered revenue to the businesses in the center and a blighted visual appearance at the Palms to Pines location. However, from a community wide perspective, there will be a positive impact: the old Mervyns building is larger, more visible, and surround by a greater number of businesses and homes that are currently being adversely impacted by the void there. The vacant Mervyns building is also having an adverse impact on commercial activity in the rest of the center, where important synergies are realized by the mix of services available. It should be noted that if Vons occupies this space, it will be accessible by foot or bicycle to residents of nearby single-family homes and affordable multi -family housing to the north and east. Neighbors immediately adjacent to the existing Vons at Palms to Pines will be adversely impacted by the move, but a greater number of neighbors and businesses will be positively impacted; some residents will have to travel farther to reach a grocery store, but more shoppers will have greater ease of access. C. Traffic: A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for this project by Linscott, Law & Greenspan dated December 21, 2010. On May 12, 2011 the attorney representing Palms to Pines shopping center submitted a letter, stating that the traffic report was flawed. The City Council requested the applicant address the concerns outlined in the May 12, 2011 letter submitted by the attorney and work with staff. On June 30, 2011, Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers submitted a new Traffic Impact Alternative Scenarios Analysis report. On July 1, 2011, the Director of Public Works approved the findings presented in the report (see attached executive summary dated June 30, 2011). Both the original traffic analysis and the new alternate scenarios analysis conclude that the project will not adversely impact the level of service at nearby intersections. Waring Plaza is currently served by a total of five vehicular access points with two on Parkview Drive, one on Highway 111 and two on Fred Waring Way. The access points on Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive provide only right in/right out access. The western most Fred Waring Drive access point also allows eastbound left turn entry but, as noted, outbound left turns are prohibited. These restricted driveways cause the need for shopping center patrons to make U-turns at surrounding GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\WordWons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 10 intersections or alter their routes in order to accommodate preferred travel patterns. This is not ideal access for a large grocery store, but it is not sufficient reason to deny the proposed project. Any large retail occupancy that fills the former Mervyns space and the existing smaller businesses in the center, for that matter will have the same less -than -ideal vehicular access. The location of the center at the intersection of two six -lane arterial streets will inevitably restrict access and egress, regardless of the particular retail tenants. The existing intersection at Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111, with the proposed Vons or any retail store maintains a Level of Service D. The City is in the process of receiving Federal funds for installation of a westbound free right turn lane at Highway 111 and Fred Waring Drive intersection, replacing the existing dual right turn lanes. The project is estimated for completion by 2013, and would provide a Level of Service C. The project does not propose any changes to the existing access points. D. Noise: An Acoustic Analysis was prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc, and a noise impact analysis dated November 18, 2010 was performed. On May 12, 2011 the attorney representing Palms to Pines shopping center submitted a letter stating that the traffic report and noise study were flawed. The City Council requested the applicant address the concerns outlined in the May 12, 2011 letter submitted by the attorney and work with staff. On July 7, 2011, Helix Environmental Planning submitted a supplemental noise information letter with the revised Traffic Impact Analysis for Vons. The supplemental noise study information is based on the revised traffic impact analysis report dated June 30, 2011. The revised report supplements and is meant to expand upon the previous study. The study does not invalidate the analysis or conclusions reached in the original study. The supplemental traffic noise impact information presented in the attachment shows that in all of the scenarios the project will be in compliance with the City of Palm Desert Noise Element threshold maximum 65 CNEL. The location and operation of the loading dock for the proposed Vons poses the most potentially significant impact to surrounding land uses, specifically to homes located immediately north and east of the loading dock. Access to the loading dock will be the service road running behind the buildings located along the east side of the Waring Plaza development and accessing the site from a drive located on Parkview Drive. Delivery trucks will pull beyond the loading dock and then back into the docking area, as shown on the applicant's site plan. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 11 North of the loading dock are single-family homes located on the north side of Cactus Drive, which is located immediately north of the 9 to 9.5-foot masonry wall, which separates this neighborhood from the proposed Vons loading dock. To the east are also single-family homes located off of Joshua Road and Cactus Drive. Up to four homes in this neighborhood could be potentially impacted by loading dock operations. These homes are also isolated or buffered from the Vons site by an eight -foot masonry wall. The proposed Vons would rely on the existing loading dock facilities, which are located at the north end of the subject building and provide two loading bays accessed from the east. Delivery trucks will access the loading area via Parkview Drive to the north and the rear service road, which extends south to and around the subject building. Trucks would pull past the loading dock and screen wall, and then back into the downward sloped ramp to back into the two bays. Based upon the noise study prepared for this project, the various noise sources associated with truck deliveries and the operation of loading dock and trash compacting facilities could have a significant adverse impact on the local noise environment. The noise consultant has recommended that Conditions of Approval 17a through 17o set forth in the original 1991 project approvals shall continue to be applied. Furthermore, the consultant adds other specific additional or modified elements to further reduce impacts to acceptable levels, which are set forth in the Mitigation Measures discussed in the Initial Study. By conforming to the City Noise Ordinance and the mitigation measures set forth in the Initial Study and Conditions of Approval, the project is expected to have a less - than- significant near -term, operational, and long-term cumulative effect on the noise environment of the area. E. Height: The property is zoned PC (3), which has a maximum height of 35 feet. The subject building has a maximum height of 34 feet at the highest point of the articulated fagade, which includes an arch over the main (Vons) entrance and at the existing corner tower elements of the building. The height of most of the building is 25 feet at the top of the primary perimeter parapet. The building has an "interior" parapet wall with a height of 28 feet surrounding and screening the roof -mounted mechanical equipment (HVAC). Three of these HVAC units are to be replaced with new ones. A condition of approval has been placed upon the project that all HVAC roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened from public view. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 12 F. Findings of Approval: That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. The proposed location of the project is located in a PC (3), Planned Commercial Regional Center zone. The purpose the PC-3 regional commercial center is to provide a unified area for commercial uses which offer a wide range of goods and services. Chapter 25.30 of the City of Palm Desert's Zoning Ordinance section 25.30.026 states a supermarket having fifty thousand and one gross square feet or more shall be a prohibited use the PC (3) zone. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code to allow supermarkets not exceeding 60,000 gross square feet as conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC (3) zone, would comply with the zoning ordinance. The proposed text amendment would update and modernize this portion of the City Zoning Ordinance, adapting to the evolving needs of the neighborhood commercial and, more specifically, the supermarkets. While there will continue to be a place for the specialty neighborhood -oriented markets, including such businesses as Bristol Farms, TraderJoe's and Jensen's, such supermarkets as Vons provide scale, affordability and diversity of customer products that is especially appropriate for this location. Larger supermarkets are also needed to compete with and complement the big -box discount centers that have recently ventured into groceries and produce, but which are not conveniently located to nearby residents, especially those of more modest means. By increasing the maximum allowable size of supermarkets to 60, 000 square feet, the City will be able to better serve its residents and assure that these businesses can compete in coming years. Additional conditions have been added to the project to ensure that all the minimum requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are met, including Public Works, Building and Safety, and the Fire Department Conditions. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed Vons is consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described above. The project has been conditioned to address public health and safety and will require permits from the City's Building and G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\WordWons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 13 Safety Department, Finance Department, Riverside County Fire Marshal, as well as other local agencies. The project will not physically divide an established community or neighborhood. Based on consideration of the whole, the proposed project does not appear to conflict with any applicable land use plan or policies. The site has been previously designed to meet setbacks, lot coverage, building height, land use, and parking requirements such that it will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, welfare and will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as described in more detail in the staff report. A condition of approval has been placed on the project that will require the project proponent to construct all necessary on and off -site infrastructure to provide utilities to the proposed project prior to the issuance of building permits. Water, sanitation and public utilities and services are available in Fred Waring Drive, a public street. An Environmental Assessment leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared which concludes that there will be no adverse environmental effects. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for approved variances or adjustments. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, except for a zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, which is simultaneously proposed. The use of a supermarket with a Conditional Use Permit (for the land use), is consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report. The nature of the proposed Vons and supermarket size limit is compatible with surrounding land uses, is a part of and complements and supports the existing commercial center, and provides residences in walkable proximity to neighborhood commercial services. Additionally, conditions have been added to the project to ensure that all the minimum requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are met, including building, landscaping, public works, and the fire department conditions, as well as the mitigated negative declaration. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 14 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the site is C-R (Regional Commercial). A primary objective stated in the General Land Use Goals, Policies and Programs is: Goal 2, which states, a diverse resort residential community of desirable residential neighborhoods and resorts, full commercial services, and institutional uses that complement the employment base and provide a variety of community services and facilities. Palm Desert has developed as the premier commercial retail center of the Coachella Valley, with the Town Center Mall, Desert Crossings and a variety of other retail commercial centers. It is also the home of the premier high -end El Paseo commercial corridor, which has evolved as a unique and unrivaled premier shopping district of the City. The City has also emerged as a highly diverse residential community with residential product to appeal to a broad socio-economic cross section. The proposed project represents an important consolidation of other supermarkets, including the now vacated Vons at the Rancho Las Palmas shopping center in Rancho Mirage. The proposed Vons fulfills an important need for City residents, fills a currently vacant retail space, enhances the function and desirability of Waring Plaza, and complement the local employment base of the City. With proper management of the Vons loading area, including lighting and delivery times, the proposed Vons can be made compatible with the surrounding residences without adversely affecting the quality of life of residents living in the vicinity. The relocation of Vons to this location can also enhance its availability to local residents, including those of lower income where pedestrian access to neighborhood commercial services can be very important. Goal 3 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states, an appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City. The proposed project addresses a current need of the City and vicinity in that it allows Vons to continue to occupy space in the community in a currently vacant building that provides the space needed by modern supermarkets. It will also have important direct and indirect impacts on City revenues by generating retail sales and enhancing the sales potential of the existing and future Waring Plaza businesses. GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 15 Policy 3 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states, the City shall integrate land use analysis and planning with economic and fiscal analysis as an essential part of development of a master strategic plan for economic development. In considering the appropriateness of the proposed use, the City balances the land use and planning issues with those associated with maintaining a strong local economy that generates a revenue stream to support community facilities and services. The proposed use broadens and strengthens the City economic base and is consistent with the City's economic development strategies. Policy 4 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states, every opportunity shall be exploited to enhance the character and viability of the City's commercial areas, including Highway 111, El Paseo, the University Park planning area and the Interstate-10 corridor, by integrating nearby higher density residential uses with retail and office/business park land uses. The proposed project is expected to have a very positive effect on the business district comprised on Waring Plaza, Desert Crossing and other City commercial areas in the vicinity. By integrating the Vons with existing higher density residential, including One Quail Place, the project helps to meet this and similar General Plan polices. The project has the potential to enhance the viability of this part of the City's commercial area. Goal 2 of the Residential Land Use Goals and Policies states, the preservation and enhancement of the City's existing neighborhoods. The proposed Vons does not separate or significantly affect existing neighborhoods in the planning area. Residential developments to the east and north are all composed of internally oriented one-story single-family neighborhoods. Project traffic, including delivery trucks, should have little or no impact on existing neighborhoods. The proposed project does not separate or divide an existing neighborhood but rather helps to provide convenient access is needed neighborhood commercial services. Policy 3 of the Residential Land Use Goals and Policies states, the City shall encourage in -fill development on lands located adjacent to or near existing residential areas and utilities to maximize the efficient utilization of land and infrastructure. Shopping centers constitute the commercial infrastructure that supports the residents and their needs. Over the past two decades, the subject property has seen a variety of retail users, which has includes business that have not been able to remain viable in the long-term. In addition to providing a much- G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\WordWons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZONCUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 16 needed boost to retail activity at Waring Plaza, the project also provides needed day-to-day commercial services and associated amenities that will also be conveniently available to local residents. Goal 1 of the Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies states, an integrated and complementary mix of commercial land uses that meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, fully exploit opportunities to serve the regional retail commercial market, and provide hospitality and tourist commercial development opportunities. The proposed project appears to be an appropriate integration of neighborhood, residential -serving commercial services within easy walking distance of homes to the north and east. Both the residents and others working in the vicinity are also expected to make expenditures at the new Vons and keep associated retail sales revenues in the City. Goal of the Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies states, a pattern of commercial land uses conveniently and appropriately distributed throughout the City, meeting the community's needs while minimizing the disruption to or incompatibilities with other land uses. As a part of the Fred Waring and Highway 111 commercial corridors, the proposed Vons should compliment and create synergies with the other retail businesses at Waring Plaza and the vicinity. This enhanced mix of commercial services provides vertical integration between general retail, dining and neighborhood commercial uses supports the City's overall retail commercial and strengthens local fiscal conditions. By keeping more commercial traffic within such an integrated center, surrounding neighborhoods are less impacted by additional traffic. As noted above and in the discussion under "Aesthetics", the surrounding residential developments are internally oriented, generally turning their backs on the subject property. G:\Planning\Kevin Swartz\Ward\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc City Council Vons Staff Report ZOA/CUP 10-228 July 14, 2011 Page 17 Environmental Review: For the purposes of CEQA, the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed project as mitigated will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Submitted by: Kevin Swartz Assistant Planner i M. Wohlmuth Manager Department Head: Lauri Aylaian Director of Community Development CITY COUNCIL ACTION APPROVED ✓ RECEIVED DENIED - OTHERL MEET%?ID AVES: � NOES: ABSENT ,sTAtx: ......ate VZ*W= ©rWW = F� 4Aie� GAPlanning\Kevin Swartz\Word\Vons ZOA 10-228\CC staff report final July 14.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2011-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVAING: AN AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 91-5 REMOVING DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / PLANNING CONDITION NUMBER 10 STATING THAT THE WARING PLAZA COMMERCIAL CENTER SHALL NOT INCLUDE A SUPERMARKET; AND APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES TO THE PROJECT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15074 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); AND EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS.THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 72- 280 HIGHWAY 111. CASE NO: CUP 10-228 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th day of May, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Vons, for approval of the above noted; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14t" day of April, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Vons, and continued the above noted; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 10th day of March, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Vons, and continued the above noted; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th day of February, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Vons, and continued the above noted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1 st day of February, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Vons, and recommended approval to the City Council of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act", Resolution No. 10-26, the Director of Community Development has determined that the project has required an Environmental Assessment resulting in a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in substantially the form as shown in Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14 § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and RESOLUTION NO. 2011-15 WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the Project and prepared an Initial Study pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the Initial Study, which concluded that the Project will not have significant impacts on the environment with mitigation, the City determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") should be prepared for the Project, and an MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, as contained here, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence before it as a whole; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the MND, Initial Study, and all other relevant information contained in the record regarding the Project; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2011, at its regularly -scheduled meeting, the public was afforded an opportunity to comment on the Project and the MND/Initial Study, and the City Council discussed and considered the Project and the MND/Initial Study; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the recommendation to the City Council of said request: Findings of Approval: That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which it is located. The proposed location of the project is located in a PC (3), Planned Commercial Regional Center zone. The purpose the PC-3 regional commercial center is to provide a unified area for commercial uses which offer a wide range of goods and services. Chapter 25.30 of the City of Palm Desert's Zoning Ordinance section 25.30.026 states a supermarket having fifty thousand and one gross square feet or more shall be a prohibited use the PC (3) zone. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code to allow supermarkets not exceeding 60, 000 gross square feet as conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC (3) zone, would comply with the zoning ordinance. The proposed text amendment would update and modernize PAI RESOLUTION NO.2011-15 this portion of the City Zoning Ordinance, adapting to the evolving needs of the neighborhood commercial and, more specifically, the supermarkets. While there will continue to be a place for the specialty neighborhood - oriented markets, including such businesses as Bristol Farms, Trader Joe's and Jensen's, such supermarkets as Vons provide scale, affordability and diversity of customer products that is especially appropriate for this location. Larger supermarkets are also needed to compete with and complement the big -box discount centers that have recently ventured into groceries and produce, but which are not conveniently located to nearby residents, especially those of more modest means. By increasing the maximum allowable size of supermarkets to 60,000 square feet, the City will be able to better serve its residents and assure that these businesses can compete in coming years. Additional conditions have been added to the project to ensure that all the minimum requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are met, including Public Works, Building and Safety, and the Fire Department Conditions. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed Vons is consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described above. The project has been conditioned to address public health and safety and will require permits from the City's Building and Safety Department, Finance Department, Riverside County Fire Marshal, as well as other local agencies. The project will not physically divide an established community or neighborhood. Based on consideration of the whole, the proposed project does not appear to conflict with any applicable land use plan or policies. The site has been previously designed to meet setbacks, lot coverage, building height, land use, and parking requirements such that it will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, welfare and will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity as described in more detail in the staff report. A condition of approval has been placed on the project that will require the project proponent to construct all necessary on and off -site infrastructure to provide utilities to the proposed project prior to the issuance of building permits. Water, sanitation and public utilities and services are available in Fred Waring Drive, a public street. An Environmental Assessment leading to a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared which concludes that there will be no adverse environmental effects. 3 RESOLUTION NO.2011-15 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance, except for approved variances or adjustments. The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, except for a zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, which is simultaneously proposed. The use of a supermarket with a Conditional Use Permit (for the land use), is consistent with the intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance as described in the staff report. The nature of the proposed Vons and supermarket size limit is compatible with surrounding land uses, is a part of and complements and supports the existing commercial center, and provides residences in walkable proximity to neighborhood commercial services. Additionally, conditions have been added to the project to ensure that all the minimum requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code are met, including building, landscaping, public works, and the fire department conditions, as well as the mitigated negative declaration. 4. That the proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. The General Plan land use designation for the site is C-R (Regional Commercial). A primary objective stated in the General Land Use Goals, Policies and Programs is: Goal 2, which states, a diverse resort residential community of desirable residential neighborhoods and resorts, full commercial services, and institutional uses that complement the employment base and provide a variety of community services and facilities. Palm Desert has developed as the premier commercial retail center of the Coachella Valley, with the Town Center Mall, Desert Crossings and a variety of other retail commercial centers. It is also the home of the premier high -end El Paseo commercial corridor, which has evolved as a unique and unrivaled premier shopping district of the City. The City has also emerged as a highly diverse residential community with residential product to appeal to a broad socio-economic cross section. The proposed project represents an important consolidation of other supermarkets, including the now vacated Vons at the Rancho Las Palmas shopping center in Rancho Mirage. The proposed Vons fulfills an important need for City residents, fills a currently vacant retail space, enhances the function and desirability of Waring Plaza, and complement the local employment base of the City. With proper management of the Vons loading area, including lighting and delivery times, the proposed Vons can be made compatible with the El RESOLUTION NO. 2011-15 surrounding residences without adversely affecting the quality of life of residents living in the vicinity. The relocation of Vons to this location can also enhance its availability to local residents, including those of lower income where pedestrian access to neighborhood commercial services can be very important. Goal 3 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states, an appropriate mix of commercial, resort and other revenue -generating land uses that will continue to fund a high level of community development activities, services and facilities in the City. The proposed project addresses a current need of the City and vicinity in that it allows Vons to continue to occupy space in the community in a currently vacant building that provides the space needed by modern supermarkets. It will also have important direct and indirect impacts on City revenues by generating retail sales and enhancing the sales potential of the existing and future Waring Plaza businesses. Policy 3 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states, the City shall integrate land use analysis and planning with economic and fiscal analysis as an essential part of development of a master strategic plan for economic development. In considering the appropriateness of the proposed use, the City balances the land use and planning issues with those associated with maintaining a strong local economy that generates a revenue stream to support community facilities and services. The proposed use broadens and strengthens the City economic base and is consistent with the City's economic development strategies. Policy 4 of the General Land Use Goals, Policies, and Programs states, every opportunity shall be exploited to enhance the character and viability of the City's commercial areas, including Highway 111, El Paseo, the University Park planning area and the Interstate-10 corridor, by integrating nearby higher density residential uses with retail and office/business park land uses. The proposed project is expected to have a very positive effect on the business district comprised on Waring Plaza, Desert Crossing and other City commercial areas in the vicinity. By integrating the Vons with existing higher density residential, including One Quail Place, the project helps to meet this and similar General Plan polices. The project has the potential to enhance the viability of this part of the City's commercial area. Goal 2 of the Residential Land Use Goals and Policies states, the preservation and enhancement of the City's existing neighborhoods. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-15 The proposed Vons does not separate or significantly affect existing neighborhoods in the planning area. Residential developments to the east and north are all composed of internally oriented one-story single-family neighborhoods. Project traffic, including delivery trucks, should have little or no impact on existing neighborhoods. The proposed project does not separate or divide an existing neighborhood but rather helps to provide convenient access is needed neighborhood commercial services. Policy 3 of the Residential Land Use Goals and Policies states, the City shall encourage in -fill development on lands located adjacent to or near existing residential areas and utilities to maximize the efficient utilization of land and infrastructure. Shopping centers constitute the commercial infrastructure that supports the residents and their needs. Over the past two decades, the subject property has seen a variety of retail users, which has includes business that have not been able to remain viable in the long-term. In addition to providing a much -needed boost to retail activity at Waring Plaza, the project also provides needed day-to-day commercial services and associated amenities that will also be conveniently available to local residents. Goal 1 of the Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies states, an integrated and complementary mix of commercial land uses that meet the day-to-day needs of local residents, fully exploit opportunities to serve the regional retail commercial market, and provide hospitality and tourist commercial development opportunities. The proposed project appears to be an appropriate integration of neighborhood, residential -serving commercial services within easy walking distance of homes to the north and east. Both the residents and others working in the vicinity are also expected to make expenditures at the new Vons and keep associated retail sales revenues in the City. Goal 2 of the Commercial Land Use Goals and Policies states, a pattern of commercial land uses conveniently and appropriately distributed throughout the City, meeting the community's needs while minimizing the disruption to or incompatibilities with other land uses. As a part of the Fred Waring and Highway 111 commercial corridors, the proposed Vons should compliment and create synergies with the other retail businesses at Waring Plaza and the vicinity. This enhanced mix of commercial services provides vertical integration between general retail, dining and neighborhood commercial uses supports the City's overall retail commercial and strengthens local fiscal conditions. By keeping more commercial traffic within such an integrated center, surrounding neighborhoods are less impacted by additional traffic. As noted above and n. RESOLUTION NO.2011-15 in the discussion under "Aesthetics", the surrounding residential developments are internally oriented, generally turning their backs on the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: SECTION 1. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. As the decision making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the MND, Initial Study, and administrative record, on file with the City and available for review at City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. The City Council finds that the MND and Initial Study have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 2. Findings on Environmental Impacts. In the City's role as the lead agency under CEQA, the City Council finds that the MND and Initial Study contain a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. The City Council further finds that the documents have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City further finds that all environmental impacts of the Project are not significant. The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts, and that any comments received regarding the Project have been examined and determined to not modify the conclusions of the MND or the City Council. The City Council finds that the MND contains a complete, objective, and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 3. Adoption of Negative Declaration. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the MND prepared for the Project (Exhibit A attached hereto). SECTION 4. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at City Hall for the City of Palm Desert, located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. Rachelle Klassen, City Clerk, is the custodian of the record of proceedings. SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. Staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside and the State Clearinghouse within five (5) working days of approval of the Project. SECTION 6. Findings. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 7 RESOLUTION NO.2011-15 SECTION 7. Approval of Project. That the City Council does hereby approve CUP 10-228, subject to the conditions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 12th day of May, 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor Rl RESOLUTION NO.2011-15 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: CUP 10-228 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development/Planning, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Riverside County Health Department Building and Safety Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the department of building and safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 3. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable waste company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 4. Delivery hours for the supermarket shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 5. No deliveries/pickups shall be made to and/or from any part of the property between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. No trucks or other delivery vehicles may, stage stand or wait on the site any time unless actively engaged in loading/unloading and parked within the loading area. 6. Store hours for the supermarket shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (midnight) seven days a week. 7. That the building colors be consistent with those shown on the material sample board and the design is consistent as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 8. That any future restaurants on the site shall provide an effective means of odor control from cooking units satisfactory to the Planning and Building Departments prior to issuance of building permit. �9 RESOLUTION NO.2011-15 9. That all signs on site be approved by the Architectural Review Commission and conform to the ordinance requirements. 10. A detailed parking lot and building lighting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval, subject to applicable lighting standards, plan to be prepared by a qualified lighting engineer. 11. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 12. All sidewalk plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. 13. All Landscaping and lighting for the facility shall be strictly on site and will not intrude onto surrounding properties. 14. The owner shall be responsible for installation and maintenance of landscaping of the property, as indicated on the approved landscape plan. 15. All conditions of approval shall be recorded before any building permits are issued. Evidence of recordation shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development/Planning. 16. All HVAC roof -mounted mechanical equipment must be screened from public view. 17. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with the manufacturers' standards. Equipment operators shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors. 18. All operations shall comply with the City Noise Ordinance Chapter 9.24 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 19. Vehicular routes for construction -related truck traffic shall be reasonably designated to ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained for existing residential neighborhoods to the north and east. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as possible from existing residential neighborhoods. 20. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest to the project site during all construction phases. 10 RESOLUTION NO.2011-15 21. The design, selection, and placement or replacement of mechanical equipment shall include consideration of the potential noise impact on nearby residences. Roof -mounted equipment shall be screened by effective acoustical barriers, such as parapet walls or similar architectural elements. As set forth in the project noise impact study, all rooftop -mounted equipment must be within the existing rooftop enclosure area and the rooftop equipment area must be surrounded by a wall higher than the top of any of the rooftop mounted equipment. 22. Appropriate sound attenuation measures, such as silencers and/or barriers, shall be provided where necessary on outdoor equipment, whether roof or pad - mounted, including but not limited to cooling towers, air-cooled condensers, refrigeration compressors/condenser units, and air intake and discharge openings for building ventilation. 23. That pursuant to the noise study / acoustical study prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc, the following conditions shall be imposed: a. As set forth in the project noise impact analysis, the existing loading dock wall must be of sufficient length to fully shield the line of site view of any truck at the loading dock as shown on the attached project plans. b. All truck engines must immediately shutdown when the truck is parked at the loading dock. c. All truck refrigeration must be shut down immediately after arrival and for the duration of the time while the truck is at the loading dock and shall not be restarted until the unit has left the site. If the refrigeration unit is a hybrid that can be operated from an on -site electric power connection it may be operated from electric power while at the dock. d. The on -site hydraulic trash compactor shall be limited to operation between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM, and shall be operated in an efficient but non -continuous manner to limited potential impacts to nearby residents. e. Enclose loading dock doors at the majors and market. f. Post signs requiring all loading and entrance doors to remain closed at all times except during loading and unloading. g. Install bumpers on docks to cushion impacts of trucks when backing up. h. Require any bridging devices used to bridge the gap between the dock and the truck, to be designed to be put in place and removed without impact. i. Prohibit all horn blowing. Post accordingly. 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-15 j. Prohibit loud talking radios. Post accordingly. k. Prohibit the use of forklifts except within the closed section of the docks. I. Prohibit all the external mechanical equipment on any store except trash compactors. m. Prohibit existing exhausts or location of fans on the east wall of shops. n. Require evaluation of the mechanical equipment designs for compliance prior to issuance of the building permits. o. Prohibit parking of trucks or trailers overnight within 500 feet of the residences or in the alley, except the weeks prior to Thanksgiving and Christmas Day, and on Thanksgiving and Christmas Day's. p. Erect an eight foot wall around the trash compactors, or enclose the hydraulic pump box. 24. The City shall review the project improvement plans and assure that equipment maintenance and staging areas are located a sufficiently distance from existing residences. City inspectors, as well as the general contractors, shall regularly monitor construction operations and associated noise generation near residences. Operational noise issues, including roof -mounted mechanical equipment and loading dock and trash compacting facilities, will be mitigated on a case -by -case basis, if and when they arise. 25. Designate acceptable truck/construction equipment route(s), as appropriate. 26. The applicant must extend the loading dock block wall by 24 feet in length and 8 feet in height to screen the delivery trucks. 27. In the event that there are noise issues and/or noise complaints from adjacent property owners when all other noise mitigation has been implemented, the applicant shall construct an insulated truck tunnel around the loading dock area similar to the one constructed at the Albertsons Grocery Store located on Highway 111 and Deep Canyon Road. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: 1. Easements for pedestrian access along Fred Waring Drive shall be dedicated to the public. 2. The applicant shall modify all ramps in the ADA path of travel, including ramps in the Public Right of Way, to meet current accessibility standards. 3. A final landscape plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. Applicants are advised to use the City of Palm Desert 12 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-15 Design Guide when designing plans. Landscape plans must meet the following criteria: a. Must be water efficient in design and meet the City of Palm Desert's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. b. Planting plans must show location of proposed and existing utilities. c. Must match approved civil plans. d. All specs and details must be site specific. e. Applicants must have CVWD approval of their irrigation plans prior to City approval. BUILDING DEPARTMENTS CONDITIONS: Project must conform to the current State of California Codes adopted at the time of plan check submittal. The following are the codes enforced at this time: 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (Based on 2006 IBC) 2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (Based on 2006 UMC) 2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (Based on 2006 UPC) 2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (Based on 2005 NEC) 2007 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (Based on the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards) 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE. 2. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed as required per the City of Palm Desert Code Adoption Ordinance 1173. 3. 113413.2 General All existing buildings and facilities, when alterations, structural repairs or additions are made to such buildings or facilities, shall comply with all provisions of Division I —New Buildings, except as modified by this division. These requirements shall apply only to the area of specific alteration, structural repair or addition and shall include those areas listed below: 113413.2.1 A primary entrance to the building or facility and the primary path of travel to the specific area of alteration, structural repair or addition, and sanitary facilities, drinking fountains, signs and public telephones serving the area. 4. All exits must provide an accessible path of travel to the public way. (CBC 1024.6 & 1127B.1) 5. Detectable warnings shall be provided where required per CBC 113313.8 and 112713.5 (7). The designer is also required to meet all ADA requirements. Where an ADA requirement is more restrictive than the State of California, the ADA requirement shall supercede the State requirement. 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-15 6. Provide an accessible path of travel to the trash enclosure. The trash enclosure is required to be accessible. Please obtain a detail from the Dept of Building and Safety. 7. All contractors and subcontractors shall have a current City of Palm Desert Business License prior to permit issuance per Palm desert Municipal Code, Title 5. 8. All contractors and/or owner -builders must submit a valid Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage prior to the issuance of a building permit per California Labor Code, Section 3700. 9. Address numerals shall comply with Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1173 (Palm Desert Municipal Code 15.15. Compliance with Ordinance 1173 regarding street address location, dimension, stroke of line, distance from street, height from grade, height from street, etc. shall be shown on all architectural building elevations in detail. Any possible obstructions, shadows, lighting, landscaping, backgrounds or other reasons that may render the building address unreadable shall be addressed during the plan review process. You may request a copy of Ordinance 1173 or Municipal Code Section 15.15 from the Department of Building and Safety counter staff. FIRE DEPARTMENTS CONDITIONS: You have been release for a tenant improvement on an existing Building. This is not occupancy Permit. Prior to opening your business, you must contact the Fire Marshal's office to schedule an appointment for a fire Life Safety inspection. You and the contractor must be present at time of inspection. 2. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as "H" occupancy per Sec. 307 of the 2007 CBC. 3. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Fire Marshal's Office for submittal requirements. 4. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible for installing a fire alarm system / sprinkler system required 3000 square feet or more. Plans must be submitted to the Fire marshal's Office prior to installation. 5. Shelving, counters, etc. Must be in place; however no merchandise may be placed in the building prior to inspection. 6. A minimum 2A10BC Fire Extinguisher, (State Fire Marshal Approved) must be mounted in a visible location within 75' walking distance from any point in your building or suite. Fire extinguishers can be installed by a licensed company with a State Fire Marshal service tag attached to the extinguisher. Or purchased from 14 RESOLUTION NO.2011-15 a retail store with the sales receipt attached. A licensed company must service extinguishers yearly. 7. All Electrical breakers must be labeled, having a clearance of not less than 36 inches and must be maintained around the panel at all times. 8. A durable sign stating "This Door to Remain Unlocked Whenever the Building is Occupied" Shall be place on or adjacent to the front exit doors. The Sign shall be in letters not less than one inch high on a contrasting background. 9. If towers exceed 160 cubic feet (inside space) fire sprinkles shall be required in combustible sealed spaces throughout. PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 25.30 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow supermarkets not exceeding 60,000 gross square feet as Conditional Uses in the Regional Commercial PC(3) zone. 2. All signage must be approved by the Architectural Review Commission. 15 RESOLUTION NO.2011-15 EXHIBIT "A" MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Vons, A Safeway Company 618 Michillinoa Ave Arcadia, CA 91007 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, to allow an amendment to Resolution No. 91-5 removing Department of Community Development Condition of Approval No. 10 that the Waring Plaza Commercial Center shall not include a supermarket. Approval of staff's recommendation would allow a supermarket in the former Mervyns building at the Waring Plaza Commercial Center; a zone ordinance amendment to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code to allow supermarkets not exceeding 60,000 gross square feet as conditional uses in the Regional Commercial PC (3) Zone; and exterior modifications The Director of the Department of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project as mitigated will not have a significant negative effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study has been attached to the document supporting the findings. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. LAURI AYLAIAN DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 16 ORDINANCE NO. 1221 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 25.30 ALLOWING SUPERMARKETS NOT EXCEEDING 60,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PC(3) ZONE. CASE NO. ZOA 10-228 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 12th day of May, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider modification to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of April, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider modification to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and continued the above noted; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 10th day of March, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider modification to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and continued the above noted; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th day of February, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider modification to Chapter 25.30 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and continued the above noted; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of February, 2011, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Vons, and recommended approval to the City Council of the above noted; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act," Resolution No. 10-26, and the Director of Community Development has determined that the proposed revision to the Health and Safety Code is not a project as defined under CEQA and no further environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of the said amendments: 1. The proposed text amendment would update and modernize this portion of the City Zoning Ordinance, adapting to the evolving needs of the neighborhood commercial and, more specifically, the supermarkets. ORDINANCE NO. 1221 2. While there will continue to be a place for the specialty neighborhood -oriented markets, including such businesses as Bristol Farms, Trader Joe's and Jensen's, such supermarkets as Vons provide scale, affordability and diversity of customer products that is especially appropriate for this location. 3. By increasing the maximum allowable size of supermarkets to 60,000 square feet, the City will be able to better serve its residents and assure that these businesses can compete in coming years. 4. The nature of the proposed Vons and supermarket size limit is compatible with surrounding land uses, is a part of and complements and supports the existing commercial center, and provides residences in walkable proximity to neighborhood commercial services. 5. The proposed project addresses a current need of the City and vicinity in that it allows Vons to continue to occupy space in the community in a currently vacant building that provides the space needed by modern supermarkets. It will also have important direct and indirect impacts on City revenues by generating retail sales and enhancing the sales potential of the existing and future Waring Plaza businesses. Therefore, for these reasons, the amendments to the municipal code are deemed by the City Council to be necessary. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council on this matter. SECTION 2: Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 25.30 is hereby amended and restated as described in Exhibit A, respectively, attached hereto. SECTION 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. E ORDINANCE NO. 1221 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of , 2011, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 3 JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 1221 EXHIBIT "A" SECTION 1 That Section 25.30.020E be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: B. Regional center (PC-3): Such uses include, but are not limited to, supermarkets less than 60,000 gross square feet, department stores, banks, variety stores, professional offices, restaurants, except drive-in or drive -through, and general retail uses, amusement and recreation establishments including, but not limited to, theater and amusement arcades. 