Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/3/2014 - STAFF REPORTS - 2.N. 4pALM S. .y c u � Cq�1FOR N`P City Council Staff Report Date: December 3, 2014 CONSENT CALENDAR Subject: APPROVAL OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATE (PS&E) AND AUTHORIZATION TO BID FOR THE NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN PHASE I BICYCLE CORRIDORS, FUNDED BY MEASURE J, CITY PROJECT NO. 13-32 From: David H. Ready, City Manager Initiated by: Public Works and Engineering Department SUMMARY The construction documents (Plans, Specifications and Estimate) are completed and, in accordance with Section 7.03.040 of the Procurement and Contracting Code the City Council is required to approve and adopt plans, specifications and working details, and authorize the bid request for all public projects in excess of $100,000. Approval of this project will allow staff to proceed with this public project, with an estimated construction cost of approximately $711,000. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve the Plans, Specifications, and Estimate for the Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (NMTP) Phase I Bicycle Corridors, funded by Measure J, City Project No. 13-32, and authorize staff to advertise and solicit bids. STAFF ANALYSIS: The City of Palm Springs adopted a Non-Motorized Transportation Plan in October 2011. In March 2014, Ryan Snyder prepared a 2014 Bicycle Route Plan that updated the City's bicycle routes. The Non-Motorized Transportation Committee reviewed the 2014 Bicycle Route Plan document from Ryan Snyder and supported his overall recommendations. A staff report was submitted to City Council from the Sustainability Office on May 21, 2014 as a Receive and File which contained the Bicycle Route Plan and Recommended Projects for the 2013-2014 fiscal year plus two (2) consecutive years of Measure J funding commitments. ITEM NO.�_ City Council Staff Report December 3, 2014- Page 2 NMTP Phase I Bicycle Corridors, CP 13-32 The first set of these projects were presented to City Council on September 3, 2014 for direction and recommendations. 1. El Cielo Corridor: Maintain existing traffic lane configuration and street parking throughout the entire corridor. On El Cielo, between Tahquitz Canyon Way and Ramon, install green back Sharrows in the right lane. Install green back Sharrows along Civic Drive. Install class II buffered bike lanes on the remaining portions of the El Cielo corridor. 2. Alejo Corridor: Maintain existing traffic lane configuration and street parking. Install Green back Sharrows on Alejo, between Indian Canyon and Via Miraleste, and just west of North Palm Canyon. Install Class II buffered bike lanes along the remaining corridor. 3. Belardo Corridor: Maintain existing traffic lane configuration and street parking. Class II buffered bike lanes will be installed on Belardo Road between Baristo and Sunny Dunes. Class II, without buffer, bike lanes will be installed on Belardo/Museum Drive between Amado Road to Tahquitz Canyon Way, and on Tahquitz Canyon Way from Museum Drive to Belardo. Green back Sharrows will be installed on Belardo Road between Alejo to Amado, and between Tahquitz Canyon to Baristo. 4. Farrell Drive Corridor (Racquet Club to East Palm Canyon): Farrell Drive, from Racquet Club Road to Vista Chino will be reduced from four (4) lanes to two (2) lanes to accommodate Class II buffered bike lanes and maintain street parking. Farrell Drive, between Tamarisk and Tahquitz Canyon Way, will have green back Sharrows, where bicyclists will be allowed to share the right lane with cars in order to keep existing parking. 5. Calle Encilia Corridor (Alejo to Ramon): Maintain existing traffic lane configuration and street parking. Install class II buffered bike lanes. 6. Racquet Club Corridor (between North Palm Canyon and Farrell Drive): Reduce from four (4) lanes to two (2) lanes and install class II buffered bike lanes and maintain existing street parking. A speed study will be conducted on Farrell Drive and Racquet Club no earlier than 6 months after the installation of the bicycle lanes to see if a speed reduction is warranted. On October 1, 2014, City Council awarded the design of the project to Albert A. Webb Associates. These plans are ready for Council approval and subsequent advertisement for construction bids. 02 City Council Staff Report December 3, 2014- Page 2 NMTP Phase I Bicycle Corridors, CP 13-32 The first set of these projects were presented to City Council on September 3, 2014 for direction and recommendations. 