Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject 658-08 - Adopt ND & Execute NOD CITY OF PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION FOR THE FREE RIGHT TURN LANE FROM FRED WARING DRIVE TO HIGHWAY 111 PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 658-08) SUBMITTED BY: Mark Greenwood, P.E., Director of Public Works DATE: May 27, 2010 CONTENTS: Notice of Determination Negative Declaration Vicinity Map Recommendation By Minute Motion, adopt the Negative Declaration (ND) and authorize the Director of Public Works to execute and file the Notice of Determination (NOD) with the County Clerk and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research for the Free Right Turn Lane from Fred Waring Drive to Highway 111 Project (Project No. 658-08). Funds are available in Measure A Account No. 213-4384-433-4001, Right Turn Lane - Fred Waring Drive to Hwy. 111. No General Fund money is being used for this expenditure. Backqround In March 2008, the City of Palm Desert was awarded federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grants for eight projects. The Regional Transportation Improvement Program was approved, which allows the City to proceed with the development of the projects. One of these projects is the reconfiguration of the right turn lanes from westbound Fred Waring Drive to northbound Highway 111. This project will eliminate the dual right turn lanes and replace them with a single, unrestricted free right turn lane. This project requires environmental clearance to utilize the CMAQ funds. This project will require both National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) clearance and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearance. Staff has received preliminary NEPA approval through Caltrans. Staff Report Adopt the ND and file NOD May 27, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Additionally, staff prepared an Initial Study (IS) for the project pursuant to the CEQA. The IS and Notice of Availability/Notice of Intent to adopt a ND were distributed to various public agencies and organizations on April 2, 2010, to initiate a 30-day review period. The City received no comments during the review period. Staff requests City Council adopt the ND and authorize the Director of Public Works to execute and file the NOD with the County Clerk and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research for the project. Fiscal Analvsis This project is primarily funded using a CMAQ grant. The City is required to contribute a minimum of 11.47 percent to match the project. The City will utilize Local Measure A funds to contribute the City's share of this project. The project is funded with $89,000 of Local Measure A funds and $686,000 from the CMAQ grant, for a total project cast estimate of $775,OOQ. The filing of the NOD with the County Clerk will require a $2,074.25 filing fee, which is included in the project budget. Prepared By: Departme ad• � � Aaron Kulp, P.E., Associate Engineer Mark Greenw od, P.E., Director of Public Works CTTY COUNCii.AC�ON APPROVF.D �� flF.l�'iF'D Paul S. Gibson, Director of Finance RECEIVED OTHER MEET G DAT � ���� AYES � - . � J Approval: NOF5: � _� � r---�A13SENT: � ' �----"�1BSTAIN: � VERIFII;D BY: � �� .l0 . ohlmuth, City Manager Original on File with City lerk's Office ;' NOTICE OF DETERM INATION To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of Palm Desert 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Sacramento, CA 95814 Palm Desert, CA 92260 (Lead Agency and Applicant) Riverside County Clerk-Recorder 2720 Gateway Drive P.O. Box 751 Riverside, CA 92502-0751 Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 2ll52 of the Public Resources Code. FREE RIGHT TURN LANE FROM FRED WARING DRNE TO HIGHWAY 111 Project Title SCH#: 2010041022 City of Palm DesertlAaron Kulp (760) 346-0611 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON AREA CODFJTELEPHONFJEXTENSION (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Project Location: The project site consists of the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 11 l, City of Palm Desert, Riverside County,California. Latitude: 33°43'44"N, Longitude: 116°24'10" Project Description: The City of Palm Desert proposes to inodify the existing right turn moveinent from westbound Fred Waring Drive to northbound Highway 111 from two dedicated right turn pockets to a single unrestricted free right turn. The existing two right turn pockets control the right turn movement from westbound Fred Waring Drive to northbound Highway 111 through the intersection utilizing the existing traffic signal. Right turns are permissive only during the green light phase and when traffic is clear. The project includes modification to the signal mast arms and signal poles at the northeast corner. This project will allow for unrestricted free access right turns from westbound Fred Waring Drive to northbound Highway 111. This is to advise that the City of Palm Desert has approved the above described O Lead Agency �Responsible Agency project on May 27,2010 and has made the following determinations regarding the Date above described project: 1. The project(�wiil/ �wili not)have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. � A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures(❑ were/ 0 were not)made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations(❑ was / O was not)adopted for this project. 5. Findings(❑ were / �were not)made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260 Date received for filing and posting at OPR SIGNATURE (PUBLIC AGENCY) DATE T�TLE Negative Declaration NEGATIVE DECLARATION State Clearinghouse No. 2010041022 May 11, 2010 SUBJECT Palm Desert, CA—Free Right Turn Lane from Fred Waring Drive to Highway ll 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Palm Desert proposes to modify the existing right turn movement from westbound Fred Waring Drive to northbound Highway 111 from two dedicated right turn pockets to a single unrestricted free right turn. The existing two right turn pockets control the right turn movement from westbound Fred Waring Drive to northbound Highway 111 through the intersection utilizing the existing traffic signal. Right turns are permissive only during the green light phase and when traffic is clear. The project includes modification to the signal mast arms and signal poles at the northeast corner. Because the poles are being relocated, new footing will need