1. All businesses presently having five or more mechanical or electronic games shall either apply for a conditional use within six months of the date of the ordinance codified in this subsection, or reduce the number of said games to four. 2. If the applicant is refused a conditional use permit, the individual shall reduce the number of games to four within sixty days of denial of permit request. SECTION 2 That Section 25.30.026 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: A. 25.30.026 Prohibited uses. Any permitted use set forth in Sections 25.30.020 and 25.30.025 is prohibited when such parcel contains any hillside area as set forth in Section 25.26.020. B. A "supermarket" as defined in Section 25.04.797 having 60,001 gross square feet or more shall be a prohibited use in the PC(3) zone. C! CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development From: Mark Diercks, P.E., Transportation Engineer Date: July 1, 2011 Subject: Vons Palm Desert — Traffic Impact Alternative Scenarios Analysis Public Works staff has completed our review of the Traffic Impact Alternative Scenarios Analysis report for Vons Palm Desert, prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers, dated June 30, 2011. Staff concurs with the findings presented therein and approves the report. rk S. Diercks, P.E. Transportation Engineer Concur: Mark GreeW6d. P.E. Director of Public Works G:\PubWorks\Mark Diercks\word data\Memos\Interoffice\IOM - LA - Vons Alternative Scenarios Analysis.doc EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (PROVIDED FOR COPYING PURPOSES — FULL COPY AVAILABLE WITH CITY CLERK) TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS ANALYSIS VONS PALM DESERT Palm Desert, California June 30, 2011 LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 Prepared by., Under the Supervision of - Amelia Giacalone John Boarman, RE Transportation Planner II Principal Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 T 858.300.8810 F www.Ilgengineers.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This revised traffic impact analysis report has been prepared at the request of the City of Palm Desert in order to simplify the study to assume existing traffic conditions, to directly add VONS traffic to these volumes, and to expand the Synchro analysis to include the intersection of the existing Toys-R-Us driveway with Fred Waring Drive. A more detailed discussion of pass -by trips has also been included in the revised study. The revised traffic study also is responsive to the requested testing of alternative access and other scenarios not examined in our original report. This revised report supplements and is meant to expand upon previous analysis. It does not void or in any way invalidate the analysis or conclusions reached in our original study. The project site is located within an existing shopping center which comprises a significant amount of street frontage along Highway 111, Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. The subject Waring Plaza shopping center encompasses approximately 190,500 square feet of retail space, which includes a currently vacant 78,668 square foot building previously occupied by Mervyn's department store. There are five vehicular access points to the shopping center: two on Parkview Drive, two on Fred Waring Drive and one on Highway 111. Access to the shopping center is not proposed to be changed. The project proposes occupying the currently vacant 78,668,square foot space with a 57,251 square foot VONS grocery store and 21,417 square feet of retail space. An additional 7,350 square feet of free-standing restaurant space may also be developed and is assumed to be constructed in this traffic study. The analysis shows that all study area intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. The traffic predicted to be generated by the proposed project was estimated based on the Supermarket, Specialty Retail Center and Restaurant (High Turnover) rates found in the Eighth Edition of ITE's Trip Generation. To accurately estimate trips generated by a retail/restaurant type development, it is important to separate total trips into primary trips and pass -by trips. Primary trips are defined as trips that return to their place of origin, such as home -to -grocery -to -home. Pass -by trips are trips attracted from traffic already on the street system passing near the site while going from one location to another such as work-to-Vons-to-home. These trips are not new traffic to the surrounding street system. The methodology used in estimating pass -by trips for the project is contained in ITE's Trip Generation Handbook. Based on this methodology, and other traffic studies conducted in the area, the following pass -by reductions were applied: a 15% reduction for weekday daily trips, a 20% reduction for weekday midday peak hour trips, and a 44% reduction for weekday PM peak hour trips. Table 7-1 summarizes the resulting gross trip generation estimates for the project. As indicated in Table 7-1, it is estimated that on a typical weekday, the project would generate approximately 7,737 ADT with 519 midday peak hour trips and 741 PM peak hour trips. The new trips to the street LINScoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 Vons Palm Desert system (primary trips) are estimated to be 6,576 ADT, 415 midday peak hour trips (214 inbound / 201 outbound), and 415 PM peak hour trips (213 inbound / 202 outbound). The geographic distribution of traffic generated by developments such as the project is dependent upon a number of factors including the project's market / service area, the location of site access points in relation to the surrounding street system, the location of parking areas, the site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes, the physical characteristics of the circulation system such as lane channelization and the presence of traffic signals that affect travel patterns, and the presence of traffic congestion in the surrounding vicinity. The project's trip distribution was also developed based on the locations of other grocery stores in the area. An analysis of the following scenarios was conducted in the report: ■ Existing Conditions ■ Existing + Project Conditions ■ Opening Day Conditions ■ Opening Day + Project Conditions ■ Year 2015 Cumulative (with Project) Conditions A specific analysis of the queue storage within the eastbound left turn lane on Fred Waring Drive at the project driveway was conducted. The left turn lane provides approximately 130 feet of storage space. The Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommends that, "at unsignalized intersections, storage length may be based on the number of turning vehicles likely to arrive in an average 2-minute period during the peak hour. As a minimum, space for 2-passenger cars should be provided at 25 feet per car". Table 11-2 shows that the recommended storage length, according to the HDM, is 100 feet, The 130 feet that is currently provided, is therefore adequate. A computer analysis was also conducted to determine the anticipated Wh percentile queue at the eastbound left turn movement during the Year 2015 + project scenario. As seen in Table 11-2, the 95' percentile queues for both the midday and PM peak hour are less than the amount of storage space that is currently provided. Figure 10-1 shows the anticipated volumes to use this left -turn lane in the 2015 cumulative (with project) time frame. Based on the fact that the eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Project Driveway #4 provides more than the recommended storage length based on the Highway Design Manual, and that the 95`11 percentile queues were calculated to be less than what is currently provided, it was determined that major queuing issues will not arise at the eastbound left turn movement of the intersection. An additional queue analysis at this intersection was conducted assuming increased usage of this driveway. It was assumed that 2/3 of northbound and southbound SR 11 I traffic would use the Fred Waring Drive driveway. This is not expected, but is possible. With this assumption, the forecasted LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 II Vons Palm Desert queue is close to exceeding the pocket length, but is still within the recommended storage length. Table 11-3 shows the results. The overall analysis shows that LOS D or better is calculated at all the study area intersections in each scenario. Therefore no significant impacts were calculated and mitigation measures are not necessary. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 III Vons Palm Desert HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tei 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com July 7, 2011 City Public Works and Planning Departments The City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Civic Center 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Dear Sirs: HEL'alX Environmental Planning Supplemental Noise Information Letter with the revised Traffic Impact Analysis, Alternative Scenarios Analysis for the Vons Palm Desert. This supplemental noise information letter provides information based on the revised traffic impact analysis report dated June 30, 2011, prepared by Linscott, Law, and Greenspan. This supplemental noise analysis has been prepared at the request of the City of Palm Desert. This revised report supplements and is meant to expand upon previous analysis. It does not void or in any way invalidate the analysis or conclusions reached in the original study. Traffic Information Traffic information used in this supplemental analysis is presented in Table 1 below. Table 1 TRAFFIC SEGMENT VOLUMES Existing Conditions O ening Day 2015 # Road Project Traffic No Project Plus Project No Project Plus Project Cumulative Se ment am m am I pin am I pm am I pm am L pm am I pm Parkview Drive 1 Joshua Rd to I Monterey Ave 78 103 436 1 415 553 1 546 1 453 1 420 5701. 561 596 590 Fred Waring Drive 2 Project Drive to Town Center Drive 64 37 1072 1164 1136 1199 1116 1208T 1179 1245 1265 1336 3 Town Center Drive to Monterey Avenue 62 35 1255 1316 1317 1351 1302 1358 1192 1259 1754 1773 July 7, 2011 Traffic Noise Levels 2 of 2 Table 2 provides the traffic noise impacts at the specified locations using the traffic volumes provided in Table 1. As discussed in the original noise impact report traffic noise level calculation are made using the Peak hour traffic. Peak hour traffic noise with normal traffic volume distribution is equivalent to CNEL and is presented below as CNEL. Table 2 CNEL At Residential Locations Existing Conditions Opening Da 2015 No Plus No Plus Location Project Project Change Project Project Change Cumulative Front yard of Joshua Tree Residence 62.9 63.9 1.0 63.1 64.1 1.0 64.3 Back yard Joshua Road Residence 50.4 50.7 1 0.3 50.6 1 50.8 0.2 1 51.1 Exterior One Quail Place 62.7 62.9 0.2 62.9 62.5 -0.4 64.2 Summary The supplemental traffic noise impact information presented above shows that in all of the scenarios the project will be in compliance with the City of Palm Desert Noise Element threshold maximum 65 CNEL. Sincerely, f . July 7, 2011 Charles Terry / Date Group Manager Noise, Acoustics, & Vibration Envtrnnnentat Ptannrnrg HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard Suite 200 La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com May 23, 2011 City Public Works and Planning Departments The City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Civic Center 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 HELIX Environmental Planning Subject: Supplemental Letter in Response to Challenge "AGENDA ITEM XVII — Opposition to Removal of Supermarket Restriction for Vons at Waring Plaza" for the Acoustics Report for Planning Vons Store #3242 at Fred Waring Commercial Plaza in the City of Palm Desert. Letter of challenge prepared and signed by Robert A. Bernheimer dated May 12, 2011. Dear Sirs: As noted, the purpose of this letter is to address and provide clarification on the issues raised by Attorney Robert Bernheimer regarding the noise study prepared for the planned relocation of VONS to Waring Plaza. The findings and recommendations of the acoustical analysis report prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. and dated November 18, 2010 is based on the best available information and is a true, accurate and impartial analysis of the potential acoustical effects or impacts associated with the above -referenced project. The Helix noise study was performed in accordance with standard industry practices and procedures, with equipment conforming to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) specifications for sound level meters ANSI SI., 4-1983 (R2001), and maintained with National Bureau of Standards traceable calibrations. U.S. Department of Transportation -approved software, Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5, was used for all traffic -related noise modeling in the preparation of this report. Original_ Report Excerpts Regarding Site Measurements and Analysis Techniques A "one -hour" equivalent sound level measurement (LEQ, A -weighted) was made at a representative noise -sensitive location on the site (see Figure 2). An additional sound level measurement was take along Fred Waring Drive east of the proposed project and is further discussed below. During the on -site noise measurement, start and end times were recorded, and vehicle counts were made for cars, medium trucks (double-tires/two axles), and heavy trucks (three or more axles) for the corresponding road segment. The vehicle counts were converted to one -hour equivalent volumes by applying an appropriate factor. Other field data gathered at the site included distances to the roadway centerline, angles -of -view, slopes, elevations, roadway grades, and vehicle speeds. May 23, 2011 Page 2 of 6 The Traffic Noise Model (TNM) software Version 2.5, released in February 2004 by the U.S. Department of Transportation, was used for all traffic modeling in the preparation of this report. The TNM utilizes the traffic volume and speed input and calculates the daytime average Hourly Noise Level (HNL) from traffic data including road alignment, elevation, lane configuration, projected traffic volumes, estimated truck composition percentages, and vehicle speeds. The HNL is approximately equivalent to the LEQ. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)' is equivalent to the LEQ with the use of a peak hour traffic of 8 to 10 percent of the average daily traffic (ADT). Excerpt from the City of Palm Desert Noise Element The standard used for maximum outdoor noise levels in residential areas in California and the City specifically is a CNEL of 65 dBA. Challenge Issues Essentially three issues have been raised by Mr. Bernheimer's letter regarding the Acoustics Analysis. These are: 1. The Acoustics Analysis relies on erroneous traffic numbers provided in the project Traffic Analysis 2. The Acoustics Analysis does not analyze the residence at the end of Joshua Rd which sides on Fred Waring Drive or the multi -family units further to the east. 3. The dates of the traffic study and the noise study do not appear to correspond to one another. Item 1: The Acoustics Analysis relies on the traffic numbers provided in the project Traffic Analysis Item 1 Response: The Acoustics Analysis is based on the project traffic analysis. We have conferred once again with the project traffic engineers and are using the correct traffic number for the analysis of existing and future traffic conditions around this site and how they will affect the local noise environment. John A. Boarman of LLG has discussed the traffic data with the City Traffic Engineer who indicated that they are a realistic and acceptable characterization of project and roadway traffic. Item 2: The Acoustics Analysis does not analyze the residence at the end of Joshua Rd which sides on Fred Waring Drive or the multi family units further to the east. Item 2 Response: Prior to preparing the acoustical report, an assessment was conducted based on field and traffic data, and those areas where potentially significant effects could result were selected and analysed in the report. The report did not discuss the individual residence at the end of Joshua Rd, which sides on Fred Waring Drive, because this residence and others farther north are shielded by a tall noise control wall. Nonetheless, to address the issues raised by Mr. Bernheimer, potential project traffic impacts to this area are further discussed below. CNEL stands for "Community Noise Equivalent Level", which represents a combined 24-hour average of all noise sources. It adds 5 dBA to noises occurring in evening hours between 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., and 10 dBA to noises occurring during nighttime hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. HELIX EnvirununnPai PYtnnrny May 23, 2011 Page 3 of 6 The same issue was raised with regard to the multi -family units (presumably One Quail Place), which begin approximately 300-feet east of the planned VONS site. It was clear that the additional VONS traffic would not adversely affect these residences since the nearest apartment is located approximately 100-feet from the roadway centerline, the parkway is comprised of a three-foot masonry retaining wall toped by a landscaped berm, and the subject units have no useable exterior space close to Fred Waring Drive. Also, in light of the limited additional traffic that would be generated on this roadway by the future VONS, it was clear that the project would have a less than significant effect. Nonetheless, in order to further clarify the conditions and project effects along Fred Waring Drive, and to respond to concerns raised in the comment letter, the data collected during this site visit and our assessment of potential impacts is included below. Fred Waring Drive Noise Measurements During the original site visit to the proposed Vons location noise measurements were made of Fred Waring Drive traffic noise east of the VONS site and the residence at the end of Joshua Road during the original site visit. This measurement was taken on the west side of Fairhaven Drive north of Fred Waring rnr;.7P Thk lnrntinn is nnnrnximatPly l non feet east of the proposed VONS store. The measurement �...... ._ .... .�... wy. _ _. �:., _bv „� �i,U Waring Drive and approximately 75-feet from the roadway centerline. FRED WARING DRIVE NOISE MEASUREMENT CONDITIONS AND RESULTS Date: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Time: 3:10 p.m. — 3:25 p.m. Conditions: Clear skies; winds from the west at one to two mph; temperature in the high 70s (degrees Fahrenheit with low humidity Measured Noise Level: 61.9 dBA LE Note: It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of noise monitoring is to collect data and provide for a comparison of existing measured conditions to the TNM modeled noise environment, which may include noise control barriers and increases in traffic. Other data collected along Fred Waring Drive used to characterize the noise environment are identified in the following table. It also shows the Fred Waring Drive traffic volumes counted during the 15 minute monitoring and noise measurement period and the extrapolated hourly traffic. TRAFFIC COUNTS DURING MEAUREMENT Roadway Percentage of Traffic Automobiles Medium Heavy Hour Trucks Trucks Fred Waring Counted 312 2 0 Drive . 250 /o o Hourly calculated 1248 8 0 As noted in the above table, the measured noise in the mid afternoon along Fred Waring Drive was 61.9 dBA LEQ. Based on the traffic counts provided in the Traffic Analysis as a basis to calculate the hourly traffic distribution volume percentages for Fred Waring Drive and a measured noise level of 61.9 dBA LEQ at this time of day this equates to approximately 62.0 CNEL at this location. These measurements clearly indicate that even without any sound attenuation, such as masonry walls or berms, noise impacts - from existing traffic on adjoining residences is less than significant. - - EL IX .. Ernrmanrerfai F7,'mc;np May 23, 2011 Page 4 of 6 The measured noise level indicated a current noise impact at the outdoor living space of the subject Joshua Road residence in compliance with the City required outdoor living area noise maximum level of 65 CNEL. This measured noise level was made in an area not shielded from noise generated by traffic on Fred Waring Drive and does not reflect the significant noise reduction due to the existing residential noise control wall in the residence outdoor use area. The residence at the end of Joshua Road has a paved parking area adjacent to Fred Waring Drive, which does not serve as outdoor living space. Only the area between the house and the existing eastern noise control wall perpendicular to Fred Waring Drive facing the channel qualify as outdoor living space. Multi -Family Residences at One Quail Place As discussed above, the existing noise levels within about 75-feet of the centerline of Fred Waring Drive are 62 dBA CNEL. Based upon this measurement, the exterior of the closest residence at One Quail Place is experiencing something slightly less than 62 dBA CNEL, which is well below the City and generally accepted standard. It should also be noted that the 65 dBA CNEL standard is for outdoor living areas, which do not occur along Fred Waring Drive but which are located farther north and are shielded by the residential buildings. Furthermore, as discussed below, the addition of the proposed VONS traffic to existing traffic and that projected for the year 2015, the total contribution of project traffic yields about a 0.2 dBA to the existing noise environment. Therefore, in 2015 with VONS traffic and projected growth in background traffic, the CNEL noise levels at about 75-feet from the roadway centerline will be 62.3 dBA, well below the standard and a level where a change in noise can generally be perceived. Homes in Vicinity of Joshua Road The home on Joshua Road closest to Fred Waring Drive is located at approximately the same distance from the roadway and has nearly identical traffic volume as the location of monitoring on Fred Waring Drive. Therefore, the noise measurements originally taken on Fred Waring Drive are directly applicable to the residences on Joshua Road. The existing and projected future traffic volumes at this location have been taken to account. Homes farther to the north along Joshua Road are farther setback from Fred Waring Drive have the same back noise control wall and will have yet lower noise impacts from traffic on Fred Waring Drive. In addition to the existing noise levels being well below City standards for outdoor living space, is must also be pointed out that these homes are surrounded by solid masonry walls along Fred Waring Drive frontages, as well as along the shared interior property line shared with the future VONS site. The noise control wall ranges from approximately 7.75 feet above the roadway at the eastern end of the wall along Fred Waring Drive, and rising to a height of 8.25 feet adjacent the western edge of the home closest to the street. Noise Modelina Along Fred Waring Drive The effect of these noise walls was evident at the time that the original noise study was prepared, and reinforced our conclusion that no further documentation of potential impacts at this location was needed. Nonetheless, to further demonstrate that the future VONS traffic will have no adverse effect on the local noise environment, we have analyzed this effect in detail, as shown below. HELIX Esan+:rrrq May 23, 2011 Page 5 of 6 The project traffic report provides traffic volumes for Fred Waring Drive in the vicinity of the two VONS access drives. These traffic volumes used in the following noise analysis are presented in the table below. RESIDENCE WITH NOISE CONTROL FENCE ON JOSHUA ROAD ADJACENT FRED WARING DRIVE. Traffic Conditions Fred Waring Drive East to West Fred Waring Drive West to East In Back Yard Midday/PM Midday/PM Opening Da W/O Project 676/668 462/539 50.5 dBA' Opening Da + Project 691/698 466/545 50.7 dBA I 2015 W/O Project calculated from data 695/684 500/583 50.7 dBA 2015 + Project 710/714 504/589 50.9 dBA 'The TNM model includes the PM hour (largest traffic volumes) listed above for each direction of traffic on Fred Waring Drive. This represents the total traffic on Fred Waring Drive at the peak traffic hour. Therefore this noise level represents the worst case sum of the loudest hourly traffic noise impacts. As can be seen in the table above the additional project -related traffic expected to be generated along this segment of Fred Waring Drive will make an approximately 0.2 dBA contribution to the existing noise levels on opening day. Growth in background traffic between opening day and 2015 is projected to add an additional 0.2 dBA to the noise environment. This means that the residence on Joshua Road adjacent Fred Waring Drive will have an unmitigated outdoor use area that is substantially less than the 65 CNEL both before and after the new Vons store is opened. It should also be noted that although the project traffic report does not analyze Fred Waring Drive traffic beyond 2015, the City General Plan projects community buildout traffic volumes of 24,751 ADT on Fred Waring Drive, which is nearly double the current volume. This doubling of traffic will create noise levels approximately 3 dBA louder than under current conditions. Therefore, it is clear that the very small contribution that the VONS project traffic will make to noise along Fred Waring Drive, which is only about 0.2 dBA on opening day, will have a progressively more limited effect on the total noise environment. To further emphasize how limited the change in traffic noise impacts will be due to the proposed VONS store it is useful to understand the human ear's response to changes in noise. Studies of human response to noise have shown that a change of 3 dBA in noise is about the level where a change in noise level can be detected. That is, 3 dBA is a reasonable normal planning threshold for the recognition of an audible noise change. An increase of 3 dBA is typically used as the threshold of significance for an individual project's contribution to the local noise environment. As is shown above, the change due to the VONS generated traffic is in compliance with this reasonable standard and will probably not even have an audible impact on the residents living in the vicinity. As can be seen from this analysis, the single family homes in the project vicinity and the multifamily residences at One Quail Place will not be adversely affected by noise generated by future project traffic. Item 3: The dates of the traffic study and the noise study do not appear to correspond to one another.__ HELIX -- [nvuare�ren,t�i Ptnian<� 23, 2011 Pate 6 of 6 Item 3 Response: The acoustics Analysis Report is dependent on the Traffic Analysis prepared by LLG for all traffic information used as a basis for the Acoustics Analysis. The traffic data used in the Acoustics Analysis Study are provided in the study and are identical to the later published final Traffic Analysis. The exact traffic numbers and the subsequent calculated noise impact levels remain unchanged between the Project Traffic Report prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan, VONS, Palm Desert, California, November 4, 2010 and the subsequent study dated December 21, 2010. Inadvertent Report Text We have noted that the executive summary of the November 2010 acoustics analysis report inadvertently references the streets De la Valle Place, Arroyo Rosita, and Polo Point. These cited streets were carried over from an executive summary template and are hereby deleted from the report. They have no bearing or effect whatsoever on the subject acoustical report. Summary ro�rend to the issues raised in the letter prepared and signed by Robert A. Bernheimer dated May 12, 2011. John A. Boarman of LLG has discussed the traffic ual.a w1L11 iiic :�i;y Liic Uaiif4_ uata in y, P�.=::� ts�. � in a manner consistent with applicable Ou casiundi 11whe analysis ,aanuuiu,. inc putcnum nunc impacts associated with VONS project traffic on single-family and multi -family homes in the project vicinity is in the worst case a 0.2 dBA CNEL increase over existing conditions; these impacts are well below any reasonable standards or threshold of significance. Finally, while there were minor changes to the traffic study subsequent to that version used to prepare our noise report for the VONS project, those changes had no bearing or effect on the data used for our analysis. The Acoustics Analysis Report as presented is a full and complete analysis and correctly represents the required project feature elements to allow the project to fully comply with the City of Palm Desert project planning requirements. Sincerely, Charles Terry / Group Manager Noise, Acoustics, & Vibration sV Z-51 Date �T— HEL i�' Environmental ftnnaro L } , � , 'S GFFICE VON$ I II �` ;-RT, CA 2,11 MAY 10 AN 9: 25 May 9, 2011 Mayor Jean Benson Councilmember Robert Spiegel Councilmember Cindy Finerty Councilmember Jan Harnik Councilmember Willian Kroonen Palm Desert City Hall Palm Desert, CA Dear Mayor and City Council Members At the upcoming City Council Meeting on May 12th 2011, Vons will make a presentation for a proposed new store at the site of the former Mervyn's building in Fred Waring Plaza. At that time, we will present to you the project in its final form after having completed all the studies required of us by the Council and City Staff. However, I wanted to take the early opportunity to clarify any confusion or misunderstandings that may be related to our existing premises at the Palm to Pines shopping center. Over a year ago with the purchase of the Mervyns building we clearly exhibited our resolve to relocate out of Palm to Pines. The decision has been made to close our store. Our goal is to consolidate these sales with those from our recently closed Rancho Mirage store in a single location that provides us an ability to meet our competition on a level playing field. The additional space and superior location of the new proposed Fred Waring Plaza store will allow us to preserve and enhance the service we provide to the Palm Desert community. Six months before closing the existing store in the Palms to Pines shopping center, Vons has the legal obligation under its lease to use best efforts to find a financially responsible tenant that will operate a grocery supermarket or combination grocery supermarket, drug, variety store in our existing premises. If, despite our best efforts, we are not able to find a suitable tenant within a specified period of time, we must exhibit to the landlord evidence of our efforts by giving to the landlord a list of all prospective tenants with whom Vons has communicated. The landlord then has a specified period of time to find a suitable replacement tenant. And while all of this is occurring, we have an obligation to continue to pay rent and all other charges for the premises. If no suitable tenant can be found by either party in the applicable timeframes, the obligation to lease the premises returns to us, once again all the while paying full rent and all other charges payable under the lease for the remainder of the term. The landlord also has the right to recapture the premises if Vons finds a tenant who will operate a use different from that referred to above. We will continue to market the premises using prudent industry methodology until we are successful in leasing it out. This is in both ours and the landlord's best interest. Safeway Inc. Vons Division 618 Michillinda Ave. Arcadia, CA 91007-6300 P.O. Box 513338 Los Angeles,CA 90051-1336 Mayor Jean Benson Councilmember Robert Spiegel Councilmember Cindy Finerty Councilmember Jan Harnik Councilmember Willian Kroonen Palm Desert City Hall Palm Desert, CA May 4, 2011 Page 2 Should we be successful and permitted to relocate to the Mervyns building, we believe our new store could be open prior to the end of this year. Notwithstanding, in a recent conversation with the Palms to Pines landlord's representative, we have offered to delay the closure of our Palms to Pines store for an additional year (to the fall of 2012). We believe this is a reasonable compromise to permit both the landlord and ourselves sufficient additional time in a recovering economy to locate a replacement tenant for the premises without losing the benefit of this opportunity. We look forward to presenting our revised project on May 12th and are hopeful that we will have your full support. Thank you. Yours truly, Vons (a Division of Safeway, Inc. Brian K. Braaten Vice President Real Estate Prepared by: Amelia Giacalone Transportation Planner II TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS ANALYSIS VONS PALM DESERT Palm Desert, California June 30, 2011 LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 Under the Supervision of. John Boarman, RE Principal Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 r 858.300.8810 r www.11gengineers.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This revised traffic impact analysis report has been prepared at the request of the City of Palm Desert in order to simplify the study to assume existing traffic conditions, to directly add VONS traffic to these volumes, and to expand the Synchro analysis to include the intersection of the existing Toys-R-Us driveway with Fred Waring Drive. A more detailed discussion of pass -by trips has also been included in the revised study. The revised traffic study also is responsive to the requested testing of alternative access and other scenarios not examined in our original report. This revised report supplements and is meant to expand upon previous analysis. It does not void or in any way invalidate the analysis or conclusions reached in our original study. The project site is located within an existing shopping center which comprises a significant amount of street frontage along Highway 111, Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. The subject Waring Plaza shopping center encompasses approximately 190,500 square feet of retail space, which includes a currently vacant 78,668 square foot building previously occupied by Mervyn's department store. There are five vehicular access points to the shopping center: two on Parkview Drive, two on Fred Waring Drive and one on Highway 111. Access to the shopping center is not proposed to be changed. The project proposes occupying the currently vacant 78,668,square foot space with a 57,251 square foot VONS grocery store and 21,417 square feet of retail space. An additional 7,350 square feet of free-standing restaurant space may also be developed and is assumed to be constructed in this traffic study. The analysis shows that all study area intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. The traffic predicted to be generated by the proposed project was estimated based on the Supermarket, Specialty Retail Center and Restaurant (High Turnover) rates found in the Eighth Edition of ITE's Trip Generation. To accurately estimate trips generated by a retail/restaurant type development, it is important to separate total trips into primary trips and pass -by trips. Primary trips are defined as trips that return to their place of origin, such as home -to -grocery -to -home. Pass -by trips are trips attracted from traffic already on the street system passing near the site while going from one location to another such as work-to-Vons-to-home. These trips are not new traffic to the surrounding street system. The methodology used in estimating pass -by trips for the project is contained in ITE's Trip Generation Handbook. Based on this methodology, and other traffic studies conducted in the area, the following pass -by reductions were applied: a 15% reduction for weekday daily trips, a 20% reduction for weekday midday peak hour trips, and a 44% reduction for weekday PM peak hour trips. Table 7-1 summarizes the resulting gross trip generation estimates for the project. As indicated in Table 7-1, it is estimated that on a typical weekday, the project would generate approximately 7,737 ADT with 519 midday peak hour trips and 741 PM peak hour trips. The new trips to the street LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 Vons Palm Desert system (primary trips) are estimated to be 6,576 ADT, 415 midday peak hour trips (214 inbound / 201 outbound), and 415 PM peak hour trips (213 inbound / 202 outbound). The geographic distribution of traffic generated by developments such as the project is dependent upon a number of factors including the project's market / service area, the location of site access points in relation to the surrounding street system, the location of parking areas, the site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes, the physical characteristics of the circulation system such as lane channelization and the presence of traffic signals that affect travel patterns, and the presence of traffic congestion in the surrounding vicinity. The project's trip distribution was also developed based on the locations of other grocery stores in the area. An analysis of the following scenarios was conducted in the report: ■ Existing Conditions ■ Existing + Project Conditions ■ Opening Day Conditions ■ Opening Day + Project Conditions ■ Year 2015 Cumulative (with Project) Conditions A specific analysis of the queue storage within the eastbound left turn lane on Fred Waring Drive at the project driveway was conducted. The left turn lane provides approximately 130 feet of storage space. The Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommends that, "at unsignalized intersections, storage length may be based on the number of turning vehicles likely to arrive in an average 2-minute period during the peak hour. As a minimum, space for 2-passenger cars should be provided at 25 feet per car". Table 11-2 shows that the recommended storage length, according to the HDM, is 100 feet, The 130 feet that is currently provided, is therefore adequate. A computer analysis was also conducted to determine the anticipated 95t" percentile queue at the eastbound left turn movement during the Year 2015 + project scenario. As seen in Table 11-2, the 95t" percentile queues for both the midday and PM peak hour are less than the amount of storage space that is currently provided. Figure 10-1 shows the anticipated volumes to use this left -turn lane in the 2015 cumulative (with project) time frame. Based on the fact that the eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Project Driveway #4 provides more than the recommended storage length based on the Highway Design Manual, and that the 951" percentile queues were calculated to be less than what is currently provided, it was determined that major queuing issues will not arise at the eastbound left turn movement of the intersection. An additional queue analysis at this intersection was conducted assuming increased usage of this driveway. It was assumed that 2/3 of northbound and southbound SR I I I traffic would use the Fred Waring Drive driveway. This is not expected, but is possible. With this assumption, the forecasted LINSCOTT, LAW&GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 II Vons Palm Desert queue is close to exceeding the pocket length, but is still within the recommended storage length. Table 11-3 shows the results. The overall analysis shows that LOS D or better is calculated at all the study area intersections in each scenario. Therefore no significant impacts were calculated and mitigation measures are not necessary. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 III Vons Palm Desert n,nc 1 is p, I 1„ „ TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Project Description.................................................................................................................... 4 3.0 Existing Conditions................................................................................................ 3.1 Existing Street Network.................................................................................. 3.2 Existing Bicycle Network............................................................................... 3.3 Existing Pedestrian Conditions....................................................................... 3.4 Existing Transit Conditions............................................................................ 3.5 Existing Traffic Volumes................................................................................ ...... 6 6 8 8 8 8 4.0 Analysis Approach and Methodology.................................................................................... 11 4.1 Intersections...................................................................................................................... 11 5.0 Significance Criteria................................................................................................................ 13 5.1 Signalized Intersections.................................................................................................... 13 5.2 Unsignalized Intersections................................................................................................ 13 6.0 Analysis of Existing Conditions.............................................................................................. 14 6.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service......................................................................... 14 7.0 Trip Generation/Distribution/Assignment............................................................................ 16 7.1 Trip Generation................................................................................................................. 16 7.1.1 Proposed Project Trip Generation......................................................................... 16 7.2 Trip Distribution............................................................................................................... 16 7.3 Trip Assignment........................................................................... 8.0 Analysis of Existing + Project Scenario................................................................................. 23 8.1 Intersection Analysis......................................................................................................... 23 9.0 Analysis of Opening Day Scenarios........................................................................................ 26 9.1 Opening Day without Project............................................................................................ 26 9.1.1 Intersection Analysis............................................................................................. 26 9.2 Opening Day+ Project...................................................................................................... 26 9.2.1 Intersection Analysis............................................................................................. 26 10.0 Analysis of Year 2015 Cumulative Scenario......................................................................... 32 10.1 Year 2015 Geometries...................................................................................................... 32 10.2 Year 2015 (without Project) Traffic Volumes.................................................................. 32 10.2.1 Year 2015: Regional Growth................................................................................ 32 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 IV Vons Palm Desert 10.2.2 Year 2015: Specific Cumulative Projects............................................................. 32 10.3 Year 2015 Cumulative (with Project) Intersection Operations ......................................... 32 10.3.1 Intersection Analysis............................................................................................. 32 11.0 Site Access Evaluation and Other Issues............................................................................... 37 11.1 Access............................................................................................................................... 37 11.1.1 Project Access Driveways..................................................................................... 37 11.1.2 Project Access Driveway Operations.................................................................... 37 11.2 Eastbound Left -Turn Lane at the Fred Waring Drive Driveway ...................................... 37 11.2.1 Alternative Trip Distribution Scenario................................................................. 38 11.3 Nearby Residential Streets................................................................................................ 38 12.0 Sight Distance.................................................................................. ............. 41 13.0 Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................ 42 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Intersection Manual Count Sheets B. Existing Intersection Analysis Worksheets C. Trip Generation Study Information and Local Distribution Figures D. Existing + Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets E. Opening Day Intersection Analysis Worksheets F. Opening Day + Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets G. Year 2015 Cumulative (with Project) Intersection Analysis Worksheets LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 V Vons Palm Desert LIST OF FIGURES SECTION —FIGURE # FOLLOWING PAGE Figure 1-1 Figure 1-2 Figure 2-1 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 7-1 Figure 7-2 Figure 7-3 Figure 9-1 Figure 9-2 Figure 10-1 VicinityMap.................................................................................... ProjectArea Map............................................................................. SitePlan........................................................................................... Existing Conditions Diagram........................................................... Existing Traffic Volumes................................................................. Project Traffic Distribution.............................................................. Project Traffic Volumes................................................................... Existing + Project Traffic Volumes ................................................. Opening Day Traffic Volumes......................................................... Opening Day + Project Traffic Volumes ......................................... Year 2015 Cumulative (with Project) Traffic Volumes ............... LIST OF TABLES ........................... 2 ........................... 3 5 ........................... 9 ......................... 10 ......................... 20 ......................... 21 ......................... 22 ......................... 30 ......................... 31 ......................... 36 SECTION —TABLE # PAGE Table 4-1 Level Of Service Thresholds For Signalized Intersections ............................................... 11 Table 4-2 Level Of Service Thresholds For Unsignalized Intersections ........................................... 12 Table 6-1 Existing Intersection Operations................................................................. Table 7-1 Trip Generation Summary.................................................................................................. 19 Table 8-1 Existing + Project Intersection Operations........................................................................ 24 Table 9-1 Opening Day without and with Project Intersection Operations ....................................... 28 Table 10-1 Cumulative Projects Description..................................................................................... 33 Table 10-2 Year 2015 Cumulative Intersection Operations............................................................... 34 Table I 1-1 Project Driveway Operations........................................................................................... 39 Table 11-2 Year 2015 Queue Analysis (Anticipated Trip Distribution) ............................................ 39 Table 11-3 Increased Usage of Fred Waring Drive Driveway........................................................... 40 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 VI Vons Palm Desert TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS VONS PALM DESERT Palm Desert, California June 30, 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION This traffic study has been prepared to determine and evaluate the potential traffic impacts to the local roadway system due to the proposed VONS Project to be located on the northeast corner of the Highway I I I / Fred Waring Drive intersection in the City of Palm Desert. The project site is located within an existing shopping center which comprises a significant amount of street frontage along Highway 111, Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. The subject Waring Plaza shopping center encompasses approximately 190,500 square feet of retail space, which includes a currently vacant 78,668 square foot building previously occupied by Mervyn's department store. The project proposes occupying the currently vacant 78,668,square foot space with a 57,251 square foot VONS grocery store and 21,417 square feet of retail space. An additional 7,350 square feet of free-standing restaurant space may also be developed and is assumed to be constructed in this traffic study. Figure 1-1 shows the vicinity map and Figure 1-2 shows a more detailed project area map. This study will determine potential traffic impacts and recommend mitigation measures where appropriate. Included in this traffic report are the following: ■ Project Description ■ Existing Conditions ■ Study Area and Analysis Approach & Methodology ■ Significance Criteria ■ Analysis of Existing Conditions ■ Analysis of Existing + Project Scenario ■ Trip Generation/Distribution/Assignment ■ Analysis of the Opening Day Scenario ■ Analysis of the Opening Day + Project Scenario ■ Analysis of Year 2015 Cumulative (with Project) Scenario ■ Access Evaluation ■ Significance of Impacts and Mitigation Measures LINscoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 1 Vons Palm Desert REV. 10/ 0LINSCFigure 1-1 1TT N:\1991\FIGURFIGURES\LLG 1991 FIG1-1.DWG NORTH GREENSPAN© Vicinity Map NOTTO SCALE VONS - PALM DESERT REV. 0/26/2010 91\FIGURES t- igure i-z LINSCOTT N:\1991\FIGURES\LLG1991 FIGt-2.DWC NORTH GProject Area Map NOT TO SCALE VONS - PALM DESERT 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project site is located on the northeast corner of the Highway 111 / Fred Waring Drive intersection within an existing shopping center which comprises a significant amount of street frontage along Highway 111, Fred Waring Drive and Parkview Drive. The subject Waring Plaza shopping center encompasses approximately 190,500 square feet of retail space, which includes a currently vacant 78,668 square foot building previously occupied by Mervyn's department store. The project proposes occupying the currently vacant 78,668,square foot space with a 57,251 square foot VONS grocery store and 21,417 square feet of retail space. An additional 7,350 square feet of free- standing restaurant space may also be developed and is assumed to be constructed in this traffic study. There are five vehicular access points to the shopping center: two on Parkview Drive, two on Fred Waring Drive and one on. Highway 1.11. Access to the shopping center is not proposed to be changed. Figure 2-1 shows the conceptual project site plan. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 4 eons Palm Desert N 00 0 Z � _ f 15 ,. a -" jk '. r � c � W N W � 0 N Z .r� 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS In general, the specific study area for this project includes intersections in which a 5% increase in peak hour traffic is expected due to the proposed project. The project study area was also determined based on discussions with the City of Palm Desert Traffic Engineering and Planning staff. Figure 3-1 illustrates the existing transportation conditions. The specific study area includes the following intersections: Intersections 1. Highway I I I / Bob Hope Drive 2. Highway I I I / Magnesia Falls Drive 3. Joshua Road / Magnesia Falls Drive 4. Highway I I I / Painters Path / Parkview Drive 5. Parkview Drive / Shopping Center Driveway # 1 6. Parkview Drive / Shopping Center Driveway #2 7. Parkview Drive / Joshua Road 8. Parkview Drive / Monterey Avenue 9. Highway 111 / Shopping Center Driveway #3 10. Highway I I I / Fred Waring Drive 11. Fred Waring Drive / Shopping Center Driveway #4 / Toys R Us Shopping Center Driveway 12. Fred Waring Drive / Shopping Center Driveway #5 13. Fred Waring Drive / Town Center Way 14. Fred Waring Drive / Monterey Avenue 15. Highway I I I / Town Center Way / El Pasco 3.1 Existing Street Network The principal roadways in the project study area are described briefly below. Roadway classifications were determined based on a review of the Palm Desert Circulation Element, the Rancho Mirage Circulation Element, field observations, and information obtained from the City of Palm Desert. Highway 111 Highway I I I is classified as a Major Arterial in the Palm Desert Circulation Element. Highway I I I is currently constructed as a six -lane divided roadway within the project vicinity. The posted speed limit is 45 mph, curbside parking is generally not allowed and bus stops are provided intermittently including at the northeast corner of Highway I I I and Fred Waring Drive, adjacent to the project site. No bike lanes are provided. LINscou, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 6 Vons Palm Desert Fred Waring Drive Fred Waring Drive is classified as an Arterial Roadway in the Palm Desert Circulation Element. Fred Waring Drive is currently constructed as a six -lane divided roadway within the project vicinity. The posted speed limit is 45 mph and curbside parking is generally not allowed. Bus stops are provided intermittently and bike lanes are not provided. Monterey Avenue Monterey Avenue is classified as an Arterial Roadway in the Palm Desert Circulation Element. Monterey Avenue is currently constructed as a four -lane divided roadway north of Parkview Drive and as a six -lane divided roadway south of Parkview Drive, within the project vicinity. The posted speed limit ranges from 35 mph — 50 mph and curbside parking is generally not allowed. Bus stops are provided intermittently and bike lanes are not provided. Parkview Drive Parkview Drive is classified as a Secondary Street in the Palm Desert Circulation Element. Parkview Drive is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway with a two -way -left -turn lane within the project vicinity. The posted speed limit is 45 mph, curbside parking is generally not allowed and bus stops are not provided. Bike lanes are provided along Parkview Drive. Magnesia Falls Drive Magnesia Falls Drive is classified as a Collector Street in the Palm Desert Circulation Element and is unclassified in the Rancho Mirage Circulation Element. Magnesia Falls Drive is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway with speed bumps within the project vicinity. The posted speed limit is 25 mph and curbside parking is generally not allowed. Bus stops and bike lanes are not provided. Joshua Road Joshua Road is an unclassified roadway in the Palm Desert Circulation Element. Joshua Road is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway within the project vicinity. The posted speed limit is 25 mph and curbside parking is generally allowed. Bus stops and bike lanes are not provided. Town Center Way Town Center Way is classified as a Thoroughfare in the Palm Desert Circulation Element. Town Center Way is currently constructed as a three to four -lane divided roadway within the project vicinity. The posted speed limit is 35 mph, curbside parking is not generally allowed and bike lanes are not provided. Bus stops are provided along Town Center Way. Bob Hope Drive Bob Hope Drive is classified as a Minor Arterial in the Rancho Mirage Circulation Element. Bob Hope Drive is currently constructed as a four -lane divided roadway within the project vicinity. The LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 7 Vons Palm Desert posted speed limit ranges from 35 mph — 55 mph and curbside parking is generally not allowed. Bus stops and bike lanes are not provided. 3.2 Existing Bicycle Network Within the study area, Class 2 (Striped Lane) bike routes are located along portions of Parkview Drive. 3.3 Existing Pedestrian Conditions Continuous sidewalks are provided along the majority of the roadways located within the study area. 3.4 Existing Transit Conditions Transit service is provided to the area via the SunLine Transit Agency's line 32, line 53 and line l i l bus routes. SunLine provides a bustop at the northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111, adjacent to the project site. 3.5 Existing Traffic Volumes Weekday manual peak hour (11:00 AM-1:00 PM) and (4:00-6:00 PM) intersection counts were conducted for all study area intersections in October, 2010. The midday peak period was chosen for analysis since grocery stores generate more traffic during this time period as compared to the morning peak period. Appendix A contains the manual count sheets. Figure 3-2 depicts the Midday/PM peak hour intersection turning movement volumes at the study area intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 8 Vons Palm Desert Han . 