1. El Cielo Corridor: Maintain existing traffic lane configuration and street parking throughout the entire corridor. On El Cielo, between Tahquitz Canyon Way and Ramon, install green back Sharrows in the right lane. Install green back Sharrows along Civic Drive. Install class II buffered bike lanes on the remaining portions of the El Cielo corridor. 2. Alejo Corridor: Maintain existing traffic lane configuration and street parking. Install Green back Sharrows on Alejo, between Indian Canyon and Via Miraleste, and just west of North Palm Canyon. Install Class II buffered bike lanes along the remaining corridor. 3. Belardo Corridor: Maintain existing traffic lane configuration and street parking. Class II buffered bike lanes will be installed on Belardo Road between Baristo and Sunny Dunes. Class ll, without buffer, bike lanes will be installed on Belardo/Museum Drive between Amado Road to Tahquitz Canyon Way, and on Tahquitz Canyon Way from Museum Drive to Belardo. Green back Sharrows will be installed on Belardo Road between Alejo to Amado, and between Tahquitz Canyon to Baristo. 4. Farrell Drive Corridor (Racquet Club to East Palm Canyon): Farrell Drive, from Racquet Club Road to Vista Chino will be reduced from four (4) lanes to two (2) lanes to accommodate Class II buffered bike lanes and maintain street parking. Farrell Drive, between Tamarisk and Tahquitz Canyon Way, will have green back Sharrows, where bicyclists will be allowed to share the right lane with cars in order to keep existing parking. 5. Calle Encilia Corridor (Alejo to Ramon): Maintain existing traffic lane configuration and street parking. Install class II buffered bike lanes. 6. Racquet Club Corridor (between North Palm Canyon and Farrell Drive): Reduce from four (4) lanes to two (2) lanes and install class II buffered bike lanes and maintain existing street parking. A speed study will be conducted on Farrell Drive and Racquet Club no earlier than 6 months after the installation of the bicycle lanes to see if a speed reduction is warranted. On October 1, 2014, City Council awarded the design of the project to Albert A. Webb Associates. The plans, specifications, and estimates are available for viewing in Public Works and Engineering Department and are ready for Council approval and subsequent advertisement for construction bids. oa City Council Staff Report December 3, 2014 - Page 3 NMTP Phase I Bicycle Corridors, CP 13-32 FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funding for this project is available in Measure J account 260-4500-59445. SUBMITTED: Prepare Approved by: Savat Khamp ou David J. Barakian Assistant Director of Public Works Director of Public Works/City Engineer Approved by: David H. Ready, City M Attachment: 1. Map 03 UNtl[T AYE U.P.RAAAOAD (DEL CIELO CORRIDOR pF PALM SA O ALEJO CORRIDOR � O BELARDO CORRIDOR ® FARRELL CORRIDOR nouvww DESHIGERT ° /d O CALLS ENCIIJA CORRIDOR C', rF \P PAR( LA k RMro 10 © RACQUET CLUB CORRIDOR 2�O SAN RAFAM OR 1 q $$$S ARANID$M. PMY MMGt A...YI` mIMYY au g NOT TO SCME RADOM aue ROAD "FID. � 10 e 111 WA ESd1°A O < WSTA CHINO ROM 111 v�A CRON)DOID 1 O bpa av u i ice\ TAJJ m @ \\\ \\\ 5 S RO ANADO ROAD d ma ® 6 IIILJIIN Pxrs AIRPORT i` i i'\l� AHMM CANYON WAY On 1PIL i i, O �3 1 i 5 eN� RAR�s,o ROM MAN "raN"io:me i 10 =D RAMON ROM RAMON ROAD SUNNY p— ROM 4 9 Pam,wars~10°aa�rAVX SaxaRA PMN fYN1 1Y rry sooeA �� EAST PALM CANYON DRNC Po"J w oNe ROTANC4> �. " PROJECT MAP 111 0� NMTP BICYCLE CORRIDORS. PHASE 1 FUNDED BY MEASURE J 111 LEGEND: PROPOSED BIKEWAY CORRIDOR 04 DATE: December 2, 2014 1014 DEC —2 PM is Dp TO: Palm Springs City Council FROM: Christine Hammond Sonora Sunrise Neighborhood Organization J 5 i I g g CITY CLE {;r Jeffery Holley, Los Compadres Neighborhood Organization Curt Watts, Sunrise Park Neighborhood Organization Keith Zabel,Sunmor Neighborhood Organization Lisa Middleton, PSNIC Code Enforcement& Public Works Committee SUBJECT: Consent Agenda Item#2N for December3, 2015 Meeting Farrell