HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/17/2017 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.H. PALM S.
.y
V N
'ry a
I C 1IORPf Efef p»
q<,F°RN, City Council Staff Report
DATE: May 17, 2017 CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: APPROVE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) FOR A FUNDING
CONTRIBUTION OF $200,000 FOR THE NORTH PALM CANYON
DRIVE (STATE ROUTE 111) AT VIA ESCUELA TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALLATION, CITY PROJECT NO. 17-05
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Engineering Services Department
SUMMARY
Approval of a Cooperative Agreement with the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) provides for state funding from Caltrans of up to $200,000 towards the cost of
installing a new traffic signal at N. Palm Canyon Drive (State Route 111) and Via
Esceula. Approval of the cooperative agreement will allow the City to proceed with
development of this project, identified as the N. Palm Canyon Drive (State Route 111) at
Via Escuela Traffic Signal Installation, City Project No. 17-05.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Approve Agreement No. a Cooperative Agreement for State Highway
Operation & Protection Program (SHOPP) Minor Funds Contribution from the
California Department of Transportation for an amount up to $200,000 for the N.
Palm Canyon Drive (State Route 111) and Via Esceula Traffic Signal Installation,
City Project No. 17-05;
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The un-signalized intersection on North Palm Canyon Drive (State Route 111) at Via
Escuela is located one-quarter mile between signalized intersections located at Racquet
Club Road and Vista Chino. As shown in the aerial photo below, this un-signalized
intersection occurs at an acute angle in the alignment of State Route 111, and is within
an urbanized area of Palm Springs with high density commercial and residential uses
immediately surrounding the intersection. The Engineering Services Department
ITEM NO. I- NI
City Council Staff Report
May 17, 2017- Page 2
N. Palm Canyon Dr. at Via Escuela Traffic Signal Installation, CP17-05
commissioned a traffic signal warrant analysis for this intersection, and based on our
consultant's findings, warrants for a traffic signal at this intersection were not satisfied.
However, after completion of the analysis, the City requested that Caltrans Traffic
Operations evaluate the intersection for operational improvements. At the conclusion of
their review, Caltrans determined that a new traffic signal was warranted for operational
improvements, and suggested that the City of Palm Springs take the lead on the capital
project, to install the new traffic signal. The City Engineer recommends that the City
take the lead, as it will likely allow for faster delivery of this important traffic safety
improvement project. The Engineering Services Department has identified this capital
project as the North Palm Canyon Drive (State Route 111) at Via Escuela, Traffic Signal
Installation, City Project No. 17-05, (Project).
A location map with a 500' radius from the Project is provided below for reference.
®ENE®■®a
��1f•� . . ■■M
c
•. a
012
Location Map with 500' Radius
The City Engineer provided a letter to Caltrans dated January 12, 2017, included as
Attachment 1, requesting funding contribution of up to $290,000, the SHOPP Minor B
limit for the program, and authority to take the lead on all phases of the Project.
Caltrans agreed to the City's request by a letter dated April 13, 2017 and included as
Attachment 2, however, limited the funding contribution to only $200,000. On April 28,
2017, Caltrans provided the City with a Cooperative Agreement formalizing the terms
for the City's role as lead agency, and providing the City with up to $200,000 in state
02
City Council Staff Report
May 17, 2017 - Page 3
N. Palm Canyon Dr. at Via Escuela Traffic Signal Installation, CP17-05
funding towards the Project; a copy of the Cooperative Agreement is included as
Attachment 3.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Section 21084 of the California Public Resources Code requires Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Guidelines
are required to include a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to
have a significant effect on the environment and which are exempt from the provisions
of CEQA. In response to that mandate, the Secretary for Resources identified classes
of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and are declared to
be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental
documents. In accordance with Section 15301 "Existing Facilities," Class 1 projects
consist of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor
alteration of existing public structures, facilities, mechanical equipment involving
negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's
determination. Therefore, in accordance with Section 15301(c), staff has determined
that the North Palm Canyon Drive (State Route 111) at Via Escuela Traffic Signal
Installation, City Project No. 17-05, is considered categorically exempt from CEQA and
a Notice of Exemption will be prepared and filed with the Riverside County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total cost of the Project is estimated at $650,000 as shown in the following Table.
Pursuant to the terms of the Cooperative Agreement with Caltrans, the state will
reimburse 100% of all project costs up to a maximum of $200,000. The remaining
budget of $450,000 will be funded by the City through Local Measure A (Fund 134) or
Gas Tax (Fund 133).
However, recently, CVAG released a call for projects for traffic safety improvements,
and on Mayh 1, 2017, staff submitted this Project in an application for funding through
the 2017 CVAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program, to offset the balance of costs
not funded by Caltrans. Should funds be awarded for this project by CVAG, staff will
adjust the funding sources appropriately.
Preliminary Cost Estimate for New Traffic Signal at
Vista Chino (State Route 111) at Via Miraleste (CP 17-03)
Description Cost
Design Costs (15% of Construction, inclusive of Webb proposal) $75,000
Construction (Includes 20% Contingency) $500,000
Construction Management and Inspection (15% of Construction) $75,000
Total $650,000
Table 1
03
City Council Staff Report
May 17, 2017- Page 4
N. Palm Canyon Dr. at Via Escuela Traffic Signal Installation, CP17-05
SUBMITTED:
Thomas Garcia, P.E. Marcus L. Full , MPA, P.E., P.L.S.
City Engineer Assistant City Manager
David H. Ready, Esq., P
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Letter to Caltrans
2. Response from Caltrans
3. Cooperative Agreement
ATTACHMENT 1
05
O�VALM SA�'y
N City of Palm Springs
Engineering Services Department
'"'pgpjO 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way• Palm Springs,California 92262
rFORN�P Tel:(760)322-8380•Fax:(760)323-8207• Web:www.paimspringsca.gov
January 12, 2017
Mr. Catalino Pining Mr. Syed Raza
Deputy District Director Deputy District Director
Traffic Operations Program Project Management
Caltrans District 8 Caltrans District 8
464 W. 4th Street 464 W. 4th Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 San Bernardino, CA 92401
RE: State Route 111 (N. Palm Canyon Dr.) at Via Escuela Traffic Signal Installation
Dear Mssrs. Pining and Raza:
Residents of the City of Palm Springs have requested that the City pursue traffic safety improvements along
State Route 111 (N. Palm Canyon Drive) to improve traffic circulation and pedestrian access. One of the critical
intersections that is of concern is State Route 111 (N. Palm Canyon Dr.) at Via Escuela. This un-signalized
intersection is located one-quarter mile between signalized intersections located at Racquet Club Road and
Vista Chino. As shown in the aerial photo below, this un-signalized intersection occurs at an acute angle in the
alignment of State Route 111, and is within an urbanized area of Palm Springs with high density commercial
and residential uses immediately surrounding the intersection.
V &&
\ I
In
IR " •
06
Mssrs. Pining & Raza
January 12, 2017
Page 2
The City previously commissioned a traffic signal warrant analysis for this intersection, and based on our
consultant's findings, warrants for a traffic signal at this intersection are not satisfied. I have included a copy of
our warrant analysis with this letter for your reference.
Although a traffic signal may not be warranted, the City requests that Caltrans Traffic Operations evaluate this
intersection for operational improvements that would justify installation of a traffic signal. Accordingly, by
this letter, the City requests installation of a new traffic signal at the State Route 111 (N. Palm Canyon Dr.) and
Via Escuela intersection, (the "Project"). Further, the City requests Caltrans approval to serve as lead agency
for the Project, with responsibility for preparing the environmental document, completing the design, and
administering the construction phase of the Project. The City requests that Caltrans consider sharing in the
total cost of the Project up to the Minor B ($290,000) limit.
