La Quinta City Council
June 7, 2022

• 26 estate homes with an average price of $6 million per unit built in Phase 1. • 104 Surf Village homes with an average price of $2.75 million per unit built in Phase 1.
• 470 homes with an average price of $2 million per unit built in Phase 3. • 150 hotel rooms built in Phase 1.
• 10,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial, and 57,000 square feet of resort commercial development built in Phase 1.
• 25,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development built in Phase

2. • 25,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development built in Phase

3. • Hotel average daily rate of $350 per room.
• Resort commercial Food and Beverage sales of $6.6 million annually. • Resort Commercial retail sales of $5.5 million annually. • Short term vacation rental participation of 30% of 600 units. • Short term vacation rental occupancy rate of 25%.
• Short term vacation rental rate of $800 per unit per night.

It should be noted that the applicant’s values and assumptions are generally consistent with conditions in La Quinta and the region in non-pandemic times.

Hotel room rates and short term vacation rental (STVR) rates vary greatly in the City and region. Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors’ Bureau reports support the hotel rates provided. STVR rates and occupancy are also consistent with the higher end of that market. It should be noted that until 2020, La Quinta did not track room nights or occupancy for STVR, and the use of 2020 year-todate data would not be an accurate representation of occupancy levels in nonpandemic years. Therefore, the assumptions provided by the applicant have been used. Based on those assumptions, 180 of the residential units would be STVRs, which would generate a total of 29,565 room nights annually.

This analysis is based on 2020 dollars. No inflation or cost of living adjustments have been made to either costs or revenues. Therefore, proportional increases in both can be expected over the build out period and beyond.

Finally, this analysis addresses only major General Fund revenues. Additional costs and revenues will be associated with the project, such as the collection of increased gas tax, to offset road maintenance. Both the revenues and the costs associated with these restricted funds are limited, and will not substantially change the economic benefit or loss associated with the build out of the project. 386 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Coral Mountain Resort Cost/Revenue Analysis
Corrected 3.4.22

II. Revenues
Three primary revenue categories have been analyzed for this report: Property Transfer Tax, Sales Tax and Transient Occupancy Tax. As noted above, the project will generate no property tax for at least 15 years. Therefore, no property tax has been assumed, nor has Property Tax in Lieu of VLF been included.

Revenue allocations are directly tied to the phasing proposed for the project.

Revenues will begin in Phase 1, which includes the hotel and 130 residential units, as well as 67,000 square feet of commercial space. Phase 2 includes only the addition of neighborhood commercial square footage, and a corresponding increase in sales tax revenue. Phase 3, which includes an additional 470 housing units and the balance of the neighborhood commercial square footage, will result in a significant increase in revenues. Build out calculations are based on a stabilized project, relying on averaged resales of residential units for the life of the project.

The following discussion summaries the result of the modeling conducted for this report. Detailed tables are provided in Appendix A.

Property Transfer Tax
The City receives Property Transfer Tax for properties sold within this area. The sales rates have been assumed based on average sales per year, both new and resale, during the build out of the project. Buildout assumptions, for every year once the project is fully developed, were also calculated.

It should be noted that no property transfer tax was calculated for either the hotel or the commercial square footage in the project. These sales occur infrequently, are not predictable, and will only rarely increase the City’s revenues during the life of the project.

For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that 130 units would be constructed in Phase 1. Of these, 104 units would be valued at $2.75 million, and 26 at $6 million. This represents the resort residential portion of the project located adjacent to the hotel and wave pool, as well as the 26 custom home sites located at the northwest corner of the resort complex. The balance of the residential development, 470 units, would be built in Phase 3 of the project, and upon completion, would represent build out of the proposed project. As shown in Table 1, at build out the project would generate $74,800 annually in Property Transfer Tax at build out.
387 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Coral Mountain Resort Cost/Revenue Analysis
Corrected 3.4.22

Table 1
Annual Property Transfer Tax Revenue
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Build Out
Total Property Transfer Tax $44,880 $38,500 $127,600 $74,800 Sales Tax
The applicant provided annual retail sales and food and beverage sales estimates for the resort commercial complex, which includes the hotel and commercial village proposed in the southern quadrant of the project. No assumptions were provided for the neighborhood commercial development proposed in the northeastern corner of the project. For analysis purposes, the 60,000 square feet of commercial space was calculated separately, using Urban Land Institute regional calculations for neighborhood shopping center sales per square foot. For the proposed 57,000 square feet of resort commercial space, the applicant’s assumptions were divided by the project square footage to generate sales per square foot. Consistent with the project description, retail space is assumed to be built in Phase 1 for the resort commercial, and in Phase 1, 2 and 3 for the neighborhood commercial component.

The City receives 1% of the total 6% State sales tax rate, and an additional 1% generated by Measure G, which was approved by the voters in 2016. In total, therefore, the City receives 2% of most retail sales.

On the basis of the assumptions described above, the project will generate $570,040 in sales tax at build out, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2
Annual Sales Tax Revenue
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Build Out
Total Sales Tax Revenue $276,523 $423,282 $570,040 $570,040 Sales tax was calculated for project generation only. In addition, residents will likely expend funds elsewhere in the City and region. Assuming the project has a high percentage of STVRs, as described above, the off-site spending associated with the project could be more characteristic of a hotel visitor, rather than a permanent or seasonal resident. If this is the case, spending will be more limited, and may occur almost entirely within the project. If the project is occupied by more permanent or seasonal residents, disposable income will be spent both in the project and elsewhere in the region. In order to assure a conservative estimation of revenues, therefore, no indirect sales tax generation is included in this analysis. 388 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Coral Mountain Resort Cost/Revenue Analysis
Corrected 3.4.22

Transient Occupancy Tax
The City collects Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for both hotels and short term vacation rentals (STVR). Hotels charge 11% in TOT per room night, while STVRs collect 10% per room night. Occupancy and rates, as described above, vary between the two uses. Hotels in the Coachella Valley, pre-pandemic, were experiencing annualized occupancy rates of about 68%, due in great part to the low occupancy levels in the summer months. This annualized occupancy rate was used to calculate TOT for the project’s hotel.

Data for STVR occupancy, as described above, is limited in both the City and region, especially since this is a relatively new phenomenon that all cities are experiencing. In La Quinta, approximately 6.5% of all single family units are currently used as STVRs. The City also has several projects built for vacation rentals, including Legacy Villas and Puerta Azul. As described above, this analysis assumed that 30% of the total residential units in the project would be used as STVRs, and that they would be occupied 25% of the time.

Based on these assumptions, TOT revenues from the project would represent the single largest revenue source for the City. At build out, the project would generate $2.8 million in TOT revenue, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3
Annual Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Phase I Phase II Phase III Build Out
Total Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue $1,735,849 $1,735,849 $2,829,480 $2,829,480 Summary of Revenues
The major revenue categories associated with the project will result in a total of $3.47 million annually to the City at project build out. As described above, and shown in Table 4, more than 80% of these revenues are tied to Transient Occupancy Tax. An increase or decrease in TOT revenue would significantly affect the project’s revenue stream. Please see Section IV of this report for further discussion of the impact of TOT revenues on City funds. 389 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Coral Mountain Resort Cost/Revenue Analysis
Corrected 3.4.22

Table 4
Summary of Annual Revenues
Phase I Phase II Phase III Build Out
Property Tax $0 $0 $0 $0
Property Transfer Tax $44,880 $38,500 $127,600 $74,800
Local Sales Tax $276,523 $423,282 $570,040 $570,040
Transient Occupancy Tax $1,735,849 $1,735,849 $2,829,480 $2,829,480 Total Annual Revenues $2,057,252 $2,197,630 $3,527,120 $3,474,320 III. Costs
As with revenues, this analysis considers the largest costs associated with new development as they would impact the General Fund. Restricted funds were not analyzed, but the costs associated with City-wide roadway maintenance and similar costs which are payed through restricted funds would be limited for a project of this size, and offsets by additional revenue categories, including Gas Tax, which the project will generate.

Three major categories were analyzed for cost impacts: General Government, Fire Services and Police Services. In all three cases, a per capita cost was developed based on the current (2020/2021) adopted City budget expenditures for Police and Fire costs, and the previous year (2019/2020) adopted budget for General Government costs. The reason for the variation in budget year analysis was solely due to the deep cuts the City has implemented in 2020 for pandemic-related revenue shortfalls. The $10 million in cuts in personnel, facility expenditures and other General Government categories are expected to be short-term in nature, and do not reflect the level of service the City would provide in non-pandemic conditions. The 2019/2020 adopted budget, therefore, was used to calculate General Government expenditures.

For Fire and Police expenditures, both are directly tied to contracts with the County of Riverside, which increase yearly and over which the City has no control.

The current (2020/2021) aggregated costs associated with both services, for example, are 4% higher than the previous year (2019/2020), regardless of pandemic conditions. Therefore, the 2020/2021 contract costs were used to calculate per capita expenditures. In addition, hotel rooms were counted as residential units, to reflect the demand for police and fire services at hotel and resort facilities. The household size, 2.6 persons, was calculated based on Department of Finance 2019 estimates. Project population is assumed, at build out, to total 1,950 persons.
390 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Coral Mountain Resort Cost/Revenue Analysis
Corrected 3.4.22

Finally, to determine per capita costs, Department of Finance’s population estimates for 2019, which total 40,660 persons in La Quinta, were divided into the total budget amount for each category, as described below.

The following discussion summaries the result of the modeling conducted for this report. Detailed tables are provided in Appendix A.

