Loading...
PCRES 1999-071PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-071 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-388 EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 12`h day of October, 1999, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing as requested by EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. on the Environmental Analysis for Specific Plan 99-038, and Site Development Permit 99-658, located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and 481h Avenue; and, WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 99-388) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures are being made conditions of approval for Environmental Assessment 99-388, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing, said recommendation for certification was based on findings and subject to certain mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. 2. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the implementation of mitigation measures. C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\pc res ea 99-388.wpd (stan) Planning Commission Resolution 99-071 Environmental Assessment 99-388 3. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned for proposed development in the immediate vicinity. 4. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human health, safety, and welfare, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation measures. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby concur with the environmental determination and certification of Environmental Assessment 99-388 for proposed Specific Plan 99-038 and Site Development Permit 99-658, provided all mitigation measures are complied with, per the attached Initial Study. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12`h day of October, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN ATTEST: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Kirk. None. None. None. KIRK, Chairman of La Quinta, California iY HEF MAN, Community Development Director of L Quinta, California C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\pc res ea 99-388.wpd (stan) Environmental Checklist Form (EA 99-388) 1. Project Title: La Quinta Family Medicine Center Specific Plan (SP 99-038) Site Development Permit 99-658 Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quints. 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawa 760-177-7125 4. Project Location: Northeast comer of Washington Street and Avenue 48. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: La Quints, Family Medicine Center c/o Dudek & Associates 73-150 Sheryl Ave., Suite C Palm Desert, CA 92211 6. General Plan Designation: Mixed/Regional Commercial 7. Zoning: Regional 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 sheets if necessary.) Specific Plan establishing development standards for a 6f acre site. The first phase of development will include 47,894 square feet of medical office space in one two-story structure. The second phase allows the construction of another two-story building totaling 28,775 square feet. 9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surrounding's. The project occurs on the western boundary of the Lake La Quints. Project. Lands to the east have developed as single family residential; lands to the south are developed as golf course and single family residential. Lands to the west and across Washington Street, and to the north are vacant desert. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) EA 99-388/FaMOMOMtsl Checklist Fm wN Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service S stems X Geolo 'cal Problems Energyand Mineral Resources Aesthetics Hazards Cultural Resources Water Noise Recreation X i Mandatory Finds of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated'pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Printed Name Date For EA 99-389tEnvironme1ts1 Chxklist Fo m.wpd Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No hnpact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyzes," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyzes may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyzes are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. EA 99-M Env"Mentsl Checklist Fm Wf`d 3 sample question: I. H. IH. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Landslides or mudslides? (1,6) (Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation.) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? (General Plan Land Use Map) ages adopted b encies with jurct with isdiction over theproject7 l(Generor pal Plan EIR, p. 47 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General Plan X Land Use Map, Figure 4, Existing Site Conditions of Specific Plan) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or X farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (General Plan EIlZ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Figure 4, Existing Site Conditions of Specific Plan) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X (General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, p. 2-32 ff.) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. X through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? (General Plan Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1, and policies c) Displace.existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Figure 4, F7]==- Existing Site Conditions of Specific Plan) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (General Plan FIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) X EA 99L388IEnvimameoul Checklist Fotmwpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact _©_= c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, X Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 X ff.) e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (General Plan EIR, page 4-41) g) Subsidence of the land? (General Plan EIR, page 443) h) Expansive soils? (General Plan EIR, page 440 to 43) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7) FM__© =a=M rv, WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount X of surface runoff? (Specific Plan P. 16 ff. and Exhibit 10) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as X flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water X quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Specific Plan document, p. 16 ff.) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Specific X Plan document, p. 21; letter from CV WD dated June 3, 1999) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X (General Plan EIR, page 4-51 ff.) EA 99.388/Favlmnmental Checklist Fmm.wpd V. VI. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Significant Leas Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact impact f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct X additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (General Plan Ell?, page 4-55 ff.) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General Plan EIR, X page 4-55 ff.) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) I X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise X available for public water supplies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) AIR QUALr11' Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or I I I X projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171 ff.) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Project Description, Specific Plan document) c) Auer air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (General Plan NlEA, page 5-33 ff.) d) Create objectionable odors? (Project Description, Specific Plan document) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION- Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Endo Engineering, "Traffic Impact Study," June, 1999) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Endo Engineering, `"traffic Impact Study," June, 1999) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Specific Plan Site Plan) d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (Specific Plan Site Plan) mmm MEMO EA 99-388IEnvironmentel Checkhst Form.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Specific Plan Site X Plan) I t- I I f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation X (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Specific Plan Site Plan, Exhibit 5) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) I I I I X VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including X but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (Dudek & X Associates, Black -tailed Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment, September ...... 1999) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal X habitat, etc.)? (Dudek & Associates, Black -tailed Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment, September 1999) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (General X Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General Plan EIR, page 4- X 71 ff.) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that X would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? EA 99-3888ovimammW Checklist Fomwpd Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Signifiant Unitas Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Mitigated Impact Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances X (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X (Specific Plan Project Description) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X (Specific Plan Project Description) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X (Specific Plan Project Description) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Endo Engineering, Noise Impact X Study, June 1999) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General Plan MEA, page X 6-15 ff., Endo Engineering, Noise Impact Study, June 1999) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.) X b) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.) c) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General Plan MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7) e) other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff.) __©- __©- EA 99.388/Enviroomtatal Checklist Form.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: XIH. a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26) b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29) Potenaauy Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact ©m __©= c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (General X Plan WA, page 4-20) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24) e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) X AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (General Plan Exhibit CIR- X 5) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General Plan EK X page 5-12 ff.) c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan Project Description) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological Lakebed Determination Study, Community Development Department) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (General Plan MEA, Aerial Photograph) EA 99.388/Env mnmenW Checklist Fona.wpd XV Potentially Potentially Significant Significant UnIm Impact Mitigated Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Las Than Significant No Impact Impact c) Affect historical resources? (General Plan MEA, Aerial Photograph) I I X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect X unique ethnic cultural values? (General Plan WA, Aerial Photograph) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact X area? (General Plan MEA, Aerial Photograph) RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other X recreational facilities? (Specific Plan Project Description) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General Plan, Exhibit X PR -I) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of 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 or restrict the range of a rare to endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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 projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) i9 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause IX substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or — indirectly? EA 99.388/Fav1ronmm1al Checklist Fosm.wpd xvn. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EK or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. EA 99.388/Enwonmentsl Checklist Folm.wpd Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 99-388 III.a),b) & c) The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed Specific Plan is located in a Zone III groundshaking zone, within one mile of an inferred and inactive fault. The City has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas. The project will be required to conform to these standards. This mitigation measure will ensure that impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a less than significant level. M.f) Construction of the proposed project will have the potential to create unstable soil conditions during earth moving activities. At such time as any phase of the project is proposed for development, the project proponent will be required to submit soils analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval. The recommendations contained in this study will reduce the potential impact from erosion of soils to a level of insignificance. III. g) & h) The proposed project does not occur in an area susceptible to subsidence or expansive soils. In addition, the provisions of item M.f), above, will ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. N.a),b) & c) Construction of the proposed project will reduce the amount of land available for absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff, as well as degrade the quality of such runoff. Leakage from automobiles onto parking lots can cause surface water pollution. It is not expected that the quantity of leakage at the project site will represent a significant impact. The Specific Plan is part of the Lake La Quinta Master Drainage Plan, previously approved for this area. A storm drainage inlet occurs at the intersection of Caleo Bay and Via Florence. The project site will enter the storm drain system at this location, and flows will be carried to Lake La Quints. In addition, two dry wells are proposed for the southwest portion of the site, to infiltrate in the retention swales located along Washington Street. The City Engineer shall review all drainage improvements to insure that their capacity is sufficient to accommodate on -site flows during a 24 hour, 100 year storm. In addition, the City maintains standards for the installation of additional devices to reduce the potential impacts of oil or other chemicals which may occur at the site. The project proponent shall secure approval from the City engineer for all drainage facilities prior to the issuance of a grading permit. This will reduce the potential hazard associated with increased runoff to a level of insignificance. N01g) h) & i) The proposed project