On the basis that Caltrans Traffic Operations justifies operational improvements to the State Route 111 (N.
Palm Canyon Dr.) and Via Escuela intersection, the City requests that Caltrans enter into a cooperative
agreement with the City as may be necessary to formalize the cost sharing and responsibilities of each agency
associated with the Project. The City sincerely appreciates your consideration of this important traffic safety
project along the State Route 111 corridor. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (760)
322-8380, or by e-mail at Marcus.Fuller@palmspringsca.gov.
Sincerely,
Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, PE, PLS
Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
Enc—traffic signal warrant analysis
07
A L B E R T A.
Lim pi Pei Ill
A S S O C I A T E S
Corporate Headquarters
3788 McCray Street November 1, 2016
Riverside,CA 92506
951.686,1070 Mr. Gianfranco Laurie P.E., T.E.
Palm Desert office City of Palm Springs
41-990 Cook St.,Bldg.I-#801 B 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Desert,CA92211 Palm Springs, CA 92262
951.686.1070
RE: Signal Warrant Analysis for the intersections of Racquet Club Road at
41391 a lmDffia S Cerritos Road, La Verne Way at Twin Palms Drive and North Palm Canyon at Via
41391 Kalmia5treeig320 y y
Murrieta,CA 92562 Escuela
951.686.1070
Mr. Franco Laurie,
The purpose of this letter is to conduct a traffic signal warrant analysis at the
existing intersections of Racquet Club Road/Cerritos Road, La Verne Way/Twin
Palms Drive and North Palm Canyon/Via Escuela.
■ Existing Roadway Conditions
Racquet Club Road at Cerritos Road
Racquet Club Road is an east-west roadway classified as a Secondary
Thoroughfare in the City of Palm Springs General Plan as approved in 2007. It is
an undivided 4 lane roadway and Class III bicycle route. Racquet Club Road has a
posted speed of 45 miles per hour(mph) and an 85th-percentile speed of 49 mph
based on the approved 2013 City-Wide Speed Zone Surveys dated October 8,
2013 (Speed Survey). The nearest intersection to the east is a one-way stop
controlled intersection at Farrell Drive approximately 1,190' east of Cerritos Road.
The nearest intersection to the west is a one-way stop controlled intersection at
Calico Lane approximately 625' west of Cerritos Road.
The intersecting street is Cerritos Road. It is a 2 lane roadway classified as a 40'
wide Collector road in the City of Palm Springs General Plan. The posted speed
limit on Cerritos Road is 25 mph.
The existing intersection is two-way stop controlled with traffic on Cerritos Road
yielding to traffic on Racquet Club Road. There are no existing turn movement
restrictions at the intersection.
City staff provided traffic volumes from the proposed 441 residential dwelling
units for the Serena Park project to be located approximately 0.25 miles west of
the intersection of Racquet Club Road and Cerritos Road. This signal warrant
analysis covers the existing plus project conditions.
www.webbassociates.com
08
La Verne Way at Twin Palms Drive
La Verne Way is classified as a Secondary Thoroughfare in the City of Palm Springs General Plan as
approved in 2007. It is an undivided 4 lane roadway. The posted speed on La Verne Way is 40 mph. La
Verne Way has a posted speed limit of 40 mph and an 85th-percentile speed of 44 mph based on the
approved 2013 City-Wide Speed Zone Surveys dated October 8, 2013 (Speed Survey). The nearest
intersection to the north is a signalized intersection at E Palm Canyon Drive/Sunrise Way approximately
735' north of Twin Palms Drive. The nearest intersection to the south is a one-way stop controlled
intersection at Toledo Avenue approximately 650' south of Twin Palms Drive.
The intersecting street is Twin Palms Drive. It is a 2 lane roadway classified as a 40' wide Collector road in
the City of Palm Springs General Plan. The posted speed on Twin Palms Drive is 25 mph.
The existing intersection is two-way stop controlled with traffic on Twin Palms Drive yielding to traffic on
La Verne Way. There are no existing turn movement restrictions at the intersection.
This signal warrant analysis covers the existing condition. No new projects are proposed near this
intersection.
City staff provided information regarding traffic generated by the proposed 18 residential dwelling units
project to be located on the southwest corner of Camino Real and Twin Palm Drive that will utilize the
intersection of Twin Palms and La Verne Way at Drive. This signal warrant analysis covers the existing plus
project conditions.
North Palm Canyon Drive at Via Escuela
North Palm Canyon Drive is classified as a Major Thoroughfare in the City of Palm Springs General Plan
as approved in 2007. It is an undivided 4 lane roadway. The posted speed on Palm Canyon Drive is 40
mph. The nearest intersection to the north is a two-way stop-controlled intersection at Via Olvera
approximately 800' north of Via Escuela. The nearest intersection to the south is a signalized intersection
at North Palm Canyon Drive/Vista Chino approximately 1,400' south of Via Escuela.
The intersecting street is Via Escuela. It is a 2 lane roadway classified as a 40' wide Collector road in the
City of Palm Springs General Plan. The posted speed on Via Escuela is 25 mph.
The existing intersection is two-way stop controlled with traffic on Via Escuela yielding to traffic on North
Palm Canyon Drive. There are no existing turn movement restrictions at the intersection.
City staff provided traffic volumes for the proposed 49 residential dwelling units for the Icon development
project and a 9 dwelling unit condominium project. The 49 residential dwelling units are proposed
approximately 0.5 miles north of the intersection of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela. The 9
condominiums units are proposed 0.25 miles north-east of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela.
This signal warrant analysis covers the existing plus project conditions.
■ Data Collection
Counts for the intersections of Racquet Club Road/Cerritos Road, La Verne Way/Twin Palms Drive and
North Palm Canyon/Via Escuela were collected on May 17, 2016. Vehicle turning movement counts were
collected from 6:00 AM through 6:00 PM. In addition, pedestrian crossing and bicycle crossing counts
were collected for the same time frame. The 2014 California MUTCD allows for bicycles to be counted as
G:\2016\16-0140\Traffic\Warrant Analysis\October 2016\16-140 Signal Warrant Analysis.doc 09
pedestrians or vehicles. Since there are no existing bicycle facilities at the intersection the bicycle counts
were added to the pedestrian counts as through movements.
■ Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
A 2014 California MUTCD Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheets were completed using the collected traffic
data for the intersections of Racquet Club Road/Cerritos Road, La Verne Way/Twin Palms Drive and North
Palm Canyon/Via Escuela. Only count data from May 17, 2016 was used in the traffic signal warrant
analysis.
Racquet Club Road and Cerritos Road
Racquet Club Road has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Cerritos Road has a posted speed limit of 25
mph. Northbound and southbound traffic on Cerrito Road are considered to have one approach lane in
the warrant analysis due to the presence of on-street parking. Serena Park residential traffic was added to
the count traffic volumes.