General Government Costs
General Government costs include a broad range of services, from business licenses to short term vacation rental permitting, and from recreation programs to Code Enforcement. The project, however, will not have an impact on all General Government activities, particularly where economies of scale occur based on the City’s existing population. For this analysis, the following budget categories were included: Community Resources (which includes recreational programs, Wellness Center and Code Enforcement), and Facilities (which includes parks and public building maintenance, and limited street funding). The total General Fund costs associated with these programs is $7,671,900. On a per capita basis, this translates to a cost of $188.68 per resident. As shown in Table 5, the costs of General Government associated with build out of the project will be $367,926 annually.

Table 5
Annual General Government Project Costs
Phase I Phase II Phase III Build Out
Total Annual Costs of General Government $137,362 $137,359 $367,926 $367,926 Fire Service Costs
As described above, Fire Service costs are based on a per capita cost of the 2020/2021 budget. The current cost for Fire Service contracting is $8,021,700. On a per capita basis, the cost is $197.29. Based on the project’s build out population of 1,950 persons, the project will generate an annual cost to the City of $384,710 at build out, as shown in Table 6.

Table 6
Annual Fire Service Project Costs
Phase I Phase II Phase III Build Out
Total Annual of Fire Services $143,625 $143,625 $384,710 $384,710 391 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Coral Mountain Resort Cost/Revenue Analysis
Corrected 3.4.22

Police Service Costs
Police Services represent the single largest expenditure for the City. The 2020/2021 contract with the County of Riverside totals $17,506,700. On a per capita basis, this translates to $430.56 per resident. As shown in Table 7, the total costs for Police Services at project build out will be $839,598 annually.

Table 7
Annual Police Service Project Costs
Phase I Phase II Phase III Build Out
Total Annual Cost for Police Services $313,450 $313,450 $839,598 $839,598 Summary of Costs
General Fund costs associated with project build out will total approximately $1.59 million annually at build out of the project, as shown in Table 8.

Table 8
Annual Project Cost Summary
Phase I Phase II Phase III Build Out
General Government $137,362 $137,359 $367,926 $367,926
Police Protection Services $313,450 $313,450 $839,598 $839,598 Fire Department Services $143,625 $143,625 $384,710 $384,710 Total Project-related General Fund Costs $594,437 $594,434 $1,592,234 $1,592,234 392 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Coral Mountain Resort Cost/Revenue Analysis
Corrected 3.4.22

IV. Comparison of Revenues versus Costs
Table 9 compares the project’s revenues to anticipated costs. As shown in the Table, based on the assumptions made in the analysis, the project will result in positive revenues for the City at build out.

As the Table shows, the positive cash flow is entirely dependent on the Transient Occupancy Tax revenues projected for the project. Without TOT revenues, the project will be revenue negative, with the exception of completion of Phase 2, when the project will be revenue neutral. Phase 2 includes the addition of 25,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, and related sales tax revenue, with no increase in population density. The sales tax revenue generation makes up for the shortfall shown in Phase 1. At project build out, without TOT revenue, the project would be revenue negative at about $947,394 annually.

Table 9
Summary of Project Revenues and Costs
Phase I Phase II Phase III Build Out

ANNUAL REVENUES
General Fund:

Property Tax $0 $0 $0 $0
Property Transfer Tax $44,880 $38,500 $127,600 $74,800
Local Sales Tax $276,523 $423,282 $570,040 $570,040
Transient Occupancy Tax $1,735,849 $1,735,849 $2,829,480 $2,829,480

ANNUAL COSTS
General Fund:

General Government $137,362 $137,359 $367,926 $367,926
Police Protection Services $313,450 $313,450 $839,598 $839,598 Fire Department Services $143,625 $143,625 $384,710 $384,710 SUMMARY OF REVENUES/COSTS:

Revenues:

Total Annual Revenues at Phase
Buildout $2,057,252 $2,197,630 $3,527,120 $3,474,320
Costs:

Total Annual Costs at Phase Build
Out $594,437 $594,434 $1,592,234 $1,592,234
Annual Cash Flow at Phase Build Out $1,462,815 $1,603,196 $1,934,886 $1,882,086 Annual Cash Flow without Transient
Occupancy Tax Revenue -$273,034 -$132,652 -$894,594 -$947,394 393 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
394 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
ATTACHMENT 3

FINDINGS
Specific Plan Amendment 2019-0003
(Amendment V to Specific Plan 2003-037, Andalusia)

1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, insofar as the land area remaining in the Specific Plan will continue to develop with the land uses shown in the General Plan Land Use Map, and consistent with the policies and programs of the General Plan.

2. Approval of the Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare, as development already occurs within this Specific Plan, and its build out will be consistent with that development.

3. Specific Plan 2003-037 is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties which are also Low Density Residential.

4. Specific Plan 2003-037 is suitable and appropriate for the subject property, as development has occurred there, and will continue to build out as originally intended.

General Plan Amendment 2019-0002

1. The amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan which are not being amended, as follows (and as supplemented by Exhibit A):

Goal LU-1 Land use compatibility throughout the City.

Policy LU-1.2 All land use decisions shall be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and programs and shall uphold the rights and needs of property owners as well as those of the general public.

Consistency: The General Plan Amendment is proposed to support the development of a master planned community, similar to other master planned communities in the City. Other such communities include Tourist Commercial components, including PGA West and SilverRock. The community will be private, will be surrounded by a perimeter wall, and proposes land uses that, as analyzed in the project Environmental Impact Report (EIR), will not be visible or discernable from outside its boundaries.

The application for the General Plan Amendment has been made in compliance with the City’s procedures and requirements, by a private 395 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
landowner. The General Plan Amendment, due to the nature of the private resort community described above, will not negatively affect the general public.

Goal LU-2 High quality design that complements and enhances the City.

Consistency: The Specific Plan (SP2020-0002) proposed in conjunction with the General Plan Amendment includes comprehensive development standards, guidelines and graphics illustrating a high quality of design.

Notwithstanding the proposed Specific Plan (SP2020-0002), should the General Plan Amendment be approved and development under the Specific Plan not proceed, the City’s Zoning Ordinance requirements include high quality development standards and guidelines designed to preserve the quality of development in all parts of the City.

Goal LU-3 Safe and identifiable neighborhoods that provide a sense of place.

Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in a master planned, free-standing community, consistent with the development which already exists in the area. The project as proposed will include perimeter landscaping, a gated entry, and resort commercial development in the center of the site, shielded from neighboring development. The project’s perimeter and gate will provide identifying characteristics distinguishing it from its neighbors, as has occurred in master planned communities throughout the City. Any development resulting from the General Plan Amendment will be reviewed by both police and fire department staff to assure public safety.

Should the proposed project not proceed, the General Plan land use designations would still likely result in a self-contained community, perimeter walls and gated access.

Goal LU-4 Maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods.

Policy LU-4.1 Encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure.

Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in residential densities of up to 4 units per acre, consistent with the land use designations applied to surrounding development. The project proposed for the site would result in a residential density of 2.6 units per acre, which is consistent with the developed projects in the area, including Centre Pointe, Trilogy, PGA West and Andalusia.

The amount of Open Space land resulting from the General Plan Amendment will be less than that provided in surrounding developments, insofar as all 396 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
three surrounding country clubs include golf courses. From the public realm, however, this difference will not be discernible, as the interior of the project will not be visible from public streets.

The proposed addition of Tourist Commercial lands to the property will represent a change from the land uses in Andalusia and Trilogy, as well as the smaller subdivisions occurring in the area. However, the inclusion of Tourist Commercial land in master planned communities in the City is not unusual, and is included at Centre Pointe, PGA West, SilverRock, Legacy Villas, and Travertine Specific Plans. Its location at the south-central portion of the site provides for a buffer from existing surrounding neighborhoods, and would be fully shielded from public view, or views from surrounding existing neighborhoods. As analyzed in the project EIR, the impacts associated with this land use are less than significant from the perspective of CEQA.

The General Commercial land use designation currently exists at the corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, and its reduction by 1± acre will not change the anticipated land uses or character of this portion of the site.

Goal LU-5 A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City.

Policy LU-5.2 Consider changes in market demand in residential product type to meet the needs of current and future residents.

Consistency: The General Plan Amendment will not, in and of itself, result in any particular type of housing. The Specific Plan (2020-0002) proposed in conjunction with it, however, includes a broad range of attached and detached residential products which will broaden and add to the City’s housing inventory. The General Plan Amendment will not substantially change, as shown in Table 1, the amount of Low Density Residential land provided in the City for development. The range of housing proposed in the Specific Plan (2020-0002) is consistent with market trends seen in the City in recent years, including clustered, smaller lot development, which is also typical of golf course communities in the City.

Goal LU-6 A balanced and varied economic base which provides a broad range of goods and services to the City’s residents and the region.

Policy LU—6.1 Commercial land use designations shall allow a full range of retail, office, resort and institutional businesses in the City. 397 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Policy LU-6.3 Support and encourage the expansion of the resort industry as a key component of the City’s economic base.

Consistency: The proposed General Plan Amendment maintains the General Commercial land use at the corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58. This has long been considered in the General Plan as an appropriate location for neighborhood shopping, which would include a range of services and goods, based on the lack of commercial opportunities in this part of the City. As a result, this land use designation has been in place since annexation of the property, and its continuation, and eventual implementation, maintains the vision for the property.

The proposed General Plan Amendment will also expand the City’s economic base by adding to its hotel room inventory, and provide new and different housing opportunities. The proposed project includes a Development Agreement which addresses the City’s lack of property tax revenue in this area of the City, by requiring the payment of mitigation fees to offset the loss. This has been consistently applied to lands in this part of the City over the past decades, in order to assure that projects contribute to the costs for public safety and do not represent a financial drain on the City.

2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because the community will be entirely self-contained and of high quality, and will be surrounded by homes, perimeter improvements and streets.

3. The Land Use designations are suitable and appropriate for the subject property, as it continues the pattern of master planned communities envisioned in the General Plan for southern areas of La Quinta.