to be installed at a size of approximately 3 feet diameter by 12 feet deep in order to ensure the stability of the new poles. A portion of the existing parkway, consisting of a low curb and minimal landscaping, would be removed and paved with asphalt concrete. Signal and striping modifications will also be needed. This project will allow for unrestricted free access right turns from westbound Fred Waring Drive to northbound Highway 1 ll. The project will extend approximately 1,000 feet north of the intersection on Highway 111 and approximately 750 feet east of the intersection on Fred Waring Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 is currently built as a signalized intersection. Existing drainage is conveyed via the gutters and generally flows to the east. According to the City's General Plan, the surrounding land use is Planned Commercial. Currently the intersection has commercial on the all the corners, expect the lot on the northwest corner, which has been cleared and is utilized throughout the year various commercial activities. Free Right Tum Lane Fred Waring Drive to Highway 1 l l Negaare Declarqtlon Pqge/ There are no undisturbed areas on or near the site. No sensitive plants, animals, or habitats are found within the proposed project footprint and none are expected, due to the developed condition of the proposed project area. No archeological sites have been identified near the project area, and none are listed within the project site. No cultural resources were identified within the project area during the field surveys and no isolated cultural resources have been identified within a one-mile radius of the project site. The soil generally consists of poorly graded (well sorted) Aeolian sand. The poten�ial for erosion, liquefaction, or expansive soils are considered low within the project area. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map # 06065C2207G, the project area is located in 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION The City of Palm Desert conducted an Initial Study (attached), which determined that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on the environment. The project, as proposed, avoids or mitigates any potentially si�nificant environmental impacts, and the preparation of an environmental impact report will not be required. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the records before the City, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If there are substantial changes that alter the character or impacts of the proposed project, another environmental impact determination will be necessary. DOCUMENTATION The attached Initial Study documents the reasons to support the above determination. PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION Draft copies or notice of this Negative Declaration were distributed to: • State Clearinghouse • California Native Plant Society • Department of Fish and Game • Regional Water Quality Control Board • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Riverside County Clerk • City of Palm Desert Fire Department • City of Palm Desert Police Department Free Right Tum Lane Fred Waring Drive to Highway 111 Negative Declaratlon pag�,z PUBLIC RET�IEW ( ) Draft document referre� for comments (K) No comments were received during the public review period. ( ) Comments were received but did not address the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration findings or the accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. No response is necessary. The letters are attached. ( ) Comments addressing the findings of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or accuracy or completeness of the Initial Study were received during the public review period. The letters and responses follow(see Respons�to Comments, attached). Copies of the Negative Declaration, the Initi�l Study, and dacumentation materials, may be obtained from the City of Patm Desert.Cantact: Aaron Kuln. 764-346-Q611. _ Apri15 2010 �� �r,� Date of Draft Report Aaran Kulp, P.E. Associate Engineer Mav 11 2010 Date of Final Reporc Attachments: A. Initial Study Checklist B. Comments and Response to Comments(if any) Frce RigM Tum lane F�d Waring Drive to Highway 111 �rgamr DatainNon Pagr 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: Palm Desert, CA—Free Right Turn Lane from Fred Waring Drive to Highway 111 2. Lead Agency Name City of Palm Desert and Address: Department of Public Works 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 3. Contact Person and Aaron Kulp, P.E., Associate Engineer Phone Number: (760) 346-0611 4. Project Location: Located at the Intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 in Palm Desert, CA 5. Project Sponsor's Name City of Palm Desert and Address: Department of Public Works 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 6. General Plan Designation: Planned Commercial 7. Zoning: Planned Commercial 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.) The City of Palm Desert proposes to modify the existing right turn movement from westbound Fred Waring Drive to northbound Highway 111 from two dedicated right turn pockets to a single unrestricted free right turn. The existing two right turn pockets control the right turn movement from westbound Fred Waring Drive to northbound Highway 111 through the intersection utilizing the existing traffic signal. Right turns are permissive only during the green light phase and when traffic is ciear. The project includes modification to the signal mast arms and signal poles at the northeast corner. Because the poles are being relocated, new footing will need to be installed at a size of approximately 3 feet diameter by 12 feet deep in order to ensure the stability of the new poles. A portion of the existing parkway, consisting of a low curb and minimal landscaping, would be removed and paved with asphalt concrete. Signal and striping modifications will also be needed. This project will allow for unrestricted free access right turns from westbound Fred Waring Drive to northbound Highway 111. The project will extend approximately 1,000 feet north of the intersection on Highway 111 and approximately 750 feet east of the intersection on Fred Waring Drive. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) According to the City's General Plan, the surrounding land uses are Planned Commercial. Currently the property is surrounded by commercial buildings. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board will require a Clean Water Act Section 402 Nallonal Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for construction impacts (SWPPP). 11. Consistency with Previous EIR: Not Applicable ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environment$1 factors checked betow would be potentiaily affected by this project, invotving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quatity Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geofogy/Soils Hazards&Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality i,and Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Pubiic Services Recreation Transportatian 'Tra�c Utilities/Servict Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Ageacy): Qn the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT bave a significant et�'ect on the environment,and a NEGATZVE DECLARA'TfON will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant"or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable tegal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the eariier analysis as desC�ibed on attached sheets.An ENVIROTtMENTAL TMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be gddressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because ali potenqally significant effects(a)have been analyzed ades�uately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATNE DECLARAT'ION,including revisians or mitigation mc;asures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further�s required. �-��'"L''� �pril S.2010 Signatwe Date A�ron Kulp CitYof Patm�__ —_ __-- --__ .�. Print�Name For Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact AESTHETIC5.WoWd the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ � b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not ❑ ❑ ❑ � limited to,tress,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ❑ ❑ � ❑ of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ❑ ❑ ❑ � adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? FindinEs• a-b) The proposed project entails intersection improvements at the existing intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111. These improvements include adding a turn lane within and adjacent to the existing project footprint. Tlie oiily vertical component will be the modification of the existing traffic signal at the northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111.The project will not have an adverse impact on a scenic vista and will not damage scenic resources as there are not scenic resources within the project area. c-d) The proposed project will incorporate modifying a exisring traffic signal at the intersection. T's will not change the existing visual character of this area or increase light or glare. Mitigation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.WoWd the project: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ � Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a ❑ ❑ ❑ � Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due ❑ ❑ ❑ � to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? Findin�s• a) The project area is not zoned for agricultural use, has not previously been used for agricultural purposes, does not contain agricultural use,and is not under a Williamson Act contract. b) The project does not contain agricultural resources or land under Williamson Act contract. c) Refer to section II a and b. Mitigation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Sigiificant Impact Incorporated Impact No lmpact AIR QUALITY.Would the project: Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. a) Conflict with or obshuct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ❑ � quality plan`? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to ❑ ❑ ❑ � an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ � ❑ criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ � ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ ❑ ❑ � people? Fuidings: a) The proposed project calls for intersection improvements at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111. Improvements include modifyiug a traffic signal and the construction of a turn lane. All improvements are consistent with the ultimate build-out and there are no conflicts with the e�sting air quality plan as discussed in the City of Palm Desert's General Plan. b) A Potential for Air Quality Impacts Assessment was conducted on April 7, 2009, and found that the proposed project will not directly violate air quality standard or contribute to air quality violations. The proposed project will help to alleviate the congestion and increase traffic flow. Therefore, less degradation to air quality is anticipated.The proposed project does not increase the number of velucles using the roadway. c) The Potential for Air Quality Impacts Assessment concluded that the proposed project will not directly contribute to any increase of criteria pollutants. d) The project is located within a developed area of Palm Desert. The nearest sensitive receptor being a residenrial development located approximately a quarter mile east of the intersection. The project will not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors. Miti�ation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ � habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Deparhnent of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ � other sensitive natural communiry identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Deparhnent of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑ � wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean W ater Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ ❑ � resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established ilative resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ❑ ❑ � biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? � Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ � Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Findin�s:A Potential for Biological Resources Assessment was performed on April 7,2009.A Biologist conducted a site visit on November 21,2008,and noted general site conditions,vegetation,potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S.