None of the nine traffic signal warrants were satisfied. Warrant 1 (Eight Hour Vehicular Volume), Warrant 2
(Four Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) were not satisfied as the traffic volume on
Cerritos Road was insufficient to satisfy the warrants. Similarly, the crossing pedestrian volumes
(pedestrians crossing the major street) were insignificant and did not satisfy Warrant 4. Warrant 5 was not
analyzed because the intersection is not close to a school (only elementary through high school is to be
considered for warrant 5) that is applicable for this analysis. Warrant 6 was not satisfied due to Racquet
Club Road and Cerritos not having a prime direction of traffic flow that requires providing additional
vehicular platooning adjustments. Collision history for Warrant 7 was reviewed to identify if five or more
collisions have occurred at the intersection of Racquet Club Road/Cerritos Road within a 12 month
period; however, a maximum of three correctable crashes have occurred during that timeframe, which are
not enough to satisfy the warrant. Warrant 8 was not satisfied as Cerritos Road is not a major route and is
not expected to contribute significant traffic volumes in the future. Warrant 9 was not analyzed because
the intersection is not near a grade crossing.
La Verne Way and Twin Palms Drive
Although La Verne Way has a posted speed limit of 40 mph, a critical approach speed of 44 mph was
used. The latest speed survey for La Verne Way showed an 85th percentile speed of 44 which was
lowered to keep continuity of speeds through the roadway segment. The 2014 California MUTCD allows
the use of the 85th percentile speed in place of the posted speed limit when performing signal warrant
analysis. Also, eastbound and westbound traffic on Twin Palms Drive are considered to have one
approach lane in the warrant analysis.
None of the nine traffic signal warrants were satisfied. Warrant 1 (Eight Hour Vehicular Volume), Warrant 2
(Four Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour)were not satisfied as the traffic volume on Twin
Palms Drive was insufficient to satisfy the warrants. Similarly, the crossing pedestrian volumes
(pedestrians crossing the major street)were insignificant and did not satisfy Warrant 4. Warrant 5 was not
analyzed because the intersection is not close to a school. Warrant 6 was not satisfied due to La Verne
Way and Twin Palms Drive not having a prime direction of traffic flow that requires providing additional
vehicular platooning adjustments. Collision history for Warrant 7 was reviewed to identify if five or more
collisions have occurred at the intersection of La Verne Way/Twin Palms Drive within a 12 month period;
however, a maximum of one correctable crash has occurred during that timeframe, which is not enough to
G:\2016\16-0140\Traffic\WarrantAnalysis\October 2016\16-140 Signal Warrant Analys is.doc 10
satisfy the warrant. Warrant 8 was not satisfied as Twin Palms Drive Is not a major route and is not
expected to contribute significant traffic volumes in the future. Warrant 9 was not analyzed because the
intersection is not near a grade crossing.
North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela
North Palm Canyon Drive has a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Via Escuela has a posted speed limit of 25
mph. Also, eastbound and westbound traffic on Via Escuela are considered to have one approach lane in
the warrant analysis due to the presence of on-street parking.
None of the nine traffic signal warrants were satisfied. Warrant 1 (Eight Hour Vehicular Volume),Warrant 2
(Four Hour Vehicular Volume)and Warrant 3(Peak Hour)were not satisfied as the traffic volume on Via
Escuela was insufficient to satisfy the warrants. Similarly, the crossing pedestrian volumes(pedestrians
crossing the major street)were insignificant and did not satisfy Warrant 4. Warrant 5 was not analyzed
because the intersection is not close to a school. Warrant 6 was not satisfied due to North Palm Canyon
Drive and Via Escuela not having a prime direction of traffic flow that requires providing additional
vehicular platooning adjustments. Collision history for Warrant 7 was reviewed to identify if five or more
collisions have occurred at the intersection of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela within a 12
month period; however, a maximum of three correctable crashes have occurred during that timeframe,
which are not enough to satisfy the warrant. Warrant 8 was not satisfied as Via Escuela is not a major
route and Is not expected to contribute significant traffic volumes in the future. Warrant 9 was not
analyzed because the intersection is not near a grade crossing.
■ Conclusion
The conclusion of this traffic signal warrant analysis indicates that the existing traffic and existing plus
project traffic at the intersections do not warrant a traffic signal at the intersections of Racquet Club
Road/Cerritos Road, La Verne Way/Twin Palms Drive and North Palm Canyon/Via Escuela.
Should you have any questions, please contact us at (951) 686-1070.
Sincerely,
ALBE�RT A.WE
EBB ASSOCIATES
�� V ,f/o's R S8 �Fy
Nancy Velgara, Err
Assistant Engineer I' Pip,2112 s m
Dilesh Sheth, P.E.,T.E.
Vice President
e:\2016\16.014MTrAdWarranl Analysls\Octobar 2016\16.140 Signal Warrant Analyals.doc
Traffic Signal Warrants
Worksheets
G:\2016\16-0140\Traffic\Warrant Analysis\October 2016\16-140 Signal Warrant Analysis.doc 12
EXISTING CONDITIONS
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 841
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition,including Revisions 1 &2,as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 1 of 5)
COUNT DATE 5/17/2016
8 Riv N/A CALc NV DATE 7/13/2016
DIST CO RTE PM CHK DATE
Major St: North Palm Canyon Drive (N/S) Critical Approach Speed 40 mph
Minor St_ Via Escuela (E/W) Critical Approach Speed 25 mph
Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic>40 mph....................... ❑
��or RURAL(R)
In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 population...-..... ❑
® URBAN(U)
WARRANT 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES ® NO 0
(Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and B must be satisfied)
Condition A-Minimum Vehicle Volume 100% SATISFIED YES ® NO El
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES ® NO ❑
(80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U I R I U I R F' 9 F• F�, F: • F: , F: , F:Q, F:
re•F oQ CQ Q oQ o oc o oQ
APPROACH 1 2 or More °o°.a• o ° °o° o° °o° Hour
LANES n0 n,sh' �'v^. w;(,. ,t•:y. roa. pij. h6.
Both Approaches 500 350 600 420 895 872 983 1072 1038 1004 1022 916
Major Street (400) (280) (480) (336)
Highest Approach 150 105 200 140 41 53 45 41 49 53 30 35
Minor Street (120) (84) (160) (112)
Condition B -Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES ® NO 0
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES lA NO 0
(80%SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U R U R
APPROACH
1 2 or More o°� ti �ry o°e ?°Rry o�qa¢pyo�4i. HOOT
Both ApproachesRM(80)
630 895 872 983 1072 1038 1004 1022 916
Major Street 504)
Highest Approach70 41 53 45 41 49 53 30 35
Minor Street (56)
Combination of Conditions A S B SATISFIED YES ® NO 0
REQUIREMENT CONDITION FULFILLED
A. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
TWO CONDITIONS Yes ® No 01
SATISFIED 80% AND,
B. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
AND,AN ADEQUATE TRIAL OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD
CAUSE LESS DELAY AND INCONVENIENCE TO TRAFFIC HAS FAILED Yes ® No 0
TO SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Chapter 4C-Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7,2014
Part 4-Highecay Traffic Signals
13
EXISTING CONDITIONS
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 842
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition,including Revisions 1 &2,as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 2 of 5)
WARRANT 2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED` YES ® NO 0
Record hourly vehicular volumes for any four hours of an aver.dyI Fir FF-
2 or 000Q• 000Q- oo$Q• pp�Q•
APPROACH LANES One More ^'o h A0a ay° Hour
Both Approaches-Major Street 1072 1038 1004 1022
Higher Approach-Minor Street 1WLJ41 49 53 30
'All plotted points fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1. (URBAN AREAS) Yes ® No 0
BB,All plotted points fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-2. (RURAL AREAS) Yes ® No 0
WARRANT 3-Peak Hour SATISFIED YES ® NO 0
(Part A or Part B must be satisfied)
PART A SATISFIED YES 0 NO 0
(All parts 1,2,and 3 below must be satisfied for the same
one hour,for any four consecutive 15-minute periods)
1. The total delay experienced by traffic on one minor street approach(one direction only)
controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane Yes ® No 0
approach,or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach;AND
- ----- ---- ---------- -- --- - - - - - - - ---- -- ----- ---- --- ------------
2 The volume on the same minor street approach(one direction only)equals or exceeds Yes ® No
100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;AUQ
--------------------------------- --- ----------------------------
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph Yes ® No
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with
three approaches.