4. Approval of the General Plan Amendment is warranted because changes in the market and in consumer interest in golf courses has changed, and alternative forms of recreation will expand the options for current and future City residents.

Zone Change 2019-0004

1. The zone map change is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, as described above and contained in Exhibit A.

2. Approval of the zone map change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because the community will be entirely self-contained and of high quality, and will be surrounded by homes, perimeter improvements and streets. 398 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

3. The new zoning is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties as it continues the pattern of master planned communities envisioned in the General Plan for southern areas of La Quinta.

4. The new zoning is suitable and appropriate for the subject property because the property is essentially flat, and development will not occur on Coral Mountain or protected areas.

5. Approval of the zone map change is warranted because changes in the market and in consumer interest in golf courses has changed, and alternative forms of recreation will expand the options for current and future City residents.

Specific Plan 2020-0002

1. Consistency with General Plan. The Specific Plan (2020-0002) is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the general plan, as follows.

Policy LU-2.1 Changes and variations from the Zoning Ordinance in a Specific Plan will be offset by high quality design, amenities and mix of land uses.

Policy LU 2.2 Specific Plans shall be required for projects proposing the integration of recreation, tourist commercial and residential uses; and for all projects proposing flexible development standards that differ from the Zoning Ordinance.

Consistency: The Specific Plan (2020-0002) implements the policies of the General Plan relating to site-specific development standards and high quality development, and provides flexibility for the development of specialized land uses to the site.

2. Approval of the Specific Plan (2020-0002) will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because it will create an entirely self-contained and master planned community that will continue the pattern of master planned resort communities envisioned in this part of La Quinta.

3. The Specific Plan (2020-0002) is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties as it continues the pattern of master planned communities envisioned in the General Plan for southern areas of La Quinta. 399 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4. The Specific Plan (2020-0002) is suitable and appropriate for the subject property because the property is essentially flat, and development will not occur on Coral Mountain or protected areas.

Tentative Tract Map 2019-0005

1. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as amended, and implements the Low Density Residential, General Commercial, Open Space and Tourist Commercial land use designations allowed on the site.

2. The design and improvement of the Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the La Quinta General Plan with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval to ensure comprehensive improvements and coordinated development.

3. The design of the Tentative Tract Map is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Coral Mountain Resort EIR found that impacts to the environment could be reduced to less than significant levels, with the exception of aesthetics and greenhouse gas emissions. The City has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts to these resources, as identified in the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.

4. The design of the Tentative Tract Map and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, insofar as theproject will be required to comply with all laws, standards and requirements associated with sanitary sewer collection, water quality and other public health issues.

5. The design and improvements required for the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. All roadway improvements, easements, if any and surrounding improvements will be completed to City standards.

Development Agreement 2021-0002

1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan.
400 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed in the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan, and implements the Specific Plan’s design features.

3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare and good land use practices because it will create a revenue stream to assure that public safety costs incurred by the City for the project will be paid for by the project.

4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare, as it provides for the long term ordered development of a master planned community.

5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values insofar as it will ensure that development occurring on the site will generate revenues and assure high quality development.

6. The Development Agreement will have a positive fiscal impact on the city by paying mitigation fees for services it requires, and additional Transient Occupancy Tax and Sales Tax revenues.
401 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

EXHIBIT A

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Land Use
• Goal LU‐1: Land use compatibility throughout the City. • Goal LU‐2: High quality design that complements and enhances the City. • Policy LU‐2.1: Changes and variations from the Zoning Ordinance in a Specific Plan will be offset by high quality design, amenities and mix of land uses. • Goal LU‐5: A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City.
• Policy LU‐5.2: Consider changes in market demand in residential product type to meet the needs of current and future residents.
• Goal LU‐6: A balanced and varied economic base which provides a broad range of goods andservices to the City’s residents and the region. • Policy LU‐6.2: Maintain commercial development standards in the Zoning Ordinance including setbacks, height, pad elevations and other design and performance standards thatassure a high quality of development. • Policy LU‐6.3: Support and encourage the expansion of the resort industry as a key component of the City’s economic base.

Consistency: The site components (neighborhood commercial, low density residential, resort residential, resort hotel, resort amenities, recreational amenities, and open space) are compatible with surrounding residential, open space, and neighborhood commercial uses and designations. Lands to the north of theproject and south of Avenue are designated Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential. Development of these lands would be governed by the City’s zoning standards, and would consist of attached or detached single family residential developments (two to four units per acre for Low Density Residential), and medium density neighborhoods (four to eight units per acre).

This development is expected to be consistent with and similar to the uses proposed within the project because the project proposes a maximum of 496 low density residential housing units on approximately 232.3 acres, as well as a maximum of 104 resort residential units, on approximately 40.5 acres, which would be similar to the density and intensity of development allowed under the General Plan. The project is separated fromadjacent uses by surrounding arterial streets and physical topographic barriers, such as Coral Mountain. Off‐site development includes the connection to an existing Imperial Irrigation District 402 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
(IID) substation to provide electricity to the project site. The off‐site improvements would not impact land use of the off‐site areas.

The Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan includes detailed design guidelines in Section 4 of the SP to guide high‐quality development throughout the Specific Plan area. The project includes both neighborhood commercial and tourist commercial land uses which will generate revenue and create employment opportunities. The proposed project would increase services associated with tourism and neighborhood commercial uses.

The project proposes housing of varying types and sizes with access to resort and recreational amenities,thus enhancing housing choices for potential buyers.

Planning Areas II and III will offer a broad range of housing options on the site.

Planning Area II, designated as Low Density Residential, anticipates detached or attached residential dwelling units with densities ranging from 0.8‐4 dwelling units per acre. PlanningArea III proposes the development of resort residential dwelling units with densities ranging from 2.5‐2.8 dwelling units per acre.

Consistent with Policy LU‐5.2, Goal LU‐6, and Policy LU‐6.3, the implementation of the Tourist Commercial land use designation and the associated development of a recreational facility and hotel will promote the continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in La Quinta by providing resort, recreational, commercial, and residential land uses on the 386‐acre property. Additionally, the residential uses will incrementally increase demand for commercial goods and services in the region, thus enhancing the economy.

Circulation
• Goal CIR‐1: A transportation and circulation network that efficiently, safely and economically moves people, vehicles, and goods using facilities that meet the current demands and projected needs of the City.
• Policy CIR‐1.12: As a means of reducing vehicular traffic on major roadways and to reduce vehicle miles traveled by traffic originating in the City, the city shall pursue development of a land use pattern that maximizes interactions between adjacent or nearby land uses.
• Goal CIR‐2: A circulation system that promotes and enhances transit, alternative vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian networks.
• Policy CIR‐2.2: Encourage reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay by increasing or encouraging the use of alternative modes and transportation technologies, and implement and manage a hierarchy of Complete Street multimodal transportation infrastructure and programs to deliver improved mobility and 403 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
reduce GHG emissions.
• Policy CIR‐2.3: Develop and encourage the use of continuous and convenient pedestrian and bicycle routes and multi‐use paths and places of employment, recreation, shopping, schools, and other high activity areas with potential for increased pedestrian, bicycle, golf cart/NEV modes of travel.

Consistency: The project proposes a private circulation system to provide safe and efficient passage for pedestrians and motorists throughout the site. The project proposes a multi‐modal circulation system, aiming to decrease automobile dependency by providing transportation facilities for a variety of user groups including motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers of electric vehicles. The project proposes a private circulation system that will safely accommodate both vehicles and pedestrians with shared low‐speed, low‐volume internal streets. The multi‐modal transportation system will consist of off‐street bicycle and pedestrian paths/routes, sidewalks in higher traffic areas, enhanced pedestrian/bicycle crosswalks, pedestrian and multi‐use paths and streets, traffic calming methods, short street segments with frequent caution zones and stopping points, golf cart and other alternative forms of personal transportation.

Livable Community
• Goal SC‐1: A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents.

Consistency: The project includes elements to address the goal of the Livable Community Element, whichis intended to assist the City in developing a more united community through resource conservation, built environment enhancement, promotion of alternative forms of transportation, and improvement of community health. The project and Specific Plan are consistent with this goal by promoting a high‐qualitymix of uses that will contribute to the built environment, promote walkability in the resort center of the project, and provide opportunities for active recreation.

Economic Development
• Goal ED‐1: A balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City, and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region.
• Policy ED‐1.1: The Land Use Element shall maintain a balance of land use designations to address economic needs, meet market demand, and assure a wide range of development opportunities.
• Goal ED‐2: The continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in the 404 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
City.

Consistency: The project proposes a resort with up to 150 hotel keys, a water‐ based active recreation amenity, and resort residences that will expand tourism opportunities and promote fiscal stability. Additionally, the residential use will incrementally increase demand for commercial goods and services in the region, thus enhancing the economy. The project promotes the continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in La Quinta by providing resort, recreational, commercial, and residential land useson the 386‐acre property.

Parks, Recreation and Trails
• Goal PR‐1: A comprehensive system of parks, and recreational facilities and services that meet the active and passive needs of all residents and visitors. • Policy PR‐1.4: The design and construction of parks and recreational facilities shall comply with all the development standards that apply to privately constructed facilities.
• Policy PR‐1.6: Encourage patterns of development that promote safe pedestrian and bicycle access to schools, public parks, and recreational areas.

Consistency: The project designates areas set aside for recreational open space uses, as well as a water‐ based active recreational amenity that will provide recreational opportunities currently not available in the City. Additional open space will be scattered throughout PA II. Planning Area IV proposes approximately 23.6 acres of land zoned for Parks and Recreation (PR). This Planning Area will include active and passive recreational activities such as hiking trails, biking routes, and a ropes course/zipline.