Drive Bicycle Corridor We respectfully request that you pull Item #2N from the December 3, 2014 Consent Calendar to discuss the matter in greater detail and address our neighborhood concerns as outlined in this correspondence. Subject to additional clarification gained by that discussion we ask that the City Council take one of two actions: EITHER: 1) Modify the plans and specs for the proposed Farrell Drive Bicycle Corridor between Vista Chino and E. Palm Canyon to incorporate the following: A. Retention of existing on-street parkins in front of single family homes on BOTH the northern end of Farrell Drive between Tahquitz & Tamarisk AND on the southern end of Farrell Drive between E. Palm Canyon & Mesquite; B. Maximum 11 foot wide vehicular driving lanes (except where wider lanes are necessary to accommodate transitions to accommodate designated bicycle and/or parking lanes)to encourage reduced vehicular speeds; and C. A reduction in the posted maximum speed limit, where legally possible, to 35 mph (from the current 45 mph) for compatibility with the existing residential sections of Farrell Drive and the anticipated increase in bicycle use. OR: 2) Incorporate the above recommendations for that section of the Farrell Corridor north of Ramon Road to Vista Chino but remove the remaining Farrell Drive section (south of Ramon Road to E. Palm Canyon)from the proposed plans and specs to be referred back to staff and its design team to work more closely with representatives of the adjacent neighborhoods, Non-Motorized Transportation Committee and PSNIC to achieve a proposed project that better meets the collective needs and interests of all affected parties. Alternative design options and differential parking needs/patterns between Ramon and E. Palm Canyon would be the primary discussion topics of the further review. Page 1 of 4 k m/3 4-Al ;a �y Background Information over the last few months, members of our respective neighborhood organizations have been involved in numerous meetings with various representatives of City staff, PSNIC and the Sustainability Commission regarding bicycle lanes proposed for Farrell Drive between Vista Chino and E. Palm Canyon Drive. Each of our respective neighborhoods is bordered by a section of the proposed Farrell Drive Bicycle Corridor. The adjacent neighborhoods fully support the installation of bicycle lanes along Farrell Drive BUT ONLY IF the design does not impose inappropriate burdens upon single family homeowners facing Farrell Drive. To our knowledge, no survey of the homeowners along Farrell Drive has been conducted bythe City(as we originally understood was going to be done) to negate this concern being expressed by each of our neighborhood organizations. Based on the typical roadway sections shown on Sheet 8 of the Farrell Corridor Engineering Plans, it is our understanding that, through the use of "sharrows", the current design retains parking in front of residences but only between Tahquitz & Tamarisk. Therefore, on-street parking would not be allowed in a similar manner for homeowners between Mesquite and E. Palm Canyon. If approved as currently designed, this would remove their currently available on-street parking for guests and service deliveries (i.e. pool/landscape services, remodeling contractors, mail &package deliveries, etc). The current plan also appears to not address current on-street parking utilized between Mesquite & Ramon for access to the adjacent golf course facilities. The ultimate design should retain existing parking in front of the single family homes, and perhaps to a limited degree adjacent to the golf course, while also taking advantage of this unique opportunity to address the high speed of vehicular traffic along this significant traffic corridor. On November 26, 2014 the above-mentioned parties met in an attempt to reach consensus on a design alternative for the Farrell Corridor. After reflecting upon the information shared by everyone,the collective opinion of the neighborhood organizations was: 1) Proposed bikeways should be installed along the full length of Farrell Drive but only if modified to retain existing parking in front of all single-family homes (both between Tahquitz&Tamarisk and ALSO between Mesquite&E. Palm Canyon). 