PART B F; SATISFIED YES ® NO
or
APPROACH LANES OAT
our
Both Approaches-Major Street Higher Approach-Minor Street
The plotted point falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3. (URBAN AREAS) Yes ® No 0
OR,The plotted point falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-4. (RURAL AREAS) Yes ® No 0
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7,2014
Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals 14
Project: Hot Spots Signal Warrant Analysis
North Palm Canyon (N/S) & Via Escuela (E/W)
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Existing Conditions Page 836
(FHWA's Ml7TCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 &2,as amended for use in California)
X„oua =(Major,Minor)
Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume X, (1072,41)
500 1 1 1 1 X, (1038,49)
2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES
X, (1004,53)
400 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE Xa(1022,30)
MINOR I I
STREET soa 1 LANE& 1 LANE
HIGHER-
VOLUME
APPROACH - 200 - —
VPH
115'
100 80,
�3 X,
300 400 500 600 700 a00 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH)
*Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) X„oua=(Major,Minor)
400
X, (1072,41)
2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES X, (1038,49)
300
MINOR 2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE X,, (1004,53)
STREET I X.(1022,30)
HIGHER- 200 1 LANE& 1 LANE
VOLUME
APPROACH -
VPH
too
so,
I
X,
200 300 400 500 600 700 e00 900 1000
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note:80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Chapter 4C—IYaffic Control Signal Needs Studics November 7,2014
Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals t C
iJ
A L H a R T A. Project: Hot Spots Signal Warrant Analysis
WEBB Date: 10/4/006
A s s o C r A T a s Intersection: North Palm Canyon Drive(N/S)/Via Escuela (EMI)
Scenario: Existing
California MUTCD(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1,as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Critical Approach Volume (VPH)'
Street Name Speed Lanes AM Peak PM Peak
Major St: North Palm Canyon Drive (N/S) 40 mph 2 or More N/A 1,072
Minor St: Via Escuela (E/W) 25 mph 1 N/A 41
Volume for major street is total volume of both approaches. Volume for minor street is the volume of higher-volume
approach.
Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic > 64 km/h (40mph).....................
D
RURAL(R)
In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 population...................................
0 URBAN (U)
600
a 500
V 400
ra
w0
wit
Ka
N a 300
sw
02
0 200
it
s 100
a
_ ---
----
--Q
0
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH)
—2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES —2 OR MORE LANES& 1 LANE
1 LANE& 1 LANE
x AM Peak o PM Peak
'Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
WARRANT 3 -Peak Hour- PART B SATISFIED YES NO Q
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
16
EXISTING CONDITIONS
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 843
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition,including Revisions I &2,as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 3 of 5)
WARRANT 4-Pedestrian Volume SATISFIED YES ® NO El
(Parts 1 and 2 Must Be Satisfied)
F�c• F�c• FF• FF'
Part 1 (Parts A or B must be satisf °°oQ• o°oQ• o°oQ-
Hours ---> ^'V ryti. •y., p.o
A Vehicles per hour for 1072 1038 1004 1022 Figure 4C-5 or Figure 4C-6
any4hours SATISFIED YES ® NO 0
Pedestrians per hour for 6 2 9 7
any 4 hours
Fic•
Hours ---� ^'ry°°•
B Vehicles per hour for 1072 Figure 4C-7 or Figure 4C-8
any 1 hour SATISFIED YES ® NO 0
Pedestrians per hour for 6
any 1 hour
Part 2 SATISFIED YES 0 NO
ANU The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes 0 No
than 300 ft
�,The proposed traffic signal will not restrict progressive traffic flow along the major street. Yes ® No 0
WARRANT 5-School Crossing Not Applicable SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑
(Parts A and B Must Be Satisfied)
Part A SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑
Gap/Minutes and#of Children
Hour
Gaps Minutes Children Using Crossing
vs
Minutes Number of Adequate Gaps Gaps <Minutes YES ❑ NO ❑
School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street 1 hr AND Children> 201hr YES ❑ NO ❑
AND, Consideration has been given to less restrictive remedial measures. Yes ❑ No ❑
Part B SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑
The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater Yes ❑ No ❑
than 300 ft
M,The proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Yes ❑ No ❑
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7,2014
Part 4—I lighway Traffic Signals
17
Project: Hot Spots Signal Warrant Analysis
North Palm Canyon (N/S) & Via Escuela (E/W)
California NfUTCD 2014 Edition Existing Conditions Page 838
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition,including Revisions I &2,as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-5. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume X„oaa=(Major,Minor)
soo X, (1072,6)
X,(1038,2)
aoo
TOTAL OF ALL X,(1004,9)
PEDESTRIANS 300 X, (1022,7)
CROSSING
MAJOR STREET-
PEDESTRIANS 200 PER HOUR(PPH)
too 1 for
X
300 400 500 600 700 goo 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH)
'Note: 107 pph applies as the lower threshold volume.
Figure 4C-6. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume (70% Factor) Xuoux=(Major,Minor)
400
X, (1072,6)
300 X, (1038,2)
TOTAL OF ALL X,(1004.9)
PEDESTRIANS
CROSSING z00 X, (1022,7)
MAJOR STREET-
PEDESTRIANS
PER HOUR (PPH)
ao
75'
X?(, X,
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH)
'Note:75 pph applies as the lower threshold volume-
Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs-Studies November 7,2014
Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals 18
Project: Hot Spots Signal Warrant Analysis
North Palm Canyon (N/S) & Via Escuela (E/W)
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Existing Conditions Page 839
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition,including Revisions I &2,as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-7. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour X„o.,=(Major,Minor)
700 X, (1072,6)
600
TOTAL OF ALL 500
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING 400
MAJOR STREET-
PEDESTRIANS -900
PER HOUR (PPH)
200
100 :7t771777 I�J 133'
'k,—7
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 loon 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
'Note:133 pph applies as the lower threshold Volume.
Figure 4C-8. Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour (70% Factor) Xauua=(Major,Minor)
500 X, (1072.6)
aoo
TOTAL OF ALL
PEDESTRIANS 300
CROSSING
MAJOR STREET-
PEDESTRIANS 20o
PER HOUR (PPH)
100 93•
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 low 1100 1200
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR(VPH)
'Note:93 pph applies as the lower threshold volume.
Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7,2014
Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals 19
EXISTING CONDITIONS
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 844
(EHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions I R 2,as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 4 of 5)
WARRANT 6 -Coordinated Signal System SATISFIED YES ® NO p
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
> 1000 ft N 1,700 ft, S 1,400 ft. E N/A ft, W N/A ft Yeso No®
On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction,the adjacent
traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of
vehicular platoo_ning. _ ____ _ _ ____ ____ __ ___ Yes® NoEl
QR,On a two-way street,adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary
degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively
provide a progressive operation.
WARRANT 7 -Crash Experience Warrant SATISFIED YES ® NO 0
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to Yes® NOE]
reduce the crash frequency.