Housing
• Goal H‐1: Provide housing opportunities that meet the diverse needs of the City’s existing and projected population.
• Policy H‐1.1: Identify adequate sites to accommodate a range of product types, densities, and prices to address the housing needs of all household types, lifestyles, and income levels.
• Goal H‐4: Conserve and improve the quality of existing La Quinta neighborhoods and individual properties.
• Goal H‐6: Provide a regulatory framework that facilitates and encourages energy and water conservation through sustainable site planning, project design, and green technologies and building materials.
405 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Consistency: The project proposes the development of up to 600 attached and detached dwelling units with densities ranging from 0.8‐4 dwelling units per acre, thus contributing to the City’s market rate housing stock. The project will complement the surrounding residential communities. Development of resort, neighborhood commercial, recreational open space, and residential uses will add value and amenities to neighboring communities and the City. The project promotes water conservation through the use of drought tolerant plant materials and water efficient irrigation techniques. The project will comply with all City and water district regulations and building codes for water conservation, energy efficiency, and building standards. The project will also comply with all applicable green buildingrequirements.

Water Resources
• Goal WR‐1: The efficient use and conservation of the City’s water resources. • Policy WR‐1.1: Support the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) in its efforts to supply adequate domestic water to residents and businesses. • Policy WR‐1.3: Support CVWD in its efforts to expand tertiary treated (i.e., reclaimed) water distribution.

Consistency: The project promotes water conservation through the use of drought tolerant plant materials and water efficient irrigation techniques. The project will comply with all City and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) regulations and building codes for water conservation. Additionally, recycled water will be used for common area irrigation for landscaping. The Wave Basin provides a recreational amenity to support the proposed resort and residential uses, and does so with substantially less water demand than required for alternatives amenities, such as an 18‐hole golf course.

Open Space and Conservation
• Goals OS‐1: Preservation, conservation and management of the City’s open space lands and scenic resources for enhanced recreational, environmental, and economic purposes.
• Policy OS‐1.1: Identify and map lands suitable for preservation as passive and active open space.
• Policy OS‐1.2: Continue to develop a comprehensive multi‐purpose trails network to link open space areas.

Consistency: The project includes significant open space amenities, including the protection of Coral Mountain through an Environmentally Sensitive Area. The project incorporates connections to the public sidewalk and public trail system 406 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
for convenient walking, jogging, and biking activities. Planning Area IV proposes approximately 23.6 acres of Open Space Recreation land uses, in which low‐ impact active and passive activities, such as hiking, biking and ropes courses are permitted. PA IV will be retained largely as natural desert land. The perimeter pedestrian improvements will connect to the surrounding community.

However, the project will not connect to existing trails or open space areas, outside of theproject boundary, because there are no existing public trails in the immediate vicinity of the project.

Noise
• Goal N‐1: A healthful noise environment which complements the City’s residential and resort character.
• Policy N‐1.1: Noise standards in the City shall be consistent with the Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility scale described in the Noise Element. • Policy N‐1.2: New residential development located adjacent to any roadway identified in Table IV‐4 (in the Noise Element of the GP) as having a buildout noise level in excess of 65 dBA shall continue to be required to submit a noise impact analysis in conjunction with the first Planning Department application, which demonstrates compliance with the City’s noise standards. • Policy N‐1.3: New non‐residential development located adjacent to existing residential development, sensitive receptors or residentially designated land, shall be required to submit a noise impact analysis in conjunction with the first Planning Department application, which demonstrates that it will not significantly impact the adjacent residential development or residential land. • Policy N‐1.5: All noise impact analysis will include, at a minimum, short‐term construction noise and noise generated by the daily operation of the project at build out.

Consistency: The project establishes residential, resort residential, resort, recreational, and neighborhood commercial uses with compatible noise levels in an existing residential area. These uses maintain and enhance the City’s residential and resort character and will be subject to the City’s noise ordinance.

Noise levels on Avenue 58 and Madison Street are not excessive due to the low traffic volumes, and the project will be buffered by a perimeter community wall. 407 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
408 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
409 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
410 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
ATTACHMENT 5
411 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
412 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
413 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
414 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
415 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
416 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
417 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
418 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 7:23 AM
To: Tim Albinson; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores; Monika Radeva
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Albinson,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Tim Albinson
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 6:01 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** I am in full support of the Coral Mountain Wave Project. The project will bring jobs and investment to the valley as well as continue to position the community as a leader in terms of tourism, recreation and healthy lifestyle. It is thoughtfully planned and will be a marvelous addition to the valley landscape! All the best
Tim Albinson
419 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Cheri Flores
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 8:21 AM
To: Tania Flores
Cc: Consulting Planner; Danny Castro
Subject: FW: FYI- It's Not A Matter Of If But When...Water "SHAMING" & GUILT will be the ByProduct Of La Quinta's & Coachella Valleys TONE-DEAF Approval Of Surf Parks & Lagoons For The Mega Rich During The Mega Drought
See correspondence below.

Cheri Flores | Planning Manager
Design & Development Department
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. (760)777-7067
[email protected]
www.LaQuintaCA.gov
From:

Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2022 7:32 AM
To:

Steve
Sanchez <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Cheri Flores <[email protected]>;
Subject: FYI- It's Not A Matter Of If But When...Water "SHAMING" & GUILT will be the ByProduct Of La Quinta's & Coachella Valleys TONE-DEAF Approval Of Surf Parks & Lagoons For The Mega Rich During The Mega Drought EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Approving SURF-PARKS in La Quinta & The Coachella Valley During This Unprecedented Catastrophic Mega-drought for the Mega-Rich Is Not Only TONE-DEAF but will come back to bring shame and derision on the City of LaQuinta & Entire Coachella Valley for approving these OBSCENE & FRIVOLOUS wastes of our precious and vanishing water.

Everyday it becomes more inevitable. Lush SoCal Landscapes, Lawns & Turf Are Going Away Quickly.........
420 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 SoCal's environment and visual look is completely changing, almost overnight.

Water "SHAMING" will become a very big cultural thing. This will apply to high-end golf course / country clubs / lushly landscaped homes, lagoons and Surf-Parks. The Class / Elite Privilege & Entitlment Will BE Too Glaring To Ignore.

This "Shaming" will be aimed directly at LaQuinta and the Coachella Valley.

How can any City or Development In The SoCal Desert Approve These Profligate Wastes And Expect The Public & Press To Ignore This Environmental & Societal Abuse Of This Rapidly Vanishing Resource?
It is no longer business as usual for the Coachella
Valley. To act otherwise is just TONE-DEAF
WHISTLING IN THE GRAVEYARD.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/climate/las-vegas-lawn-grass-ban.html Where Lawns Are Outlawed (and Dug
Up, and Carted Away)
With drought and growth taking a toll on the Colorado River, the source of 90 percent of the region’s water, a new law in Las Vegas mandates the removal of turf, patch by patch.

No Lawns / Non-Functional Turf Are Next For SoCAL....
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/new-la-water-restrictions-conservation-drought-mayor-garcettiladwp/2889703/ What are the new outdoor water restrictions
in Los Angeles?
Outdoor watering will be limited for LADWP customers to two days per week, starting June 1. That's a change from the current limit of three days per week.

Homeowners will be assigned two watering days per week based on even- and odd-number addresses.

Watering will be permitted at odd-numbered street addresses on Mondays and Fridays, and at evennumbered addresses on Thursdays and Sundays. 421 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
3 The city also strongly recommends using pool covers to decrease evaporation of pool water and washing vehicles at commercial car wash businesses.

That's in addition to existing watering restrictions, which include limiting watering with sprinklers to eight minutes per station and using water conserving nozzles limited to 15 minutes per station.

All watering will have to be done in the evening or early morning, with no watering
permitted outdoors between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

People who don't follow the rules will receive a warning, followed by increasing fines for subsequent violations.

Truly, A Very Rapid Repudiation of the California
Dream Is Becoming A Reality............
422 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:01 AM
To: Fritz Bachli; Planning WebMail
Subject: Re: FEIR Wave Park / Item: Noise / Reference Art. 2.2.4 Mr. Bachli,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council as they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Fritz Bachli
Sent: Sunday, May 1, 2022 1:34 PM
To: Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Planning WebMail <[email protected]> Subject: FEIR Wave Park / Item: Noise / Reference Art. 2.2.4

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Hi Nicole, Ladies and Gentlemen from the Planning Commission! Your education regarding amplified noise transfer was certainly helpful for people with little to no experience in this field. Thank you. I spent many years in the Swiss Airforce as a second cockpit officer dealing with Radar Navigation Instruments and Wireless Communication equipment.

On my days off, living near a public pool and hearing the megaphone announcements of the lifeguards who were sitting on an elevated observation deck overlooking a noisy pool, was annoying and a nuisance. (picture attached) Fortunately, the pool was open in Summer only from 10 AM and closed at 5 PM allowing some quiet time for residents in the surrounding living areas of the pool.

Compared with a public pool, the wave basin is 2000 ft long and 500 ft wide with 6 ft crashing waves. Can you explain how many loudspeakers, at which locations and at what height above the wave basin these loudspeakers will be installed allowing the surfers, emergency personnel, etc. to hear messages during operating hours 365 days a year from 7 AM to 10 PM.

For your information,Trilogy does not allow amplified music from outside homes at all times day or night. The noise level in the morning hours and at night is 3 - 4 dBA measured with a handheld Sound Level Meter MK 09 by METERK. We can hear music, people conversing from the outdoor patio of the Bistro (which is relatively close to the wave Park), the Race Track in Thermal, and of course the Coachella Festivals in Indio.

Thank you for your response.