will construct medical office space, which has a low consumption rate of domestic water. In addition, the impacts of the project were previously analyzed under the 1992 General Plan EIR. Impacts to water resources were determined at that time to be mitigated for the proposed project. The City also implements water conserving and, as discussed above, water protection measures. Such measures shall reduce the potential impacts to groundwater quality and quantity to a less than significant level. EA 99-388lEnvironMWW Checklist Fmm.wPd 12 V.a)&b) The implementation of commercial land uses on the project site was analyzed under the 1992 General Plan EIR. City-wide, impacts to air quality are expected to continue as buildout occurs. Improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future have the potential to reduce impacts. The City determined at the time of certification of the General Plan EIR that air quality impacts required a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which determined, as regarded air quality, that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulative only when considered in conjunction with regional development, and that the City would implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its boundaries. The implementation of the proposed project, therefore, is not expected to have a significant impact on air quality resources. VI. a) &b) A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plan'. The analysis included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and future traffic volumes. The proposed project will not take access from Washington Street, but from Caleo Bay and Avenue 48. The total estimated traffic generation is estimated to be 2,770 daily trips, of which 186 are expected during the morning peak hour, and 280 during the evening peak hour. The improvements required with or without project implementation include the signalization of Caleo Bay and Avenue 48 under year 2020 conditions. The type of development proposed in the Specific Plan was also considered during review of the City's General Plan in 1992, and traffic generated by the site was incorporated into that analysis. The traffic impact analysis includes the following mitigation measures, which shall be implemented as part of the development of the project site: 1. 2. The proposed internal circulation layout shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer to insure compliance with City minimum access and design standards. Off-street parking shall be provided in conformance with the requirements of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on -site as specified by the City. 4. A STOP sign will control exiting site traffic and clear unobstructed sight distances shall be provided at both site driveways. "La Quinta Family Medical Center Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study," Endo Engineering, June 23, 1999. FA 99.388/ *0nmentd Checklist Fmmwpd 13 5. With the construction of Phase I, the project proponent shall provide (at a minimum), the lane geometrics shown in figure VI-2 of the Traffic Impact Study. 6. The project proponent shall contribute his fair share to the installation of a traffic signal, when warranted, at the intersection of Avenue 48 and Caleo Bay. 7. The project proponent shall participate in the City's traffic mitigation fee program. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the planned improvements associated with the implementation of the City's General Plan, all project related roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) at project buildout. The project is therefore not expected to have a significant impact on the circulation system. VII. a) & b) The site occurs within an area designated as potential habitat for the Black -tailed Gnatcatcher. A site -specific biological survey for Black -tailed Gnatcatcher was performed for the proposed site. The survey found that the site is not appropriate for gnatcatcher habitat. The site is also within the Habitat Conservation Plan fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. The mandated $600 fee per acre (now $100 fee per acre) was paid prior to original grading of the site. This mitigation measure reduced impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance. X. a) The Washington Street corridor is an impacted noise commercial street. The proposed project is not considered a sensitive receptor, and must meet a exterior noise level of 75 dBA CNEL. A noise analysis was performed for the proposed project'. The study found that noise levels of 72.2 CNEL currently occur at 50 feet from the centerline of Avenue 48 east of Washington Street. Project impacts to noise levels, with proposed mitigation measures, will not, however, represent a significant increase in noise levels. The primary noise impacts will occur due to vehicular traffic. In addition, short-term construction impacts may occur. The study also reviewed the potential impacts to the sensitive receptors located east of the project (residential land uses), and found that the impacts to those receptors will not be significant. 2 "Black -tailed Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment" Dudek *& Associates, September 27, 1999. 3 "La Quinta Family Medical Center Specific Plan Noise Impact Study." Endo Engineering, June 25, 1999. EA 99-38MvhonmenW Checklist Formwpd 14 The following mitigation measures included in the noise impact study will be implemented as part of this project: During construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 6 a.m. To 7 p.m. (Monday through Friday) and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. On Saturdays. Construction shall not be allowed on Sundays and holidays. 2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. 3. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors. 4: Every effort shall be made to keep the greatest distance possible between sensitive noise receptors and construction activities. During operation of the proposed project, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. Refuse receptacle locations and enclosures and air conditioning units shall be carefully located to minimize potential impacts to sensitive receptors. All public services were analyzed for potential impacts during the review of the 1992 General Plan. Impacts of the proposed project were included in this review. No significant impact to public services is expected from the proposed project. 3GI. All utilities were analyzed for potential impacts during the review of the 1992 General Plan. Impacts of the proposed project were included in this review. No significant impact to utilities is expected from the proposed project. XIII. The proposed project occurs along the Washington Street corridor, designated a Primary Image Corridor in the General Plan. The City has established standards for structural setbacks within such corridors, which will be met by the proposed project. No significant impacts are expected to result from the project to the aesthetic environment. XIV. The proposed project site has previously been graded and capped, and is severely impacted. No significant cultural or historic resources are expected to occur on the site. In addition, the site occurs outside the traditional boundary of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, as delineated on the maps available at the Community Development Department. Impacts to cultural resources are expected to be less than significant. FA 99d88/6nvMnme0t81 Cawki st FmmwPd