REQUIREMENTS Number of crashes reported within a 12 month period
susceptible to correction by a traffic signal,and involving injury Yes® NoM
or damage exceeding the requirements for a reportable crash.
----------------- ---------------------------- -------
5 OR MORE
REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONS J
Warrant 1,Condition A-
Minimum Vehicular Volume
ONE CONDITION M,Warrant 1,Condition B- Yes® Nod
SATISFIED 80% Interruption of Continuous Traffic
QR,Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Condition
Ped Vol?80%of Figure 4C•5 through Figure 4C-8
WARRANT 8 -Roadway Network SATISFIED YES ® NO 0
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES-ALLAPPROACHES
REQUIREMENTS FULFILLED
During Typical Weekday Peak Hour 1 120 VehlHr
and has 5-year projected traffic volumes that meet one or more
of Warrants 1,2,and 3 during an average weekday.
1000 VehlHr ----------------------- Ves® Nod
OR
During Each of Any 5 Hrs.of a Sat. or Sun VehlHr
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR MAJOR
ROUTE A ROUTE R
Hwy.System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic
-------- ----------------
Rural or
Suburban Highway Outside Of,Entering,or Traversing a City
-----------------------
Appears as Major Route on an Official Plan
Any Major Route Characteristics Met, Both Streets Yes® NoO
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7,2014
Part 4—Highway Iraftie Signals 20
EXISTING CONDITIONS
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 845
(FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions I &2,as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet(Sheet 5 of 5)
WARRANT 9 -Intersection Near a Grade Crossing Not Applicable YES ❑ NO ❑
(Both Parts A and B Must Be Satisfied)
PART A
A grade crossing exists on an approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign and the Yes❑ No❑
center of the track nearest to the intersection is within 140 feet of the stop line or yield
line on the approach. Track Center Line to Limit Line ft
PART B
There is one minor street approach lane at the track crossing-During the highest
traffic volume hour during which rail traffic uses the crossing,the plotted point falls above
the applicable curve in Figure 4C-9.
Major Street-Total of both approaches- VPH
Minor Street-Crosses the track(one direction only,approaching the intersection):
VPH X AF(Use Tables 4C-2,3,&4 below to calculate AF)= VPH
——— ————————————————————————— Yes[-] No[]
OR,There are two or more minor street approach lanes at the track crossing-
During the highest traffic volume hour during which rail traffic uses the crossing,
the plotted point falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-10.
Major Street-Total of both approaches: VPH
Minor Street-Crosses the track(one direction only,approaching the intersection):
VPH X AF(Use Tables 4C-2, 3,&4 below to calcualte AF)_ VPH
The minor street approach volume may be multiplied by up to three following adjustment factors(AF)
as described in Section 4C.10.
1-Number of Rail Traffic per Day Adjustment factor from table 4C-2_
2-Percentage of High-Occupancy Buses on Minor Street Approach_ Adjustment factor from table 4C-3
3-Percentage of Tractor-Trailer Trucks on Minor Street Approach Adjustment factor from table 4C-4_
NOTE: If no data is availale or known,then use AF= 1 (no adjustment)
Chapter 4C—Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7,2014
Part 4—Highway Traffic Signals 21
Existing Traffic Counts
May 17, 2016
G:\2016\16-0140\Traffic\Warrant Analysis\October 2016\16-140 Signal Warrant Analysis.doc 22
Counts Unlimited
PO Box 1178
Corona,CA 92878
(951)268-6268
City of Palm Springs File Name : PLSPAVI
N/S: Palm Canyon Drive(Highway 111) Site Code :06716301
EMI:Via Escuela Start Date :5/17/2016
Weather:Clear Page No : 1
Groups Printed-Total Volume _ _ __ _
Palm Canyon Drive Via Escuela Palm Canyon Drive Via Escuela
_ Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
::Start Time _Left Thru Right .Trnsi Left Thru Ri ht A .rolai Left Thru Ripht aoo.m1al Left Thru Ri ht Total Int.Tolal
06:00 AM 2 55 1 58 1 0 1 2 1 27 0 281 1 1 1 3 91
06:15 AM 1 69 1 71 2 0 0 2 0 32 0 32 1 1 4 6 111
06:30 AM 1 103 1 105 1 0 4 5 1 45 1 47 0 2 5 7 164
06:45 AM a_ 5 160 0 165 4 1 1 6 0 28 2 30 2 1 1 4 205
Total 9 387 3 399 8 1 6 15 2 132 3 137 4 5 11 20 571
07:00 AM 2 105 1 108 1 1 2 4 1 43 2 46 0 1 4 5 163
07:15 AM 1 158 1 160 5 2 1 8 2 41 3 46 0 1 8 9 223
07:30 AM 4 158 0 162 5 1 3 9 4 71 1 76 1 1 5 7 254
07:45 AM 1 238 1 240 14 1 5 _20 _ 5 48 4 57 0 1 6 7 324
Total 8 659 3 670 25 5 11 41 12 203 10 225 1 4 23 28 964
08:00 AM 1 141 1 143 6 6 6 181 2 57 7 66 112 5 7 234
08:15 AM 1 137 1 139 8 1 0 9 2 57 5 64 0 1 9 10 222
08:30 AM 3 148 0 151 10 0 4 14 4 51 4 59 1 1 10 12 236
_ 08_:45 AM 2 133 2 137 9 2 3 14 1 _ 84 5 90 0 3 6 9 250
Total 7 559 4 570 33 9 13 55 9 249 21 279 1 7 30 38 942
09:00 AM 1 107 0 108 9 4 3 16 2 62 1 65 2 2 6 10 1119
09:15 AM 2 112 1 115 9 3 3 15 2 88 2 92 2 1 3 6 228
09:30 AM 0 109 0 109 7 1 5 13 3 106 5 114 1 2 4 7 243
09:45 AM 1 104 2 107 2 4 7 13 5 85 2 92 2 3 5 10 222
Total 4 432 3 439 27 12 18 57 12 341 10 363 7 8 18 33 892
10:00 AM 2 108 1 111 4 3 2 9 1 83 5 89 1 1 2 4 213
10:15 AM 1 116 2 119 7 4 4 15 3 113 4 120 0 1 4 5 259
10:30 AM 4 85 0 89 3 0 5 8 2 93 3 98 1 0 1 2 197
10:45 AM 3 95 1 99 3 1 3 7 5 111 2 118 0 6 9 15 239
Total 10 404 4 418 17 8 14 39 11 400 14 425 2 8 16 26 908
11:00 AM 2 97 2 101 7 4 7 18 3 90 0 93 0 2 8 10 222
11:15 AM 1 135 1 137 6 2 4 12 2 89 2 93 1 1 8 10 252
11:30 AM 1 99 1 101 j 4 2 7 13 4 95 4 103 0 2 5 7 224
11:45 AM 1 123 4 128 5 1 4 109 3 116 0 4 3 7 261
Total 5 454 8 467 22 9 22 53 13 383 9 405 1 9 24 34 959
12:00 PM 2 126 4 132 8 1 5 14 3 129 4 136 0 0.. 7 7 289
12 15 PM 1 118 0 119 7 1 4 12 9 120 6 135 0 1 4 5 271
12 30 PM 2 116 2 120 5 1 3 9 5 106 4 115 1 1 6 8 252
12:45 PM 5 113 0 118 3 2 _5 10 1 101 6 108 4 1 5 10 ' 246
Total 10 473 6 489 23 5 17 45 18 456 20 494 5 3 22 30 1058
01:00 PM 0 117 - 2 119 6 4 3 13 2 110 5 117 2 1 3 6 255
of 15 PM 1 147 2 150 6 4 3 13 4 126 3 133 D 1 8 9 305