FEB
423 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 1:40 PM
To: Fritz Bachli; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Robert Radi; Steve Sanchez; Linda Evans Cc: Tania Flores; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Wave Surf Park, La Quinta
Mr. Bachli,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council as they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Fritz Bachl
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 12:15 PM
To: Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>
Cc: Tania Flores <[email protected]>;
Subject: Wave Surf Park, La Quinta

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Ladies and Gentleman,
I attended all of the meetings at City Hall and enjoyed the professional approach the subject matter was dealt with.

Please find attached my takeaway and after reading and talking to Trilogy residents it seems to me that the project, as we got to know it in its planning stage, does not deserve its exclusive spot and limited use and enjoyment for neighbors and residents near and far along the majestic Coral Mountains.

My appreciation for your work and, acting as the city hall host, is much appreciated. Thank you.

Fritz E. Bachli
424 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Groundwater “Banking” and not Drinking Water “Wasting” Message to City Council & Presentation to Planning Commission on 4/26/2022 in the City Hall of La Quinta / CA By: Fritz E. Bachli,   / Trilogy Resident since 2008.
(Key elements summarized in 3 Minute speech to audience!) Ladies and Gentlemen,
I studied the EIR and FEIR in great details. It was an eye opener reading the many letters submitted by residents and a learning experience to gain insights from expert statements on the subject matter. Overwhelmingly, people attending the meeting were against the construction of the Wave Park at the planned site for a variety of well thought out reasons! As a first reaction, many residents found the operating schedule for the Wave Park: 365 days per year, from 7 AM to 10 PM inhumane and reflecting typical opening hours expected in commercial zoning districts but not in residential areas.

The Wave Basin, for water replenishment purposes calls for 119.58 AFY (Acre Ft. per Year) of water or 38.96 MGY (Millions of Gallons per Year) of Water (refer to MAWA calculation in the FEIR for Wave Basin only). Assuming, a cow’s water consumption amounts to 20 Gallons of water per day, 1’948’000 cattle as well as other livestock, could be kept alive and not having to be slaughtered due to lack of drinking water! (USA counts 93.8 million cattle) Each American uses an average of 82 gallon of water a day at home or 29’930 gallons per year. (USGS estimated use of water in 2015 / Internet Source) At this rate 1300 people could be provided with fresh water instead of being misspent in a private Water Basin used by a few surfers only.

Today, the fight is all about oil ‐ tomorrow it will be the water! To run the Wave Basin 107’000 Gallons of water or 5 Tanker Rail Cars, with a capacity of 20’000 Gallons of Water, will be spilled daily into the desert ground or evaporate in the hot and dry desert climate. With 2000 ft. length and a width of 500 ft. the basin size can be compared with the distance of the Trilogy Parkway between the Clubhouse and the Intersection of Rt. 60. The width of 500 ft., the basin is almost twice the width of the Trilogy Parkway.

In my opinion the City of La Quinta should play a leading role in improving water conservation in the Coachella Valley and support and fill the gaps in state, county and federal environmental regulations furthering water conservation. If local government does not do so with local actions, those gaps may not be addressed, and conservation methods will not be implemented.

In some of the Landscape Packages and Irrigation Checklists of other communities, heavy fines for stealing water are waiting for the offenders violating state, county and /or city laws. Water like air, we all are all entitled to. God’s natural gifts need to be shared! I therefore ask the La Quinta City Government to pursue a Policy of Groundwater “Banking” and not Drinking Water “Wasting!” We must be prepared that in times of a more serious drought we can use our water 425 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 especially when imported water supplies are unavailable and /or very expensive. Yes, we currently have a great aquifer running under the valley floor but if we keep it draining for ridiculous purposes, as in the case of the Wave Park, we infringe on established laws and foremost, as a people, show no common sense and no support for our government in environmental matters.

What if the Surf Park is deprived of getting enough water from the purveyor due to tightening of water use restrictions? For an entire Valley to save water to keep a private Wave Park alive, I don’t think so!
Three years of observing the Reconstruction and new Construction of Landscapes, from an administrative and construction point of view, I have witnessed that landscape architects, landscapers as well as property owners frequently are bypassing the required application process by not submitting a “Landscape Documentation Package” the prerequisite required to obtain a “Water Use Permit”. The result, the Lead Agencies and Purveyors have no records on files documenting of how many MAWA (Maximum Water Allowance) abusers pull out water from the aquifer and in what quantities. Critical documents mandated to be signed and dated by the responsible persons confirming their compliance with the “Landscape and Irrigation” requirements are not signing the approval documents. The system controlling and measuring the water use seems out of control and not recognizing and penalizing offenders who are not abiding by the local rules, laws and Ordinances.

In this context, please note that the Landscape Ordinance for the Wave Park in all the “Environmental Documents” is referring to Ordinance 1302.4. In search of this specific document in the EIR, CVWD confirmed that the correct document for the Surf Project is the CVWD Ordinance: 1302.5 and not 1302.4!
For those of interest, the EIR states that the City Hall of La Quinta provides a full range of services including Code Compliance cases, etc. Using the required application forms, the Office for Code Compliance, in one of my cases however, refused to deal in matters of landscape issues. Pulling water without a permit is a non‐compliance in my book! What is the status of the Landscape Package for the Wave Park? Has the city, as the Lead Agency, filed evidence material?
Spending 6 years with a group of Trilogy residents which finally achieved the closing of the Fertilizer plant for heavy air and water contamination, I find the Wave Basin Project is an operation with far too many moving parts. The list of mitigations is already long and outsourcing services to monitoring agencies makes the process significantly more involved. It is my experience that every mitigation is giving birth to another one! It’s a never‐ending battle of the parties and the involvement of lawyers. Once the project has finally outlived its purpose, it will be experiencing a slow death. Dramatic pictures shown by residents confirm that many Wave Parks in the USA have had to close their doors. Trilogy citizens remember that after 6 426 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
3 years of fighting to enjoy a quality of life and enjoyment of living in our homes the Fertilizer plant had to be closed as well. Peace and clean air returned to the Trilogy community.

Like the resident who wrote:” I have strong objections to the multiple statements that appear throughout the DEIR regarding identified statements such as: “are not anticipated”, “would not be significant”, “impact would not substantially change the situation”, “minimal impact the result”, etc. These are not scientific and neutral comments. They do not inspire confidence in the findings. It sounds like a high‐risk operation with anticipated problems where the applicants are attempting to cover up knowing problems well ahead of construction.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) points out that in enforcing their rules the Attorney General focuses on the need to address those impacts that affect our most vulnerable residents – children, the elderly and people who already are bearing an unfair share of pollution and those impacts that will particularly be felt by our children and grandchildren.

Do our city leaders really want to tie their political legacy to the desecration of one of the last truly unique tracts of La Quinta by money haunted developers who want to change the land into a circus like attraction operating 365 days from 7 AM to 10 PM? (Resident Comment) This project is built on a weak foundation and the mitigations signal lack of trust in the proposed project. I believe that persons with common sense can and should stop right now by simply holding fast to the original zoning. (Resident Comment) Moving Traffic and Noise away from Residential areas to Residential / Commercial reserved locations is the right planning. It strikes a balance among the many competing demands on land creating development patterns that are orderly and rational, provide the greatest benefits for individuals and the community as a whole and avoid nuisance conflicts between land uses.

The Coachella Valley reminds me of the city in the Rhone Valley in Sion / Switzerland where I lived and worked for many years. A fun wave park was built (refer to Internet: alaiabay.ch/de) which could be enjoyed by everybody and was accessible in minutes from the nearby Highway, Train Station, Buses and attracted tourists from all over the world. Within 10 Minutes from the City Center with hotels, bars, and other entertainment the fun after surfing could be continued late into the night without disturbing anybody. I recommend that you visit and experience the vacation spot for yourself! You will be welcomed and surprised to experience how thoughtful zoning can bring sense and order into a community.

Finally, please, don’t bring the city life into our residential communities but direct and encourage applicants to succeed with their businesses in our commercial districts where they are welcome by the residents of La Quinta.                                         Thank you! Alaiabay.ch/de
427 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 1:18 PM
To: Tania Flores
Subject: Fw: Wave Basin
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 11:51 AM
To: Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Wave Basin

Not sure if you got this one Nicole. Since the sender gives me a questionable “promotion” I’m pretty sure you didn’t.

K
Kathleen Fitzpatrick | Council Member
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760.777.7030
E: [email protected]
www.laquintaca.gov
www.playinlaquinta.com

Begin forwarded message:

From: Richard Baker
Date: May 4, 2022 at 9:55:07 AM PDT
To: Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>
Subject: Wave Basin
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Dear Mayor Fitzpatrick. I have lived at for 20 years and enjoy the quiet serenity of the neighborhood. Even with all the construction going on on Ave. 58, the crews leave by 4pm and the late afternoons and evenings are delightfully quiet. I don’t know what 75 decibels sounds like from a distance, but I hope I can’t hear or feel it from 7am-10pm 365 days a year. Also, it’s annoying enough to hear and feel the music from Coachella 2 weekends a year and to deal with the crazy traffic, so the prospect of 4 unspecified events per year across the street with 2500 people sounds like an additional 428 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 mess. And there is some natural beauty to the Coral Mountain area that won’t be helped by 17 80’ tall light poles. The rest of their proposed development sounds good, but I am against the wave basin.

Richard Baker
Sent from my iPad
429 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 7:27 AM
To: Tony Bouza; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro; City Clerk Mail
Cc: Tania Flores; Monika Radeva
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Bouza,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Tony Bouza
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 6:27 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>; City Clerk Mail <[email protected]> Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Dear Honorable Members of the La Quinta City Council:

As local residents, we are writing to voice our support for the Coral Mountain project. After monitoring project discussions and presentations at the recent Planning Commission hearings and reviewing the voluminous environmental documents, we are pleased to support this project because we believe it will benefit our community.