2) Sharrows should be incorporated in both areas to allow for designated dual use by vehicles and bicyclists. 3) Vehicular driving lanes should be a maximum 11 feet wide along the entire Farrell Corridor (except as necessary to accommodate necessary roadway transitions) AND should be appropriately striped in the roadway to designate the lane separations from adjacent parking and bike lanes and to encourage lower vehicular speeds through the visual narrowing of the designated vehicular driving lanes. 4) At the time the bike lanes are installed, the posted maximum speed limit should be lowered to 35 mph wherever legally possible (but most notably within the two Page 2 of 4 residential "zones" described above) to allow for the use of "sharrows" and for the improved safety of all concerned. 5) The group did not take a position on the specific issue of parking adjacent to the golf course facilities (between Mesquite & Ramon). We are unaware if any outreach has been undertaken by the City to gain input from the golf course owner or operator. Subsequent to the November 26`h meeting, the Staff Report on this item was publicized and we made special note of the statement that "A speed study will be conducted on Farrell Drive and Racquet Club no earlier than 6 months after the installation of the bicycle lanes to see if a speed reduction is warranted". It's our understanding that this staff recommendation was predicated on an assumption that existing on-street parking would be retained (and "sharrows" installed) only between Tahquitz&Tamarisk. By suggesting that the entire roadway configuration as proposed be studied 6 months or later after implementation to determine its overall impacts, property owners between Mesquite and E. Palm Canyon would be forced to endure the difficulties of having their parking removed for six or more months pending a future study (the timing of which may be further delayed to adequately address the seasonality of traffic patterns). We feel strongly that they should not be forced to accept this set of proposed consequences and greater efforts need to be taken now to also explore other options to reduce speeds along this corridor. Further study of existing traffic volumes and alternative designs along Farrell south of Ramon could possibly determine a different acceptable alternative for this section of roadway to address the various goals including a slowdown in traffic speeds. We did not have the benefit of traffic volume information and prior speed surveys during our November 26`h discussion to determine if other alternatives might be plausible. From our limited research, it appears that the City may have greater latitude than previously assumed to impose reduced speed limits along all or part of Farrell. 1) Per the California Vehicle Code, the definition of "residence districts" (which the two special zones described above appear to meet per Section 515) may allow for the two special zones above to qualify for lower speed limits. 2) The adoption of AB 529 in late 2011 allows for speed limits to be rounded DOWN (versus UP) to the nearest 5 mph and it unclear to us whether or not this opportunity was previously utilized in setting the current 45 mph speed limit along Farrell. 3) A further reduction of 5 mph may be possible to meet traffic safety needs of the community. Therefore, the installation of the new roadway configurations and bike lanes, along with previous concerns expressed by residents, may allow for lower speed limits at the time the project is implemented. Therefore, the effect of the reduced speed limits can be part of what will be observed in the future speed survey. 