01:30 PM 3 121 3 127 2 1 4 7 4 130 5 139 2 4 5 11 284
01:45 PM ' _ 1 146 2 149 4 2 2 8 5 126 7 138. 2_ _ 1..__ 7 10 305
Total 1 5 531 9 5451 18 11 12 41 15 492 20 527 6 7 23 36 1149
02:00 PM 2 126 4 132 3 3 4 10 7 143 10 160 3 4 5 12 314
02:15 PM 2 133 1 136 4 1 8 13 4 97 6 107 3 0 3 6 262
02:30 PM 2 123 2 127 6 4 1 11 3 127 5 135 1 1 6 8 281
_ 0.2:45 PM 1 124 2 127 6 3 6 15 6 103 5 114 0 1 6 7 263
Total 1 7 506 9 5221 19 11 19 491 20 470 26 516 7 6 20 33 1120
03:00 PM 2 1011 1 111 5 2 7 14 4 111 9 124 2 3 4 9 258
03:15 PM 4 120 2 126 6 1 6 13 3 124 7 134 0 3 7 10 283
03:30 PM 7 132 2 141 4 1 6 11 5 132 2 139 4 2 5 11 302
03:45 PM 3 92 1 96 _ 4 4__ 7 15 1 130 2 133 1 4 5 10 254
Total 1 16 452 6 47. 19 8 26 53 , 13 497 20 530 7 12 21 40 1097
23
Counts Unlimited
PC Box 1178
Corona,CA 92878
(951)268-6268
City of Palm Springs File Name : PLSPAVI
NlS: Palm Canyon Drive(Highway 111) Site Code :06716301
ENV:Via Escuela Start Date :511712016
Weather:Clear Page No :2
Groups Printed-Total Volume
Palm Canyon Drive Via Escuela Palm Canyon Drive Via Escuela
Soulhbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time Left Thru Ri ht A .Total Left Thru Ri ht .Total Left Thru Ri ht A .mtai Left Thru Ri ht A .Total int.Total
04:00 PM 0 122 1 123 0 0 4 4 3 141 2 146 0 2 7 9 282
04:15 PM 1 103 1 105 3 1 2 6 7 120 5 132 0 1 5 6 249
04:30 PM 2 105 0 107 7 1 5 13 9 133 5 147 0 2 5 7 274
04:45 PM.4 2. 97 4 103 ' 1 3 3 7 8 146 5 159 1 1 2 4 273
Total 5 427 6 438 11 5 14 30 27 540 17 584 1 6 19 26 1078
05:00 PM 1 89 2 92 6 0 4 10 2 150 6 158 0 2 4 6 266
05:15 PM 3 102 0 105 6 1 3 10 6 110 0 116 0 0 3 3 234
05:30 PM 0 103 2 105 4 0 4 8 3 112 2 117 3 1 5 9 239
_ 05:45 PM _2 _ 104 1 107 1 1 5 7 4 110 2 116 0 2 5 7 _237
Total 6 398 5 409 17 2 16 351 15 482 10 5071 3 5 17 25 976
Grand Total 92 5682 66 5840 . 239 86 188 513 167 4645 180 4992 45 B0 244 369 11714
Apprch% 1.6 97.3 1.1 j 46.6 16.8 36.6 3.3 93 3.6 12.2 21.7 66.1
Total% 0.8 48.5 0.6 49.9 2 0.7 1.6 4A 1.4 39.7 1.5 42.6 0.4 0.7 2.1 3.2
_-
Palm Canyon Drive Via Escuela Palm Canyon Drive Via Escuela
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Start Time I Left I Thru I Right I App.Torsi I Left Thru I Riohl App,Taal Left Thru I Right I App,Total Left I Thru I Right I Aon,Tgtai Int.Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 AM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:15 PM
01:15 PM 1 147 2 150 6 4 3 13 4 126 3 133 0 1 8 9 305
01:30 PM 3 121 3 127 2 1 4 7 4 130 5 139 2 4 5 11 284
01:45 PM 1 146 2 149 4 2 2 8 5 126 7 138 2 1 7 10 305
02:00 PM 2 126 4 132 3 3 4 10 7 143 10 160 3 4 5 12 314
Total Volume 7 540 11 558 15 10 13 38 20 525 25 570 7 10 25 42 1208
%Ap .Total 1.3 96.8 2 39.5 26.3 34.2 3.5 92.1 4.4 16.7 23.8 59.5 _
PHF .583 .918 .688 .930 .625 .625 .813 .731 .714 .918 .625 .891 1 .583 .625 .781 .875 .962
24
Counts Unlimited
PO Box 1178
Corona,CA 92878
(951)268-6268
City of Palm Springs File Name :PLSPAVI
NIS: Palm Canyon Drive(Highway 111) Site Code :06716301
ENV:Ua Escuela Start Date :6/17/2016
Weather:Clear Page No :3
Palm Canyon Drive
Out In Total
54�1®
-11. . -540I 71
Right Thlru Left
Peak Hour Data
q�
q North
° cv. o2 u
Peak Hour Begins at Ot 15 P 2 0
q J q
.> �'poo�� Total Volume o w d
e K 1 1 o
0 L �0@
L
Left Thru Right
20 5251 I25
580 570 115p
Out In Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 AM to 05:45 PM-Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Each Aooroach Begins at: _ _... _
07.11 07:45 AM 04:15 PM 10:45 AM
+0 mins. 1 158 1 160 1 14 1 5 20 7 120 5 132 0 6 9 15
+15 mina 4 158 0 162 6 6 6 - 18 9 133 5 147 0 2 8 10
+30 mins. i 1 238 1 240 8 1 0 9 8 146 5 159 1 1 8 10
+45 mins. 1 1 141 1 143 10 0 4 14 2 150 6 158 0 2 5 7_
Total Volume 7 6 55 3 5 38 8 15 61 26 54 70 9 21 596 1 11 30 42
Apo.Total 1 98.6 0.4 1 62.3 13.1 24.6 4.4 92.1 3.5 24 26.2 71.4
PHF .438 .730 .750 .734 .679 .333 .625 .763 .722 .915 .875 .937 .250 .458 .833 .700
25
Location: Palm springs Date:5/17/2016
N/S: Palm Canyon Drive Weather:Clear
E/W'. Via Ewuela
PEDESTRIANS
North Leg East Leg South Leg Wait Leg
Time Palm Canyon Oriye)Highway 111) Via Eecuela Palm Canyon Dnve)Highway 111) Via Ezcuela TOTAL
6'00 AM 0 0 0 2 2
5,15 AM 0 0 0 1 1
630 AM 0 0 0 2 2
645 AM 0 0 0 2 2
7:00 AM 0 3 0 0 3
7'.15 AM 0 1 0 D 1
2'.30 AM D 0 0 1 1
7'.45 AM 0 0 0 0 0
8'.00AM D 0 1 1 2
8 15AM 1 4 D 0 5
8:30AM 0 0 0 1 1
8:45 AM 0 2 1 0 3
900AM 1 1 2 3 )
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
9:30 AM 1 0 0 3 4
9'45 AM C 2 0 2 4
10.00 AM 0 1 0 1 2
WAS AM 0 0 0 2 2
10:30 AM 0 0 3 3 6
10'.45 AM 0 0 I C 1
110CAM 0 C 0 D 0
11:15 AM 0 1 0 1 2
11:3DAM 0 0 0 0 0
1145 AM 0 2 0 0 2
12.00 PM 1 0 0 0 1
12:15 PM 0 0 C 0 0
12:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1
12:45 PM 1 0 0 1 2
100 PM 0 0 0 0 0
1:15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
1:30 PM 0 1 0 0 1
145 PM 0 0 0 0 0
2:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1
2:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
2,30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
2'.45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
3'.00 PM 1 0 0 1 2
3'.15 PM 0 1 0 1 2
3'.30 PM 2 1 0 0 3
3'.45 PM 0 2 2 2 6
4'.00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4'.15 PM 0 0 0 2 2
4:30 PM 1 1 0 1 3
4:45 PM 0 1 0 0 1
5,00 PM 0 6 2 0 8
�� 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
530 PM 0 3 0 1 4
5:45 PM 0 0 0 1 1
MTALVOLUMES: 2 11 4 11 28
Conti Unlimited,Inc, el 6
PO Boe 1178 4/
Corona,CA 92878
951-268-6268
Location: Palm Springs Date:5/17/2016
N/S: Palm Canyon Drive(Highway 111) Weather: Clear
E/W: Via Escueld
BICYCLES
North Leg East leg South Leg West Leg
Time Palm Canyon Drive(Highway 111) Via Escuela Palm Canyon Drive Highway ill) Via Escuela TOTAL
6:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1
615 AM 2 0 0 0 2
6:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1
645 AM 0 0 0 0 0
7:00 AM 0 1 1 0 2
2:15 AM 0 0 1 1 2
2:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1
2:45 AM 1 0 0 0 1
8:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1
8:15 AM 2 0 1 0 3
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 AM 2 0 0 0 2