The opponents have voiced complaints about its impact on water use, lighting and traffic. However, the city’s own studies, the environmental review and the developer’s information persuade us that those objections are overstated and unreasonable, especially compared to other likely uses for the site. For example, the project is already approved for a golf course, which would consume much more water than the proposed wave basin. The lighting and traffic issues have also been fully and satisfactorily addressed by the developer and are not materially different than the impacts of a different project. The advantages of Coral Mountain are numerous, including the tax revenue it will generate for La Quinta and site improvements that will benefit the surrounding areas. Plus, it will be a unique attraction for the area.

Please do not veto this project! People fear change, but change is necessary and inevitable. The change that will result from the Coral Mountain project will be much better, and will result in more benefits, than the change that is likely to result from another golf course or some other project on the site.

We respectfully urge you to approve Coral Mountain.
430 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 Tony & Cynthia Bouza
La Quinta, CA 92253
431 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Monika Radeva
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:37 PM
To: Consulting Planner; Tania Flores
Cc: Cheri Flores; Laurie McGinley; Monika Radeva
Subject: Brooks, Jeff 2022-006-01 - I Support Coral Mountain! Comments for the project file. Thank you.

Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Brooks
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:00 PM
To: City Clerk Mail <[email protected]>
Subject: I Support Coral Mountain!
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
To whom it may concern,
My wife Michelle, daughter Erin, and I strongly support the Coral Mountain project. We are currently Hawaii residents but we are planning to relocate permanently to La Quinta if this project is approved. We were able to personally visit the proposed Coral Mountain site and view the development plans and we are so excited about the opportunity to live in such an amazing community. We hope this project is approved and that it provides homes and recreational opportunities to many families like ours. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Jeff Brooks
432 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:16 PM
To: Preston BUTCHER; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Butcher,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Preston BUTCHER
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** As an extended visitor to Indian Wells and La Quinta I’m very familiar with the Coral Mountain project I have reviewed the lighting, traffic and water issues and feel they have been adequately addressed.

We spend 6 months a year in the area. I have played golf many times at the near by Quarry Club. I know the area well and am delighted to support the project.

Thank you
Preston
433 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Monika Radeva
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:03 PM
To: Consulting Planner
Cc: Cheri Flores; Tania Flores; Laurie McGinley; Monika Radeva Subject: FW: Callimanis presentation May 17 City Council meeting public comment on items not on agenda Attachments: Callimanis May 17 City Council presentation.pdf FYI for the Coral Mountain Resort project file
Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Alena Callimanis
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 11:48 AM
To: Monika Radeva <[email protected]>; City Clerk Mail <[email protected]>
Subject: Callimanis presentation May 17 City Council meeting public comment on items not on agenda
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. **
Good day Monika. Here is my presentation for today’s City Council meeting, public comments, items not on the agenda.

Thank you very much.

Alena Callimanis
La Quinta, CA 92253
434 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
LQRRD May 3, 2022 letter to the
City Council continued
Alena Callimanis
La Quinta
435 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Our May 3 letter was only focused on
Commissioner McCune’s comments to the public
It is unfortunately that all the attention was given
to my comment during my presentation to
Commissioner McCune also disrespecting other
Commissioners
436 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
• Ms. Nicole Criste gave guidance that the Planning Commission can discuss STVRs and Tax Revenues among other things because it would be the basis of the EIR Statement for Overriding Considerations • As you are aware, this Statement must be generated when approving an EIR that has unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, which this EIR does, including higher GreenHouse Gas Emissions than legislated by the State of California, and non-mitigatable issues with aesthetics
• Of course this Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record
437 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Regarding Commissioner McCune’s
Comments
• “If a private owner wants to develop a gated, walled community by his own money, who am I to say no”, per Commissioner McCune. • Per Ms. Criste’s guidance to the Commissioners, it is his role to provide appropriate feedback
• The Commissioner should have recused himself if he felt he should not provide comments
438 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
LQRRD has provided factual, respectful comments
throughout this process
• “Most public comment is only here because it is against something.

People don’t come here to support something in my history. So they will do anything they can to comment against something, even if it is redundant, off point, call it a circus, call it an amusement park, do whatever you want”. Per Commissioner McCune.
• Implications are Commissioner McCune did not pay attention to any of our presentations by his comments
• This was extremely disrespectful and not appropriate
439 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
There were many presentations, both for Coral
Mountain and Against Coral Mountain
• “People who are for the project are very quiet because they have to live in the same communities as those that don’t support the project, so you never hear from them”, per Commissioner McCune
• However, there were many presentations from supporters as well as the opposition during public testimony on March 22, April 12 and April 26. • Perhaps there are more presentations from people against the project instead of for the project because Residents are overwhelmingly against the project?
440 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
We expect the City Council to have a discussion with
Commissioner McCune
• We understand from City Attorney Ihrke that Commissioner McCune is free from any legal ramifications
• However, is he free from showing respect to the Public and making a mockery of his role as a La Quinta Planning Commissioner by his comments?
441 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:09 AM
To: John Caskey; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Caskey,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: John Caskey
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:55 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Dear members of city of La Quinta City Council and staff, Don Wilson Builders has been an owner of residences in the desert area for over 50 years. The company was founded by Don and Elinor Wilson in 1955 and the properties were used primarily as their own escapes for long weekends. Over the last twenty five years, the main property ( , Palm Desert) has been used by the company employees as they sign up months in advance for their weekend away with their families and friends (and take the company gas card with them).

I am one of the investors in Coral Mountain and I think it would be a great addition to the area. The development would provide new and interesting experiences for members of the community as well as to visitors making their way to the desert just for the weekend. I can tell you that our employees, many with young families, are excited about this project. Also, as a real estate developer, I know that this project will be planned and designed with the highest professionalism based on the information I have received as well as participating in various meetings with the principals of the project. I have surfed at the same wave pool in Lemoore that this wave pool is designed after and it will be incredible. I know many of the other investors and they are concerned more about the quality and beauty of the project than simply just having a wave to ride (they can do this anywhere in the world). For many, including myself, it is more about coming back years later and seeing a project that we can all be proud of.
442 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 I strongly support this project and hope you will too.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

John
John Caskey
President
Don Wilson Builders
23705 Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 200
Torrance, CA 90505
Office 310-539-9902
Fax 310-539-2876
Cell 714-308-2700
[email protected]

Irvine Office
2020 Main Street, Suite 1180
Irvine, CA 92614
Office 949-428-0260
Fax 949-428-0264

443 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:02 AM
To: Tania Flores
Subject: Fw: Wave Park
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Eve Castles
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 7:16 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: Wave Park

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Dear La Quinta City Council Members -
I’m writing in opposition to the proposed Wave Park.

My husband and I moved to La Quinta in February, drawn by the quiet, low key vibe of South La Quinta. We were attracted to the quality of the people, the aesthetics, and amenities. Early risers, we were lulled into appreciation of the quiet, star-filled nights. We didn’t purchase a home in Palm Springs, Palm Desert or any of the other cities with more ‘action’ for a reason.

Imagine our surprise when we discovered a Wave Park and resort might be moving in just over a mile away from us. And the amusement park would stay open until 10 pm every night? HELP!!! Do any of you live within 2 miles of the proposed wave park? If the answer is no, please think how you would feel if the development were proposed in your neighborhood ….

We opposed the wave park development for several reasons:
1) Light and noise pollution (Let’s talk noise mitigation for a minute: noise will bounce off of Coral Mountain and go right over any retaining walls. There was no mention of berms to absorb any sound). 2) Too many short term vacation rentals
3) Increased traffic down Madison and Monroe
4) Water use inappropriate for our area.

PLEASE take a step back for a moment. Does a wave park really belong in the desert? The answer is no. 444 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 PLEASE preserve our sense of quiet and peace in South La Quinta (said while listening to the StageCoach concert 1.5 miles down the road in the other direction).

WATER is for drinking, bathing and use inside the house. We need to shift our paradigm view of water and water use! Start with this project and vote NO!
Thank you for listening.

Eve Castles
Eve and Wes Castles
La Quinta CA 92253
SIDE NOTE:

As a landscape designer, I see lots of areas for improvements of water use in the Coachella Valley. Water is a scarce resource for California and is becoming even more so. Growing up in the SF Bay Area, I lived close to cities like Palo Alto, Los Altos, Redwood City - all named for their stately redwoods. Our annual rainfall was typically between 18-22 inches of rain. Since 2010, the average rainfall in the San Jose area has been 8.6 inches per year. Eight of every 10 redwoods is declining or dead at the lower elevations. The temperatures are too hot and there is not enough water for them to survive. It is painful to watch the number of other trees, also in decline.

Eve Castles
Landscape Design & Outdoor Living
Find me on Houzz
445 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Jon McMillen
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 2:27 PM
To: John Pena
Cc: Danny Castro; Consulting Planner; Tania Flores; Teresa Thompson Subject: FW: Important Regarding the Site Development Permit for the Wave Basin Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
John, I believe this email from Lisa was intended for you.

Regards
Jon McMillen | City Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico ◦ La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760.777.7030
[email protected]
www.laquintaca.gov
From: Lisa Castro
Date: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at 2:56 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>, Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>, Jon McMillen <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Important Regarding the Site Development Permit for the Wave Basin EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

John, as you are aware, the Planning Commission did not approve the Site Development Permit for the Wave Basin. Chairman Nieto felt there was not enough detail on the north side of the wave basin to be able to evaluate the safety measures for children since the hotel, casitas and boardwalk are on that side of the wave basin.
446 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 However, I think of even bigger concern is the east end of the wave basin. That is going to be 400 feet wide, curved, and is where the beginner and novice surfers will get lessons or people will surf the gentler waves.