4) While utilization of the "85`h percentile rule" in establishing speed limits allows the City to enforce those speed limits through the use of radar, in this specific set of circumstances it may be more appropriate for the City to set a lower speed limit and waive this enforcement option to achieve a better overall result, especially given the Page 3 of 4 sentiment of residents along this corridor and the anticipated increase in bicycle traffic once the new lanes are installed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter and look forward to a community solution that respects the needs and interests of all. Attachments: - Article: "Roadway Striping as a Traffic Calming Option" (First Page of Article) - Palm Springs 2007 Citywide Speed Zone Survey(Section 4.0 -Page 9) - CA Vehicle Code Section 515 cc: David Ready, City Manager David Barakian, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Savat Khamphou,Assistant Director of Public Works Douglas Holland, City Attorney Michele Mician, Manager, Office of Sustainability Brett Klein, Chair,Sustainability Commission Page 4 of 4 Roadway Striping as a� ,Traffic Calming Option IN LIEU OF TRADITIONAL TRAFFIC INTRODUCTION lic street standards.Traffic calming strip- Traditional traffic calming techniques ing has also been used on public streets in CALMING, ROADWAY STRIPING AS include vertical and horizontal displace- Southern California.The ed� ment of the roadway surface,which can Lives that have been implemented follow A TRAFFIC CALMING OPTION IS A be effective in reducing speeds and cut- standard California Manual m Uniform through traffic on roadways.These road- Tralfi't Control Devices (CMUTCD) re- VIABLE,LOW-COST ALTERNATIVE way design features can include speed ,quirements.These Eraffrc calm rag opt—ions humps,cushions,chokers,chicanes,me- have been implemented in a t mely and TO TRADITIONAL VERTICAL/ dians, mini traffic circles, diverters, and cast-effective manner and are tasil un- full/partial roadway closures.While these ,3erst_ooaTy the local residents and driving HORIIONTAL ROADWAY DESIGN features can have significant benefits to a ublic.ThSK have resulted in some speed community,they are sometimes difficult reductions, which_were desire y t e FEATURES.THE ROADWAY to implement as a result of potential nega- local residents. While more traditional rive impacts to local residents,emergency t c ming devices(e.g.,speed humps) STRIPING ALTERNATIVES HAVE service departments,and persons with dis- may be required in certain instances to abilities and may not be consistent with obtain greater speed or volume reduc- LESS DETRIMENTAL IMPACT TO public agency policies. Lions, roadway striping is a viable traffic In lieu of many ofthe traditional traffic. calming option in many rases. EMERGENCY SERVICES,ARE LESS calming dev ce,roadway striping can be implemuued as a traffic calming option TRAFFIC STRIPING AS AN COSTLY TO CONSTRUCT,AND CAN tharisaviable,low-cost alternative toverti- ALTERNATIVE TO STANDARD rallhorizontal dis IacemcnL c min TRAFFIC CALMING TECHNIQUES SUCCESSFULLY REDUCE SPEEDS tures.T eroa way striping ternatives Striping as a traffic calming technique •Have less detrimental impacts upon has less disruption to emergency service FROM TWO TO MORE THAN SEVEN emergency services; vehicle, since no vertical or horizontal •Are less costly to construct; displacement occurs within the roadway MILES PER HOUR. •provide greater flexibility to meet surface.Emergency service requirements future changes; are a major barrier to the installation of •Have no adverse impact to highway many traffic calming projects. Roadway drainage; striping that is used for traffic calming •Are recognized by local residents as is universally recognized by the travel- standard traffic control devices; ing public and emergency agencies. •Can provide bike/parking lanes; Traffic calming striping gives the visual •Can successfully reduce speeds from impression that roadway width has been one to more than seven miles per reduced, which has been shown to slow hour.Even greater speed reductions vehicles down while traveling along a have been documented in some case roadway. This type of striping will not studies;and slow down emergency service vehicles • Can be imple- utilizing the roadway or adversely affect BY r :ERT KAHN, P.E.AND AIIISON KAHN GOEDECKE, mented quickly. traffic operations. Other type of traffic A number of road- calming devices are new to some drivers, way striping calming teruataT ivc particularly out-of-the-area drivers who been successfully installed in Southern are nor familiar with a particular area that Cal[ifornia with positive results.In many has the traffic calming devices. cases, these have been imp emented on In addition, there is considerably less private streets and have resulted in re- cost to striping than other traffic calming ducedspeeds in these communities.These teclmiques.As