9:00 AM 0 0 0 C 0
915 AM 0 0 0 0 0
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0
9:45 AM 0 0 C 0 0
10:00 AM 0 1 0 0 1
1015 AM 0 0 0 C 0
10:30 AM 0 0 C 1 I
10:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1
1100 AM 0 0 0 0 0
11'15 AM 0 0 0 0 0
1130 AM 0 0 0 0 0
1145 AM 0 0 C C 0
1200 PM 0 0 0 0 0
12'15 PM 0 0 0 C 0
12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
100 PM 0 1 1 4
115 PM 0 0 0 0 0
130 PM 0 1 2 0 3
145 PM 0 0 0 1 1
2:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
2.15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
2:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1
245 PM 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 PM 0 2 1 2 5
3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:00 PM 0 0 2 0 2
4:15 PM 0 0 1 1 2
4 SO PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
S00 PM 0 0 C 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
T0TALVOLUMES: 11 ] 11 8 37
Counts Unlimited,Inc.
PO Boa 1178 ,)ar
Corona,CA 92878 (�
951-268-6268
ATTACHMENT 2
28
Sii136 Vk.Ci1L3CORNln-CALIP4RNIn SinIF.lRnN4rOR'RTNN SS�t�i'I _.. IUAILNI1 G.aROwNh,Go,.fu,1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
464 W1-S I'I-OURI11 5tItI:G r.MS 1201
SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92401-Id00
MAIN (909)3834561 {lnkrng Cm+scnwnun
DIRECT(909)388-7149 :1('al furnra 11 ul r f Life
rAX(909)383-4960
TTY 711
uvw w.dot.ca.govidist8
April 13, 2017
Mr. Marcus L. Fuller
Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs CA, 92262
Dear Mr. Fuller:
This is in response to your request for the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to participate
in the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of North Palm Canyon Drive(State
Route 111) and Via Escuela intersection in The City of Palm Springs (City).
Caltrans' staff has completed its review of the data you provided and determined that a traffic
signal is warranted for operational improvement at this location. Caltrans is committing a lump
sum contribution in the amount of$200,000 for the project in the Fiscal year 201612017.
As requested, Caltrans is agreeable to have the City serve as the lead agency for the project and
provide the remaining funding needed for the project. A cooperative agreement (coop) between
the City and Caltrans will be required outlining roles and responsibilities of each agency.
Caltrans will prepare the draft coop and will send it to the City for review as soon as it is ready.
A project Expenditure Authorization(EA) number, EA 08-111960 has been established for the
project. Please reference this EA in all future correspondence. Mr. Mustapha laali will serve as
Caltrans Project Manager for the project.
We look forward to working with the City to complete the project. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at (909) 388-7149 or Mustapha laali at (909) 383-5908.
Sincerely
SY1 D ZA
Deputy District Director
Program and Project Management
c. Mustapha laali, Project Manager, Caltrans
Calalino Pining, Deputy District Director. Operations
"I'm ide a safe.susrainahle rmegnncd and r nenr rrnni7iarurrinrr srsrevr O1
76 enhance Cal forma s ecormny and Inuhr6(r " 2 J
APR 19 2017
30
ATTACHMENT 3
31
U]t$QF 'nd1A—('ALIFfMtNIA tif�TF�1P�j{�YRTATION Af EN(Y ____._.__—_......'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/AGREEMENTS
464 WEST4T11 STREET,6i11 FLOOR(MS 1231)
SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92401.1400 Making Conservation
PHONE(909)338-4068 d California Way of Life.
April 28, 2017
Mr. Marcus L. Fuller 08-RIV-1 l 1-54.1
Assistant City Manager/City Engineer EA: 1 H960
City of Palm Springs Project Number: 0817000172
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Agreement 08 - 1647
Palm Springs,CA 92262
Dear Mr. Fuller:
Enclosed for execution by the City of Palm Springs (City) are three(3)original cooperative
agreements for the above-referenced project.
Please have the appropriate parties for the City sign and return all original agreements within the
next two(2)months.
Please leave the effective date blank. The effective date will be the date the district director signs
the agreement.
After the agreement is fully executed, we will return two(2)originals for your records.
Alterations of any kind made to the enclosed agreements will render them null and void and will
require further review from the State's Legal Counsel.
If you need more information, please contact Mr. Mustapha laali at(909) 383-5908,or I can be
reached at(909) 383-4068.
Si rely,
t�
I)ENI, CRAG
Office Chief
Agreements
Enclosures
c: Mustapha Iaali, Program/Project Management
"Provide a safe.sustainable,integrated and ef/Rient tronsportmwn swiem
to enhance Cal jwnw's erananty and livability" 32
08-RIV-I11-54.1
EA: IH960
Project Number: 0817000172
Agreement 08 - 1647
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
State SHOPP Minor Funds Contribution
This Agreement, effective on is between the State of
California,acting through its Department of Transportation, referred to as CALTRANS, and:
City of Palm Springs,a body politic and municipal corporation or chartered city of the
State of California, referred to hereinafter as CITY.
RECITALS
1. PARTIES are authorized to enter into a cooperative agreement for improvements to the
State Highway System per the California Streets and Highways Code sections 114 and
130.
2. The term AGREEMENT,as used herein,includes any attachments,exhibits,and
amendments.
3. AGREEMENT shall have no force or effect until CITY has obtained an encroachment
permit from CALTRANS.
4. CITY intends to construct a Traffic Signal at the intersection of State Route 1 I I and Via
Escuela, in the city of Palm Springs,within the State Highway System and is referred to
herein as PROJECT.
5. CITY will follow the CALTRANS encroachment permit process in order to complete the
PROJECT.
6. CALTRANS will pay CITY in the amount of$200,000 from SHOPP Minor funds
required for PROJECT.
7. PARTIES hereby set forth the terms,covenants, and conditions for CALTRANS'
contribution toward the PROJECT.