04 O W � W C) � W U -?AV .'J&2LNOM Hdn os 09 T Han sc 0g W a0 3dOH 608 HOn Z, a i � 3 O O b /M a31N30 NMO1 N Hen sc 04 40 tel Han sz �Z t`� ON V/1H50r Hdn 4Z S 6 O 7 9 N yJ 4 � s h W H1Vd E .a `"� S'a31NiVd b+ E eo Hnsz na �9 x ""0®t t t i 3aus s-x �a ai ~ z w O O �® -Ott- �-,ttt,- a � T�w = a N goo w ® a � goo o � Aso ttt T F a d -44 G � ift} N M @ � � � 4.0 ANALYSIS APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Level of service (LOS) is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment under various traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure used to describe a quantitative analysis taking into account factors such as roadway geometries, signal phasing, speed, travel delay, freedom to maneuver, and safety. Level of service provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. Level of service designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections. 4.1 Intersections Signalized intersections were analyzed under Midday and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 16 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 7) computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection Level of Service (LOS). The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection level of service, as shown in Table 4-1. TABLE 4-1 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Average Control Delay Per Vehicle Seconds/Vehicle Level Of Service 0.0 _< 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 21.1 to 35.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E > 80.0 F LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 11 Vons Palm Desert Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under Midday and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay and Levels of Service (LOS) was determined based upon the procedures found in Chapter 17 of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), with the assistance of the Synchro (version 7) computer software. The delay values (represented in seconds) were qualified with a corresponding intersection level of service, as shown in Table 4-2. TABLE 4-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Average Control Delay Per Vehicle SecondsNehicle Level Of Service 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 50.0 E > 50.1 F The following default values and assumptions were applied in the level of service analyses, based on the County of Riverside input parameters (Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guide, August 2005) and other studies completed in the area. ■ Ideal Flow: 1900 v/hr/1 (per RCTD) ■ Heavy Vehicle Factor: 2% (per LLG) ■ Cycle Length: 130 seconds (per LLG and City of Palm Desert Controller Data) ■ Amber Time: 4 seconds / phase (per LLG) ■ Minimum Green: through movements are given the minimum pedestrian crossing time where heavy pedestrian traffic is existing and turning movements are given 7 seconds (per RCTD) ■ Analysis Time Period: 0.25 hour (per HCM) ■ Peak Hour Factor: 0.92 (per LLG) ■ Optimization: Signals are set as actuated coordinated and the network is optimized (per LLG) 30 LINScOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 12 Vons Palm Desert 5.0 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In order to provide a quantitative basis for determining the significant traffic impact at a specific location, it was necessary to establish the criteria to be used in the analysis of intersections and roadway segments for this study. According to the City of Palm Desert's General Plan, "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." Therefore, based upon the City of Palm Desert's traffic study guidelines and discussions with the City of Palm Desert Traffic Engineering and Planning staff, a project is considered to have a significant impact at an intersection if the following criteria are met: 5.1 Signalized Intersections A project is said to have a significant impact at a signalized intersection if the intersection is operating at LOS E or F under "with project" conditions and there is an average delay increase attributable to the project. 5.2 Unsignalized Intersections A project is said to have a significant impact at an unsignalized intersection if the intersection is operating at LOS E or F under "with project" conditions and there is an average delay increase attributable to the project. Lwscorr, LAW S GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 13 Vons Palm Desert 6.0 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The analysis of existing conditions includes the assessment of the study area intersections using the methodologies described in Section 4.0. Appendix B contains the existing conditions analysis worksheets. 6.1 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Table 6-1 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations for existing conditions. As seen in Table 6-1, all intersections currently meet the City's LOS C goal during the midday and PM peak hours except the following: ■ Highway 111 / Bob Hope Drive (LOS D during the PM peak hour) ■ Highway 111 / Fred Waring Drive (LOS D during the PM peak hour) ■ Fred Waring Drive / Town Center Way (LOS D during the midday peak hour) ■ Fred Waring Drive / Monterey Avenue (LOS D during the midday peak hour) ■ Highway 111 / Town Center Way / El Paseo (LOS D during the midday and PM peak hours) TABLE 6-1 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing Delaya LOS' 1. Highway I I I / Bob Hope Drive Signal MID 18.1 B PM 45.4 D 2. Highway I I I / Magnesia Falls Drive Signal MID 20.9 C PM 20.2 C 3. Joshua Road / Magnesia Falls Drive AWSC` MID 7.3 A PM 7.3 A 4. Highway 111 / Parkview Drive Signal MID PM 10.9 8.6 B B Table continued on next page LINscoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 14 Vons Palm Desert TABLE 6-1 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing Delay' LOSb 5. Parkview Drive / Project Driveway 41 OWSC` MID PM 11.7 10.9 B B 6. Parkview Drive / Project Driveway #2 OWSC° MID PM 9.6 9.7 A A 7. Parkview Drive / Joshua Road TWSC` MID PM 10.7 10.7 B B 8. Monterey Avenue /Parkview Drive Signal MID 25.8 C PM 25.9 C 9. Highway I I I / Project Driveway #3 OWSC` MID PM 9.3 9.4 A A 10. Highway I I I / Fred Waring Drive Signal MID PM 31.8 37.2 C D 11. Fred Waring Drive / Project Driveway #4 / OWSC, MID 5.6 A Toys R Us Shopping Center Driveway PM 6.9 A 12. Fred Waring Drive / Project Driveway #5 OWSC` MID PM 8.7 8.6 A A 13. Fred Waring Drive / Town Center Way Signal MID PM 37.9 25.3 D C 14. Fred Waring Drive / Monterey Avenue Signal MID PM 38.5 33.6 D C 15. Highway I I I/ Town Center Way / El Paseo Signal MID PM 36.8 38.8 D D Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. C. OWSC - One -Way Stop Controlled intersection. TWSC - Two -Way Stop Controlled intersection. AWSC -All-Way Stop Controlled intersection. Minor street left turn delay is reported at OWSC and TWSC intersections. LINSCOTT, LAW S GREENSPAN, engineers SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED DELAY/LOSTHRESHOLDS DELAY/LOSTHRESHOLDS Delay LOS Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 0.0 <_ 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E ?80.1 F ?50.1 F LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 15 Vons Palm Desert 7.0 TRIP GENERATION/DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT 7.1 Trip Generation The project proposes reoccupying the vacant 78,668 square foot Mervyn's building with a 57,251 square foot grocery store and 21,417 square feet of retail space. An additional 7,350 square feet of free standing restaurant space is also assumed be developed. Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the Eighth Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 7.1.1 Proposed Project Trip Generation The traffic predicted to be generated by the proposed project was estimated based on the Supermarket, Specialty Retail Center and Restaurant (High Turnover) rates found in the Eighth Edition of ITE's Trip Generation. To accurately estimate trips generated by a retail/restaurant type development, it is important to separate total trips into primary trips and pass -by trips. Primary trips are defined as trips that return to their place of origin, such as home -to -grocery -to -home. Pass -by trips are trips attracted from traffic already on the street system passing near the site while going from one location to another such as work-to-Vons-to-home. These trips are not new traffic to the surrounding street system. The methodology used in estimating pass -by trips for the project is contained in ITE's Trip Generation Handbook. Based on this methodology, and other traffic studies conducted in the area, the following pass -by reductions were applied: a 15% reduction for weekday daily trips, a 20% reduction for weekday midday peak hour trips, and a 44% reduction for weekday PM peak hour trips. Table 7-1 summarizes the resulting gross trip generation estimates for the project, and the net traffic generation after the pass -by reductions were applied. As indicated in Table 7-1, it is estimated that on a typical weekday, the project would generate approximately 7,737 ADT with 519 midday peak hour trips and 741 PM peak hour trips. The new trips to the street system (primary trips) are estimated to be 6,576 ADT, 415 midday peak hour trips (214 inbound / 201outbound), and 415 PM peak hour trips (213 inbound / 202 outbound). 7.2 Trip Distribution The geographic distribution of traffic generated by developments such as the project is dependent upon a number of factors including the project's market / service area, the location of site access points in relation to the surrounding street system, the location of parking areas, the site's proximity to major traffic carriers and regional access routes, the physical characteristics of the circulation system such as lane channelization and the presence of traffic signals that affect travel patterns, and LNScoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 16 eons Palm Desert the presence to traffic congestion in the surrounding vicinity. The project's trip distribution was also developed based on the locations of other grocery stores in the area. Based upon these considerations, previous traffic studies in the area, and discussions with City Staff, the project's trip distribution was determined. Figure 7-1 illustrates the estimated project traffic distribution, showing both the regional trip distribution and the local capture. The regional trip distribution percentages represent the amount of project traffic that is traveling from outside the project study area, while the local capture percentages represent the amount of project traffic originating from within the study area, usually via nearby residential neighborhoods. It should be noted that the proposed project's trip distribution was reviewed and validated by VONS. Appendix C contains the specific intersection by intersection inbound and outbound local distribution figures as well as pass -by assignment and distribution figures. 7.3 Trip Assignment The site primary trips and pass -by trips were assigned separately. The primary trips were assigned to the 5 driveways (listed below) based on the distribution shown in Figure 7-1. ■ Parkview Drive / Project Driveway #1 ■ Parkview Drive / Project Driveway #2 ■ Highway I I I / Project Driveway 43 ■ Fred Waring Drive / Project Driveway #4 / Toys R Us Shopping Center Driveway ■ Fred Waring Drive / Project Driveway #5 The intersections listed above provide direct access to the project site. It should be noted that the access points at Project Driveway #3 and Project Driveway #5 provide only right in / right out access. Project Driveway #4 allows right out access and right and left turn entry but outbound left turns are prohibited. These restricted driveways necessitate the need for some shopping center patrons to make U-turns at surrounding intersections or alter their routes in order to accommodate preferred travel patterns. Inbound northbound and southbound SR I I I traffic have multiple choices to access the site. For instance, southbound SR 111 traffic can use Parkview Drive, Fred Waring Drive or SR 111 to reach the site. The need to cross three lanes of westbound traffic when using the Fred Waring driveway will be a deterrent to some drivers to use this driveway. Northbound SR 111 traffic was assumed to be split 1/3 Fred Waring Drive and 2/3 SR 1l1 since many drivers will choose to avoid crossing westbound Fred Waring Drive to enter the site, and drivers that arrive at the intersection at a green light will tend to go straight and make the right turn into the site. It should be noted that an alternate analysis assuming a traffic split of 2/3 Fred Waring Drive and 1/3 SR I I I was conducted in order to determine the queue at the eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Fred Waring Road and Project Driveway #4. The results of this alternative analysis can be found in Section 11.1.3. LINscoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 17 Vons Palm Desert Pass -by trips were assigned based on the amount of traffic on the three roads bordering the site. For instance, a portion of the pass -by trips were assumed to be captured from traffic already on northbound SR 111. These trips would turn into the site from SR 111, visit the site, and then proceed back onto northbound SR 111 to their ultimate destination. Adding the pass -by trip assignment and the primary trip assignment results in the total project trips shown on Figure 7-2. Figure 7-3 illustrates the existing + project traffic volumes. LINSCOTT, LAWS GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 18 Vons Palm Desert 0 MAGNESIA FALLS DR o j y 2% OO 3% W DR 2% FRED WARING DR a 3 w ti 2 3 O LEGEND Regional Trip Distribution XXX — Local Capture — Inbound and Outbound intersection by intersection distribution can be found in Appendix C. — Regional Distribution + Local Capture = 100% REV. 11/04/2010 N:\1991\FIGURES\LLG1991 FIG7-1.DWG COLLEGE- OF THE DESERT 2k 4�k I aI NOHIH NOT TO SCALE Figure 7-1 Regional Traffic Distribution VONS - PALM DESERT > \Nt re/a 199l a w z Y t96S1� fSS1/f9l-r + 2 a Z£ O ww� o > a Q j 1 J+y t. S6/f6. 99/LSL Ir 86 rzt � z 3 o w Q i 9HL/49H� 1} r w o a fft/91 I'll �\no f k- Y/zl O o ¢ a %Lz/If 3 0' w = 7 77 ry 0 \N Zf/9L y a r0£/t69SLI o} 3 i B I91/6L916ts y � 8/9111 v\i\ a a O O > < e 0 U `. z£Z/HZ£ # 0 ; 11 9IS I/694I 3 w W i toC9/f91 ,LYILll� �t r s m 661/0l-'), m O O aaa s44 t � 1l/Izli � j' \ T n\ > \ rvn tzr/6I he tIz/91 [/6[ �0 1l`- -mow �l`- rI1L/LOL 9Z�`1 fir fir oa ea/L9� Ll 6Z Ofl/Lft� n tf/oS Fw HER R ' z na< 6z/Lz L oc/ou w t 01z/90z +� r5/a - a �+` rL£I6f6lZl Q W �Y09/B6S l8/OB i 3 Hzll�££L-a m,::� �t3 w L9Z/OLZ� t� w lL!' o HY = LL 6f/£il1 aary LL � Z91/991, �m`� —P � ry I11 k-£a 1/ZZI 1~ COL/68 �-ZIZILZI a-H19I/Y£SI �a n = tt 8£9l/ZZLI� O w y w 'I-10z/� a z �l ,r�Ii�Boz.I 3" o , IM s/r1� �ltr � 01/0I'll N © n n 8.0 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING + PROJECT SCENARIO 8.1 Intersection Analysis Table 8-1 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations for the Existing + project scenario. As seen in Table 8-1, all intersections are calculated to meet the City's LOS C goal during the midday and PM peak hours except the following: ■ Highway 111 / Bob Hope Drive (LOS D during the PM peak hour) ■ Highway 111 / Fred Waring Drive (LOS D during the PM peak hour) • Fred Waring Drive / Town Center Way (LOS D during the midday peak hour) ■ Fred Waring Drive / Monterey Avenue (LOS D during the midday and PM peak hours) ■ Highway 111 / Town Center Way / El Paseo (LOS D during the midday and PM peak hours) Append& D contains the Existing + project intersection analysis worksheets. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 23 Vons Palm Desert TABLE 8-1 EXISTING + PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Significant Impact? Delay' LOS b Delay' LOS b Ad 1. Highway 1 l ] /Bob Hope Drive Signal MID 18.1 B 18. B . 34 0 NO PM 45.4 D 45.8 D 0.4 2. Highway III / Magnesia Falls Drive Signal MID 20.9 C 22.8 C 1.9 NO PM 20.2 C 21.4 C 1.2 3. Joshua Road / Magnesia Falls Drive AWSC` MID 7.3 A 7.3 A 0.0 NO PM 7.3 A 7.3 A 0.0 4. Highway I I I / Parkview Drive Signal MID 10.9 B 11.9 B 1.0 NO PM 8.6 B 11.3 B 2.7 5. Parkview Drive / Project Driveway #1 OWSC` MID 11.7 B 13.3 B 1.6 NO PM 10.9 B 12.5 B 1.6 6. Parkview Drive /Project Driveway #2 OWSC` MID 9.6 A 10. B 73 0 . NO PM 9.7 A 10.5 B 0.8 7. Parkview Drive / Joshua Road TWSC° MID 10.7 B 11.4 B 0.7 NO PM 10.7 B 11.3 B 0.6 8. Parkview Drive / Monterey Avenue Signal MID 25.8 C 28.5 C 2.7 NO PM 25.9 C 26.0 C 0.1 9. Highway 11 I /Project Driveway #3 OWSCC MID 9.3 A 9. A 47 0 . NO PM 9.4 A 10.1 B 0.7 10. Highway 11 I / Fred Waring Drive Signal MID 31.8 C 32.2 C 0.4 NO PM 37.2 D 38.6 D 1.4 11. Fred Waring Drive / Project Driveway #4 / OWSCC MID 5.6 A 11.2 B 5.6 NO Toys R Us Shopping Center Driveway PM 6.9 A 13.3 B 6.4 Table continued on next page LINScoTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 24 Vons Palm Desert TABLE 8-1 EXISTING + PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Existing Existing + Project Significant Impact? Delay a LOS n Delay' LOS b Da 12. Fred Waring Drive /Project Driveway #5 OWSC° MID 8.7 A 8.8 A 0.1NO PM 8.6 A 8.7 A 0.1 13. Fred Waring Drive / Town Center Way Signal MID 37.9 D 38.0 D 0.1 NO PM 25.3 C 26.8 C 1.5 14. Fred Waring Drive /Monterey Avenue Signal MID 38.5 D 38. D 0 . 38 NO PM 33.6 C 35.2 D 1.6 15. Highway I I I / Town Center Way / El MID 36.8 D 37.3 D 0.5 Paseo Signal PM 38.8 D 39.3 D 0.5 NO Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. c. OWSC — One -Way Stop Controlled intersection. TWSC — Two -Way Stop Controlled intersection. AWSC — All -Way Stop Controlled intersection. Minor street left turn delay is reported at OWSC and TWSC intersections. d. A denotes project induced delay increase. LINScoTT, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 25 Vons Palm Desert 9.0 ANALYSIS OF OPENING DAY SCENARIOS The scenarios analyzed below are an assessment of the impact of the project traffic volumes in relation to the Opening Day conditions. This section includes the analysis results and discussion of the intersection operations. Figure 9-1 shows the Opening Day traffic volumes, and Figure 9-2 shows the Opening Day + Project Traffic Volumes. 9.1 Opening Day without Project Opening Day traffic volumes were obtained by applying a 2% / year growth rate to the existing traffic volumes obtained in October 2010. The 2% growth rate was determined based on discussions with City staff. For the purposes of this report, Opening Day was assumed to occur in the Year 2012, therefore a 4% growth rate was applied to the existing volumes. 9.1.1 Intersection Analysis Table 9-1 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations for the Opening Day without project scenario. As seen in Table 9-1, all intersections are calculated to meet the City's LOS C goal during the midday and PM peak hours except the following: ■ Highway 111 / Bob Hope Drive (LOS D during the PM peak hour) ■ Highway 111 / Fred Waring Drive (LOS D during the PM peak hour) ■ Fred Waring Drive / Town Center Way (LOS D during the midday peak hour) ■ Fred Waring Drive / Monterey Avenue (LOS D during the midday peak hour) ■ Highway 111 / Town Center Way / El Paseo (LOS D during the midday and PM peak hours) Appendix E contains the Opening Day without project intersection analysis worksheets. 9.2 Opening Day+ Project 9.2.1 Intersection Analysis Table 9-1 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations for the Year Opening Day + Project scenario. As seen in Table 9-1, with the addition of project traffic all intersections are calculated to meet the City's LOS C goal during the midday and PM peak hours except the following: ■ Highway 111 / Bob Hope Drive (LOS D during the PM peak hour) ■ Highway 111 / Fred Waring Drive (LOS D during the PM peak hour) ■ Fred Waring Drive / Town Center Way (LOS D during the midday peak hour) • Fred Waring Drive / Monterey Avenue (LOS D during the midday and PM peak hours) ■ Highway 11 1 / Town Center Way / El Paseo (LOS D during the midday and PM peak hours) 30 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 26 Vons Palm Desert Based on the significance criteria outlined in Section 5.0, the project would not significantly impact any of the study area intersections. Appendix F contains the Opening Day + Project intersection analysis worksheets. LINscoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, Engineers LLG Ref 3-10-1991 27 Vons Palm Desert TABLE 9-1 OPENING DAY WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Opening Day without Project Opening Day + Project Significant Impact? Delay' LOS ° Delay' LOS h Ad 1. Highway I I I / Bob Hope Drive Signal MID 18.5 B 18.9 B 0.4 NO PM 48.0 D 48.5 D 0.5 2. Highway I I I / Magnesia Falls Drive Signal MID 22.9 C 23.4 C 0.5 NO PM 21.5 C 23.7 C 2.2 3. Joshua Road /Magnesia Falls Drive AWSC° MID 7.3 A 7. A 0 . 03 NO PM 7.3 A 7.3 A 0.0 4. Highway I I I / Parkview Drive Signal MID 11.1 B 12.3 B 1.2 NO PM 8.9 A 11.7 B 2.8 5. Parkview Drive / Project Driveway #1 OWSC MID 11.9 B 13.7 B 1.8 NO PM 11.0 B 12.7 B 1.7 6. Parkview Drive / Project Driveway #2 OWSC` MID 9.7 A 10.3 B 0.6 NO PM 9.8 A 10.6 B 0.8 7. Parkview Drive / Joshua Road TWSC` MID 10.8 B 11.5 B 0.7 NO PM 10.8 B 11.5 B 0.7 8. Parkview Drive / Monterey Avenue Signal MID 26.0 C 28.6 C 2.6 NO PM 26.1 C 27.0 C 0.9 9. Highway I I I / Project Driveway #3 OWSC` MID 9.4 A 9.8 A 0.4 NO PM 9.4 A 10.2 B 0.8 10. Highway I I I / Fred Waring Drive Signal MID 32.5 C 33.3 C 0.8 NO PM 37.9 D 39.3 D 1.4 11. Fred Waring Drive / Project Driveway #4 / OWSC` MID 8.6 A 11.9 B 3.3 NO Toys R Us Shopping Center Driveway PM 8.9 A 19.0 C 10.1 Table continued on next page LINscoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 28 Vons Palm Desert TABLE 9-1 OPENING DAY WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Opening Day without Project Opening Da + Project p g ySignificant Impact? Delay ° LOS n Delay' LOS n Oa 12. Fred Waring Drive / Project Driveway #5 OWSC` MID 8.7 A 8.8 A 0.1 NO PM 8.7 A 8.7 A 0.0 13. Fred Waring Drive / Town Center Way Signal MID 38.0 D 38.1 D 0.1 NO PM 25.4 C 26.3 C 0.9 14. Fred Waring Drive / Monterey Avenue Signal MID 38.7 D 39.3 D 0.6 NO PM 33.9 C 35.8 D 1.9 15. Highway I I I / Town Center Way / El Signal g MID 39.9 D 41.1 D 1.2 NO Paseo PM 39.8 D 40.5 D 0.7 Footnotes. a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. I.evel of Service. c. OWSC — One -Way Stop Controlled intersection. TWSC — Two -Way Stop Controlled intersection. AWSC — All -Way Stop Controlled intersection. Minor street left turn delay is reported at OWSC and TWSC intersections. d. A denotes project induced delay increase. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 29 Vons Palm Desert ft� o) L LL �M t.66/L6ztstsL amp L Yl/9lZLSL J L b9 DLL o a z 3 0 iY L,l L,l�Lo < sssl�sal� 1!r L1e/sse 1i!' w w g x a Lf/ash �mm ell/Doll 5 LL 9/Y11 < O O © W o e w < > NE ogg am o 3 �Y/zl a n �Ovz tff/6l a LL iL rez/zf + ! aVa f6811 6z/oe1 P£LLL/,9LL _ i LL,L 9YZL z Q 9Z�OZ9 az/wr£/z r e raf/Lf a w -� j� ass as aN 9191/089L� z azczZ I O6t9/049—� I 8/Ll� �\ as oN ILL L,/S,� 'O °'\ 991/lLt--4 �°i^ LL �N; O O © f © ry w y # o 03 rone _ tolz/oft g \ vs/vs = 3 n w so�£lz o SY&I/C641 o I1 1 Of LZ rl8»/f9 Lest Z91/s,L u m _ W a f6LCL/Q L,j os/eaJ w oosl1f r a & �!� ._� o w o zs%ai� 1�!' m Loz/ol--1 \Y� tt a \ x S19L/ZOLh Ol/01'll O O f (D m rn n\ ftLl/lZ9L l06 LHL 1 e Qw w w � 1'raic 6-N i x O f r C49L� - SZl/YLIsle/e6e� J t a rISLX. 1x �tr E a E L£1/M—, ZQw '- trt/sL 3 t b/n o $ t oyz # Liz/L L Ill Z z 3 JI YL/Za o LL Y ~ rBZ/Zf 3 � J!` r4/S & O t = J}` r'tZt/5 Lf z tr � 92�iJ �tr w ��� i a 69/99--+ 1tr F ry N\n O O N O M J \N mmn 7 0n\ �££/6L # an L6Z/LZ ^�� `LL/1LL w y�^ �BLL/Y LZ LfBL/bZHI 0 Z641 L9Zl z Q 8Z9 ZZ9 Q J+` 7Lt/sb �£BZH L2/LYJ - a w az. OH9l/bbLl-+ 1�r 3 Z' £Y4 65fJ } 3 Z l6Z/6LZJ �(� w LIZI/B£l-� �tr � f£9/1b9� �tr O O 0 o� tobz/obt 0 ; h-SYI/bZl _ 3 Z. ` SLNI/L0 I w Lz w J+1 rlH 6lZSL ruIL6 L69ZIo£t a z �l` rb9L/LYI 3 Z w W aY c~i J �-499 L/985L 3 U 3 ZZ/bzJ m LfSt/9l Zg� �ir tr o w o S/4Iti ,tr m Loz/oL N \a� ° ° \ ° oou/LaLL Xno:\D O O O F 10.0 ANALYSIS OF YEAR 2015 CUMULATIVE SCENARIO The scenarios analyzed below are an assessment of the impact of the project in relation to the Year 2015 cumulative conditions. This section includes the analysis results and discussion of the intersection operations. Figure 10-1 shows the Year 2015 (with Project) Traffic Volumes. 10.1 Year 2015 Geometrics The following CIP improvements were assumed in the Year 2015 analysis, based on discussions with City staff: ■ Installation of a westbound free right turn lane at the Highway 111 / Fred Waring intersection (replacing the existing dual right turn lanes). ■ Installation of a westbound free right turn lane at the Fred Waring / Monterey Avenue intersection. 10.2 Year 2015 (without Project) Traffic Volumes Year 2015 traffic volumes account for existing traffic volumes and include two growth elements over existing traffic volumes: (1) increase in the existing traffic volumes due to overall regional growth and (2) traffic generated by specific developments expected to be constructed by Year 2015 located within the vicinity of the project study area. The following describe the two growth elements applied to the existing traffic volumes: 10.2.1 Year 2015.• Regional Growth A 2% annual growth rate (10% total) was applied to existing traffic volumes obtained in October 2010 in order to account for regional growth. The 2% annual growth rate was determined based on discussions with City staff. 10.2.2 Year 2015.- Specific Cumulative Projects There are other planned projects in the areas near the project site that will add traffic to the roadways surrounding the project site. Based on a review of other nearby projects, and taking into account proximity to the site, eight cumulative projects were identified, which are expected to be completed prior to or concurrently with the proposed project. Table 10-1 summarizes the development locations and descriptions for the cumulative projects. The specific cumulative projects traffic volumes were added to the existing traffic volumes and the 10% growth factor in order to determine the Year 2015 traffic volumes. 10.3 Year 2015 Cumulative (with Project) Intersection Operations 10.3.1 Intersection Analysis Table 10-2 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations for the Year 2015 Cumulative + Project scenario. As seen in Table 10-2, with the addition of project traffic all intersections are LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 32 Vons Palm Desert calculated to meet the City's LOS C goal during the midday and PM peak hours except the following: ■ Highway 111 / Bob Hope Drive (LOS D during the PM peak hour) ■ Fred Waring Drive / Project Driveway #4 / Toys R Us Shopping Center Driveway (LOS D during the PM peak hour) ■ Fred Waring Drive / Town Center Way (LOS D during the midday peak hour) ■ Fred Waring Drive / Monterey Avenue (LOS D during the midday peak hour) ■ Highway 111 / Town Center Way / El Paseo (LOS D during the midday and PM peak hours) Based on the significance criteria outlined in Section 5.0, the project is not expected to significantly impact any of the study area intersections. Appendix G contains the Year 2015 Cumulative (with Project) intersection analysis worksheets. TABLE 10-1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS DESCRIPTION Cumulative Project Location Description The Gardens on El 27,000 SF Saks Fifth Avenue addition, Paseo San Pablo Avenue and El Paseo 36,893 SF Retail, 20,207 SF Restaurant and 15,734 SF General Office El Paseo Hotel Shadow Mountain Drive and Larkspur Lane 106 Room Hotel, 48 Condominiums Monterey Properties San Pablo Avenue and Alessandro Drive 7,460 SF General Office PREST / Vuksic San Pablo Avenue between Fred Waring Drive 17,600 SF General Office and Highway 111 Santa Rosa Way Santa Rosa Way and San Pasqual Avenue Two -Story Four -Unit Apartment Complex Red Lobster 72-291 Highway 111 6,100 SF Restaurant Rosewood Hotel: 45-640 Highway 74, south of El Paseo 82 Room Hotel with 59 Condominiums El Paseo Market Place 73-547 to 73-613 Highway 111, 45-051 7,000 square feet of new retail space Larkspur Lane, and 73-540 to 73-580 El Paseo LINScoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 33 Vons Palm Desert TABLE 10-2 YEAR 2015 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Opening Day without Project Opening Day + Project Year 2015 Cumulative Significant Impact? Delay' LOS b Delay a LOS n Delay' LOS b 1. Highway 111 / Bob Hope Drive Signal MID 18.5 B 18.9 B 20.2 C PM 48.0 D 48.5 D 54.2 D NO 2. Highway I I I / Magnesia Falls Signal MID 22.9 C 23.4 C 25.0 C Drive PM 21.5 C 23.7 C 25.4 C NO 3. Joshua Road / Magnesia Falls AWSC' MID 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A Drive PM 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A NO 4. Highway I I I / Parkview Drive Signal MID 11.1 B 12.3 B 14.0 B PM 8.9 A 11.7 B 12.3 B NO 5. Parkview Drive / Project Driveway OWSC, MID 11.9 B 13.7 B 14.3 B # 1 PM 11.0 B 12.7 B 13.1 B NO 6. Parkview Drive / Project Driveway OWSC° MID 9.7 A 10.3 B 10.4 B #2 PM 9.8 A 10.6 B 10.7 B NO 7. Parkview Drive / Joshua Road TWSC° MID 10.8 B 11.5 B 11.7 B PM 10.8 B 11.5 B 11.7 B NO 8. Parkview Drive / Monterey Signal MID 26.0 C 28.6 C 29.1 C Avenue PM 26.1 C 27.0 C 27.6 C NO 9. Highway I I I / Project Driveway OWSC` MID 9.4 A 9.8 A 10.1 B #3 PM 9.4 A 10.2 B 10.6 B NO 10. Highway I I I / Fred Waring Drive Signal MID 32.5 C 33.3 C 18.1 Bd dNO PM 37.9 D 39.3 D 13.7 B 11. Fred Waring Drive / Project MID 8.6 A 11.9 B 21.2 C Driveway #4 /Toys R. Shopping OWSC` Center Driveway PM 8.9 A 19.0 C 30.1 D NO Table continued on next page 30 LINscoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 34 Vons Palm Desert TABLE 10-2 YEAR 2015 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Opening Day without Project Opening Day + Project Year 2015 Cumulative Significant Impact? n Delay b LOS a Delay b LOS a Delay b LOS 12. Fred Waring Drive / Project OWSC` MID 8.7 A 8.8 A 8.8 A NO Driveway #5 PM 8.7 A 8.7 A 8.8 A 13. Fred Waring Drive / Town Center Signal MID 38.0 D 38.1 D 38.9 D NO Way PM 25.4 C 26.3 C 27.4 C 14. Fred Waring Drive / Monterey MID 38.7 D 39.3 D 37.0 Dd Avenue Si nal g PM 33.9 C 35.8 D 33.7 Cd NO 15. Highway I I I / Town Center Way MID 39.9 D 41.1 D 45.4 D / El Paseo Signal PM 39.8 D 40.5 D 44.7 D NO Footnotes: a. Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. b. Level of Service. c. OWSC - One -Way Stop Controlled intersection. TWSC-Two-Way Stop Controlled intersection. AWSC - All -Way Stop Controlled intersection. Minor street left turn delay is reported at OWSC and TWSC intersections. d.The decrease in delay between the Year 2015 Cumulative scenario and the Opening Day + Project scenario is due to planned City / Caltrans geometric changes to the intersection geometry outlined in Section 9.1. SIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS DELAY/LOS THRESHOLDS Delay LOS Delay LOS 0.0 < 10.0 A 0.0 < 10.0 A 10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B 20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C 35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D 55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E >80.1 F >50.1 F LINscoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref 3-10-1991 35 vons Palm Desert a Y �- F= a L RS U _O m > nom = 0 HBBL/BELL - Z96/t48 z 3 aw 1jL `e£/la as Jj` �sol/ffl ao o �jl tr_a9Bls s-x i Y 6LL rLIJZfl/ZaIJ S9LLY=::� i LCB/096� 1tr x a Sf/Z9, mW as Srl/6ztlt m li Wo SL/ZZIt e O O © m o m a z/l I _ eL/LB rW r x 92/a£J a 91�f n ffl/511� �n Lf/SS, � l� 2 mm� S n mom �8£/L9 > \ k-of/8Z ^ � �LL/lTL w _ n8' Ll.lfz/LZz d — w ZBB L/1861 0� 3 — z lf9l £Btl z a Za9 9L9 ZL/S7J � I I z 3 OL4 ZHfJ , I r 3 f h0[/l6ZJ �tr faBl/o l6l—� I � o I (� w Zb£I�/SI+ � BL9/989—s t 6/9l, n\ as d oY ILL f4/Lf IL mm„ 1mi 8Cl/L9l'll lU d ( o� om \ �tBL/98£ 0 3 k- BrL/LZl = 3 o z r m �Zf16ZLZ L`°$ I Z691/0991 II11 hCl SSt > �98/OZjiL/S6 a �BLL/b£l G z Jl` r / BY z m w J �OSBt/£SLl 3 u 96/L6J } i w £Z/SZJ 7S91/OZft—r ¢ S m 6lZ/tl n a d �m S d Ii ti ll/It'll m m h98l/9h6/w nr^ ew 11.0 SITE ACCESS EVALUATION AND OTHER ISSUES 11.1 Access 11.1.1 Project Access Driveways Currently the site is served by a total of five vehicular access points with two on Parkview Drive, one on Highway 1 l 1 and two on Fred Waring Way. The access points at Highway 111 / Project Driveway #3 and Fred Waring Drive / Project Driveway #5 provide only right in / right out access. The Fred Waring Drive / Project Driveway 44 access point allows right out access and right and left turn entry, but outbound left turns are prohibited. These restricted driveways necessitate the need for shopping center patrons to make U-turns at surrounding intersections or alter their routes in order to accommodate preferred travel patterns. The project does not propose any changes to the existing access points. 1 l .1.2 Project Access Driveway Operations Peak hour project driveway intersection analysis was conducted for all five driveways for the Existing, Opening Day, Opening Day + Project, and Year 2015 Cumulative scenarios. The total proposed project traffic volumes were assigned to the project driveways. It should be noted that pass -by reductions are not applied to traffic movements entering and exiting the project site via project driveways. Table 11-1 summarizes the peak hour operations of the five project access driveways. As seen in Table]]-], the critical movements at all project driveways are calculated to operate at LOS C or better, with the exception of the intersection of Fred Waring Road and Project Driveway #4, which operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour in the Year 2015 + project scenario. 11.2 Eastbound Left -Turn Lane at the Fred Waring Drive Driveway An analysis of the queue storage in the eastbound left -turn lane on Fred Waring Drive at the project driveway was conducted. This left turn lane provides approximately 130 feet of storage space. The Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommends that, "at unsignalized intersections, storage length may be based on the number of turning vehicles likely to arrive in an average 2-minute period during the peak hour. As a minimum, space for 2-passenger cars should be provided at 25 feet per car". Table 11-2 shows that the recommended storage length, according to the HDM, is 100 feet, The 130 feet that is currently provided, is therefore adequate. A computer analysis was also conducted to determine the anticipated 95th percentile queue at the eastbound left turn movement during the Year 2015 + project scenario. As seen in Table I1-2, the 95th percentile queues for both the midday and PM peak hour are less than the amount of storage space that is currently provided. Figure 10-1 shows the anticipated volumes to use this left -turn lane in the 2015 cumulative (with project) time frame. Based on the fact that the eastbound left turn lane at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Project Driveway #4 provides more than the recommended storage length based on the Highway LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 37 Vons Palm Desert Design Manual, and that the 95"' percentile queues were calculated to be less than what is currently provided, it was determined that major queuing issues will not arise at the eastbound left turn movement of the intersection. 11.2.1 Alternative Trip Distribution Scenario An additional queue analysis at this intersection was conducted assuming increased usage of this driveway. It was assumed that 2/3 of northbound and southbound SR 111 traffic would use the Fred Waring Drive driveway. This is not expected, but is possible. With this assumption, the forecasted queue is close to exceeding the pocket length, but is still within the recommended storage length. Table 11-3 shows the results. 11.3 Nearby Residential Streets The proposed project is expected to add some traffic to surrounding residential streets including, Joshua Road and Magnesia Falls Drive. The streets in the nearby neighborhoods are characterized by limited neighborhood -to -neighborhood connectivity and the use of speed calming measures, which reduce the likelihood of Voris customers cutting thru residential neighborhoods to access the project site. It is expected that the majority of project trips added to the surrounding residential streets will be created by neighborhood residents and not by cut-thru traffic. In addition, analysis of the Joshua Road / Magnesia Falls Drive intersection and the Parkview Drive / Joshua Road intersection show that project traffic will have little effect on residential streets, with both intersections maintaining their current level of service with the addition of project traffic and operating at LOS B or better. 30 LINscoTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref 3-10-1991 38 Vons Palm Desert TABLE 11-1 PROJECT DRIVEWAY OPERATIONS Intersection Control Type Peak Hour Opening enin Da + Project g Y J Year 2015 Cumulative + ProectLOSb Delay LOSb Delay' 5. Parkview Drive / Project MID 13.7 B 14.3 B Driveway #1 OWSC ' PM 12.7 B 13.1 B 6. Parkview Drive / Project MID 10.3 B 10.4 B Driveway #2 OWSC ° PM 10.6 B 10.7 B 9. Highway I I I / Project MID 9.8 A 10.1 B Driveway 43 OWSC ` PM 10.2 B 10.6 B 11. Fred Waring Drive / Project MID 11.9 B 21.2 C Driveway #4 / Toys R Us OWSC ° PM Shopping Center Driveway 19.0 C 30.1 D 12. Fred Waring Drive / Project MID 8.8 A 8.8 A Driveway #5 OWSC ° PM 8.7 A 8.8 A Footnotes: a. Average delay per vehicle in seconds. b. Level of Service. C. One -Way -Stop Controlled intersection. Level of service and delay for minor street left -turn is reported. TABLE 11-2 YEAR 2015 QUEUE ANALYSIS (ANTICIPATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION) Intersection / Movement Peak Hour Highway Design Manual Recommendations Synchro Analysis Available Storage 2 Recommended 95`h Peak Hour Minute Storage Percentile Length Volume Volume Length Queue Fred Waring Drive and MID 118 4 100 feet 97 feet Project Driveway #4 / EBL 130 feet PM 115 4 100 feet 93 feet LINScoTT, LAW 8 GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 39 Vons Palm Desert TABLE11-3 INCREASED USAGE OF FRED WARING DRIVE DRIVEWAY Intersection / Movement Peak Hour Highway Design Manual Recommendations Synchro Analysis Available Storage 2 Recommended 95`h Peak Hour Minute Storage Percentile Length Volume Volume Length Queue Fred Waring Drive and MID 142 5 125 feet 127 feet Project Driveway #4 / EBL 130 feet PM 139 5 125 feet 109 feet LINScoTT, LAW $ GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 40 Vons Palm Desert 12.0 SIGHT DISTANCE It should be noted that sight distance is currently limited at the Parkview Drive for exiting drivers looking west. Since the project does not worsen the existing sight distance, project mitigation measures are not warranted. Additionally, according to City records, there have been only 4 accidents at this location in the last 8 years. 31 LINSCOTT, LAW rat GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 41 Vons Palm Desert 13.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Based upon the application of the significance criteria described in Section 5.0, the project is not expected to cause significant traffic impacts at any of the study area intersections. Therefore, project related mitigation measures are not necessary. 30 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 42 Vons Palm Desert TECHNICAL APPENDICES VONS PALM DESERT Palm Desert, California June 30, 2011 LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 Prepared by.- Under the Supervision of Amelia Giacalone John Boarman, RE Transportation Planner II Principal Linscoft, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruf ier Street Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 T 858.300.8810 F wwwllgangincers.com APPENDICES A. Intersection Manual Count Sheets B. Existing Intersection Analysis Worksheets C. Trip Generation Shady Information and Local Distribution Figures D. Existing + Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets E. Opening Day Intersection Analysis Worksheets F. Opening Day + Project Intersection Analysis Worksheets G. Year 2015 Cumulative (with Project) Intersection Analysis Worksheets LINSCo7i, LAW & GREENWAN, engine= LI.G Ref. 3-10-1991 Vons Palm Desert NA1991W=2011 Submittal\Report\AppCvr.1991.doc APPENDIX A INTERSECTION MANUAL COUNT SHEETS LiNscm, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 Vons Palm Deseit NA1991Uune 2011 Sabmittal\Report\AppCvr.1991.doe O O_ _O O O O co$'�ocVn fONN�o m N MrnrnrnrfDi co 'd er OT OCD O ' '8 t3 t2O n � W W^ M a) m Q) C.,N 0) t '0 M O MNONI- (3,--(D00 T CO Rj 0 0 Z 6 zU MN V'OO MMUO NM N CO 0)6 �= 'Co t.L fib f!j LL o o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 O a c a O 00NN N MO(o OCO L ❑ tJ l J.l S 2 M N r (O r N r r O't (O C A N C O O r Cl) 00 O No � N a ¢� "tr0to CM V'C) CM LO C9 ��1� co 00 ' M VM T � NOO N'7 r OOO r Z -ram, 00 d , O O Y O O]OMN t- h- (O CO O L� N co Oh�h L 00 co CL9&- W o z— LO oo to CCD a) co NC'�N CN9� il, Nth I��C NGn7MM O1 (O MN V =3 X.b ((SSTs C11 c O LL YMON O) MN d*M CO P, (D 00 v>m ti n lO N r O N CD V �(ONm I- 0- N i 'ItCn O) C7 Or v w .M. 0) r000r --WOW 0 T ❑ a t O 0) 0 00 O CV Co CV 00 d' !O Q) (D r M OO = m CC A 2 0 fYl NOet Nos OrrNV NrN O � r ND (T2VV wwo "-:0 Y N¢(M 4�M tONOCD 'd'Oo00 MMM cq O N O O N r 0 0 Cl r M 0 0 r a ' Qr � Yvn C.)ol Pf,M bo 3 � 'M U) o Cd O NDE Ncm CD00�t000M0 0, 'Co', NT0v; n Ma. LNcnO r NJ 06 U �.O T NNOMo NCti r (DN(r) a00 Lo t� CV N J 'aZ � IR T: ?t, r r r.r-I- .29!9 NtV IVN� �O V mg E L �C?m-j M (O g3 w n m Q O co NN M 4 vt ODr r b M CO r O co 0 N M r d Nt r O lb r r 00 0 (D r tl co co r et h r O 6 L%M(' N Lo N � O O N co V) CD Y C7 C. co N N r O m`tm rn r N N N O MCO N tDN O r r E �E SE �o gw 12> Lo24) to ci _ S C\;a a O O O r r tip' O O O t Lo O O O r O r ( V O (D O CO0 Z Z C) m a� m � LL cA r2 tb r 00 r Mf W O O O� N C COt o¢ co �x0 LL m O t) 0 N O F-aYo'o al r A O m co rn r m •L C CL (c- MO co W CO o a) Im O T � �Z� N :3 Cd U Um-j o pe Drive Out In Total 335 594 979 3 44 5 4 Right Thru Left as t cc J tr Soo aN on r� 0 0 2 ® Ie1ol ul MO �(eMewp T T- O O 0 N T T C) C) 0 N N O Z U 0 Z N C LL. C/) (n CL 00 r- oo ob Q co C)N� Lo ¢ 00 :g: xV c EL W (� -0 U l> 00,v5m I— CL Y ao tC ' J C) m (D O N Q. O Ca 'L- c ) czi CO O Y C\1 m Cd J U �. � •• T O '— Z �Um-i C —�O OCDO NC(�VV U"(t�(� O N 10hhhN rU)1, hCD U)N U') O V'e �hhhN Hgilo� h tq � dj S P-C.I eF-t to C1 Lo d� %VNNM O M Cl) NM to �N�a�DO ¢ O*-OOY Y w r-OOOY d' .M r N -yp N a M h Lfi dt q Ln co -t 03 h h N M It O d'N TN mao�NM hM(h A-- Y Y cO N Lj C\j O (Do8 Oo0 c0 0? <Y '� O7 J CO N tD 0 Ca)) 00 J/ 00 CO C ) (Oh T NY V'� Q �PO'1MMr N ONMh CQ Rl0 U7.0 ONIl CrOj It a ,- CD M It O 00 (0 11) r N LO 00 r MN N Q) N MC" N dTM O Y 00 u) 'o' C) �f) P2 h 4 On h NN lcN rY�N<0 W CCN��N N�0, CVO �w ONE thq TtnN N u) CL oa°iuN�n �a�c°u; 000rr rO Cl) NCo to h a m a (P YI�N� cr YhU? �Or a ID N �2 : (I �2 r2 N ,C2 No'? !QN N OU)a0^ C"D N N r M 1 10 O 0 N M 0 M (AN 000 N OYY 0CV N cn.w 0 M M N CV OOOO M N co C? NCV h app N tt�� pp ti ID 1Nf181 MTtO 0) 1 Y 00 00,MC�-hM 2 �N8N W NN�� ahappoN CORM Ld CO to M00 NN Yh hO N! 7 rrNrf� ^^ to O47 U)t- N }' J onot� O r 4n .. Ocn 0-1) OrMd: co 0 ID E P t2 <e !2 1D i� f`- Ih 1• W � 3q Y ho V- C Cn Q 0 0 N M U7 h W M M M 07 r C7 00 q1M MN hujN O 0 O O r CO 00 CD h N r N co co O) r O �( 9 hdco m OinN N h Y h h .LO-MhY O� CO T 0EmE5E0 12 O) _ �a a Y T Y O r r r O Q CO r- .- N O O O T O T CV -O t>i Q zUpZ m U- to u) CL 0 ope Drive Out In Total 268 189 447 34 1 661 89 Right Thru Left �o s —) 4—z� o �--2 M r oo v. �l ri�Ul 14� 1100 169 Ile 06L L E E6 1e101 ul in0 Ay—AYU 000 CV (\J r i� r�F Y00a Mhr(OM n 000 C: (ONM Nnn4r 4 hw CO 00M 00O W (Y) (ODD T T OOO MCDO MMOa(0 N CO N N OD �00W O do n CD1� cocoOD OD N M .. .. .. c F- M M CO O O (D E O j OOMNN Od'Y Nh N O (l1 O�Z o0 Z C)(D Q� � (OM Nn N mMO M LL0)CA(1 q0 rco NNNO at r O Orr N O Y O.- N a � Q O L ON00 CD NO r^er--CON N'�t N l6 a CO gyp} OON'd'N CO NCl) NNT nrM (� L CVO 2 F- Or-MMh'cF MMhNN cn cD J CV N O 0.78 (DOMoN n M nM0 �'O LO ycp m MMM4N � r T^ 00 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O N N 1 Y.Y.-� ,� ONC00nU �NrNh — MT CA — Y M Y U4�0 cry ��t ko 00 O (:R W Ci 10 ^ ON h MOD DO Xx Tmmmma c�i�a io C, 0) Q t�0 IL O 't p Q MN1h hM COOOY(DM N M � O ¢ 0 NM co Cl) N M /V CM M M N Cl)r cr) m U 0 Cl C) O r 0 0 0 0 0 Y D ra. r 4 r (21n It n M ^^ a) N 'V' d mM I-� N R 0 r C a ONY a YN NOMNh CO 11,N N o Oa NCONN 07 N d•(O d' NCV 00 Nara CO (D C4 A tOt��p 'CID)0O h 00 (N(pp ht�M Md'MN '[j'MMM1A M � LL ay d40NON Or-+-rM N Y Y 7 O M N N N N tl' M co to p (n ( rn Y moo O) O 7 Y � Ots NhMatMtgMM 14 dMMM Up N ii M ,� CU ItW ONM(Oa N 0)M—N N00) 1 J CV O r EoNmvla o ono u."r aaF n �O� 0 in (O Op W i0 0) 0) a N N M M(a co M CV N a ce) COY r co M 0 OND~N N (0 O fV CO O CD It N a co M CD 1!2 00) C', -W r- (D N M $aN a 0 CV Y = N N 8 +.1 N 0 7ajw oijUi 12 6ia a C)C)� Nrvt-- kk�R k��2 2U2o m � n 7 LLm7a. 00 oo % o\ d7kƒ r_CD �«00 R § 0 § LL coCO 00 CO m wa-/7 �6 �D q $ O 3 � / 0 od �\/ § k Uca0� t \ i� CL k000 R0im-i T r Q N N r O Cl O d Lo O O O wT` O T T W z U p z N 0) (z c(M LL U) Cn CL co r Cb os O Cfl O w [� Co T-. Q ~' xv (/) LL m _0 Ln 0Oin0) Ha. a)� ( J � co F elo ca LL (z () 0 � � = O M N -j Y °� � T UmO� N m L� ' C P (!� cd :3 co sUm9 CQ >M mco co 0 CD 2 3(0AMn rn O) co Co n W r(o oroor o ,- 0 I.t)117000 In V' rrNr(D O r O O O O O O O N MCDYneb ifl darn O Cl O O N N Y Y (D C Q M 4 O (D u) h V N cO t-; Lq co O m MOV a 00 L �V''tcow m Oi V .- oaaaa Y (o 0T hCO 0-0 M CO (D N r V VMM(A M 00)T co ^Nr CV . N nn+•-nN 0 Y O N M N r 0 d cq 0-00- i0 CD OEM V (nr rnrnrn N M 10 c04 N (D MONO4) V 0)N r � O CoOrN�NIT mNO rely p �.., N MM�(t n ((�f� 't V o Oa OOO o rNN V M Nf-CM N c5 p � ao mo morn •dy' co co U��V N :V In d' V M (O co M c0 �I Y MrO 0 rr�^F-- ti 5� 4~ c� ¢ q It M a rn 0 O Nrn , W tlrn' V M N O n V (D N 0 N dm• M n v �r o6 r 0 N N O O M r, r Y N M co 0O0 I'- OD M �2 O r M O r co h N iQ L,N (� r (A V V ei Y 6 r r O N N r O O O r r N O O O r O •— N (D a) ZU 0Z cu N2 M C IL8cnno _ O r co .r, C6 O CQ U N (0 C L O co r Ox U)m �LL co -W �O'R to v,rn Ha - sec? c� �Q rn tM N 0 Ca LL w 0 co �:'g C cz O i = O 75 N J T od � r A 'SUmJ magnesia Faus Drive Out to Total 561 1 124 1 180 371 101 77 Right Thru Lett lihl 19 tv m a Qo V. M-9 liel n,41 144 4Z I tI LZ 171 ul ln0 au1 s11e etsau8eY1 000 VA V[? o OrNhCO V )Z:F= o r T O O D r hQCiOh(CO4 co "R MO lq j V F$ 0 r r N o'.t o r o r N co LO ZU� m �F a��c-0 tC) h r N N 'd' LL� 05 rL m N N F- od(no O 00000 0 ce C ° 0. Q) ,QO rr CO UiO ONrd'h Y h'�tLO r Ld CD CTI S� it m N 2 N O LO O h Y O r O N 01 CA h P� 0 0 0 0 0 ...00 0 0 O �4 s 00 � d N 04 QBmOOU)rM 0 r rMl"O C) Y � E C 00 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OP ro a N`ct N ItN r0O'It t() h V)to �SCfl/ 300 u. Y rcr�<O TOE V I O OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 2 w.< O O xU 1- 0 LL c h'd•MhN OMhc°t° MpNpm 00 'tn 0') CV O N 0 M 7 � Q O O O O O O O O O O d d O w t '45 p! ac CD N Od' 0w OCO or It OU7 h, N .2C r MCA CO rr rc0 rNr Mh co w CO ( N J QQ� 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 N 0 O O O _ ¢ 0 o 0 0 0 0 O O O O O C. N C v c: a ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G_xx 7 Q W 2 �.• OOOOo OdOOO 000 di to $ O O s N cz-jQ 00Ooo 00000 Cl m � Q� OLiZ(A pp O ayN O •� O ,C....2 0 f" Y r r r r- N N N N w w w w �..• �..• O -- 2 .. ar U U (Q �Um-j co r� O O 0 to O O O O O O CO O V N 9 CO O r M U) O O O O O O O O O O 6 O O O O O O 0 0 O O U7 r O C N C O .! N d E W 2 9 E U LO O i Ctl .0 CCI OONO'LL OOl1. �'at0Y''ri.M>a Y Co O O U') U') I— C) r- r CV O O O T O r N N N O ZVZ O a; Co � U-U)U)1Z 00 1"' CD T ob Q CD, �xU U) 0 N u- 00 us� °- tea r V, 1u U.. W co C O) cd o ` N O Um� � N -0Z co N O cu ?:oco Magnesia Fags DrIve Out In Total 18 12 1 31 0 6 6 Right 7hru felt 4-0 o� W1 njgl t 10 L 101. ® a twol ul 1nO .tame a e r- r Cl LO LO r r r N �r r O p Q T O T T y o 0 L O Z O 2 c ca � c/5 65 Q 00 r 00 06 O ,It rZ- O ^ N Q C Lo CDOo hoc LL Cj)m �O'u50-) cri .� O co 0 LL Ld .N C C� tCU G otS C0 CCM U >+ L Z N N O U m -j �IT���IY �tYOiOI� lr min cOIM O Old' n t; j§'O O O OI0 O O O Ylr Y M oltfT 'd Y NIA Op M d'IN oN) a 0 0 0 0 0 00000 O N EL LO MY Nr 00 N d'MT 001n 00 N ri 0 OOY OY Y Y 00 M L N u) OQ000 00000 000 �'' J 0 O Cl CO Cl) CO Ih co o N M 1 00000 044rr .- O. ' NN Or LO YYt-.-d' D1nN O cc oOOOO L6 CV N o00 2000oo o0 �YY MM NCO N -tn COM ,..t N n 10 " Cn j.@ON O CM OtO 0 -r-ON 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a rn 0000o OY Y ON OOOoo 00000 o00 oa OV COn Go N F N OYNoM Cr u)d;CO _ O O L'� 00000 D O 000 N a. O O 0 O O O O O O O O a 00000 o0(D00 000 p) p O a 0 0 0 0 0 0000,0 0 0 0 oOOOO q v 000 �00000 J orc0Ll) t24vw O O o 0 coiocomf° nn:nnl-° F�-�.i� YrYY � QQ.O m noco aO Y�g M O O O if 1 o0o 0 O 0 C7 i` N CO 110) n O d O Y Y 6 O O O O O n o us co W U') ui O a ooa o0 O o 0 Ga�WEUa.SE0 0.7 2.2 o L 7 � 0- 1 .0:? � x 5 ga a. r r O LO L!l r r r 0 r r N r p r N N a) ) z�OO Z � 4-M Lj- cn (D Q. 00 r r^ ob O (O It ~ - N (0 C ¢ to 000 x U '� Cn 0 O U- C/) Ln D O 'rn a) ctsP J O a) co 0 (d LL Lz C (S� C U) cd C N O L w CD t�� �0000,J Magnesia Falla Drive Out In Total 1 2 1 D 1 01 2 Rlghl Thru Left tA v o. a g � o0 404 ,o 00 119, 1 iul © ou lelol ui ln0 Aumonyc polve 000 M (r7 r- 0 pp Ism} COo w dO' T- .-- r- CV thv coco o00o OD w M t0 T T 1� O Q T �c3� v: `O c � 0r'th0 h a; * �� h0000aDtN' 00 go rn N � N 0 0 r tC) r o z� r NN TN r r r 000� r r CO In r '^ LL (n L! a.� 400000 00000 0 0. ��L ONMMYM d'rNrtO hC?t*; r 8_1 roro W CC rh-O 2 a O N r No to N r O t l) O 0 M Cl N O ^ r O.--LOOT 00 WW 000000 Cq COd' O cY �O Il)h V'�O lO7 MtO"JM� d'M Mcp �c+O'J �'d CO N IOn � C co OD Cba r 7 r I- rT$ Oto 00 tDM OalObCl? ^Nc- Q (0 0) 7 U) d 2 gr0tAe 2; MOMm ~NN MnM CD r NtlO)N rn XUN COCO dOha0rMM MN It CO w MrO y ❑�•(�ai ia J01 a ,�, n h pp N ICl V' ICl h c'.1 OV 6) N N <0 co m w ui N 0 co F- a- Qi p OO 2 co p r vV cl 0 M .8 grorrM CD a0Y v ) r T NL VN'd'dO'0) mC� U') <t LO LO Cl) h co a Otor *NN MCO) ra'h NNto 2 r .._-.........._ OC) w CO LO 0) OM00 It C) *-'N 00 r J La � trO O0 .,r ,t pp0 M 00 OC' V' tmt� h c0 pW N C) CO pp M > ?ob000 0000a o ❑ � r � a r.� 00000�N �...r r O N0o 00NtOC) ON CO �n OOP LO W> l��j M} NM O N m pNp 00 -x '- OD M�� t*J M M 'N' N CO a J T- od .c93 C0MV� 07(VNd'M pM�l Cl)MIn 0 Im 00 d T U T 1"" m r N � rt o In 0 tt�� QOrS7 'cY o to O to .� d Marro O D W � ..� co N Cj tca Ca �Um.° �¢ mCr 00 N in In a0 oDOM co 47 d tl' M r' O a) V) O O Ci N r r N !0 h f� r 0) 11 d N M O rdd' o 0D 07 V' 00 O IOC) C6N N M Cl) oroppCl�, t C) C11 tt dS M M to 't 00 a) OM 00r OM r Q N Tr r- (D CD jN� pEEfiI=Ev � N a 000 M CO -r- O O O r- r N c0 O O T - O r N N (D O ZUCz a>��� iiCf)cnri co TT co T Ob y� CD V CD CD i~ L ) co �0U- M LL W ❑0 N m co w Q .i M r- 3 06coNtro F- ,d a tvocT-06 r ,- Um❑T to U �UmJ ar ew Drie Out In Total 183 1 235 1 418 1771 171 41 Right Thru Left � . M co C1 oc r P —� 4"'—z N N (-_2 T C to 1 O O � � cc r ON J N r oo y _ 41N41 14 19ZB L- rZ8cl lws�m= lelol W 1n0 t14ud SJO)Ulad T T O OOOOfLOLOM MLOoc°�i� rn T N — 0 hh OD CON CA 00MhM (O yT V T r V D O Cl O O 'I'- r OD OO) Cl 00 W to U) Of Or a0p h ] lCi 'mOD v Cl) 0T m M .. .. .. .. 6 0 hh roCO m CA OD 00 h 1n O Vx q z aNYY�t OOrOr y7 r z Q Ll NNNrh r r Y Y mMMOr- r r r A "t Ct 6! O O r O O r O O O O O u! L y q O r r c+) N l h r r r O M O (d N C) 0 tcOOW r t 2 OrcpMM0 r MMNN LO co I N(p0 N r M U)CVO J (O C( n O (D O»� Nti0 CO):w �mLi1NM MM'�t M Lc) �MM Cl) LO M t-• 00 y � 0 0 0 r 00000 r evY AJ Y r 7 p' Orim 40 OLO O)d'9DN O'1 'd'O OC? m�O 0 r U o � 2 �+ Rcgic°�oaoco oNimr(°� rn""t 0) M M V Cl) LO M M m "t. tf Q L(„ m a. ONNN to It N C9 MN NhM LO r a o cocoa) � N rn N C C V' 'Tr- v r- O to V' LO M a- (D 't 3 (� � O ¢ 0 M L O 0 Q Orr O N O O r O r M 0) > 0 0 �CO °cn MM MM aM(MVN CO r N h 0.. ONrNd'0� t- rrhNr Oh 01 N LO O C { r or- LO T wN eD NhOm 01,.0 ai Y tlr (0 a� jt 0111O�0 Or- MM coM�LO OLONor- ";r Q)M M Omw M Q > C7! 000ao a 0 r� 00)O d'OD r0)M N Y (7 r LO O O CO t0 Q CA a r r Q >, i O Q Oar crc��tcpp oht 00 M (O ht� t. � a (�*2 N N 06 0OD mMMtlLfi J Nc*I0 N MC N07v T r r U m N E rrTY� Q 6OT O LO LN 'A aL�OLn O Qr��' ��? O O�� u.. �= 226iriio� , Wrrr town � dao �o" 0 �al U0 O Cn 00 Cl) O 0 0 MLq M M O N r CO r Cl) C5 v 00 r in tf d' rn r C5 LO Lq CA 0) N r; r9 W d " o a Q wW 0 M00M 2 r Oa d =- N •c7 O O7 00 et V r N M (O r (O 00 a co C')Cr M r O h M N M O d cdM lON t0 O O N C E 0 ¢ 2R 7 2 > 0— xx a.. Q. T TT Q C7 o t-- 0 0 0 T— T— N to T T \ O O O ZUpZ r m ii(DU)CL 00 T— oo T— O Q W r Q 00 X ty X gyco m° LL O to c� 'cn 0)F- CO cis ' o rn co er view DrIvo Out In Tot I 179 1-83 62 1 8 4D Right 7hru Left IL IL a a� � N 00 7 C P Ml N <O a vi o0 Li llel ni41 44 >e UOl LS telol el )no e sia ,*Nt� O O O C o MN co (u�i �p 7 OOf aO r r N 7 Lo .� O C? 0 0 T O r r ONto tV °o NMd'OOh r r Q M N rn o F, .- r v o N N � �00000 �'p O 00000 0 0 (� O Q Z U O O ZOO (b U- CI) Cn � q�', n W u1 sT V' N N i`� 0 LO M �t W (D 000o0 00000 0 a� a O C+'J T�'d'N N CO Ptt�NM Cy N r dw a (h M Q) onrgo<r N M It d 0 0 t F- O G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O J Q CCVV C(rry� NNNRY) NNNYOMi tlMO p O 00r 1 Ob . y O O O O O 00000 O Q C .G C' ~ �U 0 Mr O)MM rc�-O(O� m M M W O � � CQ co C C7 2 o0Oo0 ooOoO o 0 0 ^T ¢ 0 0 mLO it ----LO C m L7 O 'us rn Oacn�M— 61 (O tO MN M OP O F" d a) o 000 o 0000 O O T > a Q #! o0000 00000 0 0 o 0 0 rn 3 UMi LOi LO '-d' (0n n 0)j o rn c E N J .L (D (b r co cor� to toN W M (O 0 N N Q O O N O N 0 0 0 0 Q Y aoO000 00000 0 _ W5 D � oON ON 00000 N O OQS O O � (2 0000o 00000 0 0 O 0 O 2 a I N C.) Y 000OO oo000 0 0 0 O r p) z 0 0 L N �0O[1J � N M dt 't �t O r r O O o 0 4 � � �N �w tAw M N C. to 00 I N o O N 0 0 O O O O O 00 0 000 V, 'It r C) C) Ca r r N T T � O0 Ca r C) r N O N O CO V0Z m O � w rd 00 r 00 r op 3 Cfl Cr— C3 ^ U N 0 x VUe �/� ///J� W W VJ 70 00v,0 Ha-�Op crs ' J 0 d? l) m T— A S CC fM 71 ar ew Drive Out In Total 172 198 770 11 1591 39 Right 7hru left 41 S N D o ® N O 2 G o r �a O iF- O O }- Z If 118-1 T 1<IC lElel ul 1n0 SAIM M8 E T T Q l' I T O O O 4 o c 0 tow On rnrnoO� WOODD oTN+-u T T N TT- T rnrn00M 0OrN-W W U O .. .. .. .. CF, r a) j E ro O COOOO 00000 0 O w O Q Z U O O LL. 00 toODM d 00 0 00 O a a 4 0 O to o � a rn y r 0)T<D tl rN t1)M tornNNr Nw II NCh M(7 CM�t (�+SM d' V W CO In ,`O- N 00000 00000 O G O J 00 T v�2 rNN co a h T O C- -O-O- 000oo O � tL ht`N I -,a f.. rn to N toNU)o N d tn U O oO C L 00 � O Z O O O O O 00000 000 O O oU �� y m .� 0. tOWM W r cr,) CO tnrnN"t r r r „4 00 J o 0 ''0O o_ �MMMti'!n nn r t`0 N MNWN d' V'M O W CD M C^9 d N p - a1 00 000 O O 000 O C U7 O 00000 000 o0 m j'� = CN400')�7M co qCO U*))03m 0 to M V 00"nj F N CO c) V tO f, M-,P rn t OD -�tIOr Otnn N d N V 0 CUB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O N LL O O QO 0, O O Cl O O O O O O 06 c a 0 � -C rrn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 •za O OOO O O 000 00 000 00 L 06 � ��'NU 0000a 00000 000 00 • Qa`\ Z i In it4f.:nh <U 0 O OLIg c-2 TiD ! va � 00 NQ 0 �Um� N rn 0 4m U) M r rn C5 O O O O o O 9) N M to to ") r N to OOO O 0 N h CD N 0 O O O O O O 00 Cq Cl) r o a O N Cl) r- O O O O 0 O O O 000 a o � n. (D O O p O O O M r L o 0) L. 0) O LL CL a LD LO C> o O rn`8iaowM �rao31-, n T T N F TO C) I- T TN coo �CD0)(oGOOM C 0 9 S j G 1� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co.O oZ ao w r ppmttYmM OMmMtn ifJ cc7MNl� ++ CiS U- (n () Q„0�1'MMMtA W en �N� N 0 0 0 0 0 00000 O y Z 0 fL • Orr ON rC. 00r Cl)m d' oO m 00 t - W C' ppM mr 7 co co mM m00 V' to 0 N d• u) {� �j r r m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O � O O Lo Y r 0 QQ4 F T- T oo T dj t O O O O O 00000 O � CD m c 0 Cl co r r r" N r OO to 0 r1% �CD or CO � •Q Z 00 L`y Q 000pd Ooopp ooa T Q O Cl U) C LL C Nr00M N000N toMh m � a co o �0 in 0 ttoometmm OPou�itLo ri F- Lo M 000po 00000 4 CA > a a r-• O � '-' CD a 00000 0000d 000 a u�tNn��(n u�d• tom m cDdM cotn(n W apM 0)u5 2 L [] rr—OM ON 0 — m c0 to Cq r t7 ` N Q.