opposed to$2,500-$3,500 private streets have been deigned to pub- USD per installation for speed humps 30 IrE JMNAL/SEITAIEER 2011 Albert Grover&Associates Survey Findings and Recommendations rn -S r 1 lT 5 - a00 a -St) SECTION 4.0 SURVEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with the State-imposed speed limit establishment regulation,as defined by CVC Section 627 described in Appendix A, jhere are several factors that may be considered to justify setting the prima facie speed limits more than five miles per hour below the observed 85th percentile speed. It should be noted that the regulations in Appendix A also state that the maximum permissible lowering of the proposed speed limit from the 85th percentile is 10 miles per hour. The factors to be considered are: ♦ Most recent accident record(mid-block) ♦ Roadway design speed ♦ Safe stopping sight distance ♦ Superelevation ♦ Grades ♦ Shoulder condition ♦ Profile condition ♦ Intersection spacing offsets ♦ Commercial driveway characteristics(land use) ♦ Pedestrian traffic with and without sidewalks -- ♦ Pedestrian and Bicycle safety The 85th percentile speed and the above factors were considered in verifying existing speed limits and recommending speed limit changes(increase or decrease). Additionally, discussions were held with City staff in making decisions with respect to changing existing speed limits. This allowed for consideration of any special knowledge of the segment. Table 2 shows the surveyed road segments with posted and recommended speed limits. 9 9-AL,- vEu.cvYr:g D1D: t;ahtorma t.;ode-6ectnon D1to Page 1 of I CAL.VEH. CODE§ 515 : California Code - Section 515 Search CAL.VEH. CODE§515 : California Code-Section 5i5 Search by Keyword or Citation Enter Keyword or Citation Search 0 12 A"residence district"is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto,other than a business district,(a)upon one side of which highway,within a distance of a quarter of a mile,the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures,or(b)upon both sides of which highway,collectively,within a distance of a quarter of a mile,the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.A residence district maybe longer than one-quarter of a mile if the above ratio of separate dwelling houses or business structures to the length of the highway exists. http://codes.1p.riindlaw.com/eacadeNEH(I/dl/s5I5 i i n6noi 6 L ; DATE: December 2, 2014 2414 DEC -2 PM 4: 49 TO: Palm Springs City Council JAB :_:i lhi;, . . CITY CLEA' y FROM: Curt Watts, Palm Springs Resident& Property Owner(N. Saturmino Drive) SUBJECT: Aiello Road Bicycle Corridor Consent Agenda Item#2N for December 3,2014 Meeting Prior to your approval this Wednesday of the Alejo Road Bicycle Corridor component of the Measure J Bike Lanes Project (see Item #2N on your Consent Calendar), I respectfully request that you consider directing staff to make a modification which should serve to help reduce vehicular speeds along this section of Alejo. The specific requested modification is as follows: Between Lujo Circle (just east of Sunrise Way) and Farrell Drive, vehicular driving lanes should be reduced to a maximum width of 11 feet through the installation of either 1) a center dual left turn lane (where sufficient road width allows); or 2) a striped "no driving area" (where sufficient road width does not allow for a center dual left turn lane). Justification In reviewing Pages 9 & 10 of the plans & specs I was pleased to see that the proposed design allows for both dedicated bike lanes AND the retention of existing on-street parking along most of Alejo between Sunrise Way and Farrell Drive. Where existing parking is eliminated, it doesn't appear to impose a hardship on adjacent property owners since most of their homes either face cross streets (allowing for parking in front of their homes), or sufficient parking will remain on Alejo to address their needs. However, the design for the vehicular lanes as currently proposed misses the opportunity to encourage traffic calming (i.e. reduced vehicle speeds) through narrowing vehicular lane widths to 11 feet. The proposed vehicular lane widths are shown to vary from 11 feet to as much as 17 feet. Where sufficient "extra pavement" exists to do so, the plans should