As you remember from the lighting demonstration when you were at my house, there is very little room between my property and the eighty foot light they were using for the demonstration. The reason for my safety concern is that along the side of my property is the only vehicular passageway, including all hotel and landscape maintenance vehicles, repair trucks, delivery vehicles, etc., that need to go between 60th and the north side of the pool. Vehicular traffic is not allowed on the west side of the Wave Pool on the Coral Mountain side because of the open space/recreation. For your information, there will also be beginner and novice surfers at the west end of the Wave Pool.

I would like you to ask Staff to immediately request the developer to lay out the full 400 foot outline for the east edge of the wave basin, including the location of the lights. This is a requirement to determine how much room is available between the edge of the pool and the vehicular traffic, with lanes wide enough for trucks, and a minimum of one lane in each direction. There must be space available not only to enable surfers, which may be mostly children, to safely entry and leave the wave basin, but to also allow parents or guardians to safely stay out of the wave basin and still be able to monitor their children, which is a Public Health Safety Requirement for younger children. There will also be a requirement to safely leave the pool and walk from the East end of the wave basin back to the north end. In addition, the pulley system that pulls the hydrofoil also extends out beyond the wave basin on the east side. It is vitally important that all of this is factored into the Planning Commission safety review of the SDP. Obviously none of this was required in Lemoore so they have no experience already in this area.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this. The Planning Commission cannot effectively review the SDP without this level of information.

I would also appreciate it if you could forward this note to the Planning Commission members.

Sincerely,
Lisa Castro
La Quinta, CA 92253

447 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Monika Radeva
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 12:58 PM
To: Consulting Planner
Cc: Tania Flores; Laurie McGinley; Monika Radeva
Subject: FW: Carolyn Winnor to read over Zoom this letter at May 17 2022 public comments items not on agenda and chart
Attachments: Lisa Castro presentation by Carolyn Winnor City Council May 17.pdf; Lisa Castro May 17 items not on agenda.pdf
FYI – see below and attached for the Coral Mountain project file. Thank you.

Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
From: Alena Callimanis
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 12:49 PM
To: Monika Radeva <[email protected]>; City Clerk Mail <[email protected]> Cc:

Subject: Carolyn Winnor to read over Zoom this letter at May 17 2022 public comments items not on agenda and chart EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Hi, Monika. Lisa Castro is not available today. Lisa wanted her letter read that she sent to John Pena and the City Council on May 3. She has not received a response regarding her request in the letter.

The chart attached will be on the screen and Carolyn Winnor will read the letter over Zoom.

Thank you very much.

Alena Callimanis
La Quinta, CA 92253
448 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Lisa Castro Letter to John Pena
and City Council May 3, 2022
Presented by Carolyn Winnor
La Quinta
449 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
• All cars and trucks must go along the East side (Lisa Castro side) • There must be access along Lisa’s property for CVWD to turn on water for date farm and also access needed for Wave pool water
• We need the outline of the lights and the surf basin to understand if enough room for safety for children/beginners carrying surfboards from Road traffic and by State Law for parents/guardians to supervise children under 18
450 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
May 3, 2022
To: John Pena <[email protected]>
cc: Linda Evans <[email protected]>, fitzpatrick Kathleen <[email protected]>, [email protected],[email protected], Danny Castro <[email protected]>,Jon McMillen <[email protected]> Regarding: Important Regarding the Site Development Permit for the Wave Basin John, as you are aware, the Planning Commission did not approve the Site Development Permit for the Wave Basin. Chairman Nieto felt there was not enough detail on the north side of the wave basin to be able to evaluate the safety measures for children since the hotel, casitas and boardwalk are on that side of the wave basin.

However, I think of even bigger concern is the east end of the wave basin. That is going to be 400 feet wide, curved, and is where the beginner and novice surfers will get lessons or people will surf the gentler waves.

As you remember from the lighting demonstration when you were at my house, there is very little room between my house and the eighty foot light they were using for the demonstration. The reason for my safety concern is that along the side of my property is the only vehicular passageway, including all hotel and landscape maintenance vehicles, repair trucks, delivery vehicles, etc., that need to go between 60th and the north side of the pool. Vehicular traffic is not allowed on the west side of the Wave Pool on the Coral Mountain side because of the open space/recreation. For your information, there will also be beginner and novice surfers at the west end of the Wave Pool.

I would like you to ask Staff to immediately request the developer to lay out the full 400 foot outline for the east edge of the wave basin, including the location of the lights. This is a requirement to determine how much room is available between the edge of the pool and the vehicular traffic, with lanes wide enough for trucks, and a minimum of one lane in each direction. There must be space available not only to enable surfers, which may be mostly children, to safely entry and leave the wave basin, but to also allow parents or guardians to safely stay out of the wave basin and still be able to monitor their children, which is a Public Health Safety Requirement for younger children. There will also be a requirement to safely leave the pool and walk from the East end of the wave basin back to the north end. In addition, the pulley system that pulls the hydrofoil also extends out beyond the wave basin on the east side. It is vitally important that all of this is factored into the Planning Commission safety review of the SDP. Obviously none of this was required in Lemoore so they have no experience already in this area.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this. The Planning Commission cannot effectively review the SDP without this level of information.

I would also appreciate it if you could forward this note to the Planning Commission members.

Sincerely,
Lisa Castro
La Quinta, CA 92253
451 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 06:32:20 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: Dion, Raylene & Garry: La Quinta Proposed Wave Park Date: Monday, May 30, 2022 at 10:02:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Monika Radeva
To: raylene dion
CC: City Clerk Mail, ConsulHng Planner, Cheri Flores, Tania Flores Good afternoon, the City has received the written comments provided below regarding the Coral Mountain Resort project, and will be included in the public record for this project. Thank you.

Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
From: raylene dion
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 9:41 PM
To: City Clerk Mail <[email protected]>
Subject: La Quinta Proposed Wave Park
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and cauHon when opening aSachments, clicking links or responding to requests for informaHon.

Dear City Council,
We have a home in LaQuinta and enjoy every minute we spend there, enjoying the beauHful mountains, wildlife and sun. We can certainly understand how people would love to have a wave park there as it would be a like an oasis in the desert. But in the 10 years that we have lived in the desert, the primary concern we hear is about the water shortage.

The last few years have been especially criHcal and we have changed our landscaping to desert scape to conserve water. We have fixed any leaks in our home or landscaping to prevent water loss. The Salton Sea is drying up and creaHng horrible toxic air to the poor residents that live in the area. Our water rates have gone up and we keep hearing that the Colorado river is drying up. How can city Council even consider a wave park when water is such a precious commodity? We would like the city of Laquinta to focus on cleaning up our city And updaHng areas that have fallen to disrepair. The parking lot and strip malls along Highway 111 have become dirty and no one is picking up the trash. Let’s focus on fixing what we have and making Laquinta beauHful again! Thank you, Raylene and Garry Dion
452 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:18 PM
To: Garrett Dutton; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Dutton,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Garrett Dutton
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 12:54 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Dear Friends of La Quinta
I’m writing on behalf of the Coral Mountain Project which is coming before your board for approval soon. I am a musician known as G.Love. I’ve visited your lovely city and the greater Coachella valley when, over the years I’ve performed at Coachella music festival. I look forward to seeing Coral Mountain approved and developed into a thriving community of wellness, surfing and environmentally conscious stewards of the land who will create jobs and have a positive impact on the people, the land, the arts, the athletics and the community of La Quinta. I plan to visit and surf Coral Mountain as often as possible and we would love to build a house there as well. Respectfully, Garrett Dutton Sent from my iPhone
453 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Monika Radeva
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 1:07 PM
To: Consulting Planner
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Eakle, Avis & Teresa: Opinion Letter to Newsom re WAVE project OPPOSED - AVIS EAKLE Attachments: COMMENT Newsom Letter re WAVE - EAKLE.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
FYI – attached comments regarding the Coral Mountain Resort project.

Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
From: Teresa Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 2:01 PM
To: Teresa Thompson <[email protected]>
Cc: Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Monika Radeva <[email protected]> Subject: COMMENT: Opinion Letter to Newsom re WAVE project OPPOSED - AVIS EAKLE Madam Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please see the attached letter to Governor Newsom from Avis Eakle stating opposition to the Coral Mountain project that you were copied.

Regards,
Teresa Thompson | Management Specialist
City Manager's Office
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico ◦ La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760.777.7030
www.laquintaca.gov
www.laquintaca.gov/covid19
www.playinlaquinta.com
As always you can find a full list of resources and information by visiting www.laquintaca.gov 454 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
455 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
456 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
457 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:25 PM
To: Tania Flores
Subject: Fw: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Consulting Planner <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:21 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

Mr. Estess,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From:

Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 1:58 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

La Quinta City Council,
Thank you for taking the time to consider the Coral Mountain development. I truly believe it is going to be a welcome addition to the Coachella Valley. As a long time surfer and golfer, I am always torn between driving away from the beach and visiting the desert to golf.... now everyone can enjoy both!!! Best regards,
Dr. Abe Estess
458 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 17:22:08 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: RE: Mr. Gamlin, addi0onal ques0ons please - Please provide a Copy of the IID Will Serve Document you men0oned that is now available
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:17:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: John Gamlin
To: Alena Callimanis
CC: Tara Bravo, Monika Radeva, Consul0ng Planner, Jon McMillen, Linda Evans Hello Ms. Callimanis,
All of the electrical loads within the project, including the Wave Basin, are included in the reduced load analysis. The power analysis is therefore comprehensive and encompasses the project buildout.

The original Will-Serve leWer was not cancelled. It expired. Due to the dynamic environment of supply and demand it is common prac0ce for u0lity service companies to put a “shelf life” on their will-serve commitments.