�0 CD. 000 00000 O O LE O Q d $ od 000po 000po 0 a. 3 Jo O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O c3 O i N C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w d N I L t (D Z T OOOOO OOOOO OOO � O O U a 'EL z p �t1i2 CL t� �Um.� M N A 0 c co cS o W N r m O O O O O 0 0 co co o co N M m Cl) It N N r N O O O E N E V G ,� U �i o oti g�ali m�ato Ya a O O O totoT O O Cl r r N 000 T Q T N M Q Z C3pZ a� ai co LL U} V3 Q CO CO TMM (W AW e 1 d' O tL co _ < XU MMO LL W .^ VJ � 4J in O .F }." CL CO Cri C) co L ca l2 06 N ❑ � cm n CL o N N Z ,= Co o CL a`) CD = U) U �Um I ar iew Dfive Out In Total 185 210 395 Of 2071 3 Right Thru Left Ha� N - O � 5g��gg t-H ' O 4-0 C d p g o n p � Z O O N � o +rr� i ry41 ry�ta ® asG IBtol ui 1no an rn "" T- T O O O C O OMp c 0 a o 0 0 m W N N Cl) co co t TO O T- r o°po co.M0� `�a,0,COoom w c . .. .. f o N q� (3) �'�00000 Z -0 00000 4 O (0 OQ2 UO O ZU a) $ov`a-t�� Cl) ua> cq [LU)U)CL a> o0000 00000 0 m c � a 0 3 qq aa) rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 d 33 a w 4 vcc+�� vvvr ��ImnU` oolr> m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O J O O Q'NNN+ -- Ci 0000 ¢ r 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C:) ca s I rUn r r-� dm OMOOm Cp N 0 � ^ a> 0 U N � o z a0000 00000 0 0 0 XU�� 0 0 O r r r r �} r r r a fM A CO O CO �> to '� Ca O am �> OP 0a� p F- J 0) co o o 0 0 0 O O O O 0 C. r > d � o000o d0000 0 0 0 o 0 a> uJ rn a> OC lad mcr'ir°Oi.t Mo " ci INn L Q +-- +- 0 0 N O '.-' O O +-- M 6) e} N o d (v Q O a 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 O d C) -� c� a. �00000 odaoo 0 (V a c ty �k O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O C. pf O 7L co 00 G7i O d 0 6 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 •- p" N U Zr 000vo 00000 o a o o 0 C) > C] .EL >" a CL O O Z PNvit 9 N. 0 0 E cdidcaco i Q tV O U0 co _3 Y ao 0 Cl) O M O O M t� O O O O O Cl) o Y 0 �YLID O O O O a O O a a0o 0 0 a 0 0 0 p O O O 0 r .) �f=KDEo E-0, �oaU`>otia,ot�i � o a n. I- LO LO r O O O T r Cc,ci d Lj T T � O O O r O r N O a)aD O Z U N 0 Z — u. to 1�5 0- 00 T^ 00 V- Cb O O �LOMoLO � 00 00 T O Jca -0 V ILr) 00 V)w F-aIop 0) 1) T er v ew urive Out In Total 194 f 1 1 355 0 160 1 Right Thru Left L oF- F9� ���' �� r a. ppppap a r O L •• O O O G O O O O O f7 09'1 All 14C 10 Leo 10 49E IE1ol ul 1+10 any ntai ed O O O N N T T- .- 4 C O M o n d T CQ C) 0)) CD T T N 00 T T D Q O T MM T O M o�OOn'te0� n 00 3 .. .. .. ., �� J rd r m m 0) Q) a j �'a O 00000 rrrOM M M co iSo Z U� 0) u r O M dm�N O Mrr 000 vcDdmn Ct� tc�t of +�+ ll C!)Cna.a r0QQr Nooaooa t71 go N oraroN oMQom V)Iq r O r Yy tL 2 flE a 000N co co M �co N e� 00 n00 i' mtOdM(D to mcV 0 C:) co O* -CM't LO torrM O NtnM NCON J Q•� MN rOtD MrMmO tD � r 00 Q oo N T g 0 0 0 0 0 O r r O N N 00 r r OMO r Od r rrO mm tAMO r L U N O 07Z W o a t7 t.i� 900000 O a 000 O O O 2 xU a F 0� Q L O O N O (D N N O M OIn n 00 U) (00 00 0') O NNhnW CD to V U) OO!�ppm N 'V' CD to h h N d Oj a, a)"t p c ,z O F d J O 0C!00000 QQooQ Q rnsc� �� N a 0 3 �? O Ohd'Cl) O)M tDn OOM (art t10 rj O L to d� OtD W W too „tt)d'WdM ttt��Nhhr dto MCl) t[)0 h My.Cj i O O N O co to O r M r to O M N eO tO "I rn CC201 m ^ o rs a� d O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O N ••J O " O j ONNrdCn dtOddaO htdr N 'E :3 t3) 0 r M coy •ti'• a" 7 M Q OO o o O 0 00r r r M r 0 0. M B t3 ~ to 0 CC v,tOMd�N a�t�tDaoOa) N N t U >. S J r uw)or to CO to T = CO) E 0aQ.�Mu o �10 Q o ors 0 p Nr,-r: LLrrr F �rcqNF F o � 7 �UmJ M to M 00 L 6 N M O Mnn fh r trrN N n tO cn r co n N r M U) r M h CD d r CD O O O O O 00 h O) to cj `o m V/ O OLS 6 LL 07 O LL. >a� WS, Cj CL 4 op MT W T O (- d O CD C Lr) 00 _ Q v 2�xv� (n O LL m Lr) QO'v,rn J O M N Q ir tll � fd Q 'C a. 06 CL h � Cd�ctOC Um0 m s °?mho -a 7) �:Um.�i ar ew Drive Out In Total 208 1 218 424 32 179 7 Rlght Thru Left 00 r ,p 00 ur a a�7. as o T1 tyC Z L ® d0 IloL ul 1n0 enu0 roam ied Tt—Q N N T r Y O d d 'j T r CC) O O T O T T N N O z C) N Q1 - M co G.L. C) Cn IL 00 T Ob Q CD N O �TU� X �m uyL'- V) Gi0.Nw t-aY� RS t J O O C*) d7 O I N N w Q 'C lL 06 (L Cf) O d?�N� O N O O U �Um-i n a Cw 02" (31'- 0O! � W UFO^O M Ctl9' f7f 0000a MOOPM(D (o r- o LL MrM- V LO pVw dOLO co O N r O N to N O O (o r o t M �_ Y r N Y Yd1 2 o0LOc4 (0(0(0 c� cicR M cca V Ot+�01�Of0 rOCO tAN CO LO't y." 4� r NIhM O wM IOMNe}'rl' 0dt to-t0 P., M IPlcO o o 010 M O O -It It 0. O MNNNm CIS -It N(NO 00 V) r M � O O O O O O Y O Y O N N 1-� N r coo ON rONtO OONNd' mo- qq co �Yt C M+n V aNp to'r7Mw M crj �00000 o o o 0 0. ohr�ar�M hh(O d'n� tv (qLQ CVV r 2 O (O !(rr� N O t' OT r (n (O ih tO 00 t -W It- V Md'N in Op L6 �- N oo M O 7'rNMO NNOd'M oO olN J '-<rN N TCO tt () �rn(nhM EO (Op' I�IO OOOIO OOO NIN N IOO N N OI�t r r N NI(O Oqcq T c r ON 0)It C)co mwvvN ui O (7 o0N V J pp to a to o cn 00 w N g E F�-+ (a �~ C qo N co 6 CD O N d CM Ow w M r O V V N O r O Y � MQM is h (o (*) to S m 0 o tO N N CA N to .- Y C� <h o o N O N Crih h r tto`ta v rCO co M N N cr a IR rl Cl)Y rh tO C; T r O N RI r T T O r- r N T T LO O OO r O T N N CD W O Cd Z U on Z a) O = cu IL U) CO CL co r 00 r Cb a w 14t !\ O � U4N(¢ U. ¢ Op �xV U) -0 LO 00 Ncr) F.CLYCD CIS J O CM O t� Y � of dS a CO O CO CV ..m0� a) N a> o c-� N O ld U �Um-1 ar v ew Drive Out In Total M i8 405 23 158 8 Rigfit Thru Left Pw N �L C fl N m 41ile"i N41 i t 9 L9£ tOZ 99t lalei ul in0 enp MOIA)ired p r p T CID Cf) r r p c O [Dr OCO CD Lo 000�to h r nz cD 'w tt T r fD to co to N cO I- co N tfj {C\J Y Y ` C7OO ' T O T T 22 2W C>MO CPh O � .. .. .. .. to tO (O cm CD ll7N L O :3 c � C 0Zco w A NON v— w w m co m N r Z U .� m C (= U ENO NN mMCON LL Ui U) LL�Nd' O O t OO M O O r,�t T ro N Z a hNN�n N NNW p 2,0 m40 .rGN r Cl) t W Q. OT,;t-M� ON.N-(0L d0 Lo Or � tV L7 t0M<t ION NNNM W NCOh�A C. N N �^ N O CD M M i� I IN V co O t N 0) 0)M t2-aLOto CL O to Co fn N N N N w hONNO to NNOhM O N N N N � V O r t0 tt) CO N co CO N Cb cD W c > > a s �, 2 "I llO t�t sT NCO N � �i V N (D � CD v - (3) o ,,,,{{ C Z z mONN 'N-'N NM YTNC�O p V MInN BOOM x LL cc: m D' M+�'NoND pNNh MNN� W oD�(h VJ L!� N t� 0 'gin la `I _ d'COtM+�M00 CMr�M MO OMOVM a p 0000W OD d Mas p E- COO t J D> OOr NM +--d MrO N O O N _ 7 o O O> NNrO en <F tO Q) McnMr tq to NMd' C'I a O� a ' M s cq r N tf) v CV Q)NMc cr) v)rNrto O N cD at 0-ii3 Q oM ON In cf)(DOh Mr a). {� et m CD CVNNNO fONNNMO Q to N st OrNh tOrrMO .0)N tt��77Oh tAw N NW hN 0 O N N N Nrh O 0 0 M a.� O � Y 0 p� fD pp tQ���Ot O W 1t��(O�((�+�7 MNN 7L > W _ (06 N N[O .h--N N[O ChO�CNyI aY ^.- ~ -N' d NMMrN M V N �r t, N" UDi CO E i:-� 0 o z O OrihVN, A2 OrQO').V CVNNN1c, �o 0 h U. rr �UmJ M N h 0 00rO 0 h N N C9 V LQ r N r M d OO {A O CJ M h r OQj N N C, M O N cfT r M t�3 T cl, N m N �o rn r� r� N W M b ONO O N co 00 r O McoN N W t,1 E N F C E N O N O�y OIO1 >a> y->x m Na a Y eo�yn� .M o T T t^N T 0 r N (d O I Z ZU� m ii cn cA a. 00 T co T' 1 ci `f cv csa L co � 0 LL m oD LO o�M �CL e Op co -ja) r CUD Entrance Out In Total F-2-8-41 C1140LD694 138 92 2 RIgM T�u �al(t t` N ' g a 4-0 oa �� o i�o 21 Hal nitil 14SIH £u in JOL © V 19101 ul 1no enuO M81A e T T Q CID CII) T r Q G — h G D tM� O fD CO tD A pCpC��pp O n y~ N CD A c0 SO to h Td N Fes- to C) b Q 3'�0tn0) 00 Nh CO Ww2mN T m m (ODCOOzt0N Ul)7 m m N � E0 0 V) It wok TWLo tor, A ,n r Y zo m 1 m (� QQ,,�OOm pFACD (DM tonN O 0119d AC 00 InN to A q O ±!! +-' LL Cq I1 N Noa.-M Y000r Q. ca a CL o :3 N NN N�NNW QD�� i�vyy NNN�OmO C1 w a -C� co con- 2 ma ncO w d'N hOdN NwNYA �cON O� NMNd'M NN�Y CdVY N�Lo 7 a� O A p�eerr M hvct�oo O c m m m 00M Q N N N N N N m r 00 i 7 MM.^dr d•N.-MO � c a d (o ti N "o am` o oC 2 L OD C7 Q v 0 Z tCNV� O N O d tm N d• coOJ NNNr n W r W cmDOM r N�NN00 r m a N cD ao 00 a CT 00 m ^ and rM� N C!) 00'CO d) y Q' mo CONO Cow Cw A ooD h "t O JV Q ¢ Y coc` U) Y M y -Lo0YA Cn CD -O CD M w �3 r V C N D- g C O w 'Dm OCON NNMLoY ee��O M!2 3'MwN u'ldN NCq La m fl� Ln Go NCD 0 wN N dLq ' CV N N N co N N O O n N Lq CO N r M OCUNNNO_ IAnMA(A7d mMwoOCo NNNNN N N > Q co 3 N Y In M O m NM MN O m ,- co `� m dNa00oN MtnM Y OOD ,--OA d N co w mmA tCVV a D a 06 O� 000A d• d rnr�Om CO 00 � N > cQi°�°Y°T .-c�Yrn uY�ir�D.roi Co ,a r, MMNLo CoN0 to cO,MN <t• y OiU'r ai J NNNNm coMNM w tNVwd: N� m O d E a�o Y 9u� r,� t oLno� `' o.-q1 e� oho NZ O N '2 ioiomco12 ,- Y Awr,P,1• •- � � C� v v aF° m ':am-j O ttOnn N N wOm 00 �00 Y to O 61 N d) w O to O CD w majN N � V, 00coN h 00 O CO ^ w O M O Cl) 0 � A a0 00 Y 4 Il! .- r- o C+M CO Y r r N O O O r O r N N N O w0 Z ii��d O r Ib r I I6 co �o� N co Q� yx tz UJ a u') �O'u�rn E-a.YC9 co ' �o rn Cl) GOLI n mica out In Total 266 347 1 613 �62171 114ht Thru Legit r 0 0 > o o m s--► �-- -- s o� r ao ZE:IJe� nai{� iy>� 1 ts M ® #+8Z Ielal UI Ino anu e O O O (O (D T- o 0 N rr^I Q O O T O r r N Cl) � d co z (D m (� cd 00 T- oo ob O O^ c rn 00 xx LL W m _0 Lo 00,65m F- a. -,a) It J O C� ON r MT' 1c CA o2S C'7 t'[ U (1) W N 0) ..coo a am 0i� 0 — Cd U m J O O n MNMg O> oo PPhtn w.M-Nmw 99 h O 0 whhtn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O .00 O O 0 O .0 400000 00000 0 (3) a (L O L 4 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O t��iU]f O r O O w � o00000 00000 0 0 0 r o 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O J r O C (p lfj Cnhh NM Mtn N Cn Q O 0M CCl')PC070> 'Irm co co � O to g O O O O O O O O O O O a o�haornao Tmtrsh� o N Y N h Y 'cf' CV o a z t7 ONCq Cn(A ((J n0(oi, O m OD'T cotl- N 0) 0 (o 0 to ttpp '- MMMM d' MMMM! N 00 00000 O O O a� O O 2 'd'(O (o C'O T4MON co Q r ar N O O O N O O O O O N O +' O'tl'(o (OM M r rOOMON N N M O a!03 O LA fr r ?N 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0 0 N N O r co o m 00000a 00000 0 0 0 J r O O O- -�r6N>00ON cli co IMI'�D C�Dr>0 CD V (9 N M Q UO N R00000 00000 0 v a c O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 L m r 0 O oa co O't C�'i>�ppp m1hmom hQO�- gqyy�co r,(�9M(9V'47 NLr)S M CNV � o00000 00000 0 0 0 S09 tr>� +--M V; otnppl�« Y r r�rNr r U (P !� LL.r-rrYl- O O r an P. h N Lo U> N UO'>L6m m Y 0 O O 0 0 0 O m V' v rn OO 000 a 0 � o� 0 r Q O O O O 0 O r r 0 E GGp C 0) Z (D 0 LC3 IL �7Q Q �x> c ca d 000 0(Dr 0 0 CD r- r- N C) 0 O r- O r N N (D 4+ O ZU�z _O a) 'C Opp r co r 06 0 � N CO CO GLID Qpp � x r� m L- cn z� 0 o O 'Vn am 1--aOCCO c� J CD C3) Q7 T 1" MMT VyJ W M d: 0 N U 0 W N 0) CO Um� :3 U �0m-i Shopping r Orwy Out In of 1 71 L-T4ij I i12 411 Q1 0 Right T� Lelft �N — oa r a a� a d i ^A i4Z 0 10 10 0 Isml ul )n0 Pow WN T T O O Q QMO —� N N O c h n t# N ooa0o0hco +n`c`a`a � U) Q O T hC4�p 0 tO crN�c+Om�P, co f0N h p Ql .. .. .. .. CEO _ Ma000h a0 co t[1 O a) � 3c3 E O 00000 00000 0 0 (u O Z v o 0 Z V -It O 3S F O : L-- LL U) V) 0- S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C QQ� 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 O O O O O O O O O O O) 7s � a w 'a 2 00000a o0000 0 0 s r ci o F- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O J Q� ttl1n��vrv��' (M� NOS .1� NNO MM VN'M r o O to j 00 cN) r 00T 400000 0000o p o0 CL r t d. 1\ '_9 QrN-.h.-YNP�' fhD iDrN 00 ^ d' tD r N O V L z Nrr LoCdtlN yNM c0 [n m O� T Q X V>Co< r N 0 d oopoop r oaoao CDo 0 J cnm0 0 'v� M�t No o) Ommw0op �A O r tV Lo r— a i JO QQ•.O ¢ 0 a7 co T. N O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 80 Ot0'cr NOo) OtnMcotD wp0d; O O m r 2 q� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L L r 0 C] . OOOOOO 00000 O O O � O O T T �- Ohtt�O tt1�jh d'M7M0 Wh Oh CN� r N mod' T �-� NV N N CL od IR00000 00000 0 a c r :3 a aC 000 00 O O O O O O o 0 cc O o� O 07 a)"--� (n 0 01 N to tD tt�D rdMd m� CM u7 Ng Op rNtl'Nr h O N N N rn 7 h U r O W 00 Cl)O 0)O fV O O O (V O N 00 ItO 1 O UrL 1 Y O O i O �p�cq V Q�aZd N N k L iD iri iD io F- ri ri n h r rT-r h Fo }q p F- �Um.° m 00 W M rn 0 O O M to r N cD ai r r tD LD o L0 Y O O O O O O o Lo w W O O O O O O N V O O o fV M ifl 'r.. � U 5 V r 7. N oe OIL 0)OlL >�O => c'xV c cMo� a. r TAA 1— 0 'W (.y T O O O T T N o 0 0 r O T N 0 N N z8 0z a>a)C� lL0cna. co T co T^ 0� co O � U:3Nt:O to O O T Q � x m i.L -0 0 00 'rn a> f— n. ) 4 -o rn M Ji . " L ^, O L L1J N UmT 0 a� g 0 :3 cis U ?Um,j Shopping Cir Drwy Out )n Total 185 9 i94 00 Right Thru Left � � a to fi r 0 o rC 4 a .r 00 owe 11, nT l4r 10 0 I© U) rn0 pews loN coo r a-i M 'eY CO In CD Y (O d- 0I I� I-T let U O O r CD OD t4 CN7 M O E � 0 ONN+" LO +-' w NOm ' N Q p U ZCd ui U4 !� 9:3 io 4 4 m of 2 d cp I L CL j 0 0 0 0 O Y O O r O O r Y R �j a` v a � C o Orrr'Od' In.N-eN-TM n co cu w N TO M M N N r M N _ 0 M co OON10Y M03 rN 01 Nr'cq co J a �-� 1 mm1 (D 0 ,0 NMNN O NCO MNM Noo T NMM�CV 0 C� 00 - N M I CC) C d � QNNN O INN MfOM CO N U N� o f t' � T f L O Co M h` lQ tfI d' Y 'V N M f� CO 0 O CO LA Xco Q VJ '-NNNN O N N Nco N coC� 44 °�' 0 LL m o. Or01 T T rlwm ON WON -4 co of ._ U} 1 C) Q O .w cl ao MT co �clu�ir`n I— 0. CD �'2n i) R ON NT tIl T TOO N h a) U O O O cm M CO f�OI r f� f� i� CO 2O Old N h O OS 00 d�aO CO M Qi ? M to C� ClNN CCO MN c} t+�d NN� d'T» 2 U- cm C7VNONwmm ca N � WK d WQ TN J NO . dO $- ���0pppppp pp�� M MO YN 00 00 n O -t N O CO CO Z q) 00 0. N co rm oulTrnma ``T Yr<°Oacoi Y Y `�c�jr 2 co 06 - oz, 0^00 COT M Cl)0 M In OtYt��N Y C07 NN�N co r^co— MhM Y N al It 06 pp�� MM ��CO CDPW 000 CO MI co N Ili ti-- r aVv r E W Al^ .8 n? 2n o In Q�r _ T T T T tJ. Y T T T T L ~ L C T� C )m_ h N LD W� CM 0 O O � cq r co Y N NCO O �2 g M M 0tiN L,N N Y 9 N M M T Y 0 cn tr YCO M 1-4, N 0 0 0) W M (7 Y LO— r M 0 M h � Ol V N" 14 C4 co CO Cl) N_N000 to OE E$cEQ j 0 j lL O/? lL = d C d fL O AO O O O O r r N to O Oo r O r N N (p O ZU�z Q) cU 0 [i Q) to a. to T CIS O CQ o� t�CO S >< a Lt U) to ctsCP J � O N cts � Z t) co cG N 1 f� Co co N LL � � r � T T T Um4T U �UmJ rWaring Drive Out In otal 504 549 1053 2 13i Right Thru Left m n� �jz[�— R4--* 4—=o .5 N , Z o0 ss � AVV �JLi 1191 41 �l N ICU IN ££6 9iZ £lZ Mol ul !n0 enUp Su p� O O O O O O C Mdtio� MMM N T T L to c�ccppt} ct�� r OTT 2 Cl)MdM' MCO')Ch CIO N 001 _m (� � 3 � tOrMr min �1�0 c07 O coO O Z Z3 to r V � a) W co LL (n Cn CL C04 mOMN�}p o r r r r d 00 � a r �iVN�MONO NNN�Omi T`0 LO c a uj 2 OOJ U)0 CO a0om �F �tqN r 1f3 C00OM M cD fr-n fi. 00 co LO NM to to Mrtt n ((NVV M O �o�oh�m CO COT �Ci � r 0 N T- TC0 O� ry�G L oppnnnr 1cDmf- u2 aov T mOMtiMMM dCO O d� VCO or r FX U Q uO Co(D NgM92cr)NnMfVCOGWOO Cl) d Q 0) N r r �� oo �Drm� �D�cco*)o rn n j O O O 9co Coo oNONrt m m T d o�tcDoaoco <taonro oonco rm �C6 m 'rr OTONY yyNM Ctl' �C!()Oi OTt�WCh coo O N J M N r oToNdN, marnru� lco- -'o Q 00 000 O OMO co co L.L.. a Od'r Nor d'*-rNN 01 oD C0 a) CDr r N o (/) 3: 2 OOCl) Nco 00 tl'MmN N QOI� NL H 20 L U c� as C o�nnmuOM �n0mr, CON(O U >.T D r N LOr T O ON O LOT— Om OlCd� o 0 0+- M t; rM W; �L�` `rF' �r�rF' H w19 ((f ~ LL r r V CLh- N t� U �(-)m 0 rn CD Cl) M r 0 O tit r r ai O ON?ItN Go N j M rn m h Ln M N N r Ci f O dw co N ui -mr LD CD O CD co N 0) CD r �")Mm co r Cn0 r W 0 O n o Co m N � o In d cV co O T T O 0 0 0 3 �v T„ T N 0 0 0 rncpOo�O vsMs���j eQ�ywMpM;z to N T C) Cp cmO 0co -Cl 'CO 9 W W N Qj N 0 O 0 oCot d'cON (RNVOR 2 cq Z V N 30 C� n ) N O O th r r t2 M L-0 m o M j -0 Or OCo MONOh O •� Q7 T Y ❑ C Q rQ Lo m ONcO 4 LO rNCr ,rh-Ch0 Midi l(d (� C O c o W 00 M (A O c, 2 co IN n CO H VV 60 N O Mt(OM(O 0(0 N(Oh Md'r J pp MCgr 0 oo W tD tNt�� rnomm CEO M N 0 M co h N 00 r � � �MONd'o tnrNrN CD CD (Wp ¢¢ c ) p ILO QN) � 2Z OQ O(M CO N iC) CD to O U70 �ttn T x0c '0 Ln y J r M 0 O '<n a> F- a Q) L o m to co rn In N 00 0 Q o to .Tvcoo r��`rw r d _ C) E- j N O Y N O O M O r N O co w 'C T ❑ c (L ,- C) L O to r r M 0 N W N u7 h h rn l37 O Y rYYtt) r rco $j 3 OhM(ON d' Yho0(9 r, CO O OI CD NMM Ot!) t�lh M v w N OM -It t mmo t(D hrh 0 N rt�4'M 3h 'UNtttn NCOO -j MNY R Of MlMwt r--T w O( W h id Q F O N �MNt c4LL W 02% O O N to N N Y Y t c) M r 0 f i n U m Y r N ttj 0 G O (V 3O0 O'd'tll Lq NCO MNootO NCO h o2S cd N N o U }, -j Y OMMtO)C7 M00 to tnN C�COM :D (O (D h- Y Y �.� LLrrrY 'O Q�- a �0m� 0 Oho tq CO W d tCO d r- r- CQ N O M CO CO O N 00 to o E�E o c o moo) 6IL 3: (yd r 000 �r�tT r r T OT l ^1 y O O O W W � Z U p Z (� LL Cn (n a. 00 T 00 Ob O O d r' O p(0p Q� aU m a) 0 0 N O F- (L X 't cts W co co m co —FO CO [Ah N V' O W hhM iO 20 na�o� 0AcooNWN It t, cn co X orb-rrr�o ar°'r^v w cT LL1 r a fohr)bC�o �hcY�9cDsYN o foT YEA co N Y d N N (0 .- It O CO 00 CA a �2 (PO) .N-cN-cND No 01 r pDNOR NhcOIDO�Qid Ohc,�3 4m O�ooNNp8 to CV h NCh �.0�y cMMchr� Cfl 0(0 00 to CO N U)'TN C9 d'C9 a ah N NColo,d C0 7fOMO NdCfl Opd 0�0 CryOW��Cj� 2 01 r LO CA n0 c0 T Cn 46 Y h J YCOTT'o NTO(A� �(A lO LA r WWCD hwY0M rn hON V' wO &Or w N N N CAN N N N Q1 CO N coChNfiw 0NN0h c� fl. OOrM d t0 00 (0 OI d'h C9 COh C9 e1' 0 W : i CO co N CO Cp y: M MT M e mse}} N Cp C,MC�r�9 h O M F x CaY��W CO - No. - f-- -- a� COhCOC)N PWetV) �uir,: N gCOr A CO C0 NN N h O OR NN� NNNmOON�'N i'CAN I��tONm M a Y Y N O CO O 00 800 00 01 '4 N_d'h 1 C.)Lo CO d'CO M M O v CO N Y m�h 00 00 CA C0 0> v Cl) L �CA IA CAN CO CO c9 r00 �Crj[O r pp CCCCp0009Q .- Nr Y 4� ii�O7 CO CR J cf R IO NCO 00 00 'd' of co pO Y r N Ott OEM fro 0 V0 Y Y Y r cn o F' c� RM C5 q C7 coCOM LD of O CON N to r O Y O rn N N 00 O fO0^lA d' r — CO It co 00 Y Y T T � r T N —Moo d co ONO co ao i[) O)NOo00 rnaowr. T T Od rnoo� rn 12ahoO010.Om[OJ f� a�oU)covco E� �Z aow I- LO 0 ZV� F w (D OW h N�003N ChD 05 cil� LL Cn Cl) CLOrnMfOD Q r Y N N N (O r r It (D Cl) 00 C) o c a Y 0) a CnaN-Ntt1 rrNCUN LO co NC* Cl) CO r rnCnO N CO Y� N C0 0 m M LL �E (0CDhCOh Ln La h O CDN C'001 N CD CD LO CO 0 49 M Q�NOOiOM NrNCV co NjTNra00 CO COO d � Q Y N co C d'Nmdm N CO N C 0 ^ M �d'OW .-A CC coNco r MNL6 U NCO o�' 0 0[> 10 OZ d'1�f�jO(\I CJ 0) LO Cl) T Q -47 rOh x V � °�' J d CO : r,ddu r CO i YYoOeF e} Sc00� Y (] O_I NOMmm N 'Nd'COM a DO NNOrNO tto 0Cpq Ot�I co(j Q0NM r N M c to c)N dd mNNOh sc�c CA 7 O CO co mC9 mmco mr� mcomO U)�ndmNtn h M'd' cfid� W p� 000CD O (0—0 y7 LL Nr'--Lo TNm r.d-rYN OMt{1 N CCDD W)In Cr0r�� nwq � LL� O 01 N /o � n N OMIdn POd OmiO C Q�NNNNO NNNrO) 0 ddddcD hddNh M $ ID cpp n L m .fl C"rS 'd to CO'7 P�7 m i' l2 O m to 0 4 15: a r r m VS �y W10 O O)Crjr >U)CODMr� a. CO N �( pp Q± T J �r LO C11 W 1- CO 't V) Y M M N in r U L' O [� Or0-M CV .�. O.O-M 0 0 � Zi Z o toiotDto t— a ���•• U) �UL0J ri CV N a0 C) D�hr vu;r pN m r CpM� rh- CON N m N N CO C7 NmLo Co Co O r CF) IDMr Y 0p d; m N�h co 000 r ti CA N N 07 O M N M r 0 r CD (0 r cD M 93 r 0"CC�7h am O to rl c m V v L, r 0) `a 0Ea)E E2 o m oti rn3ti >a>x>� $a 0. _o _o o ll�� cp tDO CVir7 nrn OMD� aWp r rO c phhnN Cl) N r r N 0 0 O O cti�hco hh��o M r O O r r .. .. .. .. C I--' N co In rn a) r t'S O O cp O <t O M M O O CO CD cl o o Z X o O ZV,:o wE" W �+7www'O W 30NN N co LL cn U) a. p0 O N M m aD r m ^ T O c a (0 O = ONr q) 0 Ui CO CO N CO NLq tl' d t m r C7 O �m a w Cp 2 Oco N c2111 Q7�cro Nl� d nu7 �nuninnr, ttc�ODou'orn anDrnaa L m �� daNON�• MW Nma000N GAD N O dF �C\j N cli clO! NNNMO N M .T^ �OrOrN NYOOm !n a r BCD *'a N _ OCC �wNNN0 NN�N W o0 cd[7 Ud'N ow fY r "t O OQ Z i OMcny rN LO r 0 ON C9 m r ¢ YmNNN Clco NNNv 'oM LO N N x V CVNN W �� 0"' ohocc��0cD to W�md' O)r�D [Q a J N N r n N r r r h tl'ri N m 0 �-- a N d o c J Q o Q u, o inWvN to cfl (D iDN H 0) O M O O m 0 0 0 0 0 co O O Mh=03 TO)illr O C. co C. 0) 6} r d' r r LO M r U c N O L 000 (DNMn c0 (D (V C76) " 2qq h � r t") OhYt� MW COM61Nm 0)"t th JY N m N N 0 N NN m r N C6 co a m co 03 u N M m Y O .'12 N(M MINON CN ccl)0)Om c" CM Q) co 'O 0. c r 0 Ccpp c} +1 r- �f q4m "'t '(0, W, �t tNfi SCR NTh 2 V �T. � N C q (5 3 OMq NaN h�rr}.0 CO crp OrN = N Fit r NRN NN W NN N7'N Q� ChM W O� d."' O lh 0) �t cm0 M It M !A fD Gi J rNN co Mdr q);; DLO NOS ,-- r r u7 p •� WF- i(D r r F" N NN �'-'-2U) t:rr (D:3 W U � �U°mJ m ,N-- N n M r Y CD O h N N Cm M N N N O CC7 056 r � N co N co CD to for Cl) m M Cl) CD N n` N Y O C) lV LO M tc++77 N cry N � N m mm r o O En <j U-) co co Yh M, co M co M O r r M Q It N N r ofE�E�5E$ N 6000LL p)OlL Lo>a> y�=> Ta 0. 000 r r r r- r o r r N 000 r O r N (D- a) a . 0 Z p Z v � O Ltocnn co r r os C (D rti 64�� to � 00 'SxUc o ti �m-0to 0Q'�nrn f—O.(-.eDo0o ttt ' � o rn co rn r Town Center Way Out In Taal 321 1 228 1 547 601 63 113 RI IN Thru Left 35 $-A 6i 04 s r� h r� o o ao 11B1L 19c Z ® 966 L56 lelol ul 1no Oes8d f T T O U') n 11 N 00 r. (O N to T T � 3 O O O r Orr t�rnoornm m(ovr M�d� o (w+ Mtf)tn o (n rn .m. .. .. .. C� r Nt-t-t�N t�(0U')N t� rn W W N NM?� hOM It It N 'h crj 0 Q Z O ZV�� u� Q t� cry �p 90 (a OOOOOm lt) IC) O ca In ONW(0� (O M T = co LLCDCD(L QS C r O o e- r Y O O O r N O c a 9 O IL OCahw"td r LMMN td N wr-1� M O Ol CC 2 L �YNrY m00�N0 Ni1j� F- r 0 omor r W co (4 co a)oa)rn 06 0) 00 co ma <r m Co,) CN,) OMN� to lO. IAOD M aOj' OD Q F r M M M M N CCVV N O N M (V /b �NONCMh to oON t, t t 00 C) a = It il-_ i OrNNNN �NMLO MM Y Ntnm to� cq U Ld 0) QQ 0 OOr(p IQ T�^NNNM M8ism cnNNN� 1,00) d006N XQ N CO�' Or�roNcMa r N�rto NujN �O u)� q O N to (M ta-)��h m ca M V' NMto m e0 O co p OP d 4 E. SO r N ` O O O r r r r O M N M n Q T Q O m r 11 N r N d' d' h to Y 0 0 O CJ 00 - .- N C 0 O(OMM`d N Y r (a (DOMN In r nna7 (f) O = t- Ymr O W 1(]o r;NrNN V (Dm to tbM 0 NYYrI� "M m Or J r � O m N (" N4(aNNN O mm N (yr m N M �-� (O co r 1() 0Om r N MN 0 "Do Q. dOrrON CD OoO N � W C m 0. r ` r �Ntfi VICiT t o to tCiVN C:5 V)_ Q� Od'N toTN NNN ta�OM.{m-T W N N 01�0ON f0t M cg T OODw Mm NNrn N n a)N a7n YYNrF., 'o OR tnhN �' Um0T T N vgplAcq�;� Or)Mf�O O CE ��-ipisca(oF rr�nh F� V 72 C(S w m 00 0 (9 NM to t- Ifj 6) hi 65 rn r o N co tl' V' O f-z r Y InMr ;: co M n O N N lA O r O M O It r W M a) r (a CO00 d N Omf �� IA OD co N N N to m ti '- 0 � r 4) �0LL ocX W a ti r r O r r r r r - O r r CU d U) O O r Q r N �Z Z cV N cc co LL cn toCL co co r- Ib C) co c4cli �CD LO 00 r Q U) 0ULL m 00 6LO 0 t-a o r CD W U 0 = cq �C)rod � r Um�T m-1 Town enter ay ou In Total 258 1 189 1 447 341 051 33 Right Thru Left N tcc In � r �2 O o0 ra Fr llel N41 14o!t! L06 169 1 1Z 1n0 Inlol uI �,,d 13 APPENDIX B EXISTING INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UNSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 Vous Palm Desert NAl991Vune201l SubmittallRcportlAppCvr.1991.doc HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bob Hope Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations 4� Y1 + T1 ttt r Yi ttl� Volume (vph) 3 4 6 554 4 36 18 1439 298 83 1138 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pad/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prat) 1693 3221 1577 1770 5086 1537 3433 5076 Fit Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1693 3221 1577 1770 5085 1537 3433 5076 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 3 4 7 602 4 39 20 1564 324 90 1237 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 7 0 433 205 0 20 1564 201 90 1248 0 Confl. Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Split Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 24.2 24.2 3.4 66.7 66.7 16A 79.4 Effective Green, g (s) 3.0 24.2 24.2 3.4 66.7 66.7 16.1 79.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.51 0.51 0,12 .0.61 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 39 600 294 46 2609 789 425 3100 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.13 0.13 0.01 c0.31 0.03 c0.25 v!s Ratio Perm 0.13 We Ratio 0.18 0.72 0.70 0,43 0.60 0.26 0.21 0.40 Uniform Delay, d1 62.3 49.7 49.5 62.4 22.3 17.7 51.2 13.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.19 0.24 0.32 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 4.3 7.1 5.6 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 64.6 54.0 66.6 79.8 6.2 6.4 51.5 13.1 Level of Service E D E E A A D B Approach Delay (s) 64.6 54.8 7.0 15.7 Approach LOS E D A B HCM Average Control Delay 18.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Magnesia Falls Dr & Hwy 111 6/29/2011 Lane Configurations r Vi ++Tj� Vi tO Volume (vph) 15 9 55 82 7 44 39 1696 76 41 1615 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1,00 0.97 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pod/bikes 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1,00 0.86 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1807 1537 1681 1699 1537 1770 5042 1770 5076 Fit Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1807 1537 1681 1699 1537 1770 5042 1770 5076 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 16 10 60 89 8 48 42 1843 83 45 1755 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 55 0 0 44 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 26 5 48 49 4 42 1924 0 45 1772 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 11.7 9.9 9.9 9.9 7.4 61.0 27.4 81.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 11.7 9.9 9.9 9.9 7A 61.0 27.4 81.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.47 0.21 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0. 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 163 138 128 129 117 101 2366 373 3163 Ws Ratio Prot c0.01 0.03 c0.03 c0.02 c0.38 0.03 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 We Ratio 0.16 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.03 0.42 0.81 0.12 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1l 54.6 54.0 67.1 57.1 55.6 59.2 29.6 41.5 14.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.73 0.94 0.75 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 1.8 1.9 0.1 2.4 2.8 0.1 0.7 Delay (s) 55.1 54.1 59.0 59.0 55.7 48.9 24.5 39.0 11.3 Level of Service E D E E E D C D B Approach Delay (s) 54.4 57.9 25.1 12.0 Approach LOS D E C B HCM Average Control Delay 20.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Magnesia Falls Dr & Joshua Rd 612312011 Y -- Lane Configurations 4 � Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 17 25 6 16 31 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 27 7 17 34 13 ,rc#lam, a trB 1 :.;_►U __N 1 r Volume Total (vph) 46 24 47 Volume Leff (vph) 0 7 34 Volume Right (vph) 27 0 13 Hadj (s) -0.32 0.09 0.01 Departure Headway (s) 3.7 4.1 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.03 0.05 Capacity (vehlh) 953 855 863 Control Delay (s) 6.9 7.2 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6.9 7.2 7.3 Approach LOS A A A Delay 7.1 HCM Level .of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Fx Mid Synchro 7 - Report AO Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Parkview Dr & Hwy 111 1 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations 4i +' ? Vi ttt F I M, Volume (vph) 28 8 8 41 17 177 15 1512 40 136 1588 56 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.97 . 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Fit Protected 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1733 1778 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5051 Flt Permitted 0.77 0.80 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1381 1480 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5051 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 30 9 9 45 18 192 16 1643 43 148 1726 61 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 176 0 0 14 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 40 0 0 63 16 16 1643 29 148 1786 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prat Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.1 11.1 11.1 3.2 71.9 71.9 32.0 100.7 Effective Green, g (s) 11.1 11.1 11.1 3.2 71.9 71.9 32.0 100.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.55 0.55 0.25 0.77 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118 126 131 44 2812 850 436 3913 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.32 0.08 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.04 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.34 0.50 0.13 0.36 0.58 0.03 0.34 0.46 Uniform Delay, dl 56.0 56.8 65.0 62.4 19.2 13.2 40.3 5,11 Progression Factor 1.00 0.91 1.66 1.26 0.33 0.11 0.72 0.09 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 3.1 0.4 4.6 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.3 Delay (s) 57.7 54.9 91.9 83.3 7.2 1.5 29.5 0.8 Level of Service E D F F A A C A Approach Delay (s) 57.7 82.8 7.8 3.0 Approach LOS E F A A HCM Average Control Delay 10.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Parkview Dr & Dwy #1 6/2312011 -* `V f, 4- "\ /` Lane Configurations t F '� ♦ Y Volume (vehfh) 930 54 39 174 61 52 0.92 57 Volume Total 141 59 42 189 123 Volume Left 0 0 42 0 66 Volume Right 0 59 0 0 57 cSH 1700 1700 1349 1700 662 Volume to Capacity 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.19 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 17 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 11.7 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 11.7 Approach LOS B Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Parkview Dr & Dwy #2 6/23/2011 � � � � ON /11� ------------------ �ww Y Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 180 2 3 211 2 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 196 2 3 229 2 9 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (f /s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 871 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 208 453 217 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 207 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 246 vCu, unblocked vol 208 453 217 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5A IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (v&h) 1352 702 809 _ Volume Total 198 233 11 Volume Left 0 3 2 Volume Right 2 0 9 cSH 1700 1352 785 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 9.6 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 9.6 Approach LOS A -------------- Wil-2 Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Parkview Dr & Joshua Rd 6/23/2011 * Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 12 173 3 7 191 32 5 1 2 31 1 18 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 188 3 8 208 35 5 1 2 34 1 20 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh! 2 PA, piatoon unrxooKec vC, conflicting volume 252 201 479 493 210 477 478 245 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 226 226 250 250 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 263 268 227 227 vCu, unblocked vol 252 201 479 493 210 477 478 245 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.6 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 Queue free % 99 99 99 100 100 95 100 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 1302 1359 627 594 817 641 604 781 -- -- VB _- 11V� = -`MENEM Volume Total 13 191 8 242 9 54 Volume Left 13 0 8 0 5 34 Volume Right 0 3 0 35 2 20 cSH 1302 1700 1359 1700 661 684 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.11 0.01 •0.14 0.01 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 1 6 Control Delay (s) 7.8 0.0 7.7 0.0 10.5 10.7 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.2 10.5 10.7 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Parkview Dr & Monterey Ave 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations T. T tt r tt r Volume (vph) 103 62 78 172 92 136 106 761 93 129 862 96 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane LIN. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1,00 0.97 Fipb, pedlbikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1753 1678 1747 1666 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Fit Permitted 0.35 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 648 1678 1014 1666 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 112 67 85 187 100 148 115 827 101 140 937 104 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 42 0 0 49 0 0 0 44 0 0 41 Lane Group Flow (vph) 112 110 0 187 199 0 116 827 57 140 937 63 Confl. Pods. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 13.8 74.0 74.0 13.8 74.0 74.0 Effective Green, g (s) 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.2 13.8 74.0 74.0 13.8 74.0 74.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.57 0.67 0.11 0.57 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 136 351 212 349 188 2015 875 364 2015 875 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.12 c0.06 0.23 0.04 c0.26 v/s Ratio Perm 0,17 c0.18 0.04 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.31 0.88 0.57 0,61 0.41 0.07 0.38 0.47 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 49.1 43.5 49.8 46.2 55.5 15.7 12.5 54.1 16.4 12.6 Progression Factor 0.73 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.07 0.27 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 31A 0.5 32.0 2.2 5.0 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.2 Delay (s) 67.1 25.6 81.9 48.4 64.7 4.8 1.8 54.8 17.2 12.7 Level of Service E C F D E A A D B B Approach Delay (s) 43.2 62.8 11.1 21.2 Approach LOS D E B C _.-•. '_.__....fix .��.�_c_-�=-_-. _.��".,�:.__r--a-.:'..-"-s =-,.. �.-a.,�..-._._..�-r_--�-__._:._--_ _..� -F HCM Average Control Delay 25.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dwy #3 & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 -ME 101 Lane Configurations if +++ r Volume (veh/h) 0 41 1526 71 0 1637 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 45 1659 77 0 1779 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare,(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 615 595 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.83 0.83 vC, conflicting volume 2272 673 1746 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1067 0 1171 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.6 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 95 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 190 882 486 t Volume Total 45 553 553 553 77 593 593 593 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 45 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 cSH 882 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.3 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A tdr� Sri �:- - _ _ _- - 00_ Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10; Fred Waring Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations +4 ++'I� Volume (vph) 62 122 41 152 161 337 39 1198 97 285 1309 43 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane LIM. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0,91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1'00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1537 3433 5085 2705 3433 5017 3433 5056 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1537 3433 5085 2705 3433 5017 3433 5056 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 67 133 45 165 175 366 42 1302 105 310 1423 47 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 325 0 5 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 67 133 3 165 175 41 42 1402 0 310 1469 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.8 8.8 8.8 12.7 14.7 14.7 6.1 67.5 21.0 82.4 Effective Green, g (s) 6.8 8.8 8.8 12.7 14.7 14.7 6.1 67.5 21.0 82.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.52 0.16 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 344 104 335 575 306 161 2605 555 3205 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.03 c0.05 0.03 0.01 c0,28 c0.09 0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.37 0.39 0.03 0.49 0.30 0.14 0.26 0.54 .0.56 0.46 Uniform Delay, d1 59.5 58.0 56.6 55.6 53.0 61.9 59.8 20.9 50.2 12.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.86 0.85 3.48 1.60 0.13 0.80 0.78 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0.7 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.4 Delay (s) 60.8 58.7 56.7 48.9 45.2 180.8 96.1 3.4 41.2 10.0 Level of Service E E E D D F F A D B Approach Delay (s) 58.9 116.4 6.1 15.5 Approach LOS E F A B t�� � ...�..�.it.d r2....-�... •'cam:' ....:.... .... � " � � .. _`..�" _ �.+.. .�...`.__ ".�::-��.."`+e . .._..... �.. ��. -'._'4 ='--^,�`_2r.Y''r' HCM Average Control Delay 31.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) .130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 10 HCM Unsignalized intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 6/23/2011 HCM All -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Ex Mid 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 3.7 1.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 2.4 5.6 1.4 6/21/2011 Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #5 6/23/2011 - N. _ E--OEM__ rNBR Sty._- - Lane Configurations ttt +tt r Volume (veh/h) 0 455 613 4 0 13 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 495 666 4 0 14 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4,0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 556 866 pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 0.93 0.93 vC, conflicting volume 681 851 242 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 383 567 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1078 414 989 ffie7ollp Volume Total 165 165 165 222 222 222 4 14 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 989 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.10 0,10 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Fred Waring Dr & Town Center Way 6123/2011 Lane Configurations ) +tt r 1) M, I t r Vi t r Volume (vph) 15 348 92 184 468 27 139 26 205 23 13 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pedlbikes 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0,97 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5031 1739 1863 1537 1739 1863 1537 Fit Permitted 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0,74 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5031 1370 1863 1537 1353 1863 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 16 378 100 200 509 29 151 28 223 25 14 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 88 0 5 0 0 0 80 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 378 12 200 533 0 151 28 143 25 14 7 Conn. Peds. (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 15.5 15.5 15.9 28.2 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 15.5 15.5 15.9 28.2 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 83.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 44 606 183 420 1091 881 1198 988 870 1198 988 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.07 0.06 c0.11 0.02 0.01 vls Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.11 0.09 0.02 0.00 vie Ratio 0.36 0.62 0.07 0.48 0.49 0.17 0.02 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 62.4 54.5 50.8 53.2 44.6 9.3 8.4 9.1 8.4 8.3 8.3 Progression Factor 1.06 1.11 3.07 0.51 0.44 1.04 1.11 2.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4,6 1.8 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 70.8 62.1 156.1 28.1 20.0 10.1 9.3 22.8 8.6 8.4 8.3 Level of Service E E F C B B A C A A A Approach Delay (s) 81.4 22.2 17.1 8.4 Approach LOS F C B A HCM Average Control Delay 37.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.27 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Avenue 6123/2011 Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 276 275 58 264 532 166 56 596 206 223 615 164 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedlbikes 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 4927 3433 4870 3433 4852 3433 5085 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1..00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 1,00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 4927 3433 4870 3433 4852 3433 5085 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 300 299 63 287 578 180 61 648 224 242 668 178 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 30 0 0 47 0 0 42 0 0 0 94 Lane Group Flow (vph) 300 332 0 287 711 0 61 830 0 242 668 84 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.6 14.1 28,2 25.7 6.6 46.6 21.1 61.1 61.1 Effective Green, g (s) 16.6 14,1 28.2 25.7 6.6 46.6 21.1 61.1 61.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,13 0.11 0.22 0.20 0.06 0.36 0.16 0.47 0.47 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 438 534 745 963 174 1739 557 2390 722 vls Ratio Prot c0.09 0.07 0.08 c0.15 0.02 c0.17 c0.07 0,13 vls Ratio Perm 0.05 vlc Ratio 0.68 0.62 0.39 0.74 0,36 0.48 0.43 0.28 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 54.2 55.4 43.5 49.0 59.6 32.3 49,1 21.0 19.3 Progression Factor 1.19 1.05 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.76 0.48 0.17 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 2.2 0.3 3.0 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 68.6 60.3 43.8 52.0 60.9 33.2 37.6 10.2 3.5 Level of Service E E D D E C D B A Approach Delay (s) 64.1 49.7 35.0 15.2 Approach LOS E D D B -_ ntert_- - :� . - htrt_ .: - _-� .�._._,_� _. s . HCM Average Control Delay 38.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Hwy 111 & Town Center Way 6/23/2011 � �� 4-- 4-4\ t � 1 4/ Lane Configurations M ttt r M ttt ? M 0 1) Tt r Volume (vph) 161 961 220 74 932 93 299 77 16 113 63 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1,00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (prof) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3433 3433 3539 1560 Flt Permitted 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3433 3433 3539 1560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 164 1045 239 80 1013 101 325 84 17 123 68 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 13 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 164 1045 239 80 1013 26 325 88 0 123 68 54 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 11.5 33.1 130.0 12.0 33.6 33.6 33,9 33.9 31.0 31.0 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.6 33.1 130.0 12.0 33.6 33.6 33.9 33.9 31.0 31,0 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.25 1.00 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.24 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 304 1295 1560 317 1314 397 895 895 819 844 1660 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 cO.21 0.02 c0.20 c0.09 0.03 0.04 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.02 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.81 0.15 0.25 0.77 0.07 0.36 0.10 0.15 0.08 0.03 Uniform Delay, dl 66.7 45.5 0.0 54.8 44.6 . 36.4 39.2 36.5 39.1 38.4 0.0 Progression Factor 0.79 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 0.30 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 3.5 0.2 0.4 2.9 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 46.6 37.3 0.2 55.3 47.5 36.4 40.4 36.7 12.4 11.7 0.0 Level of Service D D A E D D D D B B A Approach Delay (s) 32.2 47.1 39.5 9.5 Approach LOS C D D A HCM Average Average Control Delay 36.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 15 HCK8Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bob Hope 0& -' * -� �- �- 4 w� -0.� � � » MIN 8R Volume (vph) 307 68 21 119 66 34 78 1486 202 87 1442 198 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 190 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time kA 5.0 58 5.0 5�O 58 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane U0.Factor 1.00 0.31 0�91 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.87 0.81 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 OM Rpb.pod/bikoo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 180 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1l0 0.85 1.00 8.98 Fit Protected 0,08 0.85 0,90 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.05 tOU Said. Flow (pm0 1777 3221 1594 1770 5085 1583 3438 4961 Fit Permitted 0.88 0.95 0.88 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.82 0.92 0.02 0.92 0.02 O�92 0.02 0.92 0.82 Adj.Flow (vph) 834 75 23 129 72 37 85 1616 220 05 1587 218 RT0RReduction (vph) 8 2 O O 11 O O O 01 O 10 O Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 430 0 118 111 O 85 1015 120 85 1773 O Turn Type 8oit Split Prot Punn Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 G Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G(u) 34.0 15.7 157 12.5 73.3 72.3 0.0 67.8 Effective Green, Qis) 34.8 15.7 15.7 12.5 72.3 72.3 8.0 67.8 Actuated g/CRatio OM 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.48 0.48 0.05 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5,0 5.0 5.0 .5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 403 337 187 148 2401 739 183 3242 w/sRatio Prot oO.24 0.04 o0.07 0.05 oO.32 0,03 o0.30 wis Ratio Perm 0.08 whRuUo 1.07 0.34 0.87 0.57 0.86 8.18 0.62 0.79 Uniform Delay, d1 68.0 62.4 84.0 68.2 29.5 22.0 68.1 38.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1l0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 $4.1 0.8 0.0 5.3 1.4 0.5 2.5 3.0 De|oy(s) 122.1 83.0 74.3 71.5 30.0 22.5 71.8 37.0 Level ufService F E E E C C E D Approach Delay (s) 1221 88.8 31.7 38.0 /ppmachLOS F E C D HCMAverage Control Delay 45.4 HCM Level of Service D HONVolume toCapacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost timebA 20.0. Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.4% ICU Level ofService D Analysis Period (nin) 15 c Critical Lane Group VonoPoknD000d 10M1/20OGxRW Synuhm7' Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Magnesia Falls Dr & Hwy 111 6/29/2011 Lane Configurations 4 r *T r ) +f14 ) ttt Volume (vph) 24 4 27 77 10 37 27 1705 32 20 1554 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0,97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.96 1.06 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 1537 1681 1704 1537 1770 5067 1770 5080 Fit Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 0,96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1785 1537 1681 1704 1537 1770 5067 1770 5080 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 26 4 29 84 11 40 29 1853 35 22 1689 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 0 0 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 30 3 47 48 4 29 1887 0 22 1698 0 Confl. Peds. (Mr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 11.7 12.1 12.1 12.1 22.2 81.3 4.9 64.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 11.7 12.1 12.1 12.1 22.2 81.3 4.9 64.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.63 0.04 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 161 138 156 159 143 302 3169 67 2501 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.03 c0.03 0.02 c0.37 0.01 c0.33 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 We Ratio 0.19 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.10 0.60 0.33 0.68 Uniform Delay, d1 54.7 53.9 55.0 56.0 53.6 45.4 14.5 60.9 25.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.65 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 2.9 1.5 Delay (s) 55.3 54.0 56.1 56.1 53.7 31.1 10.2 63.8 26.7 Level of Service E D E E D C B E C Approach Delay (s) 54.7 55.4 10.5 27.1 Approach LOS D E B C IQCiQtai)i[gar - HCM Average Control Delay 20.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Magnesia Falls Dr & Joshua Rd 6/23/2011 --► "1.* 41 � 4\ 110 f _ --__�--._. a _ - Lane Configurations �i Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 3 17 2 25 27 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 18 2 27 29 4 Volume Total (vph) 22 29 34 Volume Leff (vph) 0 2 29 Volume Right (vph) 18 0 4 Hadj (s) 448 0.05 0.13 Departure Headway (s) 3.5 4.0 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.03 0.04 Capacity (veh/h) 1002 878 849 Control Delay (s) 6.6 7.2 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6.6 7,2 7.3 Approach LOS A A A Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Parkview Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations + 4 r ) + tt r ) ttlll� Volume (vph) 31 20 7 40 8 138 13 1622 37 141 1506 32 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pad/bikes 1.00 1 A0 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 0.99 0.99 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1,00 Fit Protected 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1762 1767 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 6064 Fit Permitted 0.81 0.73 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1457 1345 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5064 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 34 22 8 43 9 160 14 1763 40 153 1637 35 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 138 0 0 10 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 58 0 0 52 12 14 1763 30 153 1671 0 Confl. Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 _ 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm _ Perm . Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 10.5 10.5 8.3 85.0 85.0 19.5 96.2 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 10.5 10.5 8.3 85.0 85.0 19.5 96.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.65 0.65 0.15 0.74 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118 109 124 113 3325 1005 266 3747 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.35 c0.09 0.33 vls Ratio Perm c0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.48 0.10 0.12 0.53 0.03 0.58 0.46 Uniform Delay, dl 57.2 57.1 56A 57.4 11,9 7,9 61.4 6.6 Progression Factor 1.00 0.87 1.09 0.93 0.13 0.04 0.75 0.62 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 3.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 2.7 0.4 Delay (s) 60.5 53.2 60.5 54.1 2.0 0.4 41.4 4.4 Level of Service E D E D A A D A Approach Delay (s) 60.5 58.6 2.4 7.5 Approach LOS E E A A HCM Average Control Delay 8.6 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Parkview Dr & Dwy #1 6/23/2011 --r. -1-V 4r' ■--- 'N l*` Lane Configurations T iff I f 'Y' Volume (veh/h) 145 53 23 144 42 52 0.92 57 irettion lace# _ - Volume Total 158 58 25 157 102 Volume Left 0 0 25 0 46 Volume Right 0 58 0 0 57 cSH 1700 1700 1332 1700 715 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 0 12 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 10.9 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.1 10.9 Approach LOS B Average Delay 2.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Parkview Dr & Dwy #2 6/23/2011 --* '`t fo, '! 14\ /'0 Lane Configurations �4 Ei Volume (veh/h) 195 2 2 164 3 6 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 212 2 2 178 3 7 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (fVs) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 871 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 224 416 233 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 223 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 193 vCu, unblocked vol 224 416 233 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1333 722 793 2 Volume Total 214 180 10 Volume Left 0 2 3 Volume Right 2 0 7 cSH 1700 1333 768 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 9.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 9.7 Approach LOS A ra - = - -- - :- - Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Parkview Dr & Joshua Rd 6/2312011 � � "i f- � k � - Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 12 183 6 8 156 23 4 2 10 25 2 6 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 199 7 9 170 25 4 2 11 27 2 7 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12,0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 410 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked' vC, conflicting volume 205 215 443 460 222 456 451 202 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 238 238 209 209 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 206 222 247 242 vCu, unblocked vol 205 215 443 460 222 456 451 202 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 IC, 2 stage (s) 61 5.5 6.1 5.5 IF (s) 2.2 2.2 3,5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 100 99 96 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1356 1343 665 610 804 644 614 825 g t_- Volume Total 13 205 9 195 17 36 Volume Left 13 0 9 0 4 27 Volume Right 0 7 0 25 11 7 cSH 1356 1700 1343 1700 733 669 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 2 4 Control Delay (s) 7.7 0.0 7.7 0.0 10.0 10.7 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.3 10.0 10.7 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Parkview Dr & Monterey Ave 6/2312011 Lane Configurations tt r tt r Volume (vph) 132 51 101 114 71 162 81 877 95 120 786 112 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedlbikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1754 1644 1748 1634 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Fit Permitted 0.33 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 614 1644 955 1634 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 143 55 110 124 77 176 88 953 103 130 854 122 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 67 0 0 76 0 0 0 38 0 0 50 Lane Group Flow (vph) 143 98 0 124 177 0 88 953 65 130 854 72 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 11.8 76.6 76.6 11,8 76.6 76.6 Effective Green, g (s) 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 11.8 76.6 76.6 11.8 76.6 76.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.09 0.59 0.59 0.09 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 126 336 195 334 161 2085 906 312 2085 906 v/s Ratio Prot 0.06 0.11 c0.05 c0.27 0.04 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.23 0.13 0.04 0.05 v1c Ratio 1.13 0.29 0.64 0.53 0.55 0.46 0.07 0.42 0.41 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 51.7 43.7 47.3 46.1 56.5 16.0 11.5 55.8 14.5 11.5 Progression Factor 0.71 0.37 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.35 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 120.9 0.5 6.6 1.6 3A 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.2 Delay (s) 167.7 16.8 53.9 47.6 50.5 5.9 1.3 56.8 15.1 11.7 Level of Service F B D D D A A E B B Approach Delay (s) 82.3 49.7 8.9 19.6 Approach LOS F D A B 9ctt90 5! .1! 15_ HCM Average Control Delay 25.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dwy #3 & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 0 19 1653 163 0 1563 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 21 1797 177 0 1688 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 615 595 pX, platoon unblocked 0.86 0.79 0.79 vC, conflicting volume 2379 619 1984 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1029 0 1332 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 33 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 98 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 194 847 405 Volume Total 21 599 599 599 177 563 563 563 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 21 0 0 0 177 0 0 0 cSH 847 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.33 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fred Waring Dr & Hwy 111 6129/2011 r oine'5_ :__��t_�: lam:___:=wsr�_ Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 44 114 42 136 124 358 37 1414 57 365 1149 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 0,91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1536 3433 5085 2703 3433 5050 3433 5056 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1 A0 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1536 3433 5085 2703 3433 5050 3433 5056 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 48 124, 46 148 135 389 40 1537 62 397 1249 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 40 0 0 334 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 124 6 148 135 55 40 1597 0 397 1289 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.1 17.1 17.1 16.8 18.8 18.8 14.6 57.1 23.0 65,5 Effective Green, g (s) 15.1 17.1 17.1 16,8 18.8 18.8 14.6 57.1 23.0 65,5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.13 0.13 0,13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.43 0.17 0,49 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 387 649 196 430 713 379 374 2152 589 2471 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.02 c0.04 0.03 0.01 c0.32 c0.12 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.12 0.19 0.03 0.34 0.19 0.14 0.11 0.74 0.67 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 53.5 52.3 51.2 53.6 50.9 50.5 63.8 32.3 52.0 23.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.4 3.0 0.8 Delay (s) 53.6 52.4 51.2 54.0 51.0 50.7 53.9 34.6 56.0 24.3 Level of Service D D D D D D D C E C Approach Delay (s) 52.4 51.5 36.1 31.5 Approach LOS D D D C HCM Average Control Delay 37.