be modified to install a center dual turn lane (i.e. reduce proposed vehicular lanes from 17 feet to 11 feet and use the "leftover" 12 feet for the center turn lane). In cases where there is insufficient roadway width to accommodate two 11 foot driving lanes and a center turn lane, the "extra pavement" from reducing proposed vehicular lanes to 11 feet should be "cross striped" in the center of Alejo thereby creating a "no driving area" between the 11 foot drive lanes. In my opinion this modification would create visual traffic calming cues to help slow vehicle speeds in this residential neighborhood. Your consideration of this suggestion is greatly appreciated. EIYE© CITY STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 2815 MAR -2 AM 9- 49 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT CLER+ Receipt#: 201500021 State Clearinghouse#(if applicable): Lead Agency. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Date: 01/13/2015 County Agency of Filing: Riverside Document No: 201500021 Project Title: BICYCLE CORRIDORS, PHASE I (MEASURE J),CUP 13-32 Project Applicant Name: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Phone Number. Project Applicant Address: 3200 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 Project Applicant: Local Public Agency CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: ❑Environmental Impact Report ❑Negative Declaration ❑Application Fee Water Diversion(State Water Resources Control Board Only) ❑Project Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs XJ County Administration Fee $50.00 ❑Project that is exempt from fees(DFO No Fiffect Determination(Form Attached)) ❑X Project that is exempt from fees(Notice of Exemption) Total Received $50.00 Signature and title ofperson receiving payment Notes: PrtgltFAtm Notice of Exemption Appendix E To: Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency): City of Palm Springs P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Palm Springs, CA 92262 County Clerk County of: Riverside (Address) P.O. Box 751 Riverside, CA 92502-0751 Project Title: Bicycle Corridors, Phase I (Measure J), CP 13-32 Project Applicant: City of Palm Springs Project Location-Specific: Throughout the City of Palm Springs along the following Corridors: El Cielo(including Escoba&Civic);Belardo btw.Alejo&Sunny Dunes;Calle Encilia btw.Alejo&Ramon;Alejo btw.Civic&Belardo;Farrell;&Racquet Club Project Location-City: Palm Springs Project Location -County: Riverside Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: The Work comprises the construction of bicycle lanes along the the various corridors throughout the City.The work includes removal and replacement of existing traffic striping,pavement markers,installation of thermoplastic lane lines,markings,crosswalks,signs,curb painting and resurfacing of needed roadways. Name of Public Agency Approving Project:City of Palm Springs Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project:City of Palm Springs Exempt Status: (check one): ❑ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); ❑ Declared Emergency(Sec.21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); ❑ Emergency Project(Sec.21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); O Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: 15301 (c)&(f)Existing Facilities ❑ Statutory Exemptions. State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: This is a project that will add safety enhancements by installing bicycle lane lines,markings,signs and resurfacing existing roadway in conjunction with existing facilities. Lead Agency Marcus L. Fuller (760)323-8253 Contact Person: Area Code/Telephone/Extension: If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of a If finding. 2. Has once of Exemptio a led by the public agency approving the project?. ❑Yes O No Signatur : Date: 12/22/2014 Title: City Engineer I7 Signed by Lead Agency❑ Signed by Applicant Authority cited:Sections 21083 and 21110,Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR: Reference:Sections 21108,21152,and 21152.1,Public Resources Code. L Neg D 'ed .. Ir��RIV Fred per P 1 ' LJ ERSIDECOUNTY D P(�F' JAN 13 2015 JAN 1 3 2015 FEB TU15 Revised z°" PETER ALDANA,CLERK iler.�ov'-J - EB-25---•._.__.. By � fbU"e T.Buie fill Deputy Co��t ar✓ �,•