(if any),and suitability of habitat for various special interest elements. a-d) The Potential for Biological Resources Assessment dated April 7, 2009 found that the proposed project site is currently developed. No sensitive plants, animals, or habitats occur within the proposed project footprint and none are expect due to the developed condition of the proposed project area. e-� As part of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP),all participating cities and the County of Riverside are required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) on a new development within the plan area. However, since the proposed project area has previously been developed, the fees are not required for this project. Mitigation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporatod Impact No Impact CULTURAI.RESOURCES.Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ � historical resource as defined in� 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ � ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to§ 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ � ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside ❑ ❑ � ❑ of formal cemeteries? Findines: A records search at the Eastern Information Center at the University of California at Riverside revealed no previously reported cultural resources in the project area,or adjacent to the project in any location with the potential for adverse affect.All cultural resources previously recorded are standing structures. a) The project area has been developed and has been disturbed through previous road-building and grading. No historicai resources are present within the project vicinity. b) No archeological sites have been identified near the project site. No isolated cultural resources have been identified near or wit'n the project site.Therefore,no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. c-d) Due to the extent of the work proposed it is unlikely that any unique paleontological resources will be disturbed or destroyed. No unique geological features exist in the project area. If human remains are discovered the Riverside County Coroner will be notified as required by the Public Resource Code and Health and Safely Code. Mitigation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Sigiificant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact GEOLOGY AND SOILS.Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on ❑ ❑ � ❑ the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault`?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking`? ❑ ❑ � ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ � iv) Landslides'? ❑ ❑ ❑ � b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ � c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that ❑ ❑ ❑ � would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18 1 B of ❑ ❑ ❑ � the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ ❑ ❑ � septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? FindinQs: a) The subject site is not located within the vicinity of any known fault or active fault.The potential for liquefaction, earthquakes,or slope failure/land sliding/rock falls are all negligible. b-d) The soil anticipated includes poorly graded Aeolian sand. The potential for erosion, liquefaction, or expansive soils are considered low. e) The project does not propose septic tanks or any other form of alternative wastewater disposal system. Mitigation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially � Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ � through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ � through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ❑ ❑ ❑ � hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ � materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public ar the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where ❑ ❑ ❑ � such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working it�the project area'? fl For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ � the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ � adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ � injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Findin�s• a) The proposed project consists of improvements at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111. No hazardous materials are to be transported or disposed of as part of the project. b) No upset conditions that could release hazardous chemicals are proposed as part of the projec� c) The proposed project is not located within one-quarter mile of a school. d) According to the California Environmental Protection Agency's website, the proposed project site does not include,nor is it in close proximity to any sites identified on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Cortese List. e) The project is not located within or near an airport land use designation. � The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) The proposed project will not interfere with any adopted emergency plan or evacuation plan. The proposed project includes improvements that will help facilitate more efficient traffic flow and therefore emergency vehicles could anticipate less congestion as a resWt. h) According to the West Riverside County Natural Hazards Disclosure Map,the project site is not located within a fire hazard zone. MitiQation Measures: No impact��are identified,tlierefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ � ❑ requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ � substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ � area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ❑ ❑ ❑ � area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site'? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ ❑ � capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? fl Otherwise substantiaily degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ � � g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped ❑ ❑ ❑ � on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ � would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury ❑ ❑ ❑ � or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,tsunami, ❑ ❑ ❑ � or mudflow? � Potentially Significant Potentially lmpact Unless Less Than Significant Mirigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Findin�s• a) The proposed project will maintain the existing drainage patterns.All e�sting and proposed conditions will meet water quality standards and waste discharge requirements set forth in the Colorado River Basin Plan.Water will be conveyed to a catch basin prior to discharge into the Wlutewater River. b) No groundwater withdrawals are proposed as part of this project. c-d) The proposed improvements to