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 6/21/2011 HCM All -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Ex PM 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Total Delay (hr) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Delay / Veh (s) 6.9 2.9 1.8 3.5 0.3 0.0 3.2 2.2 1.7 6/2112011 Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #5 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations +++ +++ if r Volume (vehlh) 0 526 613 10 0 6 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 572 666 11 0 7 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 556 866 pX, platoon unblocked 0.93 0.93 0,93 vC, conflicting volume 687 877 242 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 407 611 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1061 390 993 Volume Total 191 191 191 222 222 222 11 7 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 7 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 993 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.01 0,01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.6 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Fred Waring Dr & Town Center Way 6121/2011 Lane Configurations I ttt r )) +0 + if I T r Volume (vph) 17 444 78 156 457 37 156 29 201 21 5 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 &0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pod/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1,00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1,00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1,00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1537 3433 $010 1738 1863 1537 1740 1863 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Said, Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5010 1381 1863 1537 1348 1863 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 18 483 85 170 497 40 170 32 218 23 5 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 71 0 9 0 0 0 81 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 483 14 170 528 0 170 32 137 23 5 7 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prof Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.2 21.5 21.5 11.8 28.1 81.7 81.7 81.7 81.7 81.7 81.7 Effective Green, g (s) 5.2 21.5 21.5 11.8 28.1 81.7. 81.7 81.7 81.7 81.7 81.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.17 0.17 0,09 0.22 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 71 841 254 312 1083 868 1171 966 847 1171 966 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.09 0.05 c0.11 0.02 0.00 vls Ratio Perm 0.01 ' . c0.12 0.09 0.02 0,00 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.57 0,06 0.54 0.49 0.20 0.03 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.01 Uniform Delay, dl 60.5 50.0 45.7 56.5 44.6 10.2 9.1 9.9 9.1 9.0 9.0 Progression Factor 0.72 0.71 0.47 0.47 0.49 1.14 1.06 2.27 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.8 0.1 1:8 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 45.0 36.1 21.5 28.4 22.0 12.2 9.7 22.7 9.2 9.0 9.0 Level of Service D D C G C B A C A A A Approach Delay (s) 34.2 23.5 17A 9.1 Approach LOS C C B A HCM Average Control Dray 25,3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Avenue 6123/2011 Lane Configurations M +0 1) +0 )) t+T )) +++ r Volume (vph) 259 422 49 248 501 157 57 602 210 220 606 160 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 Lane Util, Factor 0,97 0.91 0.97 0,91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,99 1.00 1,00 0,97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1M 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1..00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 4991 3433 4869 3433 4851 3433 5085 1537 At Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 0,95 1.00 1,00 Said, Flow (perm) 3433 4991 3433 4869 3433 4851 3433 5085 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 282 459 53 270 545 171 62 654 228 239 659 174 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 48 0 0 38 0 0 0 97 Lane Group Flow (vph) 282 499 0 270 668 0 62 844 0 239 659 77 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15,9 18.7 21.3 24.1 12.2 54.7 15.3 57.8 57.8 Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 18.7 21.3 24.1 12.2 54.7 15.3 57.8 57,8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,12 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.09 0.42 0.12 0.44 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 420 718 562 903 322 2041 404 2261 683 v/s Ratio Prot c0,08 0.10 0,08 c0.14 0.02 c0.17 c0.07 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.70 0.48 0.74 0.19 0.41 0.59 0.29 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 54.6 52.9 49.3 50.0 54.4 26.4 54.4 23.0 21.1 Progression Factor 0.84 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.56 0.19 Incremental Delay, d2 4.1 2.9 0.6 3.2 0.3 0.6 2.2 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 49.9 26.7 50.0 53.2 54.6 27.0 49.0 13.1 4.3 Level of Service D C D D D C D B A Approach Delay (s) 34.9 52.3 28.8 19.7 Approach LOS C D C B HCM Average Control Delay 33.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Hwy 111 & Town Center Way 6/23/2011 -.6 -1. --v f, *-- k '\ t /0- 4 Lane Configurations )) ttf r )) +++ r 0 1) tt r Volume (vph) 87 947 199 78 1135 102 307 69 21 89 66 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, pedibikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, pedibikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1637 3433 3391 3433 3539 1560 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1560 3433 6085 1537 3433 3391 3433 3539 1560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 95 1029 216 85 1234 111 334 75 23 97 72 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 17 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 1029 216 85 1234 42 334 81 0 97 72 37 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 38.3 130.0 83 37.9 37.9 31.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 91 38.3 130.0 8.7 37.9 37.9 31.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.29 1.00 0.07 0,29 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.25 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 240 1498 1560 230 1482 448 819 835 819 871 1560 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.20 0.02 c0.24 c0.10 0.02 0.03 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.03 0.02 We Ratio 0.40 0.69 0.14 0.37 0.83 0.09 0.41 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 57.8 40.5 0.0 58.0 43.1 33.5 41.8 37.8 38.8 37.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.05 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.90 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.3 0.2 1.0 4.2 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 61.8 30.7 0.2 59.0 47.3 33.6 43.3 38.1 43.7 71.7 0.0 Level of Service E C A E D C D D D E A Approach Delay (s) 28.0 46.9 42.1 45.7 Approach LOS C D D D HCM Average Control Delay 38.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Patm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 15 APPENDIX C TRIP GENERATION STUDY INFORMATION AND LOCAL DISTRIBUTION FIGURES LINscou, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 Vons Palm Desert N:11991Vune 2011 SubmittallReporhAppCvr. f991.doe RITI M7 To: Mr. Kamran Khaligh Date: July 14, 2010 City of San Diego From: John Boarman LLG Ref: 3-10-1942 LLG, Engineers Subject Vons Mission Hills Expansion and Retail Project Trip Generation Study Introduction The Vons Mission Hills Expansion and Retail / Restaurant project proposes the expansion of an existing grocery store located at 450 W. University Avenue in the City of San Diego from approximately 20,980 square feet to 58,830 square feet. The proposed expansion will result in the elimination of existing at -grade parking, which will be replaced with a subterranean parking structure. In addition 8,380 square feet of free-standing retail / Restaurant uses are proposed to be developed where a dirt lot is currently located. Trip Generation Study Methodology Based on the City of San Diego's trip generation rates, which are provided in the Trip Generation Manual, 2003, a supermarket is expected to generate 150 daily trips / KSF. However, due to the fact that the study which determined this rate was conducted in the 1980s and is based on data obtained from only two locations, LLG requested to conduct a trip generation study in order to determine a rate that would better represent the amount of traffic that is expected to be generated by this supermarket. LLG believed that the current city trip rate would overestimate the project trips since the rate was based on 20 year old data, on a very small sample size and also due to the fact that the Mission Hills project is in an urban, walkable area. Traffic counts were conducted for a period of five days at the access driveways of five "stand-alone" Vons locations thought to have similar characteristics in a similar setting, per the ITE guidelines for conducting a trip generation study and the trip generation rate appeal process outlined on page 15 of the City of San Diego's Trip Generation Manual, 2003. Prior to conducting the traffic counts, LLG met with City Staff to discuss the study sites and methodology. It should be noted that although the City of San Diego's trip generation rate appeal process calls for twenty-four hour machine counts at each driveway of four study sites for a minimum of two days , LLG conducted counts at five locations for five days. In accordance with ITE methodology, the five Vons locations which were surveyed for the trip generation study are "stand-alone" supermarkets and have their own parking lots which are not to be used by anyone other than Vons' customers. The trip generation volumes and directional splits surveyed from these five locations have been used to establish the trip generation rate for a supermarket. Engineers & Planners Traffic Transportation Parking Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 4542 Ruffner Street Suits too San Diego, CA 92111 858.300.8800 -r 858.300.8810 F www.figengineers.com Pasadena Costa Mesa San Diego Las Vegas lCNl942uicponlTrip Generation Study July 2010.do" Traffic counts were conducted at the following five Vons locations: • 405 W. University Avenue, San Diego CA • 7311 N. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles CA • 1213 Fair Oaks Avenue, Pasadena CA • 868 Orange Street, Coronado CA • 4145 30th Street, San Diego CA LLG conducted an exhaustive search for stand-alone Vons in the San Diego area with similar characteristics to the proposed Mission Hills project. There were not five such stores in San Diego. Therefore, sites outside of San. Diego, one in Los Angeles and one in Pasadena, were included. The City requested that as many sites as possible be located in San Diego and that all sites be located in the Southern California area. Traffic count sheets are included in Altachment A. Calculating the Trip Generation Rates Table 1 summarizes the trip generation rates for each of the five Vons supermarkets. As seen in Table 1, the daily weekday trip rates vary between 87.55 trips and 130.06 trips per KSF. The AM peak hour trip rates vary between 2 and 5 percent of the ADT. The PM peak hour trip rates vary between 9 and 10 percent of the ADT. These rates were averaged in order to determine the recommended supermarket trip generation rate. The trip generation rate was determined to be 105 trips / KSF with 4% of the ADT occurring in the AM peak hour and 10% of the ADT occurring in the PM peak hour. To validate the above methodology a fitted curve equation based on the trip rates and supermarket sizes shown in Table I was developed and is shown in Chart 1. As seen in Chart 1, the fitted curve equation yields a high 0 value (0.92) and is therefore a well fitted curve and equation. Applying the fitted curve equation to the project results in a trip generation rate of 100.24 trips / KSF. However, in order to be conservative, the average trip generation rate of 105 trips / KSF was used for the proposed project rather than the fitted curve equation. In order to further validate the above methodology, it should be noted that the average trip rate of 105 trips / KSF determined by LLG s trip generation study is very similar to the supermarket ITE trip generation rate of 102.24 trips / KSF. Conclusion The trip generation study conducted by LLG concludes that the City of San Diego's supermarket trip generation rate of 150 trips / KSF, which is based on a study that NA1942Utepoa\Trip Ceneralion Study July 2010.doex was conducted in the 1980s with data that was obtained from only two study sites, would not accurately represent the amount of traffic that is expected to be generated by this supermarket. LLG's trip generation study includes data that was obtained from five locations throughout southern California. The study determined that by averaging the results from the five study locations, a trip generation rate of 105 trips / KSF with 4% of the ADT occurring in the AM peal, hour and 10% of the ADT occurring in the PM peak hour would more accurately predict the amount of traffic expected to be generated by this supermarket. NA19421ReponWrip Geneation Study July 2010.docx a 7t; n n In a O 0 t- M N 00 N O N m d pp 00 Cf) p F-t Obi 'd' �O M O '� N dN' E pf Vl �I'1 M t%1 �D Vl a Vl NPON d N d C a Q O M m M q oo H N ti O o C% h 0000 y r,�t OM �O ri C 0000 O O\ w A [� O Q1 Vl M M tn h � vi et N Vt M � Gn v 0000 k w rn 00 a rn rn t-;. ao d� oo in N d� N "ItM O A N o A0 ~ Q 4-P �isl O W z O M o o ~✓ d n ti 00 00 9 CHART 1 VOIDS WEEKDAY DAILY TRIPS 6,000 y=94.67lx+328.0 5,000 = 0.9 4,000 L F ro —f—Seriesl 3,000 � --Linear (Seriesl) L Q1 a' a 2,000 1,000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Supermarket Area (1,000 SF) NA1942%oport\Ttip Generation Study July 2010.docx ATTACHMENT A TRAFFIC COUNT SHEETS N*.1194ZRepadM!p Geavation Study July 2010.dO= o6 413D VV - Ull c.V —. bt _ r va luvv�.p-,aa-(�- �^ 0 © O N T m I W) w I w O rlMltn I N N N n O t13 m OICfl t- tp M 11M l0) 11 co 00 ( N O 'cp r .O r O CO d I— � ipp O M t. t. n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_. Q. O O O O O O O S L O c) U07 C. ujLD I oo ACV O M M N T T N M r (D I— CO 6) ti LO 'q O Vie V) LC) (D M M D) e- - N N It LY ty r r T r r r N N N r cn N L() M O O r r 7 C) co O O r co 0 CO 06 T t- t 0 N O t` O O 1? CO r M N O to CN (O T N o M r N E N O {' - (D O �, rLO OD C77 N t.n d' O O O N V' N M N N N r, } N N TQi N C) O r T T K. ti r r N r T M N' t O to j N t ti r I N N (C O� (D '1 t~ O to U') N 'o zrM N N T N N N N r ^O,) -q co T O N M t-- O CA T cr M r'. Y h` �.I N co tl N O S LO 'Ct' r O Q) h r T N O LO Cl C N cN- cam- N. c~- 60 i N 6; T T N o (O o 0 o 0 0 0 O O o O. o o O o Q. O O O o O O O O 00 0 00 O 7 0) O rn O O W O O CA to m 0 m m I m m rn� rn m m rn m m 0 x� x m Lp C7 O LO T O U) N O LO th O Ln en to O (n w O �n t� O � co O � CA O (n C r to r to [V r. `i; u� &i r en r � Lt7 uz 4. T,IR n�, s+, 001 r n 0 T � co CV to r N Ln CV N � M I N O }^ m_ m_ 0. a, E.' 1 1 I 1 1 t 1 i 1 1 1 1 I f .1 {, Ii t `O l 1 1 l t O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O�O pp O 0 O 0 o O S O O O O O O S O O O. O, O S O O O O O O�O o f OIO I c�i Oi0 o Q O ui O �p O n O co O ai O!T o T iV T 6 r 4r T tri r uti T t- <-1r 66 m r�N o r N c� N t 1 t tf CL y W ' M ry W •� E > �C O O � tP > O L.0� � O CM dN ^, W t O > p t t 0 v C o0 Irl- 3r CDN Zr O O N Q LiY m NcIA o Z a) z c "a tts Y ,a C C E i C O O c6 TJ +r O N Z N o _>Z a O aN(o O oz 0 O O `- LL 0 0 N L 0 4 8 8 � a 8 A3 h f- 0 N r Nj i M j O (�7 O CO f OV W N LO ".m(7 . -(O r I t� i 00 !� to I--O N N O a g m i LO m 04 M N f-- r h r � r r 0 0 0 0�0 O Oi0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 �7 (D 00 O N i 00 (N (14 M N N O CO O r (O O M N 7 Lf) (D d' r 0 (O !L ' r r r� r r r N 04 3 Cc1 N O O O r O 1A f- CO It (0 CT) !(D Lo (� h- N N lil O M j 0 CO N O O .�-. r M N (of- Tr -0 O r O r O O r I'- I— �� N n' ti7 LO O (0 [� LO 'T (y r r (vV N rr- .� ��- +� e•• O r O I� r r r I co w O 0 'M 00 0 O M:.O m O M (D M N N r M N fD U N r N N. N N N r N f�- t0 (D ic- I l N� O O O r d h h M r r M r N Cl) U7 M ' �f LL? I� O 0 0 LO r r N O M o r r r r .. r r r N (`') 04 N r r + m M N of � 00 r r f( 1 0 00 O 00 O c Lo 7(4 (DO O O O O O O o 0 0 0 O: 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O L LO N 1 i tp { p0 rrN- O O O O O O O Q) 0 0 0 0 O O O W o O O 0 O! O � O N� o �n��nlnu)u>Lnv)LDInLnLn�Iniu)�nrnu�jLnu> to u>I (ri 0 �wLn� o E o or-Nc*i LtiiDtiaoOorNMvLii6r~oorno(I r r r r N N�NjN Nri o �'•• aT dy? O 0) 0 Cl 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 r r r rj'- ) 1 ) I ) r ) ) ) 1 ) j l O \! r i . t. 1 Q O_ I"'O1IOIo O O p O O pp O O O �p1 0 0 0 0 O O O O O pp O O O�O�O O O O N M d w CO t- w m O T' N (+i R w w f`- t w I� O N N N (ViN M C? O1l0 0 0 0 O O O O— r r r�r�r r r�rir L 0 C am 0 o I ,o (0 O r CD Na o jr O N r. N L lJ O �Orm ON � .0 ` O r• O A- N Cp C f] "�� 0 0 z Wo o J •o C4 co c O � Z 0> � � N rL -i LL C) 0 X O C r Q LD e! N d 00 ctf R N it- p�M�d' r�rlNJU) O O N�N F r M CD MiN o !I I�p M�co I` i O} Ln.. O u) h- •� (D n O cq (O r N r M VD r0 pi0 0 010 00 0 o OjO,Oj0 0 O O'O;f,C�O o o o O o o S O 0 Lf) 0 fu Imo- (() } (0 1 I-- O Cl) (D 00 U-) Vr () to ti r` LO't 0 0 0) T W r LO Z O o f 0 O r O O r t(7 O M 47 00 O N 0 1 r.00 1 0 O; O I- M N 0 LO IT IT IjI ( r r `0 O r O O O r d' I- O h 1- k 0,. 14 I- CO (D v: O (D I.() M N N G r V M (D N j I .I` P- p p r o r O M U7 CO M I,-k (o.: (D r U) I- N O 0)0 M 00 N N W) pp�(D M N 0)M N i r r r ( N co O r r O O O I V' 00 I-t 1 (D I- fo Co r? N N O LO mil' N O O m r In d' (D LO r r r r 4d I i V) r 0 O Q7 CQ i� r r e w O O � O O O O O O o 4j fr 0 o O Olo O O O CD O O o of o o 0 L O oo LO 0 � 1 C1 o tV CV r r rnlrnrnmrnrn rnrno)arnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn�rnrn m 1p tp 0 ((� (n (n to to w LO to in LO LO U) Lo U) LP (q U� LP 4 � to d) � o E O O r- O (V O 0" O wn O ((pD P ti O a0 O fA O O r r r' N r M r d' r ui r fD h-' r w r m r O N — N CY N M N 0 I--• d ? (L = Gi E I r oolo f � f S f 00 f ( S f 00 f f S f 000000000pp-o{{000 o a 0 .( CV ( f O O .?- f 0 f O10 f f o f 0 a O o O r I2�yy O n O O U) t0 O O I� p o c0 O � O 6 r 'r��(V r -r Ico r I r U.) r _o ,w r 0 I- r, 0 00 c- 0) r O N, � r iCV N N ch N O o 0 0 I 0 i I O ¢' C O � O Lo N O M N o O f a t> o > ZN 'a o 0 oN � N r N VJ O O L6 O E rCCI N c+ ~ co ++ N N O � -0 w td -0 O E C Co .a " 0 0 0> Z C U O a O W N Q LL (.5 0 (A F0- C Q e4 C�7 Ian v to 8 -f-I M N-I N N 91 OD 0 a OD 0 0 a 0 0 I!I M Cl) t CQ A(NO i I MOI� NV it � VN tv) co iljm il! LO 0 1 N �C%l t to +' �^ 0 0 0 O' O O O O O O O O O O 0 Cl 0 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 a 00 0) O C) CD O N t 0 0 i� 64 •C p --0LL r o O N{ M (T ti O� i C) 0) CO O O OD � (0 (D M N �}' N N r r 00 in r Co) 07 T C)3 C) O O r C)j (0 in M to b to M MN O r I M N O) t` d' t!') e- N (O V c LO co T M N r o o o o O T 0 to (` i u) O t` O (i) I to (O t- 0 0 0 O l- d' N Q 0) 0 M N 3� ifO)N 1 d f` O O T O O O (V 'V' OD t-- (0 O_ W m to 0) O; V' LO CO I` OD 7 f- M L N LO cd- (rB C W O T O O r O N LO M 0 M tt7 T O h LO 1 OD M 1 0) N l 'V' M to V- 00 0) O OO 0) OD OD 00 {• n T T C N O O O�O 0 0 0 0 0 O�O O C) C:)O Q C,0 clo 0 co C) CD O0 LO (M C) O O O I 1 O O � •N-- O O O) to O t0 m t0 O) N) (n O W to m LO 01 to O 0 Q) ml O) Ln W to 0) m 0) t0 O (�i 0 t() M C() O in Q In to [n M t0 O !n O (n � � z E CO � CO cV (M CD t: 66 m O T (V M d' T to c (D T t- r w T m T C) CV ' N tV (V M N O F^ a = ? a Z ? N 0 0 0 0 Q O O O O r t T t t t i i i , i E f- t o o 0 i o t b i o i o 0 t �� i 0 og o o0o o o o b 0 o C) 000000I0 0 o C) C) C) 0 o, oobll10 p r (V ! c'! 0000 tip <O t`� OD 0) CD r fV M d' M 0 f,- M M O O O b Q' 0 0 OIO T Ttr T r T r T T r N1N N O Q L.L � �C EO LO � O > N cN E O f .� f o V o 0 > O ON Y Z NC) O r C N r O CD E Mom N u O t= M cn .� E D 'C: a C N O 7 z C Z 0 v O O Q (D Z i 49 Qm O a0 r N (O N N — 00 N � i O V W� M i T C N d' O (O 0! �7' ! W N to Lf) W LUGI,-- 't COD i W ! 1 0 t-- i V to M � N m tCC)V- 0�0i,010 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 o a a N a L a t E r r _ g o 11 r T O (m O i I T '� t• M (fi 0 r r Iii M 4 w q dr to I O M (D O (ii pp � inM r N 00 (y I I r r r1r r �Ir rk w 6? C 3 W O I O O o 0 0� N In M Ln O O N !` O Y O w 'T r r 0 M T LO bT N 0 0 (o M pp g O O O T r r u) O (o M O N M O O C O w h I� ti 0 to O W O 0) Y O (o � O O r T r r r O N +" O r (o (n (o I It O m 4 m V' r 6)cq r r o3 m tf O 4 W O O N N M N r r r r r r r ip T r:1 r co N N O r r 4 N O 0 I 0 0 k t- W ' T O t--N O 0 0 O' `1' � CO (q rt O Ln C CO C N Co O I o 0 0`0 0 0 0 o aio IIIIII 0 0 o Q�o QIo 0 0 0,0 0 4 o c O LOo O O N CD IIII II � oo m O to m 0 4 (n 0) (n W (() Q ) Q m QJ o) m �0) cn O) w o)I w W 0 m w 0 w 0 w m Ln m (n m, w o (cNnV rn (o � @ N o 0 O r cV t'') lf1 <D f� Oo 0 6i O N M ([) [p t, OD y o 0 0 0 0 o a o N F- 0 0 0 o c� $ o 0 g o 00 o$ o.`o.o ODD000�:'0:0000�00 0 0 0 0 0 000 a Q a o000 � 47 O O Oo O O O r r. r N r c'7 r�r d' r tot. r r Oo r�r N�N�NIN p40 111 O10 1 i O O < W � O i 0 O / Q (V Q} O O I O > o 0 C7 Q N .� N r A N N "C O O Ld d E r m (V > r �o-a60a) cts -0 Q? p C 5 O tt, m W a�� Z C �Z O iiU6E 0 CD rl a 9 9 Y L9 ya O ~ i cOlm10 I jj 1 i N t— IT w W m co OD (O Ig � cO 0 O N N r ti iii O rl W LD 1 i MLO M3rm S N r o d b 0 d d d o 0 0! 0 o d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d o O 0L gL 0 00 � ; � t c � ' Od rr 0 r N ! r O M r�m o!m w`o (r r-�. m r"�(� Liz 1 O m M m�r 0 Lo 0 0 po � N � M N M LL M r r N r N N r N r r N O r V) co r r r r O O r O N 47 Go Tr t-I O a0 N O N m— to m iti �� a~-� O Lmn N I cr- rN- N -- 00 t 'O CO N O I O r r r �' m r �1�., OroI Cy mN i m N tp 11 d'�n N N W) O M T N ! ca,) ! r r r s- 4) !` r N N m O M If) r- r r r w t- N r 0.1 r; w� r rl r IiI m r m r 0 MMN. 0 0 N to +" �i { r` O 1✓ L� m Cl M N M 3 1 r0 r (D cn^ C Cti N O r r N N MIN ch M CO' O i iD 00 O M O 'mL) co Lo r L h M CD 0) CO O b p O rn r O Ul M NiM N rir rI m- 1 ( r r r N 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C?, O O O O'O O O O O�O 0 0 0 00 O 00 CltAa i OQ �r m m m m m O m m m Ln m m m L.0) m m to m Lo O Lo OUR Lt) O LO) m Lf) m Ln m Ln m Ln O) to N 3 N 4 In ti7 4') >n Ln to (� i)0i--wmo In lq lO) Ln i�iin�f6i6F-co0)o 'Ln c��r&i o 0= A a= ori.i0 0 0 0 0 0 r r e.- -r r r r c- �-- r N N (V !"' lli r 0 r 0 r 0 L 0 L 0 r r L r L L r'r L L L L L > > p O O O C) O O O O 0 1 0 O O Q O O o Cl O O _,O C) O O O O O O O O I{ O' O O O a. 0 O 0 r O 0 N 0 O� O c.� O ti) O O �Opp f O O r-- O O 00 ( O O 0) I O O O r O r: r O iV r a� c i r V' r r iD. r I F- oD r 0) r O N 1 N N I OV N r4 O N CL W � E O LO L 0 Cl) to > Q O N ^` E t O V a j o 0 .� c CN Ot- Nr NC / e-- (Ac7 �m CN o O Y wa 0 �. �/r(�} \ 4a O N p er= +N, C C? Z G N0 co Z IUi5w i 0 N � W 5Q0 tltl' N h F to N 0 LO N M;: I tD N LO c- N CO � if) N i N W M in M I M LO 1 0D ILO r,- LO V (-- Imo' pp OD �y Ft (fl i I- 1 I- AFO�OIO O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 c, 0 0 A m O O O 0 CDO 'r, 0 r O�0 O�r O N 0 M � ��CD,N t` r N N�d' m 0�N 't if) M N r r T r r lam" dr Cps 7 w O r O r I r r M V' N t+') to .h O m !� T L N r r r r r r l+7 t_ c0 r N M Col- N O m O (o OO dj N N N r t' 0 m t` 1l- r r N N A O r O O N M qrU') to 't h M CO co co O 0 O (O to M� r w cq Q c� Cn C C r O O r O r M h CO t1_ fD (D IT 0 m M t~ w m <- 0 00 M O co N r r N r r -r r T (~ co to 0 7 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O�O�O 0[Of0 OIO O O O OCD m CD O tl) 0O NN mmm0mmmm (C') to (n to to <n i() 00m0)0)m0)m0)m0)0)0)0)0)0) to CA to t17 N 1n to (.C) In lI7 to (p to (0 E m p N a) O C 0 0 Q c) C> CD - - - - 04 N i N N H fl S ? N0 f- 0( oC o 00 0 0 0ogAOpoJdoo000A 0 0 O O O O. 0 O O C) 0 O A ¢ a O O C7 r 0 CV 0 H (3 g O to . 66 m 6 c= iV (6 V 6 6 N' r c6 r 6 r!NIN O r t CV i, N O O O O OIO O O CDr r r rIr rt- L •d A '� W a) LO E T •O 7 � > L O N �` a) t O t CD U O O in aC%4 v C N r- w O O � O (n +� C)toO N A ` N i 0,2 N (r � A0 0 c-0-0N N Cll o0 �a:c� — c �j Jo Qii0LaW 0 N - to Of0 4f O O�N,r r w N "I N N CO M t 7 M r 'cF — Mld' w M�-Iw f0 �D�h O h 1j �N ah-'� t000 O O O O 0 0 0 0 O'O 0 0 0 0 0j0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O� O Oo t0[1 O go 00 tVN '[ M r 0 0 0 O O�r h In T hh O (d co h i N .- M T r r (O r r (O' N T t m N LL r Inr r 00 +fA h 00 e- O O O O T d' (O 'd'i[n N � CD 00 N 0 r. T� N� O V' 00 r �N � 4 N 00 U � .=G N r� ,...� �r rr rT 0 0o r o 0 0 o r o d .r ao rn co u) M Ico co o w u� rn o u� v o 0 0 0) o (n V h CO C\l T r `V3 0)0 h e T r T o 0 0 0 0 r (0 'cf' tl' d' 0) to 00 N t0 GO 00 CD OD It N O M O 0) lD �.. It O N i r h h tom. 00 T T O O O O O� N 1tj I M h V' 0) .O O O O M c- M 0 I f- M 0 1) i O O W T r r 0 0 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O O O O O! O 0 0 0 0 O� O OO to CD N 0 0 0 CA (t/ O to O (n O to CA In W (r) O lA CA In CA (A 0 0 0 V) 0 (C) 0 tr) CA yA Cn (n O (n O tA. W 10 W to Cn tU 01 U) m t(') CA LO ,� Y E Y` N O y O O O O (� O M O O t0'r' O O O O r r c+ T r r �-- N N N N H 7 7 a' Z? x m �. 1 1 1 1 1 1. f a I ... �. I i "mod a F 8 0 0$ 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 g 0 0 g d 0 o o a o o a 0 o 0 g 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 a O 0 O 0 b 0 0 0 0 iris((pprdo0C> C> O O O r rIr cvi•ivm01 r r r riT Wcrio�rc��(�i r r N!N( N I O Z CL C MW W LO E T 3 .0 o ` �/ Z d N 0 O ( V m O O U) d o W r M Y� C _ N N O 0 L: w .r 0 W cn C La 0 N 0CtlZ O 0 � <EC) O OD w� 8 4 m a co 'r 'T 0 cn c) 04 LO -W C13 eq m 0) C14 Iq F'- 11 N LP (0 P, U) OD: fl- CO Cl) co 0 w t, 4DO C) CO LO N a) 0 CD o C> Q C) S Ck 0 C) O( c. 0 0 0 0 C) 0 C3 C3 C3 40 C) a) C> 40 0 C) C� tp 11 60 C*4 C14 CD T O N O r M w (o C'j T O C, c) r C) (D 0 cl m LL m co o N 1-- 0) LO 00 00 C) �D I-- 1-- 0) N CIA U) r OC) to -t '�t 0 CO U') nr 0) Lo LO C\l Tn co I- r- 00 0 --00- Cl) (D I- tO ITI 0) 0) it "I M 0 It N - ce) N CV Or C:) CD o cj (o j r- ce) (D I O C) r-- 0 't Lo ce) co 0 (3) C' N m C) 0) to OD 0 to ttt CD 0 CV) V NLO 00 CN t 0 N0 00 CP 0 CD N w Lp (n (N N 0 77 Go . . Lo 0 0 0 0 000 0 C:) o o 0 0 C:) C:) op 000 o 0 0 CD 0 o04 c 11 0 0 C'4 C14 to to in toLO LO W LO LO LO Lo ko LO NM (n IR W 1p T (o %0 to Uq om L'O' (b 1'-' 0'0' ai 6 i-� i�! w m CD N co N �o 0 = (L M 0 C> 0 (T C� C� T 41 11 7 7 N C> 0 0 0 C) 0 C) - a 0 0 so C) C3 o a C) C� CL a 0 M 0 La C) r- C) W CD 0 0 C� co t� 0 CL E 0 cy) C:� > C) LO N4� IR co C) c) I C) Lr) -a C� > T-- c o- W 0 o -: r-- _0 .. 0 N >' E > mco 0 a C) w 0 L: 0 W< (D —C) >, as -0 r E - V �o 1-- c 2 0 Z z 0 0 co V) Z 3 LL 0- ) ( 0— 0 p O OIO���O•� 1111 .r-�A t 1204 i M�d'�MIM�� lull Mi(OD'(00 � Cl) co�ti�(OD�'V' ��~ 00 O O O O O O l O O O O O O O 3 O O O O O O O 1 O O O O O 0 0) O O G) O OeO� (V N Oi0�0 O M r�(D'(D 1 I� d't0 OOtr�d' M d' (D O (OIM co r V; N O (D N � (y a � I Itijltltlt r r r r O 0 0 0 r O O�r (D�I� M'T N O O r f O of-- 0 h Otn N 0 0 M 0 0 N O r 0 0 0 r m 1h 00 M N N N O N (D O Cl) r (h N LO Y M M N N w 3a � I r r r r r r � r r r tpti co 0) +1l ti r O N O r N (D O M CO (D O i- (O I-- (D ice- CO F- N O d" N r S U) 0 N O) O l � C O O N O N N N M M r M (D O M r� 0 i- I- W O i N tP M W Ln LO ,fir, r V�( j N g r r r r r N N N T OO (3) i� OO r r 0 O!O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0i0'0 O O O 0 (D 01010 O O O O N O O N O C N N4 0 ( ( j 1 I !I II I 1j oo c_Viv O OU) O O O O O m (;(! O O O O O O O O O O O O O (O O to 0(O tip' O O O O O O O O l(3 O O O O O O OjO (fJ I (n _ Y N Y �O E p p O r O IV O CM O O Olfl fD O ice- O Op O O o r r r fV r (+') V' lD ti; aD 0) O N r N N N M N O z i jL 01 t t t t t( t i_:,( ( t t t t t h O O O O oo Q O O C) OO O C) O S C) O C) OAS (D O O 0 O} 0}O C) O O S O O �O O O O I O O O O O O ClO- O O O C) C) O O�O O�O rlr r r�r U3 c-ir I (O f`- �- coif . �"'tr�N�N 0)0 N N M N O C Q (� N C c \O / LO N �` W C) ( O U m LC) -0 _) 0 CV �f1 O CV O � � O N A +� CO M .0 C) 0 CO a) Z A +' CN DQ (DC Z(D� C a) ZUoa o Z 3: 2 1 izC)5f 4- 0 V) is C .0 OL m 8 M w 10 v M N 10i I)r�wAvt Ca/n-h\�- 64 d�� gan'bv'o-)o t Cfi- . F 7- 64 . Weekly Vehicle Volume Report Location: "Vona North Drwy - 4145 30th Street File Number. 031.02.1 Counter ID: 108 Direction: South Bound Volume Report Duration: Sunday Apr 25, 2010 - 00:00 to Saturday May 01, 2010 - 23:59 Other Notes: None at this time Graph of Totals 400 350 300 250 200 i50 100 50 00 Oi 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09101112 1314 IS 16171819 20 2122 22 Weekly Vehicle Volume Report Location: "Vons North Orwy - 4145 30th Street File Number. 031.02.1 Counter ID: 108 Direction: North bound Volume Report Duration: Sunday Apr 25, 2010 - 00:00 to Saturday May 01, 2010 - 23:59 Other Notes: None at this time Graph of Totals 3550 300 250 200 150 100 60 000102 03040506 070809 Jo 1112 1314151617 is 1920212221 Time sun 4125 Mon 4= Tue 4127 Wed 4128 Thu 4129 Fri 4130 Sat =I 7 Day Total 00:OD-00:60 0 10 6 a 6 8 D 38 01:00-01:59 0 4 3 1 3 0 0 it 02:00-=SO 0 3 1 1 2 8 0 13 03:00-03:59 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 6 04:OD-04:59 0 4 4 2 4 4 9 18 05:00-Ob:b9 0 6 3 4 4 6 a 23 00:00-06:59 0 16 19 16 16 14 0 79 07:00 - 07:59 0 20 31 45 25 29 0 120 08:00 - 08:59 0 36 40 42 39 31 0 187 09:00 - 09:69 0 37 38 35 30 39 0 179 10:00 -10.69 0 37 39 36 35 41 0 188 -:11:00 -11:59 '..:' . `.. 0" .'.::'. 39. _.... 39 ...43 .. . ... 49 48 0 218 12:00 �:12:59-. ` 0 4t >.6210. 58: - 55 0 246 13:00 -13:69 0 38 43 37 49 68 0 225 14:00 -14:69 0 54 62 55 46 66 0 263 15:00 - %59 0 63 61 57 53 60 0 284 -:i6:00:.t6:69 0 :69 60 :. 67_-. 65 .76 0 _ 327 17:Oa-.17:59 - 0 '80 64 74 69 78 0 _ 363 �18:00. is: 59 0 6S 6t 65 59 77 0 317 19:00. 19:59 0 67 61 62 50 59 0 290 20:00.20:59 0 63 69 64 48 59 0 273 21;00-21:59 0 44 47 38 34 61 0 214 22:00 - 22:59 0 21 27 19 26 39 0 131 2100 - 23:69 0 18 _ 21 9 18 30 0 94 Total 0 822 822 771 771 924 0 4146 AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volans 090 0:69 0 12:00 12:59 0 9:45 10:44 41 16:45 17:44 80 OAS 10:44 43 17:30 18:29 73 10:30 11:29 43 16:45 17:44 75 11:00 11:69 49 16:45 1744 72 9:30 10:29 46 16:45 1T44 82 0:00 0:59 0 12.00 12:% 0 Time Sun 4125 Mon 4126 Tue 4127 Wed 4126 Thu 4129 Fri 4/30 Sat =1 7 Day Total DMOD-00:59 0 4 8 8 6 13 0 39 01:00-01:69 a 1 3 4 1 4 0 13 02:W - 02:59 0 1 0 1 0 1 D 3 03:00.03:69 a 2 0 1 2 5 0 _ 10 W:OD-04:59 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 6 051.00-0&59 0 3 0 2 2 2 0 9 08:00-o&59 0 io 15 is 11 8 0 60 07:00 - 67: 99 0 24 18 14 18 - 21 0 95 08:00 - 08:59 0 19 20 26 19 23 0 106 09:W - 09:59 a 28 29 27 27 38 0 149 10:00 -10:59 0 27 33 38 31 �28 4f 0 170 11:W-11:59 --0 30 25 33 38 0 154 12:00-12:69 0 30 34 40 33 44 0 181 13:n0 -13:59 0 34 38 34 38 Bd a 208 14-.M -14:59 0 41 37 48 39 60 0 225 16:uu-1&69 0 40 42 43 39 63 0 227 18.00-=16:59 -....,,.,.b....._:,55;`,7t .:W �50 .10. ... 0 :. 305 17:OD-.17:59 '""a 72 70- 75 ' `61 63 0 _ 341 1 B:OD-1&59 0 68 61 54 64 76 0 312 19:00-19e59 0 51 57 60 45 52 a 265 2a:00-20:59 0 53 54 39 38 49 0 233 21:00-21:89 0 35 27 29 24 24 0 139 22A0-22:59 0 27 34 27 22 15 0 125 2&00-23:59 0 10 - is 19 11 12 0 68 Total 0 668 803 696 600 786 0 3443 AM Peak Hour 17okane PM Peek Hour Vokme 0A0 0:59 0 12:00 12:59 0 10:45 11,44 35 17:30 18:29 77 9:30 10:29 35 16:15 TI:14 76 10.00 10:59 38 17:00 17:59 76 10:16 11:14 32 17:30 1020 62 1015 11:14 49 17:15 1814 77 0:00 0:59 0 12:00 72:69 0 611. Weekly Vehicle Volume Report Location: eVons West Driveway - 4146 30th Street File Number: 031.02.2 Counter ID: M026 Direction: Eastbound Report Duration: Sunday Apr 25, 2010 - 00:00 to Saturday May 01, 2010 - 23:59 Other Notes: None at this time Graph of Totals 450 400 350 300 250 206 150 100 50 00 0102 0304 0506 07 06 0910111213141E 16 1716 1920 2122 V Weekly Vehicle Volume Report Location: ' Vons West Driveway - 4145 30th Street File Number: 031.02.2 Counter ID: M026 Direction: Westbound Report Duration: Sunday Apr 25, 2010 - 00:00 to Saturday May 01, 2010 - 23:59 Other Notes. None at this time Graph of Totals 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 00 0102 030405 06 07 080910 Al 12131415161711f 19 20 2122 21 Time Sun 4125 Mon 4126 Tue 4127 Wed 4128 Thu 4129 Fri 4130 fiat SMI 7Day Total 00:00-00:69 0 9 16 11 tt 10 0 57 o1:00-01:59 0 6 8 3 3 3 0 _ 21 0200-0259 0 3 1 2 1 .5 0 12 -03:00-03:59 0 1 2 1 0 3 0 7 04:00 - 04;59 0 2 2 1 5 0 0 10 05:00-05:59 0 7 8 11 6 10 0 42 68D0-06:59 0 13 13 13 14 12 0 65 07:00 - 07.59 0 23 22 26 31 31 0 133 08:00-08:59 0 35 43 21 34 40 0 173 09:00. M50 0 41 31 48 34 45 0 200 10:00. 10:59 0 38 42 44 33 W 0 212 t$o0-..1i:59 - 0 ` 57 . �42 60 61 60 -__ 0 260 12i00: 12:59 0 .67 62 46 47 50 0 261 t3:D0-13:59 0 67 6o 52 68 68 0 286 14:00-14:59 0 65 54 64 67 50 0 290 f5:00-16:69 0 68 60 64 61 66 0 _ 317 f8:o0=16:69 -0. '' 80 87 81 66 90 0 404 17:00- 17;59 7`�.: 0 . „ 89 102 � 11 ' 75 71 0 408 I iod -18:59 0 79 82 87 65 68 0 381 igloo- 19:59 0 82 49 85 73 71 0 340 20:00. =59 0 64 59 50 49 60 0 282 21.00-2159 0 56 44 48 44 43 0 235 22;00.- 22:69 0 25 18 29 25 36 0 133 23:00.23.60 0 5 3D 21 14 29 0 99 Total 0 968 925 908 657 90 0 4627 AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume 0100 0:59 0 12:00 12:69 0 11:00 11:59 67 17:30 18:29 93 10:15 1114 45 16.45 17:44 110 10:45 11:44 50 17:46 19:44 93 WAS 11:44 54 1820 19:29 79 10:45 1f:44 64 16:00 10:69 90 0:0 0:69 0 12= 12:59 0 Tlma Sum 4128 Mon 4128 Tao 4127 Wed 4)28 Thu 4/29 Frt 4130 Sat eM1 7 Day Total 00:00- 00:59 0 35 5 3 12 7 _ 0 82 01:00-D1:59 0 6 2 2 3 1 0 13 02:00 - 02:59 0 4 10 3 1 1 0 - 19 03:00 - 03.59 0 a 3 1 1 3 0 16 04.00 - D4:59 0 12 5 1 1 2 0 21 05:00 - 05:59 0 26 14 11 4 4 0 59 08A0-06:59 0 26 12 25 14 5 0 82 07:00-07:59 0 19 20 23 11 12 0 S5 08lo0-08:59 0 30 15 20 35 27 0 127 09:00 - 09:69 0 82 23 35 20 34 0 194 1trAo-10:69 0 59 21 32 32 20 0 170 `il=a11:59 -- 0 79 -30 42 51 40 0 242 1200-.12:69 .:' 0 - _ ' - 36 69 39 42 62 0 238 13*0-13:69 0 31 58 38 59 45 0 227 14:00 - 14:69 0 42 38 12 40 49 0 241 15;110-16M 0 92 43_ 42 39 48 a--,- 264 7600-.i§;58 :.:0" 12, : I`: 05 65 66 76� 0 344 17:00-17:69 0 77 87 _ 62 58 51 0 _ 335 18:00 - 18:69 0 86 64 89 y 61 36 0 336 19: ON Is; US 0 56 M 56 71 42 37 0 261 20:00. 2D:69 0 53 39 69 61 76 0 ^_ 27_8 21:00-21:59 0 76 _ 48 33 45 00 0 282 22:00-22:69 9 44 21 29 32 _ 31 0 157 23.-M - 23:59 0 25 20 43 15 24 0 127 Total 0 1095 715 838 725 777 0 4180 AM Peak Hour Votuma PM Peak Hale Volume 0:00 0:69 0 12:00 12:59 0 9:00 9:59 82 14:45 15:44 98 10:30 11:29 30 16:15 17:14 93 11:0D 11:59 42 17:46 10:44 89 11:00 11:69 51 17:45 18:44 89 11:00 11:59 40 21:00 21:59 80 0:00 01.59 0 12:00 1259 0 - bl�/ Weekly Vehicle Volume Report Location: "Vans East Driveway - 4145 30th Street File Number. 031.02.3 Counter 10: 109 Direction: East Bound Volume Report Duration: Sunday Apr 25, 2010 - 00:00 to Saturday May 01, 2010 - 23:59 Other Notes: None at this time Graph of Totals 350 300 250 200 150 too 50 ILI I I 00 0102 03 04 05 06 07 08 0910 ii 1213141516 i7 1819 20 2122 23 Weekly Vehicle Volume Report Location: - "Vons East Driveway - 4145 30th Street File Number: 031.02.3 Counter ID: 109 Direction: West Bound Volume Report Duration: Sunday Apr 25, 2010 - 00:00 to Saturday May 01, 2010 - 23:59 Other Notes: None at this time Graph of Totals 350 300 250 200 150 100 so . . ... . . . . . ), 00 0102 03040106 07 08 091011121314151617181920 2122 Z Time Sun 4125 Mon 4126 Tue 4127 Wad 41" Thu 4129 Frt 4130 Sat 5101 7 Day Total 00.00 - 0a:59 0 8 9 6 5 7 0 _ 33 01:00-01:69 0 5 3 3 t 5 0 17 02'.00 - 02:59 0 5 2 1 2 2 a 12 03:00 - 03:59 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 5 04:00 - 04:59 0 2 2 3 4 2 0 13 05:00 - 06:69 0 3 0 2 3 4 0 12 06:00 - 06:59 0 9 11 15 10 8 0 53 07.00-0758 0 14 17 18 17 20 0 86 2s:oo-08:69 0 18 22 22 19 16 0 95 09:00-09:.59 D 18 24 24 30 37 0 133 10A0. 10:59 0 30 26 27 22 38 0 141 11:00.11:5,J 0...._:.:38<::...133 Al`: :.:.` 33 . 44� 12:00-1259 'O::r '40"'-. 41 '.34.,. `41 `. 43 0 199 13:00 - 13:69 0 33 23 31 41 57 0 185 14:00 -14:69 0 . 52 43 - 40 33 45 0 213 16:00 -15:69 0 44 53 44 47 64 0 242 i8:00-1059 z0' 67 _62 61- 67 83 0 310 t7:00-17:59 r0., `61.., .. 62 48 79 • .., 60'" % '0 290 18:00 -18:59 0 62 60 66 58 73 0 309 19:00 -19:69 0 46 60 52 49 68 a 262 20:00. 2a:59 0 46 41 43 48 48 0 223 21:00 - 21:69 0 43 33 32 30 29 0 173 =00-22:69 0 1s 23 17 29 26 0 110 23:00 - 23:69 0 4 10 9 4 14 0 41 Total 0 648 650 630 668 744 0 3347 M1 Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume 0:00 Ot59 0 1"0 12:59 0 11:00 11:59 39 16:16 17:14 71 11:00 11:59 33 16.45 17:44 67 11:00 11:59 41 17:15 18:14 62 11:00 11 :69 33 17:00 17:59 79 10:46 11:44 49 17:45 18:44 73 0:00 0:59 0 12:0 12:6 0 Time Sun 4125 Mon 4120 Tue 4127 Wed 4128 Thu 4129 Fri 4730 Sat 5101 7 Day Total 00:00 - 0D:59 0 10 12 13 9 6 0 5o 01:00-01:69 0 2 2 4 2 5 0 15 02:00 - 02:69 0 8 5 4 6 9 a 29 o3:oo-o3:59 0 5 2 1 2 1 0 11 04:00 - 04:59 0 4 3 5 3 5 0 20 05:00 - 05:59 0 13 2 9 7 5 0 36 05:00 - 06:69 0 17 18 20 19 20 0 94 07:00 - 07:59 a 32 28 27 30 39 0 156 08,00 - 05:69 0 z7 33 34 35 32 0 161 0M-09.59 0 38 30 27 36 3B 0 169 10:00-10:69 0 42 32 39 37 35 0 185 11:00 -11:59 :. 0 ' --" 48 _ _.. 40 _ 43 41 50 0 222 12*W-12:59 -.0: .41 45 36 39 43 0 - 204 1100-13:5.9 0 43 33 36 40 46 a 198 t400 -14:59 0 88 44 43 40 51 0 238 15:00 -16:69 0 60 62 55. 67 83 0 297 16:00 -16:60 "0 ... <. 62 .... 68 69 ` 61 .. .59 .0 .. 307 17:00 -17:59 0 ...:: _• 70 .... - - 67 68 " - ' 76 69 - 0 340 18:00- 18:59 0 60 64 56 s6 62 0 304 1BM-19:59 0 56 58 62 66 61 0 294 20:00-20:69 0 47 42 42 4e 49 0 226 21:00 - 21:59 a 36 37 37 34 38 0 165 22.00. 22:59 _ 0 26 31 23 26 33 0 _ 139 23:00 - 23:59 0 12 10 11 11 29 0 73 Total 0 817 767 756 772 840 0 3951 AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume 0:00 0:59 0 12:00 12:59 0 10:30 11:28 49 15:45 16:44 70 10:45 11:44 41 15:30 16:29 72 11:00 11:59 .43 17:15 18:14 69 11:00 11:59 41 1715 18:14 77 10:45 11:44 51 11:15 18:14 72 0. 0:69 0 12:00 12:59 0 br��+,� Cowrls C��L-I�d af -� 1 a ca;-{c 1 aL"F ell v -e ry J,+VV� � j ad p7eet ('-' .#L� VD 6 21 -/,' �6 �m feeUte-l- kol", Mumt-6 .rvrvrvrvnnn�v�YA�A�«.w4»n_na.rvrvrv«..«m«»«..•��_» mm �" a Sul- ..e,.h.> .,eo .,...,e.,r § «,,..M� « ...„.. ------------------------------------------------ i' ------------ xi� vvovv,>uvvvvvvv..vnv.vvna..+vr• .. ... .. .�.._ .� .,...+.� . . ui Nis.......00«� ----o.,.>.,.>.>e.,......�yB«o Soe. �` ..N..nn.,Mn.,nn.n.�..nNNmNMm-.N-..MnNN.,H......•... ~ .. x: v � �e..meeeeem..H..nn.Ndnnrv.mm H �,Hn �� _`( V,^MHH.,...,nn�.nnM�n N . � �' -,���..�V,...�_NrvNNN�N.,nn.N.���MHH�.•.. ms. H mMmrvr, OvyH_H^THi--H-m--- J�K__00000c000O.aorooy-o_-.vv t .............]mnooM..mwNe - 3. 2` NeNe..e NomoN�Nm...>NONnn N Nm McNeNmNmNe,.�N.>NeNomoN"f a ,.M.eHn.�..N.eHM.�nn.nn� 8,.•..oHn-�HM.m..nye«�re�.]y ., . • S �.�_..�,>.,onnnee.�o.>no=mneonnnnonmmme�nn.>Nee....,...,H d>°m MNnMnMM..--.Nv.MM.M..Maa.,NMNN..HN•.e, r�omm ,�`[\ o n.�n nnnmV. MMmeN .. HmH nNn rvHHHn•...Mn..n�.i ---------------------------------------- A.. HM rcrc NN NN rvry N nn•.ry Nrvrvrv-+•. •+•+-.•••aHH.,nH pnr v �� • V HnVVVnov..nM V.,vnw n n�N R:�w ••� a.. f. • 3M .,.>mnNONnNmmmN�meNe«3 i d s$ • ffi�mmog,$8m,»e.ann.,.>......nn.>mm�n............. �$� t>°a J f Ili N m b b Ilk�.M •+ NM1'e.amN•+N�f-NwM1m.nmmM1mNw�.OMbYMNNbwMN.,MNN------,ON.+O N M .i . ♦ ♦ t N N m � N � OQOovv..Oo0000..... ..,0oo.+0Hmo N.-f .iN m.a0 r,0 •+N u.<•-.YwP.-f ----------------------------------------------- .♦ n b � N N . N + . . tl-•00.-I.io riN �f.iONONOr4'IONoo0000otVo000o000000000o0000ro i t . , R , t . •i .. t H 040000 ovd.0000.00000vvdatld00000aH ovo00od0000400.. .sH •r.i N F • -_------_--_-.- -------------..-----_------------_-_ O N N a m b M rvbm.aNE-�•��mwmu,Mf-m of m•n rtw�WMM•uM �NmwMN.imNN.f ridOVHONri of- 9�r O VUUOOOOQOOo00..UUON.-IOd V-tU.fMONnn•Y `o •y0•-Io r1 NN Y-+wwPHf^ N tdulOv,Ouid u)Ob4hONONONp uI Nou, o,n u,0 u10 u)O NOu,ON4u)OulOuf .�iFY T ��•. uriMwO.�MaU.amwO.-fM aO.,Mm6nMaU-+maO.iM YO.-1m v0.f 1•,v 0•, f•IP o.fMv ; Y N.VNo.'••'f.fNNNNMmMmPPvabYlhu]wm•ow.�f+M1 hNmmm.,lm bOI0000'f rf .i •�O�yh�y• d0� • d000000000000vavOtlO40oo000000000000-1 .f •, •'f i1 .V .i NE❑M (u�M k .n.yMONb+Om1�MN.amvYhmNMY1T n`vvmMfl Yr+v.-I n1m NrINO{-ooMtlO�O.aO . 4 • a ♦ s N • Y m � m � OOoo.00000avvO00NO00v00.•ON•.M McNMNnvNVN.-t .lmNhmMmn pN6, ----------------------------------------------- .......... 00gOoo00•-lN P.i .l 000.O0o.o0on000000v0000 V 9•m �t M n o O v ...................... 1- VVV��V _ -_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - O b N M m M N N .♦ N .1 N N N .-! n.♦NONVInmrONe-IV YvhmNMvmmUlMmm.lY rlY.a !'Im N.1 .+drOOMOO.Io.YOb un' �N� fl • • . t i N + v m r ti .a N N 11 q 7 m OMOul9 movla ulonOnOnonomOnONOMOnONvul0 Y10 mom F.L EW �dnm•po n-1 rmYo..mvo..Mao.Im Yo.�mvo..Mao.+mvo.amco.iMvo.lMvo •.r .�ca NNN0000000000000d0000000000000000000000a.0i �.O•i .i.l .1 .lII Oc�im wpw E ' nvNmnmrMYr M.aY..bMmrM Y.•vb.r...mmmmM.omn M.♦...r d.-r .aoNN.lvn olro l= aY o g� s a • > a r .. B ' { oo00o.000o00..OVOO.aOVOV N7•f.-1-•N-+o .�mnm.l .•N e•ONaO.oNMrin f L O i v O O g O o O.a a o .a0 O O g G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v o-- 0 0 0 0 v- O 00 0 0 0 0 a o a a g 0 n ✓! s� n. q • f • ♦ a a a • ♦ • r m O O O O O o o O o o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ........... tl ....... ------------------------------------------------- 1 � O In « .i w N N .+ .i •' Y I �MN./IVNM.♦mbM Ylnm.aP.a'c MVrTvvv.v.a.-IMNN mt', .•1 �'1 /INM•!.•lo.a .lONN.-Ie.-! b �l Mrvl- • a • ♦ .. s r v .! h .♦ r � EOOO000000Oggo000000.-IOOOON M.I.in.l0.imm n.!•IN VONVOmNn.•f .-1� vvh I � U 4 O m O N ON O N 0 M q+0 o m O m 0 N g n 0 m O b O Y1v m O m O V1 0 m O n v M O M O M O m o n n n w� Y �� W �Orp.-IM VOrImYOrim vO.lwvOnMVO.imvOr.mvO....... .. In vo.iMVO.. mvo.im v!! YJ y■MN�1��9O n.-lNNItlNMMmmvYvvmmmmbmmNF.....nOnnnn.Ommmm..... r1.1 ei0y�• NO2 pF .l OOOOOOOOOgOgOo0000nOOg.l .1 .••N rvr♦.Y rlHOvl W7w N U N N N tbV' ✓1 N '♦ m N N ♦ • i • .� m a m N •1 N ..................... nmOQOOmMNnma..N)o ___-._.__m._.--_____-_-___---_- -. N M N • •� • ♦ R IOOnQMeoo00 Nei 0.-f.�oN OO..POPO........P000000P i • t ♦ t .a s f n ........................................... N o 000c U000....QO..+OOoo...-... .i .�N Wm000ONmNNFrnom Nw O no �)e�mmOwOnOnPNpvlPmonononOYlOmOmOnOv10 YIOmOYlO Po.am w�O.+mvO.♦M<o..mvOriMYo.♦mvo.imMO.amvo.•Im �.i PO. .i .+Nrymm.VvmNwwwmFFFhmmmmOlm R�010000ei .-I .i POoO obdQOO..0o000000000000000000.i r1 �•1 �Y rl ri ri F� y9W T.i d yi tli AN WDm N N m N• N -• MNNn.ym�mMM�mn��m�n.nYMMm �.-Im OI�YMNM.rmNnom.-10 O.♦ONm.♦oo dam � s l it R k • .� m b NQIP N 0000OckO0o00.-IOOOOOOOOOOOOOr+NMMMNO.INmONmM.1 .•M i•mMO.i .-. •a r.00.iooN.+0oN0 O.a-•-^-------.oOooN.•000Oa000o0000000000F �Vo O a o 0 0 tl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 00 O a.s ................. N++ N r♦ N ri �l N M N � m m yNNv'rlM �rmMmMnMmmnYlmv�mF N.+m mmMMMM.iM NNonNb o.-fONM.io ov m tiFmm m N >000000000P.)OaaOPPOOP..a..-INnIm N.'10 .-INmONmM.i.tm P.n [n O•f ..0 4 ya Op nn.nonO�n.O+�co�imaonnnc•nOnevinnonOnOnovlOmOnONriN O.nan O{O.L SEW V•tl•♦mvo.lm vQrlM VO.�.nao�IM...o.imao.�Meq YryN •1 VNNNorl rinNNNNmmmmaV•�oNm)OY).➢mmwFOFb Ocmion��00a��.bi �w �..��N r10 T.-1 JIO� .♦Hbm W>M m�Fl."�."I�rlooObOeO000OdoQPO000000OdO O ' "� anon is -----------------------------------------------, s �,nonenynyaynyno�yn°aano�y.�.>»oran<nennnen,nenenu •. s: tt------------------------------------------------ to i oI> �yayuoouo»yaooeyyyuu.�o.en.. n,•enna_.,anry.a�.aa_r Wr MIS �V y r."----'---- �y n 71M PIa oaa>000Qevee.vene.e-a...,"___o_--«-" �S a9� "00� 0 0 o ad d�eRSo o»o 0 00.00 .," °gz 4R >v aos IY �-�_.n-.n+__rvnrvn,+-.wnaa•,nnn.Unm.M n.�riwi�.ni��i"rrraa•.n�no..n name..... aoe ______ _ __ « • .. N r N n n � 1 (� r rvnnrv».,ry nnnrvnnnrvnnn nrvn,.«n nrvNnnn«..«» ,• mmn Nw•.. i � . o«monn..n4. nn44 •4n ,nn•.«a.m,.m ««»ry _, .... _.«,Y»ry u i 83rt R� g « . • • • « ^ n N n vl 4Un U---Um m m--mm n«vMn N.+MrvNn i nNmn vY,m ti „' ------------------------------------------------ q' bl u u 4 u 444 a UN44e 44 vnUM44....rv..4M Nr N t........«40.00000000000000000000004o4000e4ao4««....«««�Y.3° �LiN rynrvrvMNrvnnnnnnnngnNnnnrynNNN«NN«.anr.t .+ nH< o <\ ^ q£ Ogag0000 oovv.OGo00VOannu,mq ^«OryN w««rve,NN«N�iN n {. HN 'xa „« rry" awn„"wn"wwn ^ N<,n ..nwnryry..mm�n«nary«.« —naono—_Ygaaaqoa^^-------------~---~--«~~----- �V Ea.� �wq,a".,Ewa.,q"q.nqa•gn�gq,a<>wenoggronononngq�,�nqx,q.,aw�v� y�.,n•<q«n..o..nrgnneq.,<�.a.,,.,.<q.,�,r�,...._q..n..n..,,..�.,.,..q�Na qq u iF��.+-.ognnngn qn nvnn0000gon vueeq ggevgnqq on n..n..«...a �iN �i�ry O 3 L r bz/4Z m 3�V 1 (� 04/04 -.A t" IZLZz � L/L O rv� N e ¢ sa4 5 N o j Z/z AM 6W n Oa bY1H5Or � SS ,o a ^ oa vnNsor <</<<r� �fi----- -� xi I vl I Sb31MVd _ J NMOU ,H ,7/17 — m e e • 2/2 wNa--0i/0Y cs� 4 H al } I Im N :. 60/61 ry r (' 28/28 O O Lo I i N ✓ 5� N a O�I., tidjti �. �SryAItiA 0q� ' Hl dd sc��1NlVd zRli4Sr Y � LL x a a 2 a Q 3W A3b311v&v 4 J W. WHEor L al r %%z � 1 t r r� naN a 0 d'31N3,l MW% Hl `dd S&.31Nidd 0 a a 3AY 80B w w� rN J IA ZZA Q .W H31N30 NMOl oa mHsor � 4 Ob YnN$or y C i H T x V I W G+ e N1Yd L ---- 12/31NIYd —� Llrllxr) W �. w a 5 as c m cis 32 a g APPENDIX D EXISTING + PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS LINWOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLCM Ref. 3-10-1991 Vons Palm Desert N:\1991NA=2011 Submillal\lteportlAppCvr.1991.doe HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bob Hope Dr & Hwy 111 6/2712011 Lane Configurations 4� M 4� Vi W r )) tflt* Volume (vph) 3 4 6 586 4 36 18 1469 328 83 1170 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,93 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1693 3221 1578 1770 5085 1537 3433 5077 Fit Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1693 3221 1578 1770 5085 1537 3433 5077 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 3 4 7 637 4 39 20 1597 357 90 1272 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 6 0 0 0 134 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 7 0 459 215 0 20 1597 223 90 1283 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Split Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 25.1 25.1 3.4 65.9 65.9 16.0 78.5 Effective Green, g (s) 3.0 25.1 25.1 3.4 65.9 65.9 16.0 78.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.51 0.51 0.12 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 39 622 305 46 2578 779 423 3066 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.14 0.14 0.01 c0.31 0.03 c0.25 v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.74 0.70 0.43 0.62 0.29 0.21 0.42 Uniform belay, dl 62.3 49.4 49.0 62.4 23.0 18.5 51.3 13.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.20 0.23 0.31 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 4.6 7.2 6.6 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 64.6 53.9 56.1 80.2 6.3 6.6 51.6 13.7 Level of Service E D E F A A D B Approach Delay (s) 64.6 54.6 7.1 16.2 Approach LOS E D A B IntersectionurrrrY - HCM Average Control Delay 18.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62,20k ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Magnesia Falls Dr & Hwy 111 6/29/2011 --* --,, -t 'r 4*- 4 41 t 1` '1. 41 Lane Configurations 4 if 4 r ) ttT ) tt1a Volume (vph) 15 9 61 82 7 44 44 1756 76 41 1679 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1,00 1.00 0.95 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 1,00 0,97 1.00 1,00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1,00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prat) 1807 1536 1681 1699 1536 1770 5043 1770 5076 Fit Permitted 0,97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 Said, Flow (perm) 1807 1536 1681 1699 1536 1770 5043 1770 5076 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 16 10 66 89 8 48 48 1909 83 45 1825 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 60 0 0 44 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 26 6 48 49 4 48 1990 0 45 1842 0 Confl. Peds. (9/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 11.7 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.1 80.0 12.1 80.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 117 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.1 80,0 12.1 80.0 . Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0,09 0.09 0,09 0.09 0.59 0.09 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 132 151 152 138 157 2966 157 2986 v/s Ratio Prot c0,01 0.03 c0.03 c0.03 c0.39 0.03 0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.04 0.32 0.32 0,03 0.31 0.67 0.29 0.62 Uniform Delay, d1 67.6 57.0 58.0 58.0 56.5 58.0 19.0 57.9 18.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 01 1.2 1,2 0.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 Delay (s) 58.1 57.1 59.2 59.3 66.6 59.1 20.3 68.9 19.1 Level of Service E E E E E E C E $ Approach Delay (s) 57.4 58.4 21.2 20.0 Approach LOS E E C C HCM Average Control Delay 22,8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0. Sum of lost time (s) 20,0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Magnesia Falls Dr & Joshua Rd 6/2712011 --* '`ir f *-- /10 Lane Configurations T. 4 Y Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 17 25 6 16 31 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 27 7 17 34 13 Volume Total (vph) 46 24 47 Volume Left (vph) 0 7 34 Volume Right (vph) 27 0 13 Hadl (s) -0.32 0.09 0.01 Departure Headway (s) 3,7 4.1 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.03 0.05 Capacity (veh/h) 953 855 863 Control Delay (s) 6.9 7.2 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6.9 7.2 7.3 Approach LOS A A A I.... ........ on_;7unmaty Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Parkview Dr & Hwy 111 6/27/2011 Lane Configurations + *T r Vi fit+ if ) +0 Volume (vph) 28 8 8 55 17 193 39 1661 40 159 1635 56 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Oil. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 0.99 1.00 0.97 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 0.97 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 Said. Flow (prot) 1734 1772 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5052 Fit Permitted 0.75 0.79 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1339 1451 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5052 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 30 9 9 60 18 210 42 1697 43 173 1777 61 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 190 0 0 14 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 40 0 0 78 20 42 1697 29 173 1837 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.5 12.5 12.5 7.4 72.5 72.5 30.0 95.1 Effective Green, g (s) 12.5 12.5 12.5 7.4 72.5 72.5 30.0 95,1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.56 0.56 0.23 0.73 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 140 148 101 2836 857 408 3696 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.33 0.10 c0.36 vis Ratio Perm 0.03 00.05 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.31 0.56 0.14 0.42 HO 0.03 0.42 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 54.7 56.1 53.8 59.2 19.1 13.0 42.6 7.4 Progression Factor 1.00 0.95 1.56 1.29 0.37 0.13 0.72 0.09 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 4.7 0.4 2.5 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.4 Delay (s) 56.1 58.1 84.2 79.1 7.8 1.7 31.3 1.1 Level of Service E E F E A A C A Approach Delay (s) 56.1 77.2 9.4 3,7 Approach LOS E E A A HCM Average Control Delay 11.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Parkview Dr & Dwy #1 6127/2011 —1' 'IV 41" art-- 4 Lane Configurations T iw 11 t Y Volume (vehlh) 132 75 65 176 89 122 0.92 133 Volume Total 143 82 71 191 229 Volume Left 0 0 71 0 97 Volume Right 0 82 0 0 133 cSH 1700 1700 1321 1700 659 Volume to Capacity 0,08 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 0 39 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 13.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.1 13.3 Approach LOS B - Average Delay 5.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 5 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Parkview Dr & Dwy #2 6/27/2011 With R-2 Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 250 4 27 237 4 27 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 272 4 29 258 4 29 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 871 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 286 610 294 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 284 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 326 vCu, unblocked vol 286 610 294 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 1265 618 733 vib Volume Total 276 287 34 Volume Left 0 29 4 Volume Right 4 0 29 cSH 1700 1265 716 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 10.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 10.3 Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Parkview Dr & Joshua Rd 6/27/2011 Lane Configurations 1� I T. + 4 Volume (veh1h) 23 251 3 7 230 32 5 1 2 31 1 29 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 273 3 8 250 35 5 1 2 34 1 32 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ftls) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 295 286 642 644 294 628 629 287 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 334 334 293 293 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 307 310 336 336 vCu, unblocked vol 295 286 642 644 294 628 629 287 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7,1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 100 100 94 100 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 1256 1265 536 528 733 560 538 739 yr Late # 1 1` 1�1f8 2 Volume Total 25 276 8 285 9 66 Volume Left 25 0 8 0 5 34 Volume Right 0 3 0 35 2 32 cSH 1256 1700 1265 1700 574 633 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.16 0.01 0.17 0.02 0.10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 1 9 Control Delay (s) 7.9 0.0 7.9 0.0 11.4 11.4 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.7 0.2 11.4 11.4 Approach LOS B B Ijtt�tSQr3 Sumn't� � L �... Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Parkview Dr & Monterey Ave 6/27/2011 ''* --+ -i 'r 4-- 4-- .4\ `' t "f Lane Configurations T* % vj tt r tf r Volume (vph) 129 62 130 172 92 136 123 757 93 129 864 118 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/blkes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1753 1640 1750 1666 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Fit Permitted 0.38 1.00 0.46 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 710 1640 847 1666 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 140 67 141 187 100 148 134 823 101 140 939 128 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 68 0 0 48 0 0 0 47 0 0 54 Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 140 0 187 200 0 134 823 54 140 939 74 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 15.2 69.7 69.7 15.2 69.7 69.7 Effective Green, g (s) 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1 15.2 69.7 69.7 15.2 69.7 69.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.54 0.54 0.12 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 164 380 196 386 207 1897 824 401 1897 824 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.12 o0.08 0.23 0.04 c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 c0.22 0.04 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.37 0.95 0.52 0.65 0.43 0.07 0.35 0.49 0.09 Uniform Delay, dl 47.8 42.0 49.3 43.6 54.8 18.2 14.5 52.8 19.0 14.7 Progression Factor 0.77 0.57 1.00 1.00 1.09 0.31 0.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 32.5 0.6 50.8 1.2 5.9 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.2 Delay (s) 69.3 24.5 100.0 44.8 65.7 6.3 2.7 53.4 20.0 14.9 Level of Service E C F D E A A D 8 B Approach Delay (s) 42.5 68.6 13.5 23.3 Approach LOS D E B C HCM Average Control Delay 28.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dwy #3 & Hwy 111 6/27/2011 Lane Configurations r +++ r +++ Volume (veh/h) 0 106 1534 127 0 1722 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0°% 0% 00/0 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 115 1667 138 0 1872 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 615 595 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.82 0.82 vC, conflicting volume 2311 576 1815 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 916 0 1236 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 87 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 240 877 456 Volume Total 115 556 556 556 138 624 624 624 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 115 0 0 0 138 0 0 0 cSH 877 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.08 0.37 0.37 0.37 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.7 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.1°% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Pago 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fred Waring Dr & Hwy 111 6/27/2011 --* _10. --v f- k. -N i Lane Configurations M ++ + r M +++ rr )) ffi� )) +0 Volume (vph) 62 122 41 171 161 365 39 1219 110 348 1331 43 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 Lane Utii. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1,00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fipb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1537 3433 5085 2705 3433 5010 3433 5057 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1537 3433 5085 2705 3433 5010 3433 5057 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 67 133 45 186 175 397 42 1325 120 378 1447 47 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 350 0 5 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 67 133 3 186 175 47 42 1440 0 378. 1493 0 Confi, Pods, (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.8 8'8 8.8 13.4 15.4 15.4 6.1 66.6 21.0 81.7 Effective Green, g (s) 6.8 8.8 8.8 13.4 15.4 15.4 6.1 66.8 21.0 81.