SCOPE
8. CITY is responsible for completing all work for the PROJECT.
Page 1 of 8 33
Agreement 1H960 - 1647
9. At no cost to CITY, CALTRANS will perform Quality Management to assure CITY's
work is performed in accordance with CALTRANS' current policies,procedures,
standards,and practices.
INVOICE & PAYMENT
10. CITY will submit to CALTRANS monthly invoices for the prior month's actual
expenditures.
11. CALTRANS will pay CITY within 45 (forty-five)calendar days of receipt of invoices.
12. PARTIES agree that the total amount of SHOPP Minor funds paid out to CITY will not
exceed $200,000.
13. After PARTIESS agree that all work for PROJECT is complete,CITY will submit a final
accounting for all costs. Based on the final accounting, CITY will refund or invoice as
necessary in order to satisfy the financial commitment of this Agreement.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
14, All obligations of CALTRANS under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the
appropriation of resources by the Legislature,the State Budget Act authority, and the
allocation of funds by the California Transportation Commission.
15. If CITY fails to complete the PROJECT for any reason,CITY shall,at CITY's expense,
return the State Highway System right-of-way to its original condition or to a safe and
operable condition acceptable to CALTRANS. If CITY fails to do so,CALTRANS
reserves the right to finish the work or place the PROJECT in a safe and operable
condition. CALTRANS will bill CITY for all expenses incurred and CITY agrees to pay
said bill within forty-five(45)days of receipt.
16. If CITY fails to complete the PROJECT for any reason, CITY will refund the full amount
of CALTRANS' contribution.
17. CITY will retain all PROJECT related records for four(4)years after the final voucher.
Page 2of8 34
Agreement 1 H960- 1647
18. HM-1 is hazardous material (including, but not limited to,hazardous waste)that may
require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law, whether it is disturbed by
the PROJECT or not.
HM-2 is hazardous material(including, but not limited to,hazardous waste)that may
require removal and disposal pursuant to federal or state law only if disturbed by the
PROJECT.
The management activities related to HM-I and HM-2, including and without limitation,
any necessary manifest requirements and disposal facility designations are referred to
herein as HM-1 MANAGEMENT and HM-2 MANAGEMENT respectively.
19. If HM-1 or HM-2 is found during construction, CITY will immediately notify
CALTRANS.
20. CALTRANS, independent of PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-1 found within the
existing State Highway System right-of-way. CALTRANS will undertake,or cause to be
undertaken, HM-I MANAGEMENT with minimum impact to PROJECT schedule.
CALTRANS, independent of the PROJECT will pay,or cause to be paid,the cost of
HM-I MANAGEMENT related to HM-I found within the existing State Highway
System right-of-way.
21. CITY,independent of PROJECT, is responsible for any HM-I found within PROJECT
limits and outside the existing State Highway System right-of-way. CITY will undertake
or cause to be undertaken HM-I MANAGEMENT with minimum impact to PROJECT
schedule.
CITY,independent of the PROJECT,will pay, or cause to be paid,the cost for HM-I
MANAGEMENT for HM-I found within PROJECT limits and outside of the existing
State Highway System right-of-way.
22. CITY is responsible for HM-2 MANAGEMENT within the PROJECT limits.
23. HM-2 MANAGEMENT costs are PROJECT costs.
35
Page 3 of 8
Agreement 1H960- 1647
24. Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury,damage
or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS,
its contractors,sub-contractors,and/or its agents under or in connection with any work,
authority, or jurisdiction conferred upon CALTRANS under this Agreement. It is
understood and agreed that CALTRANS,to the extent permitted by law, will defend,
indemnify, and save harmless CITY and all of its officers and employees from all claims,
suits, or actions of every name,kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited
to,tortious,contractual, inverse condemnation,or other theories and assertions of liability
occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CALTRANS, its
contractors, sub-contractors,and/or its agents under this Agreement.
25. Neither CALTRANS nor any officer or employee thereof is responsible for any injury,
damage,or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY,
its contractors, sub-contractors, and/or its agents under or in connection with any work,
authority,or jurisdiction conferred upon CITY under this Agreement. It is understood
and agreed that CITY,to the extent permitted by law,will defend, indemnify,and save
harmless CALTRANS and all of its officers and employees from all claims, suits,or
actions of every name,kind, and description brought forth under, but not limited to,
tortious, contractual, inverse condemnation, or other theories and assertions of liability
occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY, its contractors,sub-
contractors,and/or its agents under this Agreement.
26. If the work performed on PROJECT is done under contract and falls within the Labor
Code section 1720(a)(1)definition of"public works" in that it is construction, alteration,
demolition,installation,or repair;or maintenance work under Labor Code section 1771
CITY must conform to the provisions of Labor Code sections 1720 through 1815,and all
applicable provisions of California Code of Regulations found in Title 8, Chapter 8,
Subchapter 3, Articles 1-7. CITY agrees to include prevailing wage requirements in its
contracts for public work. Work performed by CITY's own forces is exempt from the
Labor Code's Prevailing Wage requirements.
CITY shall require its contractors to include prevailing wage requirements in all
subcontracts funded by this Agreement when the work to be performed by the
subcontractor is "public works" as defined in Labor Code Section 1720(a)(1)and Labor
Code Section 1771. Subcontracts shall include all prevailing wage requirements set forth
in CITY contracts.
27. This AGREEMENT is intended to be PARTIES final expression and supersedes all prior
oral understandings pertaining to PROJECT.
28. Unless otherwise documented in a maintenance agreement,CITY will maintain all
PROJECT improvements.
Page 4of8 36
Agreement 1 H960- 1647
29. AGREEMENT will terminate upon CALTRANS' acceptance of the PROJECT.
However,all indemnification and maintenance articles of AGREEMENT will remain in
effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement.
Page 5 of 8 37
Agreement 114960 - 1647
DEFINITIONS
PARTY—Any individual signatory party to this AGREEMENT.
PARTIES—The term that collectively references all of the signatory agencies to this
AGREEMENT.
38
Page 6 of 8
Agreement IH960 - 1647
CONTACT INFORMATION
The information provided below indicates the primary contact information for each PARTY to
AGREEMENT. PARTIES will notify each other in writing of any personnel or location changes.
Contact information changes do not require an amendment to AGREEMENT.
The primary Agreement contact person for CALTRANS is:
Musts ha Iaali, Project Manager
P ] g
464 W. 4th Street, 6th Floor(MS-1229)
San Bernardino,CA 92401-1400
Office Phone: 909-383-5908
Fax Number: (909) 383-6938
Email: mustapha_iaali@dot.ca.gov
The primary Agreement contact person for CITY is:
Mr. Marcus L. Fuller,Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Office Phone: 760-322-8280
Email: Marcus.fuller@palmspringsca.gov
Page 7of8 39
Agreement 1H960 - 1647
SIGNATURES
PARTIES declare that:
1. Each PARTY is an authorized legal entity under California state law.
2. Each PARTY has the authority to enter into AGREEMENT.
3. The people signing AGREEMENT have the authority to do so on behalf of their public
agencies.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
John Bulinski David H. Ready
District Director City Manager
CERTIFIED AS TO FUNDS: ATTEST:
Lisa Pacheco Kathleen D. Hart
District Budget Manager Interim City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
PROCEDU
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
PROCEDURE:
Meera Danday
Deputy Attorney
Douglas Holland
CERTIFIED AS TO FINANCIAL TERMS City Attorney
AND POLICIES:
Darwin Salmos
HQ Accounting Supervisor
40
Page 8 of 8