the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111 will not alter the existing drainage pattern,and no impacts causing erosion or siltation are anticipated. e) The existing unpervious area will not substantially increase.Therefore the capacity of the existing storm drainage system will not be affected � The proposed project will not degrade water quality. Appropriate best management practices (BMP) associated with the required federal NPDES permit, and all other exisring federal and state regulations regarding water quality will be adhered to,as required through the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). g-h) According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map # 06065C2207G, the area is located in 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard. The proposed project does not include any housing or structures. Therefore, there are no potential flooding impacts to housing structures. i) The proposed project is not located downstream of a levy.Therefore,the►•e is no significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j) The proposed project is located over 100 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and is not downstream of any significant body of water. There is no risk of exposure to inundation by seiche or tsunami. The topography around the project area is relatively flat;therefore mudslides are not a risk either. MitiQation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No tmpact LAND USE AND PLANNING.Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ � b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or ❑ ❑ ❑ � regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, . local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect'? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ � ❑ natural community conservation plan? Findin�s• a) The project is located at an existing intersection and will not physically divide a community. b) The proposed project will not conflict with any policy of an agency with jurisdiction over the project.The project does not coutlict with any goals set forth in the City's General Plan. c) The proposed project is within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP). The site has previously been disturbed through developments. Therefore, no Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF)is required for this project. Miti�ation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact MINERAI.RESOURCES.Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource ❑ ❑ ❑ � that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ � mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? Findin�s: a-b) There are no known mineral resources or mineral resource recovery sites within the general vicinity of the project area.The project would not affect any mineral resources. Miti�ation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact NOISE.Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess ❑ ❑ ❑ � of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ � groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ❑ � ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ � ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where ❑ ❑ ❑ � such a plan has not been adapted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? � For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would ❑ ❑ ❑ � the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Findings• a) Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in daily traffic trips in the City. The proposed project would not result in any significant traffic noise or stationary-source noise effects on adjacent land uses.Therefore,no mitigation measures would be required. b) The project will not involve drilling or other subterranean activities that would generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels. c-d) The project is located at an existing intersection. The proposed project will not directly increase any ambient noise levels. e) The site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. fl The site is not located within pro°mity of a private airport. MitiQation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact ]ncorponted Impact No Impact POPiTLATION AND HOUSING.Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either ❑ ❑ ❑ � directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ ❑ � necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ � construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Findin�s• a) The project does not include new housing and is intended to mitigate the effects of projected growth iu surrounding areas by improving traffic flow. The proposed project itself does not generate growth, but rather improves an existing roadway to make travel more efficient. b-c) The project will not require the acquisition of any housing or displace any existing housing or inhabitants of the area. MitiQation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact PUBLIC SERVICES.Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection`? ❑ ❑ ❑ � Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ � Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ � Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ � Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ � Findings• a) The proposed project will not create a need for any new governmental facilities. It will improve existing roadway infrastructure by adding a dedicated right turn lane at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Highway l ll. The project has the potential to decrease emergency vehicle response times as well as improve residents' commutes. Miti�ation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially lmpact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant lmpact Incorporated Impact No Impact RECREATION.Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks ❑ ❑ ❑ � or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ � construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environmenY? Findings• a-b) The proposed project would not facilitate the increased use of an elcisting or planned park. The proposed project improves an existing roadway to make travel more efficient for the current and future residents in the surrounding community. The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities or generate the need for construction of a new facility. Mitigation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No lmpact TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to ❑ ❑ ❑ � the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service ❑ ❑ ❑ � standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways`? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ � increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ � sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ � fl Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ � g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ � alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? Findings• a) Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in daily traffic trips in the City. b) The proposed project will ensure increase the Level of Service (LOS) for the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111. c) No airports e�st within the vicinity of the site and air traffic patterns will not be affected by the proposed project. d) The proposed project will improve an e�sting intersection by adding dedicated right turn lane. These measures will improve public safety at the intersection by improving traffic flow. There are no incompatible uses in the surrounding area. e) The proposed project will improve emergency access and could potentially improve emergency response times as well. fl This project does not generate the need for parking. In addition, tlus area of the City does not have an on-street parking component or requirement or any public use parking facilities in the vicinity. No impacts to parking capacity are anticipated. g) The proposed project does not conflict with any policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation.The existing bus stop will be relocated as a result of the improvements to ensure access and safety of motorists and pedestrians. Miti�ation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ � Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ❑ ❑ � wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ❑ ❑ ❑ � drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project ❑ ❑ ❑ � from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed?In making this determination, the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910,et• sea.(SB b10),and the requirements of Govertunent Code Section 664737(SB 221). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ri•eat�nent ❑ ❑ ❑ � provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projecPs projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ � accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ � related to solid waste? Findin�s• a) No wastewater will be generated as part of the proposed project.All stormwater runoff will maintain the eusting drainage patterns. b) No new water treatment facilities are proposed or necessary for the proposed project. c) The proposed project will not substantially increase the surface runoff. Therefore, the project will have a less than significant impact on the storm drain system. d) The proposed project will not require the use of any additional water resources. e) No wastewater will be generated from this project. Therefore, no impact to the wastewater treatment provider will occur. f-g) The proposed project will recycle any solid waste.Therefore,there will be no impacts on existing landfilis. Mitigation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. Potentially Significant Potentially Impact Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of ❑ ❑ � ❑ the environment,substantially reduce the habitat or a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, ❑ ❑ � ❑ but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current Project,and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the Project have environmental effects,which wili ❑ ❑ � ❑ cause substantial adverse affects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Findin�s: a) The proposed project consists of adding a right turn lane at an existing intersection.A minor increase in right-of- way (ROW) will be required; however, impacts to habitat or wildlife species will be less than significant. The project will not impact any threatened or endangered species. b) The proposed project is not increasing the number of vehicles on the road,it will inerease the level of service at the intersection of Fred Waring Drive and Highway 111, and support the City's traffic vision for 2020 as described in the City's General Plan. Subsequently, there will be no cumulative affects to traffic, air quality, or noise. Impacts from the proposed project are not significant by themselves or in combination with past or future projects within the area.The project will not cause any new direct or cumulatively considerable impacts. c) As described in the Air Quality, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Public Service, and Utilities and Service Systems sections of this Initial Study,the project will not cause any substantial direct or indirect adverse affects on human beings;there is no significant impact. Mitigation Measures: No impacts are identified,therefore no mitigation is required. References: 1. Riverside County General Plan. 2003. 2. City of Palm Desert General Plan. 2004. 3. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 2007. 4. Air Quality Impact Assessment. April 2009. 5. California Register of Historical Resources. 1976. 6. California Historical Landmarks. 1995. 7. California Points of Historical Interest. 1993. 8. California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control Database Cortese List. http://www.calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/SectionA.htm. Accessed July 2009. 9. West Riverside County Natural Hazards Disclosure List. 2000. 10. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map#06065C2207G. June 2008. 1 l. South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 1993, with November 1993 Update. � � � ! � I � ' �� %i „" � v j � � x . �- 3 f i ' i I � j � , � � � " ^� %! I j'�f '' , � Z � n , �4�'��-.r� . �j � �: j o � , �: � � •� .� �-x I � '�- i � � ������ ` , I v � � � r j � �`� ! � /; n � t Z � �f/: ) � � ' .. / C D / . � �. % �� i , v � % r y � ;:.,`. Z / k`" N /. %• / � y�� � �' � !'. C/) � � ��; '"_"_"_".�"_" ' �J � � � � „ , '. � 2 � � I Z t\ � �� � \ � � .,� , m � � � ,� n � ~ � o p �' � �\ � o '" N � `� "' � � ! `� m ;�, �, � � � 1 � � � ; � � � i �� � m = i � � ' � i ' W - - : ' � .. .4, �- -- ---- � rn =+ � ° � � i , � � �i ,,..�,; i � � ' nZ ' � ;;�.: � I � � � � i •r.., ---------------J ., � . �-- � � � �� � �o �� � � �;��'S '� I N�� �V' �! !., � �c y� I _