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.51 0.16 0,63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 344 104 354 602 320 161 2574 655 3178 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.03 c0,05 0.03 0.01 c0.29 c0.11 0.30 A Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 We Ratio 0.37 0.39 0.03 0.53 0.29 0.15 0.26 0.66 0.68 0.47 Uniform Delay, dl 59.5 58.0 56,6 55.3 52.3 61.4 59.8 21.6 51.3 12.7 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.86 3.37 1.60 0.13 0.78 0.74 Incremental Delay, d2 1.3 0,7 0.1 1.4 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.7 3.1 0.4 Delay (s) 60,8 58.7 56.7 49.4 45.1 173.3 96.5 3.5 43.0 9.9 Level of Service E E E D D F F A D A Approach Delay (s) 58.9 113.3 6.1 16.6 Approach LOS E F A B 1066tJLltl1]t1Y = imim a: -� HCM Average Control Delay 32.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 6/27/2011 HCM All -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Ex + P Mid 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 11.2 2.4 4.4 0.9 0.8 0.3 3.5 2.6 2.3 6127/2011 Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #5 6/27/2011 Lane Configurations ttt ttt F F Volume (veh/h) 0 0.92 0 459 656 21 0 21 0.92 23 40 �9-6- M ,_ _: 8 Volume Total 166 166 166 238 238 238 23 23 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Might 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 23 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 977 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS A )r+tersedianmmary - - Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10I11l2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 12 Vons Palm Desert 10I11l2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Fred Waring Dr & Town Center Way 6/2712011 -,* -0- ',* f -*- AN Lane Configurations R ttt r 11 tO . Vi f r "� + F Volume (vph) 15 352 92 184 526 27 141 26 205 23 13 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Fipb, pod/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Sold, Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5037 1739 1863 1537 1739 1863 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (perm) 1770 6085 1537 3433 6037 1370 1863 1637 1353 1863 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 16 383 100 200 572 29 153 28 223 25 14 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 88 0 5 0 0 0 80 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 383 12 200 596 0 163 28 143 25 14 7 Confl, Pods. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 15.6 15.6 15.9 28.3 83.5 83.5 83.5 83.5 83.5 83.5 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 15.6 15.6 15.9 28.3 83.5 83.5 83.5 83.5 83.6 83.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (ss) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 44 610 184 420 1097 880 1197 987 869 1197 987 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.08 0.06 c0.12 0.02 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.11 0.09 0,02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.63 0.07 0.48 0.54 0.17 0.02 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 62.4 54.4 50.7 63.2 45.1 9.4 8.4 9.2 8.5 8A 8.4 Progression Factor 1.06 1.11 3.07 0.63 0.46 1.05 1.12 2.52 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 1.7 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 70.3 62.2 155.8 28.7 21.4 10.3 9.5 23A 8.5 8.4 8.4 Level of Service E E F C C B A C A A A Approach Delay (s) 81.2 23.2 17.5 8.5 Approach LOS F C B A - t 1 ►iection S IB - _-- HCM Average Control Delay 38.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Avenue 6/27/2011 Lane Configurations 1) ++T 1) +0 1) ++T )) ttt r Volume (vph) 272 268 73 264 564 177 80 598 206 270 616 166 Ideal Flow (vphpQ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0,97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, pod/bikes 1.00 0.99 1,00 0.99 1.00 0,99 1,00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1,00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 4892 3433 4869 3433 4853 3433 5085 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 4892 3433 4869 3433 4853 3433 5085 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 296 291 79 287 613 192 87 650 224 293 670 180 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 48 0 0 42 0 0 0 100 Lane Group Flow (vph) 296 324 0 287 757 0 87 832 0 293 670 80 Confi. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.4 14.4 28.9 26.9 8.8 46.7 20.0 57.9 57.9 Effective Green, g (s) 16.4 14.4 28,9 26.9 8.8 46.7 20.0 57,9 57.9 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.13 0.11 0,22 0,21 0,07 0.36 0.15 0,45 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 _ _ 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 433 542 763 1008 232 1743 528 .2265 685 Ws Ratio Prot c0.09 0.07 0.08 c0.16 0.03 c0,17 c0.09 0.13 vls Ratio Perm 0.05 vlc Ratio 0.68 0.60 0.38 0.75 0.38 0.48 0.55 0.30 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 54.3 55.0 42.9 48.4 68.0 32.2 50.9 23.0 21.1 Progression Factor 1.20 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.47 0.17 Incremental Delay, d2 4.4 1.8 0.3 3.2 1.0 0.9 1.1 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 69.7 59.6 43.2 51.6 59.0 33.2 37.8 11.2 3.9 Level of Service E E D D E C D B A Approach Delay (s) 64.1 49.4 35.5 16.9 Approach LOS E D D B HCM Average Control Delay 38.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Hwy 111 & Town Center Way 6/27/2011 Lane Configurations )) W r 11 ttt r 1) tT+ tt r Volume (vph) 151 996 226 74 962 93 303 79 16 113 63 50 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 &0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Will. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, pedibikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 1.00 1,00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3435 3433 3539 1560 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3435 3433 3539 1560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad]. Flow (vph) 164 1083 246 80 1046 101 329 86 17 123 68 54 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 13 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 164 1083 246 80 1046 26 329 90 0 123 68 54 Confl, Peds. (Whr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 11.6 33,3 130,0 12.2 34.0 34.0 33.6 33.5 31.0 30.9 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.5 33.3 130.0 12.2 34.0 34.0 33.6 33,5 31.0 30.9 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.26 1.00 0.09 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.24 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 304 1303 1560 322 1330 402 887 885 819 841 1560 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.21 0.02 c0.21 c0.10 0.03 0.04 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.02 0,03 v/c Ratio 0,54 0.83 0.16 0.25 0.79 0.07 0.37 0.10 0.16 0,08 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 66.7 45.7 0.0 64.6 44.6 36.1 39.5 36.8 39.1 38.5 0.0 Progression Factor 0.82 0.74 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 0,30 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.7 4.3 0.2 0.4 3.1 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 48.2 38.0 0.2 55.1 47.8 36.1 40.7 37.0 12.4 11.8 0.0 Level of Service D D A E D D D D B B A Approach Delay (s) 32.9 47.3 39.8 9.5 Approach LOS C D D A HCM Average Control Delay 37.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bob Hope Dr & Hwy 111 6/2712011 Lane Configurations 14" 4- Vi ttt r 1) ttt+ Volume (vph) 307 69 21 151 66 34 78 1516 232 87 1474 199 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0,99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0,98 Fit Protected 0.96 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1777 3221 1594 1770 5085 1533 3433 4963 Fit Permitted 0.96 0.95 0.99 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1777 3221 1594 1770 5085 1533 3433 4963 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 334 75 23 164 72 37 85 1648 252 95 1602 2% RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 102 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 430 0 148 114 0 85 1648 150 95 1808 0 Conft. Peds. (#lhr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Split Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 15.9 15.9 12.5 72.1 72.1 8.0 67.6 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 15.9 15.9 12.5 72.1 72.1 8.0 67.6 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.48 0.48 0.06 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0. Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 403 341 169 148 2444 737 183 2237 vls Ratio Prot c0.24 0.05 c0.07 0.05 c0.32 0.03 c0.36 vls Ratio Perm 0.10 We Ratio 1.07 0.43 0.68 0.57 0.67 0.20 0.52 0.81 Uniform Delay, d1 58.0 62.8 64.6 66.2 29.9 22.4 69.1 35.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 64.1 0.9 10.2 5.3 1.5 0.6 2.5 2.2 Delay (s) 122.1 63.7 74.8 71.5 31.4 23.0 71.6 37.8 Level of Service F E E E C C E D Approach Delay (s) 122.1 68,8 32.1 39.5 Approach LOS F E C D HCM Average Control Delay 45.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page f HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Magnesia Falls Dr & Hwy 111 6129/2011 � -� � � � 4- 4\ t �► 1 Lane Configurations 4 r 4 if ) ttt ) W. Volume (vph) 24 4 33 77 10 37 30 1765 32 20 1618 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 17B5 1536 1681 1704 1536 1770 5067 1770 5080 At Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1785 1536 1681 1704 1536 1770 5067 1770 5080 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 26 4 36 84 11 40 33 1918 35 22 1759 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 33 . 0 0 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 30 3 47 48 4 33 1952 0 22 1768 0 Confl. Peds. (9/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 11.7 12.2 12.2 12.2 13.2 81.9 10.2 78.9 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 11.7 12.2 12.2 12.2 13.2 81.9 10.2 78.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0,09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.60 0,07 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 154 132 151 153 136 172 3051 133 2947 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.03 c0.03 0.02 c0.39 0.01 c0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.02 0.31 0.31 0.03 0.19 0.64 0.17 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 57.8 56.9 58.0 58.0 56.5 56.5 17.5 58.9 18.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 1.2 1.2 0,1 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.9 Delay (s) 68.4 57.0 59.1 59.2 56.6 57.0 18.5 59.5 19.3 Level of Service E E E E E E B E B Approach Delay (s) 57.6 58.4 19.2 %B Approach LOS E E B B tetsctten bra nary = - - HCM Average Control Delay 21.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Magnesia Falls Dr & Joshua Rd 612712011 -4► " y or- 4-- 4% /1" Lane Configurations 1j 4 Y Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 3 17 2 25 27 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 18 2 27 29 4 Volume Total (vph) 22 29 34 Volume Left (vph) 0 2 29 Volume Right (vph) 18 0 4 Hadj (s) -0.48 0.06 0.13 Departure Headway (s) 3,5 4.0 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.02 OM 0.04 Capacity (vehlh) 1002 878 849 Control Delay (s) 6.6 7.2 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6,6 7.2 7.3 Approach LOS A A A lntefsact�on Sumtrlary - � h �- Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AO Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Parkview Dr & Hwy 111 1 6127/2011 Z_1:� Lane Configurations r '�'�'� �` �"� �► Volume (vph) 31 20 7 54 8 154 37 1669 37 164 1553 32 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1,00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0,99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) 1762 1762 1537 1770 6085 1537 1770 5065 FltPermitted 0,80 0.72 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1442 1329 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 6065 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 34 22 8 59 9 167 40 1814 40 178 1688 35 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 152 0 0 10 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 59 0 0 68 15 40 1814 30 178 1722 0 Confl, Peds. (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.9 11.9 11.9 16.0 83.7 83.7 19.4 87.1 Effective Green, g (s) 11.9 11.9 11.9 16.0 83.7 83.7 19.4 87.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0,09 0.12 0.64 0.64 0.15 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 132 122 141 218 3274 990 264 3394 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.36 c0.10 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.05 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.56 0.11 0.18 0.55 0.03 0,67 0.51 Uniform Delay, d1 55.9 66.5 54.2 51.1 12.8 8.4 62.3 10.7 Progression Factor 1.00 0.91 1.13 1.00 0.20 0.07 0.75 0.64 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 5.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.1 6.0 0.5 Delay (s) 58.3 57.0 61.7 51.7 3.2 0.6 45.0 7.4 Level of Service E E E D A A D A Approach Delay (s) 58.3 60.3 4.1 10.9 Approach LOS E E A B HCM Average Control Delay 11.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Parkview Dr & Dwy #1 6/27/2011 --I,. -1-* 411" 1 -- 4N 711, Lane Configurations + r '� t ;Yr` Volume (veh/h) 147 74 49 146 70 143 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 160 80 53 159 76 155 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 625 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 250 445 180 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 250 445 180 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 96 86 82 cM capacity (veh/h) 1304 638 849 A�ortr-- Volume Total 160 80 53 159 232 Volume Left 0 0 53 0 76 Volume Right 0 80 0 0 155 cSH 1700 1700 1304 1700 713 Volume to Capacity 0,09 0,05 0.04 0.09 0.32 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 0 35 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 12.5 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.0 12.5 Approach LOS B )rrtsbsrn 5urnrn► =�. Average Delay 4.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Parkview Dr & Dwy #2 6127/2011 Lane Configurations To 4 Y Volume (vehlh) 286 4 25 190 5 29 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 311 4 27 207 5 32 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (fUs) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 871 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 325 594 333 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 323 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 271 vCu, unblocked vol 325 594 333 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5A tF (s) 2,2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 1224 627 697 DlreettonP L�nr�#It Volume Total 315 234 37 Volume Left 0 27 5 Volume Right 4 0 32 cSH 1700 1224 686 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.02 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.1 10.5 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.1 10.5 Approach LOS B t<l�`sev�ic� Si►mmary — .� -�- - Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Parkview Dr & Joshua Rd 6/27/2011 Lane Configurations '* Vi 1� + 4 Volume (veh/h) 23 286 6 8 194 23 4 2 10 25 2 17 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 011/0 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 311 7 9 211 25 4 2 11 27 2 18 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft1s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 246 327 632 637 334 634 628 243 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 374 374 261 251 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 258 263 383 377 vCu, unblocked vol 246 327 632 637 334 634 628 243 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 100 98 95 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1309 1222 545 529 696 543 632 782 Volume Total 25 317 9 236 17 48 Volume Left 25 0 9 0 4 27 Volume Right 0 7 0 25 11 18 cSH 1309 1700 1222 1700 628 615 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.19 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 0 2 6 Control Delay (s) 7.8 0.0 8.0 0.0 10.9 11.3 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.3 10.9 11.3 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Parkview Dr & Monterey Ave 6127/2011 } - -,,* 4 4- lk_ N t j 41 Lane Configurations 1 1 tt r tt ? Volume (vph) 166 51 170 114 71 162 98 866 95 120 788 133 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0,95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0,98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1,00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,88 1.00 0.90 1.00 1,00 0,85 1.00 1,00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 Said. Flow (prot) 1753 1610 1752 1634 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 729 1610 770 1634 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 180 55 185 124 77 176 107 941 103 130 857 145 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 106 0 0 72 0 0 0 44 0 0 67 Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 134 0 124 181 0 107 941 59 130 857 78 ConFl, Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32,0 13.2 69.8 69.8 13.2 69.8 69.8 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 13.2 69.8 69.8 13.2 69.8 69.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0,25 0.10 0,54 0.54 0.10 0.54 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extensions 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 179 396 190 402 180 1900 825 349 1900 825 v/s Ratio Prot 0.08 0.11 c0.06 c0.27 0.04 0.24 v/s Ratio Perm c0.25 0.16 0.04 0.05 v/c Ratio 1.01 0.34 0.65 0.45 0.59 0.50 0.07 0.37 0.45 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 49.0 40.3 44.0 M.5 55.8 19.0 14,5 54.5 18.4 14.7 Progression Factor 0.79 0.44 1,00 1.00 0.81 0.40 0.16 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 68.6 0.5 7.8 0.8 4.7 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.2 Delay (s) 107.5 18.1 51.8 42.3 50.0 8.4 2.4 55.2 19.2 14.9 Level of Service F B D D D A A E B B Approach Delay (s) 56.4 45.4 11.7 22.8 Approach LOS E D 8 C - HCM Average Control Delay 26,0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dwy #3 & Hwy 111 6/27/2011 Lane Configurations F ttt F IM Volume (veh/h) 0 125 1618 262 Q 1638 Volume Total 136 586 586 586 285 593 593 593 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 136 0 0 0 285 0 0 0 cSH 843 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.35 0.35 0.35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 10.1 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B tn#arsael�ort-�frir��r - F �- �- Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fred Waring Dr & Hwy 111 6/29/2011 Lane Configurations 191 -tfit F in TTt FIN 'j'j TfiT TI VM Volume (vph) 44 114 42 152 124 386 37 1435 70 428 1171 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1 A0 1.00 0.85 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 .5085 1535 3433 5085 2702 3433 5043 3433 5056 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1,00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1535 3433 5085 2702 3433 5043 3433 5056 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 48 124 46 165 135 420 40 1560 76 465 1273 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 40 0 0 362 0 3 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 48 124 6 165 135 58 40 1633 0 465 1313 0 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.2 17.2 17.2 17.0 19.0 19,0 14.6 59.8 23.0 68.2 Effective Green, g (s) 15.2 17.2 17.2 17.0 19.0 19.0 14.6 59.8 23.0 68.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.44 0.17 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 381 638 193 426 705 375 366 - 2201 576 2517 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.02 c0.05 0.03 0.01 c0.32 c0.14 0.26 Ws Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.19 0.03 0.39 0.19 0.16 0.11 0.74 0.81 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 54.9 53.7 52.6 55.2 52.2 51.9 56.3 32.2 54.9 23.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.3 8.1 0.8 Delay (s) 55.1 53.8 52.6 55.8 52.3 52.1 55.5 34.5 63.0 24.1 Level of Service E D D E D D E C E C Approach Delay (s) 53.9 53.0 35.0 34.3 Approach LOS D D C C HCM Average Control Delay 38.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 137.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 6/27/2011 HCM All -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. Vons Palm Desert 10111I2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Ex + P PM 6/27/2011 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement I�oa�►nent .=�-_�.�__-.�Y��s:_.L___��B'��`._=1.__::Yl� !�C� _�:f�� �.��_R. '' _- - __ Delay I Veh (s) 13.3 2.5 2.8 0.7 1.6 0.6 5.0 3.3 2.9 Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #5 6/27/2011 liJ-----.::� Lane Configurations Volume (vehlh) 0 503 656 27 0 14 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flaw rate (vph) 0 547 713 29 0 15 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ftls) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 566 866 pX, platoon unblocked 0.92 0.92 0.92 vC, conflicting volume 752 915 258 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 426 603 0 tC, single (s) 4,1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1031 390 981 Drrecfion Liie .-> 1B 2B 3 # �1f n-HEM Volume Total 182 182 182 238 238 238 29 15 Volume Left 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 15 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 981 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Fred Waring Dr & Town Center Way 6/27/2011 I�lovmenl OWN Lane Configurations ttt r ��i ttA t r t r Volume (vph) 17 421 78 166 515 37 158 29 201 21 5 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0,91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pedthikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1,00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5018 1738 1863 1537 1740 1863 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1,00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1637 3433 6018 1381 1863 1537 1348 1863 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 18 458 85 170 560 40 172 32 218 23 5 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 72 0 7 0 0 0 79 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 458 13 170 593 0 172 32 139 23 5 7 ConB. Peds. (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.9 20.5 20,5 11.8 28.4 82.7 82.7 82.7 821 82.7 82.7 Effective Green, g (s) 3.9 20.5 20.5 11.8 28.4 82.7 82.7 82.7 82.7 82.7 82.7 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.09 0,22 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 53 802 242 312 1096 879 1185 978 858 1185 978 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.09 0.05 c0.12 0.02 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.12 0.09 0.02 0.00 vtc Ratio 0.34 0.57 0.06 0.54 0.54 0.20 0.03 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 61.8 50.7 46.5 56.5 45.0 9.8 8.8 9.5 8.8 8.6 8.6 Progression Factor 0.75 0.85 0.50 0.53 0.45 1.13 1.04 2.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.8 0.1 1.8 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 49.1 43.8 23.3 31.7 20.9 11.6 9.2 21.1 8.8 8.6 8.7 Level of Service D D C C C B A C A A A Approach Delay (s) 40.8 23.3 16.3 8.7 Approach LOS D C B A HCM Average Control Delay 26.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost lime (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10l11I2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Avenue 6/27/2011 Lane Configurations M tt'l� M tO M tfit )) +tt r Volume (vph) 248 397 62 248 533 168 81 604 210 282 609 162 Ideal Flow (vphpt) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0,96 1.00 0,96 1.00 1,00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) 3433 4963 3433 4868 3433 4852 3433 5085 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 4963 3433 4868 3433 4852 3433 5085 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 270 432 67 270 679 183 88 657 228 307 662 176 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 48 0 0 40 0 0 0 105 Lane Group Flow (vph) 270 480 0 270 714 0 88 845 0 307 662 71 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.5 18.4 22.9 25.8 16.6 52.1 16.6 62.1 52.1 Effective Green, g (s) 15.5 18.4 22.9 25.8 16.6 52.1 16.6 52.1 52.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.13 0.40 0.13 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) &0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 409 702 606 966 438 1945 438 2038 616 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.10 0.08 c0.15 0.03 c0.17 c0.09 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.68 0.45 0.74 0.20 0.43 0.70 0.32 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 54.7 53.0 47.9 48.9 50.8 28.3 54.3 26.8 24.5 Progression Factor 0.90 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.57 0.23 Incremental Delay, d2 3.9 2.7 0.5 3.0 0.2 0.7 4.6 0.4 0.3 Delay (s) 53.0 28.4 48.4 51.9 51.0 29.0 50.0 15.8 6.0 Level of Service D C D D D C D 6 A Approach Delay (s) 37.0 51.0 31.0 23.4 Approach LOS D D C C Intersecho Stttll8ry HCM Average Control Delay 35.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Hwy 111 & Town Center Way 6127/2011 Lane Configurations )) ttt r )) ttt r M tT+ 1) tt if Volume (vph) 87 979 205 78 1165 102 311 71 21 89 66 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3394 3433 3539 1560 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3394 3433 3539 1560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 95 1064 223 85 1266 111 338 77 23 97 72 37 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 17 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 95 1064 223 85 1266 43 338 83 0 97 72 37 Confl. Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 9.1 38.3 130.0 8.7 37.9 37.9 31,0 32.0 31.0 32.0 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.1 38.3 130.0 8.7 37.9 37.9 31.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.29 1.00 0.07 0.29 0.29 014 0.25 0.24 0,25 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 240 1498 1560 230 1482 448 819 835 819 871 1560 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.21 0.02 c0.25 c0.10 0.02 0.03 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.71 0.14 0.37 0.85 0.10 0.41 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 57.8 40.9 0.0 58.0 43.4 .33.6 41.8 37.9 38.8 37.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.06 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,11 1.88 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.5 0.2 1.0 5.0 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 61.5 31.3 0.2 69.0 48.5 33.7 43.3 38.1 43.2 71.1 0.0 Level of Service E C A E D C D D D E A Approach Delay (s) 28.4 48.0 42.1 45.2 Approach LOS C D D D lnt$Ttanin7tniyNO HCM Average Control Delay 39.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.2% ICU Level of Service 8 Analysis Period (min) , 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 15 APPENDIX E OPENING DAY INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS LINSCOTf, LAw & GREENSPAN, engineers UG Ref. 3-10-1991 Vons Mahn Desert N:1i99IVtme2011 Sn6mittallReportlAppCvr.1991.doe HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bob Hope Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations ,+ 1) + Vi W If T'i tO Volume (vph) 3 4 6 576 4 37 19 1497 310 86 1184 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 &0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0,91 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 0,99 1,00 0.99 1,00 1.Ob 0.97 1.00 1,00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1,00 0.97 1,00 1.00 0.85 1,00 1100 Fit Protected 0,99 0,95 0.96 0,95 1,00 1,00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1693 3221 1577 1770 5085 1537 3433 5077 Fit Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.96 0,95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1,00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1693 3221 1577 1770 5085 1537 3433 5077 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 3 4 7 626 4 40 21 1627 337 93 1287 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 6 0 0 0 122 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 7 0 451 213 0 21 1627 215 93 1298 0 Confl. Peds. (#!hr) - 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type ' Split Split Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 24,8 24.8 4.8 67.2 67,2 15,0 77A Effective Green, g (s) 3.0 24.8 24.8 4.8 67,2 67.2 15.0 77.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.52 0.52 0,12 0.60 Clearance Time (s) 5,0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 39 614 301 65 2629 795 396 3023 vls Ratio Prot c0.00 c0,14 0.13 0.01 c0.32 0,03 c0,26 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 vk Ratio 0.18 0,73 0.71 0.32 0.62 0.27 0.23 0.43 Uniform Delay, d1 62.3 49.5 49.2 61.0 22.3 17A 52.3 14.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.18 0.24 0.30 1 A0 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 4.5 7.3 2.4 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 64.6 54.0 56.6 74.3 6.3 6.1 52.6 14.4 Level of Service E D E E A A D B Approach Delay (s) 64,6 54,9 7.0 16.9 Approach LOS E D A B c HCM Average Control Delay 18.5 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15,0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010{xMid Synchro 7 - Report AG Qet";t r L Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Magnesia Falls Dr & Hwy 111 6/2912011 s -0� ­-* 'e- '- 4- 4N t 1 Lane Configurations 4 if Vi 4 if ) Wl� Vi ttl� Volume (vph) 16 9 57 85 7 46 41 1764 79 43 1680 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1,00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1806 1536 1681 1698 1536 1770 5042 1770 5075 Fit Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1806 1536 1681 1698 1536 1770 5042 1770 5075 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 17 10 62 92 8 , 50 45 1917 86 47 1826 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 57 0 0 45 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 27 5 50 50 5 45 2001 0 47 1844 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 11.7 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.1 79.9 12.1 79.9 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 113 123 12.3 12.3 12,1 79.9 121 79.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.59 0.09 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 132 152 154 139 157 2962 157 2982 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 c0.03 0.03 0.03 c0.40 c0.03 0.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.04 0.33 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.68 0.30 0.62 Uniform Delay, d1 57.7 57.0 58.0 58.0 56.4 57.9 19.2 58.0 18.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 1.3 1.2 0.1 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 Delay (s) 58.2 57.1 59.3 59.2 56.5 58.9 20.4 59.1 19.1 Level of Service E E E E E E C E B Approach Delay (s) 57.5 58.3 21.3 20.1 Approach LOS E E C C ggi HCM Average Control Delay 22.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity utilization 67.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Magnesia Falls Dr & Joshua Rd 6/23/2011 --► "`* ,E' "'~ 4% r' Lane Configurations '# 4 Y Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 18 26 6 17 32 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 28 7 18 35 13 C)irtf.Ctateaqpp Volume Total (vph) 48 25 48 Volume Left (vph) 0 7 35 Volume Right (vph) 28 0 13 Hadj (s) •0.32 0.09 0.02 Departure Headway (s) 3.7 4.1 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.03 0.05 Capacity (vehlh) 951 856 860 Control Delay (s) 6.9 7.3 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6.9 7.3 7.3 Approach LOS A A A Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Parkview Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 _.OP7`. ..--1 ' =ft Lane Configurations +11� 4 r ) �►+�� )� � �+�� Volume (vph) 29 8 8 43 18 184 16 1572 42 141 1652 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Utll, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0,97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 0.99 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 0.97 0.97 1,00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1734 1780 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5051 Fit Permitted 0.77 0.80 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1371 1476 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5051 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 32 9 9 47 20 200 17 1709 46 153 1796 63 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 182 0 0 15 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 42 0 0 67 18 17 1709 31 153 1858 0 Confl. Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.4 11.4 11.4 3.2 71.6 71.6 32.0 100A Effective Green, g (s) 11.4 11.4 11 A 3.2 71.6 71.6 32.0 100.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0,09 0.09 0.02 0,55 0.55 0,25 0.77 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 120 129 135 44 2801 847 436 3901 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.34 0.09 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.05 0.01 0.02 We Ratio 0.35 0.52 0.13 0.39 0.61 0.04 0.35 0.48 Uniform Delay, d1 55.8 66.7 54.7 62.4 19.8 13.4 40.4 5.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.91 1.65 1.26 0,34 0.12 0.70 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 3.5 0.4 5.0 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.4 Delay (s) 57.6 55.3 90.9 83.7 7.6 1.6 28.9 0.9 Level of Service E E F F A A C A Approach Delay (s) 57.6 81.9 8.2 3.1 Approach LOS E F A A HCM Average Control Delay 11.1 HCM Level of Service - B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Parkview Dr & Dwy #1 6/2312011 Lane Configurations r I t Y Volume (veh/h) 135 56 41 181 63 54 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 147 61 45 197 68 59 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12,0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 625 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 218 453 167 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 218 453 167 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 97 87 93 cM capacity (veh/h) 1341 537 863 I./I,Cti,4lt-�'-ti'=' __..�i�'_I•-. `.YYLL..�-w_ `� -'�-=� -cm.� .- v _:f _ Volume Total 147 61 45 197 127 Volume Left 0 0 45 0 68 Volume Right 0 61 0 0 59 cSH 1700 1700 1341 1700 650 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.12 0.20 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 0 18 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 11.9 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.4 11.9 Approach LOS B Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Parkview Dr & Dwy #2 6/23/2011 —10.'*.t fo, 4--- 101 /1� Mov�arret- Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 187 2 3 219 2 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 00/6 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 203 2 3 238 2 9 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (R) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (fUs) 4.0 4,0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 871 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 215 469 224 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 214 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 255 vCu, unblocked vol 215 469 224 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1343 694 802 Volume Total 205 241 11 Volume Left 0 3 2 Volume Right 2 0 9 cSH 1700 1343 777 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 9.7 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 9.7 Approach LOS A -- Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Parkview Dr & Joshua Rd 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations ►i 1� T. 4 *T# Volume (vehm) 12 180 3 7 199 33 5 1 2 32 1 19 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 196 3 8 216 36 5 1 2 35 1 21 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (it) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ffls) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4,0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 262 209 496 511 217 494 494 254 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 233 233 259 259 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 263 277 234 235 vCu, unblocked vol 262 209 496 511 217 494 494 254 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 65 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 6.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 100 100 94 100 97 cM capacity (vehlh) 1291 1361 617 587 809 632 597 771 fQ�i.'uw3yt�e �� _� � ��- ';.,==�..�CSC 1' •-�?�_�.:L�.iq-�i .�H - ,..:�=, +c3�---cs-x� � _ _ Volume Total 13 199 8 252 9 57 Volume Left 13 0 8 0 5 35 Volume Right 0 3 0 36 2 21 cSH 1291 1700 1351 1700 652 676 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 1 7 Control Delay (s) 7.8 0.0 7.7 0.0 10.6 10.8 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.2 10.6 10.8 Approach LOS B B 1ntic=l►itty: - -- - - Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10111l2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Parkview Dr & Monterey Ave 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations I 1� 1, ff r '� ++ r Volume (vph) 107 64 81 179 96 141 110 791 97 134 896 100 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1,00 0,99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.91 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00. Said. Flow (prot) 1754 1679 1747 1667 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Fit Permitted 0.35 1.00 0.55 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 643 1679 1005 1667 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 116 70 88 195 104 153 120 860 105 146 974 109 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 41 0 0 48 0 0 0 46 0 0 42 Lane Group Flow (vph) 116 117 0 195 209 0 120 860 59 146 974 67 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.4 28A 28A 28.4 14.1 72.5 72.5 14.1 72.5 72.5 Effective Green, g (s) 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 14,1 72.5 72.5 14.1 72.5 72.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0,22 0.22 0.22 0,11 0.56 0.56 0.11 0.56 0.56 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 140 367 220 364 192 1974 857 372 1974 857 v/s Ratio Prot 0.07 0.13 c0.07 0.24 0.04 c0.28 vls Ratio Perm 0.18 c0.19 0.04 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.32 0.89 0.57 0.62 0.44 0.07 0.39 0.49 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 48.5 42.7 49.2 45.4 55.4 16.8 13.2 54.0 17.5 13.3 Progression Factor 0.71 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.06 0.27 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 31.3 0.6 31.8 2.2. 6.3 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.2 Delay (s) 65.9 24.0 81.0 47.6 64.0 6.2 1.8 54.6 18.4 13.5 Level of Service E C F D E A A D B B Approach Delay (s) 41.7 62.0 11.3 22.3 Approach LOS D E B . C HCM Average Control Delay 26.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 8 HCM Unsignaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dwy #3 & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 f' k t �' �► Lane Configurations if +++ r tit Volume (veh/h) 0 43 1587 74 0 1702 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 47 1725 80 0 1850 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 615 $95 pX, platoon unblocked 0.88 0.82 0.82 vC, conflictfng volume 2362 595 1816 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 1065 0 1208 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 95 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 189 870 464 Volume Total 47 575 575 575 80 617 617 617 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 47 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 cSH 870 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.36 0.36 0.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Interaticrmar Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Voris Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fred Waring Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 .-* --► '`# sir *-- k- 4\ t /'" 4/ Lane Configurations )) ttt r )) W er 1) ♦ti� 1) +TT Volume (vph) 64 127 43 158 167 350 41 1246 101 296 1361 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 .1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes I 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3433 5086 1637 3433 6085 2705 3433 5017 3433 5056 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1537 3433 5085 2705 3433 5017 3433 5056 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 70 138 47 172 182 380 45 1364 110 322 1479 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 44 0 0 336 0 5 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 70 138 3 172 182 44 45 1459 0 322 1527 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.8 8.9 8.9 12.8 14.9 14.9 6.1 67.3 21.0 82.2 Effective Green, g (s) 6.8 8.9 8.9 12.8 14.9 14.9 6.1 67.3 21.0 82.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.05 0.52 0.16 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 348 105 338 683 310 161 2597 555 3197 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.03 c0.05 0.04 0.01 c0.29 c0.09 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.40 0.03 0.51 0.31 0.14 0.28 0.56 0.58 0.48 Uniform Delay, dl 59.6 58.0 56.5 55.6 52.8 51.8 59.8 21.3 50.4 12.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.85 3.51 1.60 0.13 0.83 0.85 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.7 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.5 Delay (s) 61.0 58.7 56.6 49.0 45.1 182.1 96.4 3.5 43.2 11.1 Level of Service E E E D D F F A D B Approach Delay (s) 59.0 117.0 6.3 16.7 Approach LOS E F A B 1_. _ HCM Average Control Delay 32.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 6/23/2011 HCM Ali -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Ex Mid 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 8.6 1.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 2.4 2.9 1,5 6/23/2011 Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #5 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations t*t ttt F F Volume (veh/h) 0 473 638 4 0 14 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0°/0 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 514 693 4 0 15 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 556 866 pX, platoon unblocked 0.92 0.92 0.92 vC, conflicting volume 708 885 251 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 395 586 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1063 401 985 Volume Total 171 171 171 231 231 231 4 15 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 4 15 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 985 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Fred Waring Dr & Town Center Way 6/23/2011 --,* -• --t f- *-- t 4N t r� 1 .d, Lane Configurations I Ttt r 1) "T Vi f r I t r Volume (vph) 16 362 96 191 487 28 146 27 213 24 14 i0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1,00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 6085 1537 3433 5031 1739 1863 1637 1739 1863 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5031 1369 1863 1537 1352 1863 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 17 393 104 208 529 30 158 29 232 26 15 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 91 0 5 0 0 0 84 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 393 13 208 554 0 158 29 148 26 15 7 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 15.8 15.8 16.2 28.8 83.0 83.0 83,0 83.0 83.0 83.0 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 15.8 15.8 16.2 28.8 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 83.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0,12 0.12 0,12 0.22 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 44 618 187 428 1115 874 1189 981 863 1189 981 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.08 0.06 c0.11 0.02 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.12 0.10 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.39 0.64 0.07 0.49 0.50 0.18 0.02 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 62.4 54.4 50.6 53.0 44.3 _ 9.6 8.6 9.4 8.7 8,6 8.5 Progression Factor 1.05 1.11 3.11 0.51 0.44 1.02 1,09 2.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.0 1.9 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 70.8 62.5 157.5 28.0 19.7 10.2 9.4 22.7 8.7 8.6 8.5 Level of Service E E F C B B A C A A A Approach Delay (s) 82.0 22.0 17.1 8.6 Approach LOS F C B A HCM Average Control Delay _ 38.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Avenue 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations 11 TTt* 1) tO q) +0 )) W r Volume (vph) 287 286 60 275 663 173 58 620 214 232 640 171 Ideal Flow (vphpI) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0,91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1,00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1,00 0.96 1.00 0,96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 4928 3433 4869 3433 4852 3433 5085 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 4928 3433 4869 3433 4852 3433 5085 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad). Flow (vph) 312 311 65 299 601 188 63 674 233 252 696 186 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 30 0 0 47 0 0 43 0 0 0 100 Lane Group Flow (vph) 312 346 0 299 742 0 63 864 0 252 696 86 Confl. Peds, (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.0 14.4 29.1 26.5 6.6 45.5 21.0 59.9 59.9 Effective Green, g (s) 17.0 14.4 29.1 26.6 6.6 45.5 21.0 59.9 59.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,13 0.11 0.22 0.20 0,05 0.35 0.16 0.46 0.46 Clearance Time (s) &0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 449 546 768 993 174 1698 555 2343 708 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.07 0,09 c0,15 0.02 c0.18 c0.07 0.14 vls Ratio Perm 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.63 0.39 0.75 0.36 0.51 0.45 0.30 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 54.0 55.3 42.9 48.6 59.7 33.4 49.3 21.9 20.0 Progression Factor 1.20 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.46 0.14 Incremental Delay, d2 4.6 2.4 0.3 3.1 1.3 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 69.4 60.4 43.2 51.7 61.0 34.5 36.7 10.4 3.0 Level of Service E E D D E C D B A Approach Delay (s) 64.5 49.4 36.2 15.1 Approach LOS E D D B HCM Average Control Delay 38.7 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Hwy 111 & Town Center Way 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations )) ttf 1 11 ftt r 0 tt r Volume (vph) 157 999 229 77 969 97 311 80 17 118 66 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (a) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1,00 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1,00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3431 3433 3539 1560 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3431 3433 3539 1560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 171 1086 249 84 1053 105 338 87 18 128 72 57 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0. 0 0 79 0 13 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 171 1086 249 84 1053 26 338 92 0 128 72 57 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 1 8 Free Actuated Green, G Is) 11.8 30.7 130.0 13.9 32.8 32.8 33.4 34.4 31.0 32.0 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.8 30.7 130.0 13.19 32.8 32.8 33A 34.4 31.0 32.0 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.24 1.00 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.26 0,26 0.24 0.25 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 &0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 312 1201 1560 367 1283 388 882 908 819 871 1560 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.21 0.02 c0.21 c0.10 0,03 0.04 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.02 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.90 0.16 0.23 0.82 0.07 0,38 0.10 0.16 0.08 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 56.5 48.2 0.0 53.1 45.8 37.0 39.8 36.1 39.2 37.7 0.0 Progression Factor 0.78 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 9.0 0.2 0.3 4.3 0.1 1.3 0.2 o.4 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 46.0 44.4 0.2 53.5 50.2 37.0 41.1 36.3 13.7 12.9 0.0 Level of Service D D A D D D D D B B A Approach Delay (s) 37.3 49.3 40.0 10A Approach LOS D D D B HCM Average Control Delay 39.9 HCM Level of Servk* D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bob Hope Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 � -� � f- � t 4\ I 4/ Lane Configurations + TI) + ) ttt if 1) "T Volume (vph) 319 72 22 124 69 35 81 1645 210 90 1500 207 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Fit Protected 0.96 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1777 3221 1595 1770 5085 1533 3433 4960 Fit Permitted 0.96 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 1777 3221 1595 1770 5085 1533 3433 4960 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 347 78 24 135 75 38 88 1679 228 98 1630 225 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 91 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 447 0 121 116 0 88 1679 137 98 1845 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Split Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 16.0 16.0 12.8 72.0 72.0 8.0 67.2 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 16.0 16.0 12.8 72.0 72.0 8.0 67.2 Actuated glC Ratio 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.48 0.48 0.05 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 403 344 170 151 2441 736 183 2222 vls Ratio Prot c0.25 0.04 c0.07 0.05 c0.33 0.03 c0.37 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 We Ratio 1.11 0.35 0.68 0.68 0.69 0.19 0.54 0.83 Uniform Delay, d1 58.0 62.2 64.6 66.0 30.3 22.3 69.2 36A Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 78.2 0.6 10.8 5.6 1.6 0.6 3.0 2.8 Delay (s) 136.2 62.8 75.4 71.7 31.9 22.8 72.2 39.2 Level of Service F E E E C C E D Approach Delay (s) 136.2 69.2 32.6 40.8 Approach LOS F E C D HCM Average Control Delay 48.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10I1112010{-* PM Synchro 7 - Report AG in,r &Z41 Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Magnesia Falls Dr & Hwy 111 6/2912011 Lane Configurations 4 It 1 4 r ) TfiT Vi++I� Volume (vph) 25 4 28 80 10 38 28 1773 33 21 1616 8 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 - 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pod/bikes 1.00 0,97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1A0 Frt 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0,96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 1536 1681 1704 1536 1770 5067 1770 5080 Fit Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1785 1536 1681 1704 1536 1770 5067 1770 5080 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) . 27 4 30 87 11 41 30 1927 36 23 1757 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 27 0 0 37 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 31 3 49 49 4 30 1962. 0 23 ` 1766 0 Contl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 11.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 13.2 81.8 10.2 78.8 Effective Green, g (s) 11.8 11.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 13.2 81.8 10.2 78.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0,09 0.10 0.60 0.07 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 133 151 153 138 172 3048 133 2943 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.03 0.03 0.02 c0.39 0.01 c0.35 Ws Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.02 0.32 0.32 0.03 0.17 0.64 0.17 0.60 Uniform Delay, d1 57.7 56.8 58.0 68.0 56.5 66.4 17.6 58.9 18.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.6 0.9 Delay (s) 58.4 56.9 59.3 59.2 56.6 56.9 18.7 59.6 19.4 Level of Service E E E E E E B E B Approach Delay (s) 57.6 58.5 19.3 19.9 Approach LOS E E B B etseanrtrl� 4ON= - HCM Average Control Delay 21.5 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Magnesia Falls Dr & Joshua Rd 6/23/2011 --► '1-r 41, *— 4% CEO .81i17#T ..=1I ^i+R Lane Configurations T-a Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 3 18 2 26 28 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 20 2 28 30 4 Volume Total (vph) 23 30 35 Volume Left (vph) 0 2 30 Volume Right (vph) 20 0 4 Hadj (s) -0.48 0.05 0.13 Departure Headway (s) 3.5 4.0 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.03 0.04 Capacity (veh/h) 1002 877 847 Control Delays) 6,6 7.2 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6.6 7.2 7.3 Approach LOS A A A Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Parkview Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations + 4 r ) +++ r ) ++t Volume (vph) 32 21 7 42 8 144 14 1687 38 147 1566 33 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1,00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 0.99 0.99 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1,00 Fit Protected 0.97 0.96 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1763 1766 1537 1770 6085 1537 1770 5064 Fit Permitted 0.80 0.72 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1,00 Said. Flow (perm) 1456 1330 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5064 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 35 .23 8 46 9 157 15 1834 41 160 1702 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 144 0 0 10 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 60 0 0 55 13 16 1834 31 160 1737 0 Confl. Peds, (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G Is) 10.7 10.7 10.7 8.6 84.2 84.2 20.1 95.7 Effective Green, g (s) 10.7 10.7 10.7 8.6 84.2 84.2 20.1 95.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.65 0.65 0.15 0.74 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 120 109 127 117 3294 996 274 3728 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.36 c0.09 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm c0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.50 0.50 0,10 0.13 0.56 0.03 0.58 0.47 Uniform Delay, d1 57.1 57.1 55,2 57.2 12.6 8.2 51.1 6.9 Progression Factor 1.00 0.88 1.12 0.92 0.13 0.05 0.75 0.61 Incremental Delay, d2 3.3 3.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.0 2.8 0.4 Delay (s) 60.4 54.1 62.4 53.3 2.2 0.4 41.0 4.6 Level of Service E D E D A A D A Approach Delay (s) 60.4 60.3 2.6 7.6 Approach LOS E E A A -- _ter �T HCM Average Control Delay 8.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 4 HCM Unsignafized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Parkview Dr & Dwy #1 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations t r I t Y Volume (veh1h) 151 55 24 150 44 54 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 164 60 26 163 48 59 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 625 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 234 399 184 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 234 399 184 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 92 93 cM capacity (vehlh) 1322 584 844 == Volume Total 164 60 26 163 107 Volume Left 0 0 26 0 48 Volume Right 0 60 0 0 59 cSH 1700 1700 1322 1700 704 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.10 0.15 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 2 0 13 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 11.0 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.1 11.0 Approach LOS B Average Delay 2.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) . 15 Vons Palm Desert 10t11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 5 HCM Unsignaiized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Parkview Dr & Dwy #2 6/23/2011 ---w "-* rr *-- 4\ IA* Lane Configurations T. 4 Y Volume (veh/h) 203 2 2 171 3 6 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 221 2 2 186 3 7 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 871 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 233 432 242 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 232 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 200 vCu, unblocked vol 233 432 242 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1324 714 784 Volume Total 223 188 10 Volume Left 0 2 3 Volume Right 2 0 7 cSH 1700 1324 759 Volume to Capacity 0.13 0.00 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 9.8 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 9.8 Approach LOS A KI Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Parkview Dr & Joshua Rd 6123/2011 Lane Configurations Vi T+ T 4 + Volume (vehlh) 12 190 6 8 162 24 4 2 10 26 2 6 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 13 207 7 9 176 26 4 2 11 28 2 7 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn Flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 212 223 457 475 230 471 466 209 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 246 246 217 217 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 211 230 255 249 vCu, unblocked vol 212 223 457 475 230 471 466 209 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 99 99 99 100 99 96 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1347 1335 647 603 796 636 608 817 Volume Total 13 213 9 202 17 37 Volume Left 13 0 9 0 4 28 Volume Right 0 7 0 26 11 7 cSH 1347 1700 1335 1700 725 660 Volume to Capacity 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 2 4 Control Delay (s) 7.7 0.0 -7.7 0.0 10.1 10.8 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0A 0.3 10.1 10.8 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Parkview Dr & Monterey Ave 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations 1 1� Vi + + r 1) fT r Volume (vph) 137 53 105 119 74 168 84 912 99 125 817 116 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane LIM. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 .1.00 0.97 Flpb, pedlbikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.90 1.-00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1754 1645 1748 1634 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Fit Permitted 0.33 1.00 0.52 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 614 1645 948 1634 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 149 58 114 129 80 183 91 991 108 136 888 126 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 64 0 0 75 0 0 0 39 0 0 51 Lane Group Flow (vph) 149 108 0 129 188 0 91 991 69 136 888 75 Conti. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 .2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 28.1 28.1 28.1 28,1 12.1 74.8 74.8 12.1 74.8 74.8 Effective Green, g (s) 28.1 28.1 28.1 28.1 12.1 48 74.8 12.1 74.8 74.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.58 0.58 0.09 0.68 0.58 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 133 356 205 353 165 2036 884 320 2036 884 vls Ratio Prot 0.07 0.11 c0.05 c0.28 0.04 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm . c0.24 0.14 0.04 0.05 v/c Ratio 1.12 0.30 0.63 0.53 0.55 0.49 0.08 0.42 0.44 0.08 Uniform Delay, d1 51.0 42.7 46.2 45.1 56.4 16.3 12.3 55.7 15.6 12.3 Progression Factor 0.71 0.39 1.00 1.00 0.81 0.38 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 113.8 0.5 6.9 1.6 3.5 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.2 Delay (s) 150.1 17.0 52.2 46.7 49.2 6.9 1.8 56.6 16.3 12.5 Level of Service F B D D D A A E B B Approach Delay (s) 78.8 48.6 9.6 20.7 Approach LOS E D A C HCM Average Control Delay 26.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dwy #3 & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 r` 'I- �` �► Lane Configurations F ttf F fififi Volume (veh/h) 0 20 1719 170 0 1615 Volume Total 22 623 623 623 185 585 585 585 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 22 0 0 0 185 0 0 0 cSH 831 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.4 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 46.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fred Waring Dr & Hwy 111 6/29/2011 Lane Configurations )) W r M W rr )) tO M t+T Volume (vph) 46 119 44 141 129 372 38 1471 59 380 1195 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane UK Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1:00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 At Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1536 3433 5085 2703 3433 5050 3433 5055 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1536 3433 5085 2703 3433 5050 3433 6055 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 50 129 48 163 140 404 41 1599 64 413 1299 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 347 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 50 129 6 153 140 57 41 1661 0 413 1342 0 Confl. Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.2 173 17.3 16.8 18.9 18.9 14.6 56.9 23.0 65.3 Effective Green, g (s) 15.2 17.3 17.3 16.8 18.9 18.9 14.6 56.9 23.0 65.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.42 0.17 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 389 656 198 430 717 381 374 2144 589 2463 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.03 c0.04 0.03 0.01 c0.33 c0.12 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.20 0.03 0.36 0.20 0.15 0.11 0.77 0.70 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 53.4 52.1 51.0 53.6 50.8 50.6 53.8 33.1 62.3 24.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.8 3.8 0.9 Delay (s) 53.6 52.3 51.1 64.2 51.0 50.7 54.0 35.9 56.0 24.8 Level of Service D D D D D D D D E C Approach Delay (s) 52.3 51.5 36.3 32.2 Approach LOS D D D C HCM Average Control Delay 37.9 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 6/23/2011 -- HCM Ail -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Ex PM 6/23/2011 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 8.9 1.9 0.1 1.0 0.9 0.1 2.2 2.1 1.5 Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #5 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations ttt ttt IF ? Volume (veh/h) 0 547 638 10 0 6 Sign Control 0.92 0 Free Free Stop 0,92 7 Volume Total 198 198 198 231 231 231 11 7 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 7 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 989 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Ex PM Synchra 7 - Report AG Page 12 Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Ex PM Synchra 7 - Report AG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Fred Waring Dr & Town Center Way 6/2312011 ---* -I. --t 4e *- 4- 1 10. 4V Lane Configurations Vi +++ r )) +0 Vi + r '� + r Volume (vph) 18 462 81 162 475 38 162 30 209 22 5 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, pod/bikes 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5011 1738 1863 1537 1740 1863 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1537 3433 6011 1381 1863 1537 1347 1863 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 20 602 88 176 516 41 176 33 227 24 5 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 73 0 9 0 0 0 86 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 502 15 176 548 0 176 33 141 24 5 7 Confl. Peds. (#lhr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 5.3 22.0 22.0 12.0 28.7 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 Effective Green, 9 (s) 5.3 22,0 22.0 12.0 28.7 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 81.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.22 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 72 861 260 317 1106 860 1161 958 839 1161 958 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.10 0.05 c0.11 0.02 0.00 A Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.13. 0.09 0,02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.58 0.06 0.56 0.50 0.20 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1 60.5 49.8 45.3 66.4 44.3 10.6 9.4 10.2 9.4 9.3 9.3 Progression Factor 0.72 0.69 0.48 0.48 0.49 1.15 1.07 2.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 0.8 0.1 1.9 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 45.1 35.3 21.6 29.1 21.8 12.7 10.1 24.2 9.5 9.3 9.3 Level of Service D D C C C B B C A A A Approach Delay (s) 33.7 23.6 18.5 9.4 Approach LOS C C B A HCM Average Control Delay 25.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Avenue 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations )) t+T 1) +tT# M tfl� )) 'f"t if Volume (vph) 269 439 51 258 521 163 59 626 218 229 630 166 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1,00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 4991 3433 4869 3433 4851 3433 5085 1537 Fit Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 4991 3433 4869 3433 4851 3433 5085 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 292 477 55 280 566 177 64 680 237 249 685 180 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 13 0 0 48 0 0 39 0 0 0 102 Lane Group Flow (vph) 292 519 0 280 695 0 64 878 0 249 685 78 Confi. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.3 19.2 22.2 25.1 12.5 52.9 157 56.1 56.1 Effective Green, g (s) 16.3 19.2 22.2 25.1 12.5 52.9 15.7 56.1 56.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.10 0.41 0.12 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 430 737 586 940 330 1974 415 2194 663 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.10 0.08 c0.14 0.02 c0.18 c0.07 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 We Ratio 0.68 0.70 0.48 0.74 0.19 0.44 0.60 0.31 0.12 Uniform Delay, dl 54.3 52.7 48.7 49.4 54.1 27.9 54.2 24.3 22.1 Progression Factor 0.85 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 0.55 0.17 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 3.0 0.6 3.1 0.3 0.7 2.2 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 50.6 26.8 49.3 52.5 54.4 28.6 47.9 13.6 4.2 Level of Service D C D D D C D B A Approach Delay (s) 35.2 61.6 30.3 19.7 Approach LOS D D C B HCM Average Control Delay 33.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Hwy 111 & Town Center Way 6/2312011 Lane Configurations 1) ttt r 1) W , r )VI ft f t if Volume (vph) 90 985 207 81 1180 106 319 72 22 93 69 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1,00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, podlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 _3433 3391 3433 3539 1560 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3433 5085 1660 3433 5085 1537 3433 3391 3433 3539 1560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 98 1071 225 88 1283 115 347 78 24 101 75 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 18 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 1.071 225 88 1283 45 347 84 0 101 75 38 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 9.2 38.2 130.0 8.8 37.8 37.8 31.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.2 38.2 130.0 8.8 37.8 37.8 31.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.29 1.00 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.25 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 1494 1560 232 1479 447 819 835 819 871 1660 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.21 0.03 c0.25 c0.10 0.02 0.03 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.03 0.02 vlc Ratio 0.40 0.72 0.14 0.38 0.87 0.10 0.42 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.02 Uniform Delay, dl 57.8 41.1 0.0 58.0 43.7 33.7 41.9 37.9 38.8 37.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.05 0,73 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.12 1.89 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.6 0.2 1.0 5.6 0.1 1.6 0.2 0.3 02 0.0 Delay (s) 61.7 31.5 0.2 59.0 49.4 33.8 43.5 38.1 43.7 71.5 0.0 Level of Service E C A E D C D D D E A Approach Delay (s) 28.6 48.7 42.3 45.7 Approach LOS C D D D HCM Average Control Delay 39.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.48 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Ex PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 15 APPENDIX F OPENING DAY + PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS UmcoTf, Law & GnEENSPM, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 Vons Palm Desert N:11991Uune2011 SubmittallReporfiAppCvr.1991.doe HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bob Hope Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations + M c* fj ttt if I) W. Volume (vph) 3 4 6 608 4 37 19 1527 340 86 1216 • 10 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0,91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0,97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0,99 0.95 0.96 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1693 3221 1578 1770 5085 1537 3433 5077 Fit Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd, Flow (perm) 1693 3221 1578 1770 5085 1537 3433 5077 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 3 4 7 661 4 40 21 1660 370 93 1322 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 7 0 0 6 0 0 0 133 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 7 0 476 223 0 21 1660 237 93 1333 0 Confl, Peds. #/hr 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Split Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 25.9 25.9 4.8 661 66.1 15.0 76.3 Effective Green, g (s) 3.0 25.9 25.9 4.8 66.1 66.1 15.0 76.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.51 0.51 0.12 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 39 642 314 65 2586 782 396 2980 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.15 0.14 0.01 c0.33 0.03 c0.26 v1s Ratio Perm 0.15 vlc Ratio 0.18 0.74 0.71 0.32 0.64 0.30 0.23 0.45 Uniform Delay, d1 62.3 48.9 48.6 61.0 23.3 18.6 52.3 15.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.19 0,24 0.31 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 4.6 7.4 2.4 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 64.6 53.5 56.0 75.1 6.6 6.6 52.6 15.1 Level of Service E D E E A A D 8 Approach Delay (s) 64.6 54.3 7.3 17.6 Approach LOS E D A B _, "''�'==;- '�� "�.: ..� "_.��� _ 'a _ HCM Average Control Delay 18.9 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vans Palm Desert 5:00 pm 1011112010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Magnesia Falls Dr & Hwy 111 6/29/2011 Lane Configurations 4 r Vi 4 r Vi t+T ) t+T Volume (vph) 16 9 63 85 7 46 46 1824 79 43 1744 17 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) 1806 1636 1681 1698 1536 1770 5043 1770 5076 Fit Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1806 1536 1681 1698 1536 1770 5043 1770 6076 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 17 10 68 92 8 50 50 1983 86 47 1896 18 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 62 0 0 45 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 27 6 50 50 5 50 2067 0 47 1914 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 11,7 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.2 79.8 12.2 79.8 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 11.7 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.2 79.8 12.2 79.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0,09 0,09 0.59 0.09 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 132 162 154 139 159 2959 159 2978 v/s Ratio Prot 00.01 c0.03 0.03 c0.03 c0.41 0.03 0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.04 0.33 0.32 0.03 0.31 0.70 0.30 0.64 Uniform Delay, dl 57.7 57.0 58.0 58.0 56.4 58.0 19.7 57.9 18.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.1 1.3 1.2 0.1 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.1 Delay (s) 58.2 57.2 59.3 59.2 56.5 59.1 21.1 58.9 19.7 Level of Service E E E E E E C E B Approach Delay (s) 57.5 58.3 22.0 20.7 Approach LOS E E C C COtetseobon-�_umman► = ._;�__W�= _.__�- __....__ _ _.. -- ' � _:�.� ..�; �-_ - --= - - HCM Average Control Delay 23.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.3% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10111/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Magnesia Falls Dr & Joshua Rd 6/23/2011 --► -I-i I(- *-- 4\ ? Lane Configurations c� Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 18 26 6 17 32 12 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 20 28 7 18 35 13 Volume Total (vph) 48 25 48 Volume Left (vph) 0 7 35 Volume Right (vph) 28 0 13 Hadj (s) -0.32 0.09 0.02 Departure Headway (s) 3.7 4.1 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.03 0.05 Capacity (veh/h) 951 855 860 Control Delay (s) 6.9 7.3 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6.9 7.3 7.3 Approach LOS A A A Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10/1112010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Parkview Dr & Hwy 111 . 612312011 -,* , --V i" *- 4, 4" 1 j Lane Configurations 4 4 r W r ) ttf. Volume (vph) 29 8 8 57 18 200 40 1621 42 164 1699 58 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Ufil. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 0.99 0.99 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.97 0.96 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1734 1773 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5052 Fit Permitted 0.72 0.79 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1297 1447 1537 1770 5065 1537 1770 5052 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 32 9 9 62 20 217 43 1762 46 178 1847 63 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 0 195 0 0 14 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 42 0 0 82 22 43 1762 32 178 1909 0 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.9 12.9 12.9 7.5 72.0 72.0 30.1 94.6 Effective Green, g (s) 12.9 12.9 12.9 7.5 72.0 72.0 30.1 94.6 Actuated gIC Ratio 0,10 0.10 0.10 0.06 0,55 0.55 0.23 0.73 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 144 153 102 2816 851 410 3676 vis Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.35 0.10 c0.38 vis Ratio Perm 0.03 c0.06 0.01 0.02 vlc Ratio 0.32 0.57 0.14 0.42 0.63 0.04 0.43 0.52 Uniform Delay, d1 54.5 55.9 53.5 59.2 19.8 13.2 42.7 7.7 Progression Factor 1.00 0.96 1.66 1.30 0.37 0.15 0.70 0.10 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 5.1 0.4 2.5 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.5 Delay (s) 56.0 58.9 89.1 79.2 8.3 2.0 30.6 1.2 Level of Service E E F E A A C A Approach Delay (s) 56.0 80.8 9.8 3.7 Approach LOS E F A A HCM Average Control Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.58 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130,0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 101111 /2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Parkview Dr & Dwy #1 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations t r Vi ♦ Y Volume (veh/h) 137 77 67 183 91 124 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 149 84 73 199 99 135 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn Flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 626 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 243 513 169 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 243 513 169 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 94 80 84 cM capacity (veh/h) 1313 484 861 Volume Total 149 84 73 199 234 Volume Left 0 0 73 0 99 Volume Right 0 84 0 0 135 cSH 1700 1700 1313 1700 647 Volume to Capacity 0,09 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 4 0 41 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 13.7 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.1 13.7 Approach LOS B Average Delay 5.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 6:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Parkview Dr & Dwy #2 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations 1� 4 Y Volume (veh/h) 257 4 27 245 4 27 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 279 4 29 266 4 29 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 871 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 294 627 302 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 292 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 335 vCu, unblocked vol 294 627 302 IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 96 cM capacity (veh/h) 1257 611 726 01f�t�Sif1� WOMEN - Volume Total 284 296 34 Volume left 0 29 4 Volume Right 4 0 29 cSH 1700 1257 709 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 10.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 10.3 Approach LOS B -- Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Parkview Dr & Joshua Rd 6/23/2011 -' -. -V ' *-- 'I-- \ .01 ..-b.S._: Lane Configurations 4 Volume (veh1h) 23 258 3 7 238 33 5 1 2 32 1 30 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 00/0 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 280 3 8 259 36 5 1 2 35 1 33 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (01s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 305 294 659 662 302 645 646 297 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 342 342 302 302 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 317 320 343 344 vCu, unblocked vol 305 294 659 662 302 645 646 297 tC, single (s) 4.1 4,1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2,2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 100 100 94 100 96 cM capacity (vehlh) 1246 1257 528 622 725 553 532 730 Volume Total 25 284 8 295 9 68 Volume Left 25 0 8 0 5 35 Volume Right 0 3 0 36 2 33 cSH 1246 1700 1257 1700 566 625 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.1.7 0.01 0.17 0.02 0A 1 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 0 0 1 9 Control Delay (s) 7.9 0.0 7.9 0.0 11.6. 11.5. Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.2 11.5 11.5 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AO Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Parkview Dr & Monterey Ave 6/23/2011 w Lane Configurations '� tt r tt r Volume (vph) 133 64 133 179 96. 141 127 787 97 134 898 122 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said, Flow (prot) 1753 1641 1751 1667 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Fit Permitted 0.38 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said, Flow (perm) 708 1641 846 1667 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 145 70 145 195 104 153 138 855 105 146 976 133 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 66 0 0 47 0 0 0 50 0 0 55 Lane Group Flow (vph) 146 149 0 195 210 0 138 855 55 146 976 78 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 15.5 67.9 67.9 15.5 67.9 67.9 Effective Green, g (s) 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 15.5 67.9 .67.9 15.5 67.9 67.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.52 0.52 0.12 0.52 0.52 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 172 399 206 405 211 1848 803 409 1848 803 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.13 c0.08 0.24 0.04 c0.28 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 c0.23 0.04 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.37 0.95 0.52 0.65 0.46 0.07 0.36 0.53 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 46.8 41.0 48.4 42.6 54.7 19.6 15.4 52.7 20.6 15.6 Progression Factor 0.76 0.56 1.00 1.00 1.08 0.31 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 29.4 0.6 47.2 1.1 6.0 0.7 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.2 Delay (s) 65.1 23.4 95.6 43.7 64.8 6.9 2.8 53.2 21.6 15.9 Level of Service E C F D E A A D C B Approach Delay (s) 40.2 66.1 13.8 24.6 Approach LOS D E B C HCM Average Control Delay 28.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dwy #3 & Hwy 111 6123/2011 f- 4- Lane Configurations F ftt F TfT Volume (vehlh) 0 108 1595 130 0 1787 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 117 1734 141 0 1942 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ftls) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 615 595 pX, platoon unblocked 0.89 0.81 0.81 vC, conflicting volume 2401 698 1885 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 895 0 1271 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.6 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 86 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 246 864 436 �._.� = .. r ...._� . , - Volume Total 117 578 578 578 141 647 647 647 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 117 0 0 0 141 0 0 0 cSH 864 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.08 .0.38 0,38 0,38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 9.8 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A r>tersiaciwn�i�tni=•^=--____ __-_ ______ .� x -.����, _ _ _ _ - Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fred Waring Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations M +++ r )) W re M tfill� 11 M., Volume (vph) 64 127 43 177 167 378 41 1267 114 359 1383 45 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 . 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 Lane Util, Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0,91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/blkes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1537 3433 5085 2705 3433 5010 3433 5057 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd, Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1537 3433 5085 2705 3433 5010 3433 5057 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 70 138 47 192 182 411 45 1377 124 390 1503 49 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 44 0 0 361 0 5 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 70 138 3 192 182 50 45 1496 0 390 1551 0 Confl. Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 6,8 8.9 8.9 13,6 15.7 15.7 6.1 66.5 21.0 81.4 Effective Green, g (s) 6.8 8.9 8.9 13.6 15.7 16.7 6.1 66,5 21.0 81.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.51 0.16 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 6.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 180 348 105 359 614 327 161 2563 556 3166 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.03 c0.06 0.04 0.01 c0.30 c0.11 0.31 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 We Ratio 0.39 0.40 0.03 0.53 0.30 0.15 0.28 0.58 0.70 0.49 Uniform Delay, d1 59.6 58.0 56.5 55.2 52.1 51,2 59.8 22.1 51.5 13.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.85 3.40 1.62 0.13 0.84 0.86 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.7 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.7 3.6 0.5 Delay (s) 61.0 58.7 56.6 49.3 44.8 174.2 97.3 3.6 46.7 11.8 Level of Service E E E D D F - F A D B Approach Delay (s) 59.0 113.7 6A 18.8 Approach LOS E F A B �33.3 HCM Average Control Delay HCM Level of Service C�� HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.59 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.2% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Fred Waring Dr & DWy #4 6/2312011 HCM All -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. Vans Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Day + P Mid 6/23/2011 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 11.9 1.9 1.3 8.5 0.9 0.1 7.1 5.3 2.8 Vons Palm Desert SimTrafc Report AG Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Fred Waring Dr & DwY #5 6/23/2011 .14 --mi. 4-- 4Q 1* Lane Configurations +++ +++ ? r Volume (veh/h) 0 477 681 21 0 22 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0°� 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 518 740 23 0 24 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4,0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 556 866 pX, platoon unblocked 0.91 0.91 0.91 vC, conflicting volume 773 933 267 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 414 589 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1033 394 973 Volume Total 173 173 173 247 247 247 23 24 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 24 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 973 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.15 OAS 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Fred Waring Dr & Town Center Way 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations Vi ttt r vivi tO Vi t r T r Volume (vph) 16 366 96 191 545 28 147 27 213 24 14 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0,97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1537 3433 6037 1739 1863 1537 1739 1863 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5037 1369 1863 1537 1352 1863 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 17 398 104 208 592 30 160 29 232 26 15 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 91 0 5 0 0 0 84 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 17 398 13 208 617 0 160 29 148 26 15 7 Confl. Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prat Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.2 16.0 16.0 16.1 28.9 82.9 82.9 82.9 82.9 82.9 82.9 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 16.0 16.0 16.1 28.9 82,9 82.9 82.9 82.9 82.9 82.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.64 0.64 0,64 0.64 0.64 0.64 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 44 626 189 425 1120 873 1188 980 862 1188 980 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.08 0.06 c0.12 0.02 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.12 0,10 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.39 0,64 0.07 0.49 0.55 0.18 0.02 0.15 0.03 0.01 0.01 Uniform Delay, dl 62.4 54.2 50.4 53.1 44.8 ` 9.7 8_1 9.4 8.7 8.6 8.6 Progression Factor 1.05 1.12 3.12 0.52 0.46 1.04 1.11 2.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 1.8 0.1 0.8 0.5 1.0.5_ 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 70.4 62.4 157.5 28.6 21.1 10.5 9.6 23.7 8.8 8.6 8.6 Level of Service E E F C C B A C A A A Approach Delay (s) 81.7 23.0 17.7 8.7 Approach LOS F C B A HCM Average Control Delay 38A HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.30 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10,0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 6:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mtd Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Avenue 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations )� tO M tO )) tf ll� 11 ttt r Volume (vph) 283 279 75 275 585 184 82 622 214 279 641 173 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, pod/bikes 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1,00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prof) 3433 4892 3433 4868 3433 4853 3433 5085 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (perm) 3433 4892 3433 4868 3433 4853 3433 5085 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 308 303 82 299 636 200 89 676 233 303 697 188 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 46 0 0 47 0 0 42 0 0 0 107 Lane Group Flow (vph) 308 339 0 299 789 0 89 867 0 303 697 81 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.9 14.3 30.5 27.9 8.9 45.2 20.0 56.3 56.3 Effective Green, g (s) 16.9 14.3 30.5 27.9 8.9 45.2 20.0 66.3 56.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.11 0.23 0.21 0.07 0.36 0.15 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 446 538 805 1045 235 1687 528 2202 666 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.07 0.09 c0.16 0.03 cO.18 c0.09 0.14 Ws Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.63 0.37 0.75 0.38 0.51 0.57 0.32 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 54.1 65.3 41.7 47.8 57.9 33.7 51.0 24.2 22.1 Progression Factor 1.22 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 0.50 0.18 Incremental Delay, d2 4.6 2.3 0.3 3.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 70.3 60.2 42.0 51.0 58.9 34.8 38.0 12.3 4.3 Level of Service E E D D E C D B A Approach Delay (s) 64.7 48.6 36.9 17.6 Approach LOS E D D B HCM Average Control Delay 39.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis_ 15: Hwy 111 & Town Center Way 6123/2011 Lane Configurations )) ttt r )) ttt r 11 fib► Vi) tt r Volume (vph) 167 1034 235 77 999 97 315 82 17 118 66 52 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 4.0 Lane Utii. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0,99 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (prat) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3433 3433 3539 1560 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1660 3433 6085 1537 3433 3433 3433 3539 1560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 171 1124 255 84 1086 105 342 89 18 128 72 57 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 13 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 171 1124 255 84 1086 27 342 94 0 128 72 57 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Actuated Green, G Is) 11.8 30.9 130.0 14.3 33.4 33.4 32.9 33.8 31.0 31.9 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 11.8 30.9 130.0 14.3 33A 33.4 32.9 33.8 31.0 31.9 130,0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0,24 1.00 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.26 0,24 0.25 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 . 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 312 1209 1660 378 1306 395 869 893 819 868 1560 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.22 0.02 c0.21 c0.10 0.03 0.04 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.02 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.93 0.16 0.22 0.83 0.07 0.39 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 56.5 48.5 0.0 52.8 45.6 36.5 40.3 36.6 39.2 37.8 0.0 Progression Factor 0.79 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 0.34 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.8 11.4 0.2 0.3 4.7 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 46.6 47.5 0.2 53.1 50.3 36.6 41.6 36.8 14.0 13.2 0.0 Level of Service D D A D D D D D B B A Approach Delay (s) 39.6 49.4 40.5 10.7 Approach LOS D D D B HCM Average Control Delay 41.1 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 5:00 pm 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bob Hope Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations 4 1) + ) Ttt r Tlli tti� Volume (vph) 319 72 22 156 69 35 81 1575 240 90 1532 207 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 1 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Li il, Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Fit Protected 0.96 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 Said. Flow (prot) 1777 3221 1595 1770 5085 1533 3433 4963 Fit Permitted 0.96 0.95 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1777 3221 1595 1770 5085 1533 3433 4963__ _ Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 347 78 24 170 75 38 88 1712 261 98 1665 225 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 11 0 0 0 102 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 447 0 153 119 0 88 1712 159 98 1880 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Split Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34,0 16.2 16.2 12.8 71.8 71.8 8.0 67,0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 16.2 16.2 12.8 71.8 71.8 8.0 67.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.48 0.48 0.05 0.45 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 403 348 172 151 2434 734 183 2217 v/s Ratio Prot c0.25 0.05 c0.07 0.05 c0.34 0.03 c0.38 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 vic Ratio 1.11 0.44 0.69 0.58 0.70 0.22 0.54 0.85 Uniform Delay, d1 58.0 62.6 64.5 66.0 30,7 22.7 69.2 37.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 78.2 0.9 11.6 6.6 1.7 0.7 3.0 3.2 Delay (s) 136.2 63.6 76.0 71.7 32.5 23.4 72.2 40.2 Level of Service F E E E C C E D Approach Delay (s) 136.2 69.2 33.0 41.8 Approach LOS F E C D HCM Average Control Delay 48.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.2% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Magnesia Falls Dr & Hwy 111 6/29/2011 Lane Configurations 4 If Vi 4 � � '�'� � '� tti� Volume (vph) 25 4 34 80 10 38 31 1833 33 21 1680 8 Ideal Flaw (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1,00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/blkes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1:00 1,00 1,00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.96 1.00 0,95 0.96 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1785 1536 1681 1704 1536 1770 6067 1770 5080 Fit Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1785 1636 1681 1704 1536 1770 5067 1770 6080 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0,92 0,92 0.92 Ad). Flow (vph) 27 4 37 87 11 41 34 1992 36 23 1826 9 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 34 0 0 37 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 31 3 49 49 4 34 2027 0 23 1835 0 ConB, Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 11.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 18.6 81.8 10,2 73.4 Effective Green, g (s) 11.8 11.8 12.2 12.2 12.2 18.6 81.8 10.2 73.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0,14 0,60 0.07 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 155 133 151 153 138 242 3048 133 2742 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.03 0.03 0,02 c0.40 0.01 cO.36 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.02 0.32 0.32 0.03 0.14 0.67 0.17 0.67 Uniform Delay, d1 57.7 56.8 58.0 58.0 56.5 51.7 18.0 58.9 22.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.6 1.3 Delay (s) 58.4 56.9 69.3 59.2 56.6 51.9 19.2 59.6 23.9 Level of Service E E E E E D B E C Approach Delay (s) 67.6 58.5 19.7 24.3 Approach LOS E E B C HCM Average Control Delay 23.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vans Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Magnesia Falls Dr & Joshua Rd 6/2312011 --► '11-t 41� *-- 4N I* Lane Configurations 1� 4 Y Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 3 18 2 26 28 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 20 2 28 30 4 Volume Total (vph) 23 30 35 Volume Left (vph) 0 .2 30 Volume Right (vph) 20 0 4 Hadj (s) -0.48 0.05 0.13 Departure Headway (s) 3.5 4.0 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.03 0.04 Capacity (veh/h) 1002 877 847 Control Delay (s) 6.6 7.2 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6.6 7.2 7.3 Approach LOS A A A Delay 7.1 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis .4: Parkview Dr & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations 4* 4 r ) ttt r ) +0 Volume (vph) 32 21 7 56 8 160 38 1734 38 170 1613 33 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/blkes 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1,00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 Flt Protected 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd• Flow (prot) 1763 1762 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5065 Fit Permitted 0.80 0.72 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1442 1317 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5065 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 35 23 8 61 9 174 41 1885 41 186 1753 36 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 158 0 0 10 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 61 0 0 70 16 41 1885 31 185 1788 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.1 12.1 12.1 16.4 83.0 83.0 19.9 86.5 Effective Green, g (s) 12.1 12.1 12.1 16.4 83.0 83.0 19.9 86.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.64 0.64 0.16 0.67 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 - 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 134 123 143 223 3247 981 271 3370 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.37 c0.10 0.35 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.05 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.57 0.11 0.18 0.58 0.03 0.68 0.53 Uniform Delay, dl 55.8 56.5 54.0 50.8 13.6 8.7 52.1 11.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.92 1.17 1.00 0.20 0.07 0.74 0.66 Incremental Delay, d2 2.4 5.9 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.1 6.2 0.5 Delay (s) 58.2 57.7 63.8 51.1 3.4 0.7 44.8 7.9 Level of Service E E E D A A D A Approach Delay (s) 58.2 62.0 4.3 11.4 Approach LOS E E A B HCM Average Control Delay 11.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Parkview Dr & Dwy #1 6/23/2011 --r. � r� '\ 110' Lane Configurations t F Y1 t Y Volume (veh/h) 153 76 50 152 72 145 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 00/0 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 166 83 54 165 78 158 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 625 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 259 460 186 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 259 460 186 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 96 85 81 cM capacity (veh/h) 1295 527 842 --_- ��y --: Volume Total 166 83 54 165 236 Volume Left 0 0 54 0 78 Volume Right 0 83 0 0 1.58 cSH 1700 1700 1295 1700 702 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.34 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 0 37 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 12.7 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.0 12.7 Approach LOS B Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Parkview Dr & Dwy #2 6/23/2011 T.- - �-_ - WE- Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 294 4 25 197 5 29 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 320 4 27 214 5 32 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (fUs) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 871 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 334 610 342 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 332 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 278 vCu, unblocked vol 334 610 342 IC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 95 cM capacity (veh/h) 1215 620 689 Volume Total 324 241 37 Volume Left 0 27 5 Volume Right 4 0 32 cSH 1700 1215 678 Volume to Capacity 0.19 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.1 10.6 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.1 10.6 Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Parkview Dr & Joshua Rd 6/23/2011 -`` -* --v 'r .4-- 1-- 4N t 1 M_ Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 23 293 6 8 200 24 4 2 10 26 2 17 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 01/0 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 25 318 7 9 217 26 4 2 11 28 2 18 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12,0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 253 335 646 653 342 648 643 250 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 382 382 258 258 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 264 271 390 385 vCu, unblocked vol 253 335 646 653 342 648 643 250 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 100 98 95 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1301 1214 539 523 689 536 527 775 ein Volume Total 25 325 9 243 17 49 Volume Left 25 0 9 0 4 28 Volume Right 0 7 .0 26 11 18 cSH 1301 1700 1214 1700 621 606 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.19 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.08 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 1 0 2 7 Control Delay (s) 7.8 0.0 8.0 0.0 11.0 11.5 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.3 11.0 11.5 Approach LOS B B Average Delay 1.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11 /2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Parkview Dr & Monterey Ave 6123/2011 Lane Configurations Ili T* I T, Vi tt r 11 Tt r Volume (vph) 171 53 174 119 74 168 101 901 99 125 819 137 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, pedthikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1754 1612 1753 1634 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Fit Permitted 0.39 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 716 1612 766 1634 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 186 58 189 129 80 183 110 979 108 136 890 149 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 101 0 0 72 0 0 0 44 0 0 68 Lane Group Flow (vph) 186 146 0 129 191 0 110 979 64 136 890 81 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 13.4 68.5 68.5 13.4 68.5 68.5 Effective Green, g (s) 33.1 33.1 33.1 33.1 13.4 68.5 68,5 13.4 68.5 68.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.53 0.53 0.10 0.53 0.53 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 182 410 195 416 182 1865 810 354 1865 810 v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 0.12 o0.06 c0.28 0.04 0.25 v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.17 0.04 0.05 We Ratio 1.02 0.36 0.66 0.46 0.60 0.52 0.08 0.38 0.48 0.10 Uniform Delay, dl 48.5 39.7 43.4 40.9 55.8 20.1 .15.2 54.4 19.4 15.4 Progression Factor 0.80 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.43 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 72.5 0.5 8.2 0.8 5,0 0.9 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.2 Delay (s) 111.1 19.4 51.6 41.7 49.3 9.6 3.4 55.1 20.3 15.6 Level of Service F B D D D A A E C B Approach Delay (s) 68.8 45.0 12.7 23.7 Approach LOS E D B C HCMAverage Control Delay 27.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dwy #3 & Hwy 111 6/23/2011 4 k t �► Lane Configurations F ttt F ttf Volume (vehlh) 0 126 1684 269 0 1700 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 137 1830 292 0 1848 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft1s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 615 595 pX, platoon unblocked 0,87 0,78 0.78 VC, conflicting volume 2466 630 2133 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 732 0 1451 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4,1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 83 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 304 828 356 Volume Total 137 610 610 610 292 616 616` 616 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Fight 137 0 0 0 292 0 0 0 cSH 828 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.36 Queue Length 95th (ft) 15 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.2 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fred Waring Dr & Hwy 111 6/29/2011 Lane Configurations M + " r ► ) W re )) fti� M tO Volume (vph) 46 119 44 157 129 400 38 1492 72 443 1217 41 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.88 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1536 3433 5085 2703 3433 5043 3433 5055 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1536 3433 5085 2703 3433 5043 3433 5055 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 50 129 48 171 140 435 41 1622 78 482 1323 45 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 42 0 0 373 0 3 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 50 129 6 171 140 62 41 1697 0 482 1366 0 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.3 17.2 17.2 17.1 19,0 19.0 14.6 56.7 23.0 65.1 Effective Green, g (s) 15.3 17.2 17.2 17.1 19.0 19.0 14.6 56.7 23.0 65.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.42 0.17 0.49 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 392 653 197 438 721 383 374 2134 589 2456 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.03 c0.05 0.03 0.01 c0.34 c0.14 0.27 vls Ratio Perm 0.00 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.20 0.03 0.39 0.19 0.16 0.11 0.80 0.82 0.56 Uniform Delay, dl 53.4 52.2 51.1 53.7 50.7 50.5 53.8 33.6 53.5 24.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 3.2 8.7 0.9 Delay (s) 53.5 52.4 51.2 54.2 60.9 50.7 54.0 36.8 62.1 25.2 Level of Service D D D D D D D D E C Approach Delay (s) 52.4 51.5 37.2 34.8 Approach LOS D D D C HCM Average Control Delay 39.3 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 134.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 6/23/2011 HCM All -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Opening Day + P PM 6123/2011 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 19.0 1.9 3.7 0.9 0.2 16.7 4.9 3.4 Vons Palm Desert SimTrafflc Report AG Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #5 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations W ttt f r Volume (vehlh) 0 524 681 27 0 14 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 01A Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 570 740 29 0 15 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12,0 12.0 Walking Speed (ftls) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 556 866 pX, platoon unblocked 0.92 0.92 0.92 vC, conflicting volume 780 950 267 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 439 625 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6,9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2,2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1015 376 977 Volume Total 190 190 190 247 247 247 29 15 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 15 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 977 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.15 .0.15 0,15 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.7 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Fred Waring Dr & Town Center Way 612312011 Lane Configurations Vi ttt r M tO '� t ? Vi t in Volume (vph) 18 439 81 162 533 38 164 30 209 22 5 10 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00, 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1,00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1770 6085 1637 3433 5019 1738 1863 1537 1740 1863 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.74 1,00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 5086 1537 3433 5019 1381 1863 1537 1347 1863 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 20 477 88 176 679 41 178 33 227 24 5 11 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 74 0 7 0 0 0 85 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 20 477 14 176 613 0 178 33 142 24 5 7 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm . Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 4.1 21.4 21.4 12.0 293 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 Effective Green, g (s) 4.1 21.4 21.4 12.0 29.3 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.23 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 56 837 253 317 1131 867 1169 965 846 1169 965 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.09 0.05 c0.12 0.02 0.00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.13 0.09 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.36 0.57 0.06 0.56 0.54 0.21 0.03 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.01 Uniform Delay, d1l 61.7 60.1 45.8 56.4 44.4 10.3 9.2 9.9 9.2 9.0 9.1 Progression Factor 0.72 0.81 0.46 0.55 0.45 1.15 1.05 2.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.7 0.1 1.9 0.5 0,5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 47.6 41.1 20.9 32.7 20.3 1.2.4 9.7 23.3 9.2 9.0 9.1 Level of Service D D C C C B A C A A A Approach Delay (s) 38.3 23.0 17.9 9.2 Approach LOS D C B A HCM Average Control Delay 26.3 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 13 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Avenue 6/2312011 Lane Configurations in ffl� III M* 1111 tfl� 11 t1tt F Volume (vph) 258 414 64 258 553 174 83 628 218 291 633 168 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, pad/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 Said: Flow (prot) 3433 4963 3433 4868 3433 4852 3433 5085 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 0.95 1:00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 4963 3433 4868 3433 4852 34335085 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 280 450 70 280 601 189 90 683 237 316 688 183 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 48 0 0 40 0 0 0 111 Lane Group Flow (vph) 280 501 0 280 742 0 90 880 0 316 688 72 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Prot Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 15.8 18.8 23.5 26.5 16.9 50.8 16.9 50.8 50.8 Effective Green, g (s) 15.8 18.8 23.5 26.5 1619 50.8 16.9 50.8 60.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.13 0.39 0.13 0.39 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 417 718 621 992 446 1896 446 1987 601 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.10 0.08 c0.15 0.03 c0.18 c0.09 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.70 0.45 0.75 0.20 0.46 0.71 0.36 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 54.6 52.9 47.5 48.6 50.5 29.5 54.2 27.9 25.3 Progression Factor 0.90 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.60 0.31 Incremental Delay, d2 4.2 2.9 0.5 3.1 0.2 0.8 4.6 0.4 0.4 Delay (s) 53.5 28.5 48.0 51.7 50.7 30.3 49.1 17.3 8.2 Level of Service D C D D D C D B A Approach Delay (s) 37.2 50.8 32.1 24.4 Approach LOS D D C C HCM Average Control Delay 35.8 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Hwy 111 & Town Center Way 6/23/2011 } � � I- .- � 4\ t IN. 1 .1 Lane Configurations )) ttt r )) "t r 1) tt Vi) r Volume (vph) 90 1017 213 81 1210 106 323 74 22 93 69 35 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0,91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, pedNkes 1.00 1,00 0.99 1.00 1A0 0,97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3433 5086 1660 3433 5085 1537 3433 3394 3433 3539 1560 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 6085 1560 3433 6085 1537 3433 3394 3433 3539 1560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 98 1105 232 88 1315 115 351 80 24 101 75 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 18 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 1106 232 88 1315 48 351 86 0 101 75 38 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot . Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases . Free 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 9.2 38.2 130.0 8.8 37.8 37.8 31.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.2 38.2 130.0 8.8 37.8 37.8 31.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,07 0.29 1.00 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.24 0,25 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5A 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 243 1494 1560 232, 1479 447 819 835 819 871 1560 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.22 0.03 c0.26 c0.10 0.03 0.03 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.03. 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.74 0.15 0.38 0.89 0.11 0.43 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.02 Uniform Delay, d1 57.8 MA 0,0 68.0 44.1 33.7 4ZO 37.9 38.8 37.7 0.0 Progression Factor 1.04 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.88 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 1.8 0.2 1.0 6.9 0A 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 61.2 32.2 0.2 59.0 51.0 33.8 43.6 38.1 43.2 71.0 0.0 Level of Service E C A E D C D D D E A Approach Delay (s) 29.0 50.2 42.4 45.3 Approach LOS C D D D - HCM Average Control Delay 40.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm desert 10/11/2010 Opening Day + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 15 APPENDIX G YEAR 2015 CUMULATIVE (WITH PROJECT) INTERSECTION ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS LINSCOTT, LAw & GREENsPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 3-10-1991 Vons Palm Desert NA1991\h=2011 SnbmiltallReport\AppCvr.1991.doe HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bob Hope Dr & Hwy 111 6/22/2011 Lane Configurations 4� 1) 4� ) +++ ? )) +0 Volume (vph) 3 4 7 671 4 40 20 1640 386 91 1320 11 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pod/bikes 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.93 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 1685 3221 1580 1770 5085 1537 3433 5077 Fit Permitted 0.99 0.95 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1685 3221 1580 1770 5085 1537 3433 5077 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 3 4 8 729 4 43 22 1783 420 99 1435 12 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 5 0 0 0 146 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 7 0 518 253 0 22 1783 274 99 1447 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10_ 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Split Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.0 28.3 28.3 4.9 63.6 63.6 15.1 73.8 Effective Green, g (s) 3.0 28.3 28.3 4.9 63.6 63.6 15.1 73.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.02 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.49 0.49 0.12 0.57 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 39 701 344 67 2488 752 399 2882 v/s Ratio Prot c0.00 c0.16 0.16 0.01 c0.35 0.03 c0.28 A Ratio Perm 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.74 0.73 0.33 0.72 0.36 0.25 0.50 Uniform Delay, dl 62.3 47.4 47.3 60.9 26,1 20.6 52.3 17.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 0.28 0.32 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.3 4,1 7.9 2.2 1.4 1.1 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 64.6 51.5 55.2 73.3 8.6 7.7 62.6 17.1 Level of Service E D E E A A D B Approach Delay (s) 64.6 52.7 9.1 19.4 Approach LOS E D A B tt►teisecioniitt -:- m .�- HCM Average Control Delay 20.2 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.66 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.3°k ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Magnesia Falls Dr & Hwy 111 6/29/2011 Lane Configurations 4 r Vi 4 r Vi++T y1i +0 Volume (vph) 17 10 67 93 8 48 48 1981 87 45 1910 18 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pedlbikes 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1807 1536 1681 1699 1536 1770 5042 1770 5076 Fit Permitted 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1807 1536 1681 1699 1536 1770 5042 1770 5076 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 18 11 73 101 9 52 52 2163 95 49 2076 20 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 67 0 0 47 0 2 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 29 6 55 55 5 52 2246 0 49 2096 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.7 11.7 12.4 12.4 12A 12.3 79.6 12.3 79.6 Effective Green, g (s) 11.7 11.7 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.3 79.6 12.3 79.6 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.59 0.09 0.59 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 166 132 153 155 140 160 2951 160 2971 vls Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.03 0.03 c0.03 c0.45 0.03 0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 We Ratio 0.19 0.05 0.36 0.35 0.03 0.33 0.76 0,31 0.71 Uniform Delay, dl 57.7 57.0 58.1 58.0 56.3 58.0 21.1 57.9 19.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.1 1.2 1.9 1.1 1.4 Delay Is) 58.3 57.2 59.5 59.4 56.4 59.1 23.0 58.9 21.4 Level of Service E E E E E E C E C Approach Delay (s) 57.5 68.5 23.8 22.2 Approach LOS E E G C HCM Average Control Delay 25.0 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Magnesia Falls Dr & Joshua Rd 6/22/2011 --r. 11* 4�" *"- . 4\ /01 _ —. Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 19 28 7 18 34 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 21 30 8 20 37 14 Volume Total (vph) 51 27 51 Volume Left (vph) 0 8 37 Volume Right (vph) 30 0 14 Hadj (s) -0.32 0.09 0.01 Departure Headway (s) 3.7 4.1 4.1 Degree Utilization, x 0.05 0.03 0.06 Capacity (veh/h) 948 851 857 Control Delay (s) 6.9 7.3 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6.9 7.3 7.3 Approach LOS A A A Delay 7.2 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AO Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Parkview Dr & Hwy 111 6/22/2011 Lane Configurations 4 4 F )+++ r ) t+T+ Volume (vph) 31 9 9 59 .19 213 41 1778 44 174 1854 62 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/blkes 0.99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.97 0.96 • 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1734 1774 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5053 At Permitted 0.71 0.78 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1276 1432 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5053 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 34 10 10 64 21 232 45 1933 48 189 2015 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 9 0 0 0 208 0 0 14 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 45 0 0 85 24 45 1933 34 189 2081 0 Confl. Peds. #Ihr 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 13.2 13,2 13.2 7.6 71.8 71.8 30.0 94.2 Effective Green, g (s) 13.2 13.2 13,2 7.6 71.8 71.8 30.0 94,2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.55 0.55 0.23 0.72 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 130 145 156 103 2808 849 408 3661 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.38 0.11 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.06 0.02 0.02 We Ratio 0.35 0.59 0.15 0.44 0.69 0.04 0.46 0.57 Uniform Delay, d1 54.4 55.8 53.3 59.1 21.0 13.3 43.1 8.4 Progression Factor 1.00 0.97 1.76 1.34 0.51 0.46 0.68 0.08 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 5.9 0.4 2.6 1.2 0.1 0.7 0.6 Delay (s) 56.0 69.9 94.4 81.9 11.9 6.2 30.0 1.2 Level of Service E E F F B A C A Approach Delay (s) 56.0 85.2 13.3 3.6 Approach LOS E F B A ggg - HCM Average Control Delay 14,0~ HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10,0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Parkview Dr & Dwy #1 6/2212011 Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) Sign Control Grade Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate (vph) Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ftls) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) p0 queue free % cM capacity (veh/h) + if I t 146 80 69 195 Free Free 0% 0% 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 159 87 75 212 10 10 12.0 12.0 4.0 1 4.0 1 None 625 1" 95 127 Stop 0% 0.92 103 10 12.0 4.0 1 0.92 138 None 256 541 179 256 541 179 4.1 6.4 6.2 2.2 3.5 3.3 94 78 84 1298 465 850 Volume Total 159 87 75 212 ..... ........ 241 Volume Left 0 0 75 0 103 Volume Right 0 87 0 0 138 cSH 1700 1700 1298 1700 628 Volume to Capacity 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.38 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 5 0 45 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 14.3 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 2.1 14.3 Approach LOS 8 Average Delay 5.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Parkview Dr & Dwy #2 1 6122J2011 --* "Iv 411" *--- Lane Configurations 'f -T Y Volume (vehlh) 269 4 27 260 4 28 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 292 4 29 283 4 30 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4,0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 871 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 307 656 315 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 305 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 361 vCu, unblocked vol 307 656 315 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 96 CM capacity (veh1h) 1243 598 714 Volume Total 297 312 35 Volume Left 0 29 4 Volume Right 4 0 30 cSH 1700 1243 697 Volume to Capacity 0.17 0.02 0.05 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 4 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 10.4 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.0 10.4 Approach LOS B I>3�fiMw t-ttry Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM U[si nalized|ntersectioMCaomcNw Analysis 7:ParkViem/Dr&Joshua Rd 8/22/201 * -� �- �- I,- x �� � �� 1� K ~ � -� � � `- U v 40. 4y Lane Configurations Vnlumo(vwh/h) 24 288 3 8 251 35 8 1 O 34 i 31 Sign Control Free Free stop Stop Grade 06 0& 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.92 0.82 0.82 0.92 0.82 0.82 O.S@ 0.92 0.92 0.02 0.02 Hourly flow rate (vph) 28 282 3 8 273 38 7 1 % 37 1 34 Pmdomh|onn 10 10 10 10 Lane Width 0h 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed fts) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TVN]l Nuoo Median storage voh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX'platoon unblocked vC.conflicting volume 821 808 881` 884 314 677 877 312 vO1'stage 1oonfvol 358 358 319 319 vC2.stage 2onnfvol' 334 ` 338 357 358 vCu.unblocked vol 321 308 691 694 314 677 877 312 hJ,single (u) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 ?] 6.5 6.2 tC`2stage (s) 61 5.6 81 5.5 IF(s) 2.8 2.2 3.5 4.8 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 pOqueue free % 98 09 99 100 100 93 100 95 dWoopooity (voh/h) 1228 1245 512 500 714 538 520 716 01.0 Volume Left 26 O 8 O 7 37 Volume Right V 8 O 38 2 34 oSH 1228 1700 1245 1700 548 808 Volume boCapacity 0.02 0.17 0.01 0.18 0.02 0.12 Queue Length Q5th(ft) .` 3 O 1 0 1 10 Control DeluvbA &O 0.0 1.8 0.0 11.7 11.7 LunoLOS A A 8 B Approach Delay hA 0.8 ' 02 11.7 11.7 AppmmohLO8 B B Average Delay 1.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.7% ICU Level n[Service A Analysis Period (m)n) 15 VbnoPoknDooed 18Mh20 0 Year 20U5+PMid 3yndnn7' Report HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Parkview Dr & Monterey Ave 6/22/2011 Lane Configurations Vi Ti Vi % V1 ft r 1) ++ r Volume (vph) 140 69 138 189 102 150 134 841 102 142 960 129 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.90 1.00 0,91 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1754 1644 1751 1667 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Fit Permitted 0.37 1.00 0,46 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 690 1644 840 1667 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 152 75 150 206 111 163 146 914 111 154 1043 140 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 62 0 0 45 0 0 0 52 0 0 57 Lane Group Flow (vph) 152 163 0 205 229 0 146 914 59 154 1043 83 Confl. Peds. (#Ihr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 16.0 65.5 65.5 16.0 65.5 65.5 Effective Green, g (s) 33.5 33.5 33.5 33.5 16.0 65.5 65.5 16.0 65.5 65.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0,12 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 178 424 216 430 218 1783 774 423 1783 774 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.14 c0.08 0.26 0.04 c0.29 v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 c0.24 0.04 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.85 0.38 0.95 0.53 0.67 0.51 0.08 0.36 0.58 0.11 Uniform Delay, dl 45.9 39.7 47.4 41.5 54.5 21.6 16.6 62.3 22.7 16.9 Progression Factor 0.76 0.56 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.31 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 30.6 0.6 46.4 1.3 6.8 0.9 0.2 0.5 1.4 0.3 Delay (s) 65.5 23.0 93.8 42.8 60.9 7.5 4.2 52.9 24.1 17.2 Level of Service E C F D E A A D C B Approach Delay (s) 40.1 64.6 13.9 26.7 Approach LOS D E B C HCM Average Control Delay 29.1 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.5°% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 8 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dwy #3 & Hwy 111 6/22/2011 f- k T r' 1 Lane Configurations F ♦ff F TTT Volume (Veh1h) 0 110 1753 134 0 1946 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0qo Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 120 1905 146 0 2115 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 615 595 pX, platoon unblocked 0.87 0.78 0.78 vC, conflicting volume 2631 655 2061 VC1, stage 1 conf Vol vC2, stage 2 conf Vol vCu, unblocked Vol 844 0 1355 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 86 100 cM capacity (veh1h) 260 .827 38.7 Volume Total 120 635 635 635 146 705 705 705 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 120 .0 0 0 146 0 0 0 cSH 827 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.41 Queue Length 95th (ft) 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 10.1 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fred Waring Dr & Hwy 111 6/22/2011 Lane Configurations )) ttt r 1) ttt ? 1) ttt Vi ttt Volume (vph) 68 134 45 190 177 411 43 1393 121 382 1517 47 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 &0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1537 3433 5085 1560 3433 5012 3433 5058 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1537 3433 5085 1560 3433 5012 3433 5058 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 74 146 49 207 192 447 47 1514 132 415 1649 51 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 146 3 207 192 447 47 1641 0 415 1699 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Free Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 7.0 9.1 9.1 14.1 16.2 130.0 6.2 65.8 21.0 80.6 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 9.1 9A 14.1 16.2 130.0 .6.2 65.8 21.0 80.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.12 1.00 0.05 0.51 0.16 0.62 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 185 356 108 372 634 1560 164 2537 555 3136 v/s Rana Prot 0.02 o0.03 c0.06 0.04 0.01 c0.33 c0.12 0.34 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 c0.29 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.41 0.03 0.56 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.65 0.75 0.54 Uniform Delay, d1 59.5 57.9 56.3 55.0 51.8 0.0 59.8 23.6 52.0 14.1 Progression Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 0.87 0.86 1.00 1.61 0.16 0.85 0,90 Incremental Delay, d2 1.4 0.8 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 4.7 0.6 Delay (s) 60.9 58.7 56.5 49.6 44.7 0.5 96.7 4.3 48.7 13.2 Level of Service E E E D D A F A D B Approach Delay (s) 58.9 22.5 6.9 20.2 Approach LOS E C A C HCM Average Control Delay 18.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.51% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 6/22/2011 HCM Ali -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 -. Report AG Page 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Year 2015 + P Mid 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Delay 1 Veh (s) 21.2 1.4 6.7 0.7 0.3 2.4 8.8 3.2 6/2312011 Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2015 + P Mid Intersection: 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 6/23/2011 - - Directions Served L T L T T T R R R Maximum Queue (ft) 91 26 27 26 29 28 20 29 70 Average Queue (ft) 54 5 11 5 6 6 4 6 47 95th Queue (Ft) 97 22 32 23 25 24 17 25 80 Link Distance (ft) 315 315 70 70 70 70 70 213 159 Upstream Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Vons Palm Desert SimTrafFic Report AG Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #5 6/2212011 Lane Configurations Volume (vehlh) 0 511 732 21 0 22 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 556 796 23 0 24 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12,0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 556 866 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.90 0,90 vC, conflicting volume 828 1001 285 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 432 622 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6,8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 98 cM capacity (veh(h) 1006 371 962 AB Volume Total 185 185 185 265 265 265 23 24 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 24 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 962 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13: Fred Waring Dr & Town Center Way 6/23/2011 } --.. --v r #- k*\ T 1,0 1 4/ Lane Configurations Vi ttt r )) ttt R t I t if Volume (vph) 17 393 101 202 588 30 155 29 226 25 14 11 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1,00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5036 1739 1863 1537 1740 1863 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5036 1369 1863 1537 1348 1863 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 18 427 110 220 639 33 168 32 246 27 15 12 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 96 0 5 0 0 0 92 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 18 427 14 220 667 0 168 32 154 27 15 8 Confi. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 3.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 30.1 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 Effective Green, g (s) 3.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 30.1 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 81.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.23 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 45 653 197 441 1166 859 1169 965 846 1169 965 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.08 0.06 c0.13 0.02 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.12 0.10 0.02 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.40 0.66 0.07 0.50 0.57 0.20 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.01 Uniform Delay, dl 62.4 53.9 49.8 62.8 44.2 10.3 9.2 10.0 9,2 9.1 9A Progression Factor 1.08 1.16 3.33 0.56 0.46 1.00 1.08 2.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 4.7 1.9 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 72.0 64.5 165.9 30.3 20.9 10.7 9.9 21.2 9.3 9.1 9.1 Level of Service E E F C C B A C A A A Approach Delay (s) 84.8 23.2 16.6 9.2 Approach LOS F C B A w J38.9 HCM Average Control Delay HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.32 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10,0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Avenue 6/22/2011 --'' -� -'*1 'r *- k .N Lane Configurations )) "IG 1) +++ r )) +0 )) ttt if Volume (vph) 300 300 81 290 625 194 93 676 227 292 686 182 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0,91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 1,00 0,85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1,00 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3433 4892 3433 5085 1560 3433 4857 3433 5085 1537 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 4892 3433 5085 1560 3433 4857 3433 5085 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 326 326 88 315 679 211 101 735 247 317 746 198 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 107 Lane Group Flow (vph) 326 369 0 316 679 211 101 942 0 317 746 91 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Prof Free Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 17.5 15.1 25.9 23.5 130.0 9.3 49.0 20.0 59.7 59.7 Effective Green, g (s) 17.5 15.1 25.9 23.5 130.0 9.3 49.0 20.0 59.7 59.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0,12 0.20 0.18 1.00 0.07 0.38 015 0.46 0,46 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 462 568 684 919 1560 246 1831 528 2335 706 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.08 0.09 c0.13 0.03 c0.19 c0.09 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm 0,14 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.71 0.65 0.46 0.74 0.14 0.41 0.51 0.60 0.32 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 53.8 54.9 45.9 50.3 0.0 57.7 31.3 51.3 22.3 20.2 Progression Factor 1.16 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.64 0.30 Incremental Delay, 12 4.8 2.5 0.5 3.1 0.2 1.1 1.0 1.6 0.3 0.3 Delay (s) 67.3 60.6 46.4 53.5 0.2 58.8 32.3 39.1 12.3 64 Level of Service E E D D A E C D B A Approach Delay (s) 63.5 42.3 34.8 18.1 Approach LOS E D C B HCM Average Control Delay 37.0 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.61 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Hwy 111 & Town Center Way 6/2212011 Lane Configurations )) tit r M tit r 11 0 tt r Volume (vph) 166 1110 288 96 1079 102 367 87 31 124 69 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 &0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/blkes 1.00 1,00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1,00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/blkes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3373 3433 3539 1560 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3373 3433 3539 1560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 180 1207 313 104 1173 111 399 95 34 136 75 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 25 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 180 1207 313 104 1173 35 399 104 0 135 75 60 Confl. Pods. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 12.1 31.0 130.0 15.3 34.2 34.2 31.7 32.7 31.0 32.0 130,0 Effective Green, g Is) 12.1 31.0 130.0 15.3 34.2 34.2 31.7 32.7 31.0 32.0 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.09 0.24 1.00 0.12 0.26 0.26 0,24 0.25 0.24 0.25 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 320 1213 1560 404 1338 404 837 848 819 871 1560 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 c0.24 0.03 c0.23 c0.12 0.03 0.04 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.20 0.02 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.56 1.00 0.20 0.26 0.88 0.09 0.48 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 56.4 49.4 0.0 52.2 45.9 36A 42.1 37.6 39.2 37.7 0.0 Progression Factor 0.81 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.40. 0.40 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 2.0 22.9 0.3 0.3 6.8 0.1 1.9 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 48.0 58.7 0.3 52.5 52.6 36.2 44.0 37.9 16.0 15.3 0.0 Level of Service D E A D D D D D B B A Approach Delay (s) 46.8 51.3 42.5 12.2 Approach LOS D D D B NOW S N WIN HCM Average Control Delay 45.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.57 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P Mid Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 15 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Bob Hope Dr & Hwy 111 6/22/2011 � � � 'r k -N � d Lane Configurations *4 1) + Vi Oft F 11 t+T+ Volume (vph) 338 76 23 194 73 37 86 1692 281 96 1654 219 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 Flpb, pedlbikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.98 Fit Protected 0.96 0.95 0,99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1778 3221 1596 1770 5085 1633 3433 4965 Fit Permitted 0.96 0.96 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1778 3221 1596 1770 5085 1533 3433 4965 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 367. 83 25 211 79 40 93 1839 305 104 1798 238 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 112 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 473 0 190 130 0 93 1839 193 104 2026 0 Confl. Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Split Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 17.0 17.0 13.2 72.0 72.0 7.0 65.8 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 17.0 17.0 13.2 72A 72.0 7.0 65.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0,11 0,11 0,09 0.48 0.48 0.05 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 403 365 181 166 2441 736 160 2178 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.06 c0.06 0.05 c0.36 0.03 c0.41 v/s Ratio Perm 0.13 v/c Ratio 1.17 0.52 0.72 0.60 0.75 0.26 0.65 0.93 Uniform Delay, dl 58.0 62.7 64.2 65.8 31.8 23.2 70.3 39.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 101.9 1.3 12.8 6.0 2.2 0.9 9.1 7.8 Delay (s) 159.9 64.0 77.0 71.8 34.0 24.1 79.4 47.8 Level of Service F E E E C C E D Approach Delay (s) 159.9 69.5 34.2 49.3 Approach LOS F E C D HCM Average Control Delay 54.2 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.1% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Magnesia Falls Dr & Hwy 111 6/29/2011 Lane Configurations 4 r V 4 if Vi W+ Vi tO Volume (vph) 26 4 36 88 11 41 33 1992 38 22 1843 9 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 &0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.91 Frpb, ped(bikes 1.00 0,97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.96 1:00 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) 1785 1536 1681 1703 1536 1770 5066 1770 5080 Fit Permitted 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 1785 1536 1681 1703 1536 1770 5066 1770 5080 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Ad). Flow (vph) 28 4 39 96 12 45 36 2165 41 24 2003 10 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 36 0 0 41 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 32 3 54 54 4 36 2205 0 24 2013 0 Confl. Peds. (Nhr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Split Perm Split Perm Prot Prot Protected Phases 4 4 8 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 Actuated Green, G (s) 11.8 11.8 12A 12.4 12.4 18.6 81.5 10.3 73.2 Effective Green, g (s) 11,8 11.8 12.4 12.4 12.4 18.6 81.5 10,3 73.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.14 0.60 0.08 0.54 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 156 133 153 155 140 242 3036 134 2734 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 c0.03 0.03 0.02 c0.44 0.01 c0.40 v/s Ratio Perm 0.00 0.00 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.03 0.36 0.35 0.03 0.15 0.73 0.18 0.74 Uniform Delay, d1 57.7 56.8 68.0 58.0 56.3 51.7 19.3 58.9 24.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 0.1 1.4 1.4 0.1 0.3 1.6 0.6 1.8 Delay (s) 58.4 56.9 59.4 59.4 56.4 52.0 20.9 59.5 25.8 Level of Service E E E E E D C E C Approach Delay (s) 57.6 58.5 21.4 26.2 Approach LOS , E E C C HCM Average Control Delay 25.4 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 136.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.6% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Magnesia Falls Dr & Joshua Rd 6/22/2011 --0. '*.* >-- Lane Configurations T+ *T y Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume (vph) 3 19 2 28 30 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 21 2 30 33 4 Volume Total (vph) 24 33 37 Volume Left (vph) 0 2 33 Volume Right (vph) 21 0 4 Hadj (s) -0.48 0.06 0.14 Departure Headway (s) 3.5 4.1 4.2 Degree Utilization, x 0.02 0.04 0.04 Capacity (veh/h) 1000 875 844 Control Delay (s) 6.6 7.2 7.3 Approach Delay (s) 6.6 7.2 7.3 Approach LOS A A A Delay 7A HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 4: Parkview Dr & Hwy 111 6/22/2011 Lane Configurations + +T r Vi W r ) t"O Volume (vph) 34 22 8 58 9 170 38 1898 41 179 1765 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 Frpb, pad/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 0,99 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1,00 Fit Protected 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1762 1763 1637 1770 5085 1537 1770 5066 Fit Permitted 0.80 0.71 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Said, Flow (perm) 1438 1301 1537 1770 5085 1537 1770 5066 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 37 24 9 63 10 185 41 2063 45 196 1918 38 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 0 167 0 0 10 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 65 0 0 73 18 41 2063 35 195 1955 0 Conti. Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 12.4 12.4 12.4 17.0 82.0 82.0 20.6 85.6 Effective Green, g (s) 124 12.4 12.4 17.0 82.0 82.0 20.6 85.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.13 0,63 0,63 0.16 0.66 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 124 147 231 3207 969 280 3336 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0,41 c0.11 0.39 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.06 0.01 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.59 0.12 0.18 0.64 0.04 0,70 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 55.7 56.4 63.8 50.3 14.9 9.1 51.7 12.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.92 1.21 0.96 0.20 0.06 0.72 0.70 Incremental Delay, d2 2..5 - 6.9 0.4 : 0.3 0.8 0.1 6.3 0.6 Delay (s) 58.2 59.0 65.7 48.7 3.8 0.6 43.4 9.3 Level of Service E E E D A A D A Approach Delay (s) 68.2 63.8 4.6 12.4 Approach LOS E E A B HCM Average Control Delay 12.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 4 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5; Parkview Dr & Dwy #1 6122/2011 Lane Configurations + Volume (vehlh) 163 79 51 162 74 148 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 177 86 55 176 80 161 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (fVs) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 625 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 273 484 197 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 273 484 197 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) IF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 96 84 81 cM capacity (veh/h) 1279 .510 830 - Volume Total 177 86 55 176 241 Volume Left 0 0 55 0 80 Volume Right 0 86 0 0 161 cSH 1700 1700 1279 1700 686 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.35 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 3 0 40 ' Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 13.1 Lane LOS A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.9 13.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 4.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 5 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Parkview Dr & Dwy #2 6/22/2011 Lane Configurations TO T Y Volume (vehlh) 307 4 25 208 5 30 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 334 4 27 226 5 33 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ftls) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None TWLTL Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) 871 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 348 636 356 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 346 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 290 vCu, unblocked vol 348 636 356 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.4 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.4 IF (s) 2.2 3.5. 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 95 cM capacity (vehlh) 1201 608 677 Volume Total 338 —253 38 Volume Left 0 27 5 Volume Right 4 0 33 cSH 1700 1201 666 Volume to Capacity 0.20 0.02 0.06 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 1.1 10.7 Lane LOS: A 8 Approach Delay (s) 0.0 1.1 10.7 Approach LOS B Average Delay 1.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 1011112010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 6 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 7: Parkview Dr & Joshua Rd 6/22/2011 Lane Configurations Vi -Ti T+ 4 4 Volume (vehlh) 24 305 7 9 212 25 4 2 11 28 2 18 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% 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 Hourly flow rate (vph) 26 332 8 10 230 27 4 2 12 30 2 20 Pedestrians 10 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type TWLTL None Median storage veh) 2 Upstream signal (ft) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 268 349 678 685 355 680 675 264 vC1, stage 1 conf vol 398 398 274 274 vC2, stage 2 conf vol 281 287 407 401 vCu, unblocked vol 268 349 678 685 355 680 675 264 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) 6.1 5.5 6.1 5.5 1F (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 99 99 100 98 94 100 97 cM capacity (vehlh) 1285 1200 523 511 677 520 514 762 .O.liUt�� � � _._ -� __fir^'�':4.4iL=- ` =��YYCL� . _ �:3i= .�a.��-.: erss. �'�.x w :�°. "x's-:a=•-x- �:.7 Volume Total _ 26 M9 10 268 18 52 Volume Left 26 0 10 0 4 30 Volume Right 0 8 0 27 12 20 cSH 1285 1700 1200 1700 612 690 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.20 0.01 0.15 0.03 0.09 Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 0 1 0 2 7 Control Delay (s) 7.9 0.0 8.0 0.0 11.1 11.7 Lane LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.6 0.3 11:1 11.7 Approach LOS B B REM Average Delay 1.6 Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2016 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 7 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 8: Parkview Dr & Monterey Ave 6/23/2011 -.4 -• --v 'r *-- � 1 Iltlrnent - - - -8� 4hft3R L _ id .= Styx = vBT=_R Lane Configurations V1 tt r M tt r Volume (vph) 180 57 180 125 79 178 106 962 105 132 877 145 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5,0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.89 1.00 0,90 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1764 1614 1753 1636 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 0.42 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 715 1614 775 1636 1770 3539 1537 3433 3539 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 196 62 196 136 86 193 115 1046 114 143 953 158 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 97 0 0 69 0 0 0 43 0 0 66 Lane Group Flow (vph) 196 161 0 136 210 0 115 1046 71 143 953 92 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Perm Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 35.9 35.9 35.9 35.9 13.8 65.3 65.3 13.8 65.3 65,3 Effective Green, g (s) 35.9 36.9 35.9 35.9 13.8 65.3 65.3 13.8 66.3 65.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.28 0,28 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 197 446 214 452 188 1778 772 364 1778 772 v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.13 c0.06 c0.30 0.04 0.27 v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 0.18 0.05 0.06 vlc Ratio 0.99 0.36 0.64 0.47 0.61 0.59 0.09 0.39 0.54 0.12 Uniform Delay, d1 47.0 37.8 41.3 39.1 55.5 22.9 16.9 54.2 22.0 17.1 Progression Factor 0.77 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.52 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 62.2 0.5 6.1 0.8 6.3 1.3 0.2 0.7 1.2 0.3 Delay (s) 98.5 17.7 47.4 39.8 43.3 13.2 6.9 54.9 23.2 17.4 Level of Service F B D D D B A D C B Approach Delay (s) 52.6 42.3 15.4 26.1 Approach LOS D D B C HCM Average Control Delay 27.6 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.72 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time Is) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 75,6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10111/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Dwy #3 & Hwy 111 6/2212011 1- 4-- t t* \. 1 Lane Configurations r fft r ttt Volume (vehlh) 0 127 1850 278 0 1854 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 138 2011 302 0 2015 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ftls) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 616 595 pX, platoon unblocked 0.84 0.74 0.74 vC, conflicting volume 2703 690 2323 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 630 0 1540 tC, single (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 100 82 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 344 784 312 Volume Total 138 670 670 670 302 672 672 672 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 138 0 0 0 302 0 0 0 cSH 784 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.18 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.18 0.40 0.40 0.40 Queue Length 95th (ft) 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 10.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS B Approach Delay (s) 10.6 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 9 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Fred Waring Dr & Hwy 111 6/22/2011 -.4 -b- --v 'r '- 4- � T /Opo \Do 1 W Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 48 125 46 170 136 434 41 1631 77 470 1342 43 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5,0 . 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0,97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1,00 0.97 1.00 1,00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0,95 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1537 3433 5085 1560 3433 5044 3433 5057 Fit Permitted 0,96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 6085 1537 3433 5085 1560 3433 5044 3433 5057 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 52 136 50 185 148 472 46 1773 84 511 1459 47 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 52 136 4 185 148 472 45 1855 0 511 1605 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Free Prot Prot Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 10.3 9.9 9.9 12.3 11.9 130,0 6.1 66.9 20.9 81.7 Effective Green, g (s) 10.3 9.9 9.9 12.3 11.9 130.0 6.1 66.9 20.9 81.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0,09 1.00 0.05 0.51 0.16 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 .6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 272 387 1.17 325 .465 1560 161 2596 552 3118 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.03 c0.05 0.03 0.01 c0.37 c0.15 0.30 v/s Ratio Perm 0,00 c0.30 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.35 0.03 0.57 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.71 0.93 0.47 Uniform Delay, dl 56.0 57.0 55.6 56.3 55.3 0.0 59.8 24.2 53.8 12.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.55 0.76 1.00 1.38 0.13 0.64 0,14 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.6 0.1 2.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 19.0 0.4 Delay (s) 56.3 57.6 55.7 33.3 42.6 0.5 83A 4.1 53.3 2.2 Level of Service E E E C -D A F A D A Approach Delay (s) 56.9 15.8 6.0 15.1 Approach LOS E B A B HCM Average Control Delay 13.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.69 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of last time (s) 15.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 10 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 612212011 HCM Ail -Way analysis is limited to two lanes per leg. Channelized right turn lanes are not counted. Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 11 SimTraffic Performance Report Year 2015 + P PM 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 30.1 1.9 6.4 0.4 0.3 4.1 7.2 3.3 6/22/2011 Vons Palm Desert SimTraOic Report AG Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2015 + P PM 6122/2011 Intersection: 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Directions Served L L T T R R Maximum Queue (ft) 94 23 24 30 66 76 Average Queue (ft) 59 9 5 6 39 45 95th Queue (ft) 93 27 20 25 77 76 Link Distance (ft) 315 70 70 70 213 159 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 3 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 12: Fred Waring Dr & Dvvy #5 6/22/2011 1# --► 4-- Lane Configurations Ttt + tt F r Volume (veh/h) 0 562 732 28 0 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 611 796 30 0 16 Pedestrians 10 10 10 Lane Width (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Walking Speed (ft/s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Percent Blockage 1 1 1 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 556 866 pX, platoon unblocked 0.90 0.90 0.90 vC, conflicting volume 836 1019 285 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf voi vCu, unblocked vol 441 644 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 998 360 963 ggg Volume Total 204 204 204 265 265 265 30 16 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 16 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 963 Volume to Capacity 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 8.8 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 12 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 13; Fred Waring Dr & Town Center Way 6/23/2011 Lane Configurations ) +tt if )) +0 + r + It Volume (vph) 19 471 86 172 576 41 174 32 221 23 6 11 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor, 1.00 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1,00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0,97 1.00 1.00 0.97 Fipb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 0.99 1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said, Flow (prot) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5018 1739 1863 1637 1740 1863 1637 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (perm) 1770 5085 1537 3433 5018 1378 1863 1537 1345 1863 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 21 612 93 187 626 45 189 35 240 25 7 12 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 78 0 8 0 0 0 90 0 0 4 Lane Group Flow (vph) 21 512 15 187 663 0 189 35 160 25 7 8 Confl. Pads. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Perm Prot Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 6.2 21.3 21.3 12.4 27,5 81.3 81.3 81.3 81.3 81.3 81.3 Effective Green, g (s) 6.2 21.3 21.3 12.4 27.5 81.3 81.3 81.3 81.3 81.3 81.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0,16 0.16 0.10 0.21 0,63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 84 833 252 327 1062 862 1165 961 841 1165 961 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.10 0.05 c0.13 0.02 0,00 v/s Ratio Perm 0.01 c0.14 0.10 0.02 0,00 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.61 0.06 0.67 0.62 0.22 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.01 Uniform Delay, d'I 59.7 50.5 45.9 56.3 46.6 10.6 9.3 10.1 9.3 9.2 9.2 Progression Factor 0.70 0.87 0.52 0.43 0.38 1.34 1.26 3.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.1 0.9 0.1 2.3 1.1 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay (s) 43.0 44.7 24.1 26.4 18.7 14.8 11.7 31.2 9.4 9.2 9.2 Level of Service D D C C B B B C A A A Approach Delay (s) 41.6 20.4 23.0 9.3 Approach LOS D C C A HCM Average Control Delay 27A HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 10.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/1112010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 14: Fred Waring Dr & Monterey Avenue 6/22/2011 Lane Configurations VII tO )) ttt If M ttT+ M ♦tt it Volume (vph) 274 443 69 273 591 184 94 682 231 304 678 178 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost Ome (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 0.97 0.91 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0,99 1.00 1.00 0.97 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.96 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 4963 3433 5085 1560 3433 4856 3433 5085 1537 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 4963 3433 5085 1560 3433 4856 3433 5085 1537 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 298 482 75 297 642 200 102 741 251 330 737 193 RT.OR Reduction (vph) 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 113 Lane Group Flow (vph) 298 538 0 297 642 200 102 954 0 330 737 80 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 16.5 19.9 19.2 22.6 130.0 17.2 53.7 17.2 53.7 53.7 Effective Green, g (s) 16.5 19.9 19.2 22.6 130.0 17.2 53.7 17.2 533 53.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.17 1.00 0.13 0.41. 0.13 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 5.0 6.0 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 436 760 507 884 1560 454 2006 454 .2100 635 v!s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.11 0.09 c0.13 0.03 c0.20 c0.10 0.14 v/s Ratio Perm c0.13 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.71 0.59 0.73 0.13 0.22 0.48 0.73 0.35 0.13 Uniform Delay, d1 54.3 52.3 51.7 50.8 0.0 50.4 27.9 54.1 26.2 23.6 Progression Factor 0.85 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.66 0.67 Incremental Delay, d2 4.3 3.0 1.7 3.0 .0.2 . 0.3 -0.8 5.0 0.4 0.4 Delay (s) 50.4 28.4 53.4 53.8 0.2 50.7 28.7 47.2 17.7 16.2 Level of Service D C D D A D C D B B Approach Delay (s) 36.1 44.3 30.7 25.2 Approach LOS D D C C HCM Average Control Delay 33.7 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 14 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 15: Hwy 111 & Town Center Way 6/22/2011 Lane Configurations I) ++ + F )) ttf r 1) 0 M tT if Volume (vph) 96 1092 264 101 1303 112 377 78 36 98 73 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.95 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 1,00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,85 Fit Protected 0.96 1,00 1.00 0.95, 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3433 5085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3341 3433 3539 1560 Fit Permitted 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 6085 1560 3433 5085 1537 3433 3341 3433 3539 1560 Peak -hour factor, PHF 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) 104 1187 287 110 1416 122 410 85 39 107 79 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 29 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 104 1187 287 110 1416 55 410 95 0 107 79 40 Confi. Peds, (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Turn Type Prot Free Prot Perm Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases Free 8 Free Actuated Green, G (s) 9.4 37.4 130.0 9,6 37.6 37.6 31.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 130.0 Effective Green, g (s) 9.4 37.4 130.0 9,6 37.6 37.6 31.0 32.0 31.0 32.0 130.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.29 1.00 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.25 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 5,0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 248 1463 1560 254 1471 445 819 822 819 871 1560 v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 0.23 c0.03 c0.28 c0.12 0.03 0.03 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.04 .0.03 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.81 0.18 0.43 0.96 0.12 0.50 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 57.7 43.0 0.0 57.6 45.6 34.1 42.8 38.0 38.9 37.8 0.0 Progression Factor 1.04 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.87 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.0 3.2 0.2 1.2 15.4 0.1 2.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 Delay (s) 61.0 34.9 0.2 58.8 60.9 34.2 46.0 38.3 43.3 70.9 0.0 Level of Service E C A E E C :. D D D E A Approach Delay (s) 30.3 58.8 43.4 45.3 Approach LOS C E D D HCM Average Control Delay 44.7 HCM Level of Service HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 130.0 Sum of lost time (s) Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.8% ICU Level of Service Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group IC 10.0 B Vons Palm Desert 10/11/2010 Year 2015 + P PM Synchro 7 - Report AG Page 15 'ice -"'�` (Pfdj SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2015 + P Mid 6/2912011 Summary of All Intervals End Time 7:10 Total Time (min) 13 Time Recorded (min) 10 # of Intervals 2 # of Recorded Intvls 1 Vehs Entered 1510 Vehs Exited 1306 Starting Vehs 310 Ending Vehs 514 Denied Entry Before 17 Denied Entry After 42 Travel Distance (mi) 1193 Travel Time (hr) 79.9 Total Delay (hr) 47.7 Total Stops 3079 Fuel Used (gal) 58.6 Interval #0 Information Seedin Start Time 6:57 End Time 7:00 Total Time (min) 3 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, No data recorded this interval. Interval #1 Information Recording Start Time 7:00 End Time 7:10 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. Vehs Exited 1306 Starting Vehs 310 Ending Vehs 514 Denied Entry Before 17 Denied Entry After 42 Travel Distance (mi) 1193 Travel Time (hr) 79.9 Total Delay (hr) 47.7 Total Stops 3079 Fuel Used (gal) 58.6 Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report Year 2015 + P Mid 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Delay 1 Veh (s) 293 2.2 0.2 0.9 1.1 0.1 9.4 11.1 4.8 6/29/2011 Vons Palm Desert ShTraffic Report AG Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2015 + P Mid 6/29/2011 Intersection: 11: Fred Warina Dr & Dwv #4 ROSMAN Directions Served L T TR T T R R R Maximum Queue (ft) 112 29 53 29 30 22 30 50 Average Queue (ft) 89 6 21 12 6 4 6 39 95th Queue (ft) 127 25 62 35 26 18 25 56 Link Distance (ft) 315 315 315 70 70 70 213 159 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 3 SimTraffic Simulation Summary Year 2015 + P PM 6/2912011 Summary of All Intervals End Time 7:10 Total Time (min) 13 Time Recorded (min) 10 # of Intervals 2 # of Recorded Intvls 1 Vehs Entered 1496 Vehs Exited 1320 Starting Vehs 322 Ending Vehs 498 Denied Entry Before 44 Denied Entry After 242 Travel Distance (mi) 1101 Travel Time (hr) 92.0 Total Delay (hr) 62.3 Total Stops 2644 Fuel Used (gal) 58.3 Interval #0 Information Seedi Start Time 6:57 End Time 7:00 Total Time (min) 3 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors. No data recorded this interval, Interval #1 Information Recordin Start Time 7:00 End Time 7:10 Total Time (min) 10 Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors, Vehs Exited 1320 Stating Vehs 322 Ending Vehs 498 Denied Entry Before 44 Denied Entry After 242 Travel Distance (mi) 1101 Travel Time (hr) 92.0 Total Delay (hr) 62.3 Total Stops 2644 Fuel Used (gal) 58.3 Vons Palm Desert SimTrafflc Report AG Page 1 SimTraffic Performance Report Year 2015 + P PM 6/29/2011 11: Fred Waring Dr & Dwy #4 Performance by movement Delay / Veh (s) 31.6 1.2 0.7 9.3 0.7 0.3 8.3 6.5 4.0 Vons Palm Desert Sim7raffic Report AG Page 2 Queuing and Blocking Report Year 2015 + P PM 6/29/2011 Intersection: 11: Fred Warina Dr & Dwv #4 T Directions Served L L R R R Maximum Queue (ft) 94 26 20 51 76 Average Queue (ft) 80 10 4 28 46 95th Queue (ft) 109 31 17 54 74 Link Distance (ft) 315 70 70 213 159 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Vons Palm Desert SimTraffic Report AG Page 3 Mary Helen Kelly 46100 Burroweed Lane `J Palm Desert, CA 92260-5575 c July 12, 2011 w r t' - - r, The City of Palm Desert_ :X d :-` 73 -5 10 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 I' h ry rn The Honorable Mayor Jean Benson: Dear Jean, Thank you for the time and energy you give and the dedication you have serving the City of Palm Desert as Mayor. I know you have concerns for every project coming before you and after studying the same facts as every other council person; you may base your vote on a different opinion from others. I also know you have access to facts I do not have. I am not able to be in attendance Thursday so I am writing to encourage you to approve both the plans for Vons to relocate to the former Mervyn's Center and the Rosewood Hotel on Highway 74. Council members are elected to study facts and if necessary grant variances for projects that benefit the city and the majority of its citizens. I hope you will come to the conclusion that these two projects are those that will benefit Palm Desert and its citizens. Following are my thoughts on these two projects: VONS 1. Vons will relocate, if not to another place in Palm Desert, than to a place outside the city. The people living near its current location will lose Vons anyway you vote. 2. By insuring that they stay in Palm Desert their move will revitalize the Mervyns Center, retain and increase revenue for the city S General Fund which allows Palm Desert to have the best public safety, parks, art, streets, medians and well kept neighborhoods. 3. They have worked with the city to meet all requested changes and a variance from an ordinance adopted for another era should be made and approval given for Vons project. THE 5 STAR ROSEWOOD HOTEL 1. They have done more than anyone could expect to visit, talk to and make adjustments for neighbors and city concerns. 2. To make further adjustments would take away the ability to make a profit and maintain their 5 Star rating which is the attraction for the high end clientele this project will attract to Palm Desert. 3. A 5 Star hotel in this location will be a boon for El Paseo which makes Palm Desert different from any other city in the Coachella Valley and attracts the people who contribute to Palm Desert's General Fund through Sales and Transit Occupancy Taxes. 4. It is estimated that this project will generate 1 million in Transit Occupancy Taxes plus the building fees to support Palm Deserts General Fund expenses — Public Safety, Parks, and Roads etc Letter for approval of VONS and the 5 Star Rosewood Hotel Page 2. From Mary Helen Kelly 5. With Redevelopment Funds being taken from us by the State, please do not lose this opportunity for additional revenue by delaying or denying approval. 6. Every time a project is continued or sent back for changes the cost of the project escalates and they will eventually move on to a location where officials are more accepting of their efforts to meet local requests. 7. Highway 74 is already a main artery to South Palm Desert resorts, high end homes, high density residential apartments/condos, the mountain resorts, and a route to the Hemet Valley, San Diego, the southern beaches and all the towns in between. This hotel will not make a dent in increased traffic. 8. Mountain views for neighbors are all around them to the south and west and the ambience of their own properties will remain. 9. Palm Desert has been waiting for a 5 Star hotel of this size for a long time. This corporation has a tract record for producing results and is well know among the clientele who will be using it. I have been a resident in the desert since the time when the area between Palm Springs and Indio was connected by a two lane road with little in-between but sand and agriculture. Many changes, which at the time I didn't particularly like, took place which took away from the small town atmosphere and beautiful date groves. Thankfully the council and staff in Palm Desert maintained the family atmosphere and natural resources while bringing in the kinds of commercial/retail/tourist resort/hotel projects that provide us the funds to have the life style we all enjoy and a city which attracts visitors that provide income for our city. There will always be some who do not want change, even though they were part of the change in the past. Please consider all of the positive reasons to approve these projects without further delay. In the current economic climate we may not have another opportunity like this for a long time. Sincerely, AaAAA Maryele Kelly Long ime Palm Desert Resident Klassen, Rachelle From: Swartz, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 4:57 PM To: Klassen, Rachelle Subject: FW: Vons PD Attachments: CC E00000. pdf From: Josh Zipperman .[mailto:josh(&BurkeRix,coml Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 4:54 PM To: Swartz, Kevin Subject: Vons PD HI Kevin, Here are some more letters of support - Thanks Josh Zipperman Senior Associate Burke Rix Communications 431 S. Palm Canyon Drive, Suite 206 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone: (760) 327-9708 x24 Fax: (760) 327-9788 www.burkerix.com U` R' w vI I X E-mail Disclaimer: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. This e-mail is covered by The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. This transmission may also be protected under the attorney -client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or other protective orders. These rights will be strictly enforced. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender at (760) 327-9708. NA Please consider the 4nvi ion nyent before pining this a-nm it 1 Wednesday, June 8, 2011 4:41 PM Subject: von's @ Mervyn's Date: Saturday, June 4, 2011 3:18 PM From: patsy miller <millermail2500@yahoo.com> To: Josh Zipperman <josh@Burke Rix.com> Hi Josh, Please pass this letter onto the next meeting about Von's. We live in the nearby neighborhood of the old Mervyn's building and love the location if it were to become Von's. Please include us as supporters of the move. Thank you, Martin & Patricia Miller 72870 Mimosa Dr. Palm Desert, Ca 92260 760-505-7992 Page i of 1 Sunday, May 29, 2011 I was one who went out and had, letter's signed. Was very surprised to hear how much it would mean to the general public that Von's move to Fred Warning and 111. Many go to the collage and would shop there also. And it would help with the out of towner who drives to and from events in are cities, also people that drive Fred Warning to and from work. They now have to shop I also was very surprised how many said it would also be easy to shop by bus. (There are two that would service that area,) wish that when I was on the bus and talking about the store, that I had taken the letters for them to sign. Many riders stated it would sure help them. We group are shopping trips up so can do several things at once, we could shop Ross and the Alley also. The bus riders now have to walk a long way to get grocery's so most now shop Albertsons, there is one that I know boards the bus on Fred Warning and goes to Palm Spring to shop Von's it is easer for him then where it is now. I hope that this little letters also helps the counsel decides to go a head with it. We need a store on the west end of Palm Desert. I am a bus rider and checked it out how much more it would mean to me. I now go to Stater Bros, so I can get off and cross just one main street hyw l I in La Quinta. I will not be able to attend the next meeting so thought this would talk for me. Thank You Ruth Olsen 73695 Santa Rosa Way # 108 Palm Desert, Ca 92260 Wednesday, June 8, 2011 4:50 PM Subject: support for Von's move Date: Sunday, June 5, 2011 2:00 PM From: Christine Schaefer <christinemschaefer@msn.com> To: Josh Zipperman <josh@Burke Rix.com> Priority: Highest This is my vote of vote of strong support for the Von's move to the old Mervin's building. It is hard for me to imagine that this move would increase traffic in our area any differently than when Mervin's was in this location. Won't be able to attend the meeting as I will be at work. Christine Schaefer Christine Schaefer 72808 San Juan Drive palm Desert, Ca 92260 760-610-1952 Page 1 of 1 Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:37 PM Subject: "Vans" Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:30 PM From: William Kamenar <billmimik@dc.rr.com> To: Josh Zipperman <josh@BurkeRix.com> So much time and effort, on something REALLY NEEDED ! Please finalize this, and make the move possible! Sincerely, Mr. & Mrs. William S. Kamenar, Palm Desert Page 1 of 1 Wednesday, June 8, 2011 4:42 PM Subject: I Support the Vons move to Fred Waring Plaza Date: Saturday, June 4, 20113:26 PM From: Ahhbaja@aol.com To: Josh Zipperman <josh@BurkeRix.com> Cc: <christinemschaefer@msn.com> I Support the Von's move to Fred Waring Plaza. Rod Murphy 72764 Arboledo Palm Desert, CA 92260 Page 1 of 1 Friday, May 27, 2011 2:25 PM Subject: Support Von's in Palm Desert Date: Thursday, May 26, 2011 2:25 PM From: Betty Gabrysh <gabrysh@shaw.ca> To: Josh Zipperman <josh@BurkeRix.com> We strongly support getting a Von's in Palm Desert. Don and Betty Gabrysh 70260 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Page 1 of 1 Michelson, Wilma From: maryt513@aol.com Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 9:10 AM To: CityhallMail Subject: in favor of Rosewood and oppose Vons move As a resident of Sandpiper I am IN FAVOR of the Rosewood Hotel and feel that it will be a tremendous asset to the area and the community ... a vacant lot full of trash is no asset!!!! those few who oppose will find in time that they will be singing the praises!!!... The Rosewood Group have been more than kind and bending over backwards to comply with the wishes of the Planning Commission and of the City Council..Please APPROVE the plan. As to the Vons issue please let them stay for the time being.... since we know that they are going to close the store anyway!!! Safeway/Vons must really be feeling the competition ....... Have you invited Stater .Bros.to come to Palm Desert? Thanks you for your consideration ..... Good luck.... by the way the fireworks were just beautiful.... and the funeral service, etc. handled so well Palm Desert is definitely ON THE MAP!!! Mary Maloney