You have misinterpreted what I said regarding “freeing up” power. To clarify: Substa0on improvements are planned that will add addi0onal service capacity to the electrical grid. If Coral Mountain is able to reduce the amount of power it is using from the added capacity, it “frees up” those resources to be used by others. By using less power there is more power available to service others in the area. This is a public benefit. We are not seeking electrical service for any project but our own. I hope this clarifies it for you.

The improvement design by IID is based on providing peak loads to our project specifically and does not have a bearing on other users outside the community. The project will bear the cost of these improvements.

You are correct…it should be 850 cars annually, not daily. I stand by the accuracy of what was stated on the record in the Planning Commission hearing. I don’t understand your point about STVRs. It is pure specula0on to forecast u0liza0on and occupancy as rental is an op0on, but not a requirement. So are you saying that the project’s sustainability efforts don’t maWer and we should simply adhere to the lower efficiencies of the Cal-Green requirements? We are voluntarily exceeding Title 24 standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because it is “the right thing to do” and have no obliga0on to do so.

We think that speaks for itself and is not debatable.

I won’t debate the argument of whether the Will-Serve leWer rises to the level of CEQA with you and will defer to the City in this regard.

As stated previously, confirma0on that a valid Will-Serve leWer exists is sufficient and we consider the topic closed.

Thanks,
JG
John Gamlin
760-238-2443 mobile
[email protected]
Coral Mountain
459 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Alena Callimanis
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2022 3:50 PM
To: John Gamlin
Cc Monika Radeva; Consul0ng Planner; Jon McMillen; Linda Evans Subject: Mr. Gamlin, addi0onal ques0ons please - Please provide a Copy of the IID Will Serve Document you men0oned that is now available
Mr. Gamlin, thank you for your comments. I would need addi0onal clarifica0on before I passed on your document to others, per your request. I hope you understand the requirement for this.

You talk about reducing peak load demands and your reference to the Cal-Green CA Building Code requirements. We applaud you for your work in this area of the building code. However, we are of course concerned about the Wave HydroFoil electrical requirements. As you are aware, the Kelly Slater technology, due to the fact it is pushing almost 150 million pounds of water to generate the waves, many 0mes an hour, has been documented to have the highest electrical energy consump0on of any wave pool technology that exists today. So our concerns are not with the CalGreen building and street ligh0ng electrical savings for Coral Mountain.

In the original Will Serve document, dated May 26, 2020 that was cancelled, the connec0on to the substa0on was going to be dedicated to Coral Mountain Resort due to this enormous electrical requirement of the Wave Basin. So per your response below, the ability to free up capacity for new users would be a significant change within the new Will Serve leWer and means that you no longer will have dedicated service to just Coral Mountain Surf Resort. Please confirm that is an accurate statement. I believe this is an important piece of informa0on that the City needs to know and validate as they are going through their mee0ngs regarding IID and future electrical requirements as well as their approval of the EIR. Since there is so much new development being proposed in the area around Coral Mountain, that would certainly be important for the City to see that your excess capacity can be shared outside of Coral Mountain Surf Resort, since you are implying that it is no longer in the new Will Serve document, where the old Will Serve document said that the service is dedicated only to Coral Mountain Surf Resort. The City would then know it can count on it for new users.

As you know, IID considers early evening through 9pm in the summer as peak energy consump0on 0mes and recommends not using “major appliances” during those hours when energy cutbacks may be required. So that is another reason it is important to understand dedicated versus non-dedicated electrical connec0ons for Coral Mountain as evening surfing may impact electric availability to not only the Wave Pool, but then to other outside users.

In the Planning Commission audio recording, you are recorded as saying that you are saving the Greenhouse Gas equivalent of 850 cars per year. Are you sta0ng in your note below that the figure you gave in the Planning Commission mee0ng was inaccurate? Again, even if you are now saying it is daily, the fact that you have a developers agreement that states you can have 100% STVRs, negates any savings due to the high number of people that will stay in each STVR with mul0ple cars at each STVR, versus a normal residence. Even at your 30% average STVR usage you use for calcula0ons.

You state that the IID Will-Serve leWer in not part of the CEQA review. Unfortunately, you have reference to the old, expired Will Serve leWer in both the DEIR and EIR in the Electrical U0li0es sec0on, which was an integral part of the review process. The new Will Serve leWer pre-dates the publishing of the EIR. The new terms should have been included in the EIR. So you must provide the new Will Serve leWer so we can see how it changes the EIR.

This is the statement from the EIR dated February 2022. "In a le'er dated May 26, 2020, IID concluded that electrical facili8es can be extended to serve the project, under the condi8ons in the will serve le'er’. Since this is an important part of the EIR, and the wrong informa0on is in the EIR, we need to see the terms and condi0ons of the new Will Serve leWer before the City votes on the EIR.
460 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

So I would respecnully ask you to forward that to the City and they can forward it to me, or you can forward it directly to both me and the City.

Thank you for expedi0ng my request.

Respecnully,
Alena Callimanis
La Quinta, CA 92253
On May 19, 2022, at 2:07 PM, John Gamlin <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Ms. Callimanis,
Thanks for your email. To be candid, we do not understand the relevance of your request to the current public process.

The IID Will-Serve leWer is not part of the CEQA review or City en0tlement process, nor are its business and technical terms a public document. If you have contacted IID recently and inquired, I am sure they said as much…they do not regard service applica0ons as public informa0on.

We have affirmed on record in a public mee0ng---and are happy to re-affirm in this email---that Coral Mountain has a valid Will-Serve leWer. Also, my understanding is that the IID provides the City with a list of projects within its jurisdic0on that currently have ac0ve Will-Serve leWers, so perhaps the City can confirm. That should be sufficient.

I hope you understand that the current electrical capacity challenges (risk) being discussed between IID, Valley ci0es, and new development does not affect exis0ng users, but impacts future customers. A broad consor0um comprised of the Ci0es of La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella, industry groups, and the private sector are ac0vely working with IID to determine solu0ons, as it is vital to con0nued economic development.

Finally, as you are aware from our presenta0ons at the Planning Commission, Coral Mountain is incorpora0ng measures into its design that are an0cipated to reduce peak electrical load demands by over 50%. This is only possible by voluntarily and significantly exceeding the already stringent Cal-Green (Title 24) CA Building Code requirements. As stated at Planning Commission, these measures achieve a reduc0on of greenhouse gas emissions that is the equivalent of removing 850 cars from the road every day. To our knowledge, this is the first project in the Valley to make such a profound commitment to sustainability. 461 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

Reduc0on in the project’s peak load is relevant because it effec0vely frees up new capacity that can be deployed to other new users in the City. Coral Mountain is thus providing addi0onal public benefit through the conscien0ous and responsible design of the community.

We request that if this message is shared with others that it be reproduced in its en0rety for the benefit of complete context. Thanks in advance.

Kind regards,
John Gamlin
[email protected]
Coral Mountain
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Alena Callimanis
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 4:13 PM
To: John Gamlin;
Cc: Monika Radeva; Consul0ng Planner; Jon McMillen; Linda Evans Subject: Mr. Gamlin. Ms. Bravo - Please provide a Copy of the IID Will Serve Document you men0oned that is now available
Good day Mr. Gamlin and Ms. Bravo. I don’t know if you saw my note of May 5 which I am aWaching below. I am sure you are aware of the controversy surrounding IID and lack of power right now. Mayor Evans gave a brief update that IID is out of power and new substa0on equipment has a very long lead 0me.

Since in the Planning Commission mee0ng you stated that you do have a valid Will Serve leWer, can you please forward the current, approved Will Serve leWer to me? I did a public records request of the City, and Ms. Criste says the City does not have it.

Thanks for providing it in a 0mely manner.

Sincerely,
Alena Callimanis
On May 5, 2022, at 12:09 PM, Alena Callimanis wrote:
462 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

Good day Mr. Gamlin. In the Planning Commission mee0ng, you stated that there was a new approved IID Will Serve leWer. I made a public records request of the City of La Quinta for a copy of it. Ms. Criste said she does not have a copy and that I should request it from you.

Thank you very much for forwarding me the approved Will Serve IID leWer. I need a copy prior to the City Council mee0ng on the Coral Mountain Project.

Respecnully,
Alena Callimanis
La Quinta, CA 92253
463 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From:

Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 4:48 PM
To: Planning WebMail
Subject: NO TO REZONING for Coral Mountain Development Project EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am strongly opposed to the proposed development of nearly 400 acres of undeveloped land between 58th and 60th streets west of Madison in the city of La Quinta in order to build a massive commercial park containing a hotel, shops, restaurants, short‐term rentals, and a wave pool. The residents of south La Quinta do not want or need the additional traffic, noise, bright lighting and wasting thousands of gallons a day of precious drinking water that will result if the city council approves this project. We are in the midst of a serious drought that may worsen with time and cannot afford to waste such a precious resource for the pleasure of a few.

For these and other reasons I urge you to vote NO on this development project.

Thank you,
Nathan Gardner
La Quinta, CA 92253

464 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 7:27 AM
To: Jeff Gordon; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores; Monika Radeva
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Gordon,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Jeff Gordon
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 7:08 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** To Whom it May Concern,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing you to express my full support of the Coral Mountain Wave Project in La Quinta.

As someone who has taken my family on many world class trips and recently visited the Surf Ranch, Kelly Slater’s first wave pool in Lemoore, CA, I can tell you unequivocally it was one of the most professionally run and best family experiences we have had the pleasure to be a part of. I’m certain it would add tremendous value to the La Quinta community if this project were approved not to mention the endless visits from me and my family.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jeff Gordon
Vice Chairman
Hendrick Motorsports
465 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 09:36:16 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: FW: COMMENTS: Surf Park - Opposed
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 8:41:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Cheri Flores
To: City Clerk Mail
CC: Teresa Thompson, Tania Flores, ConsulLng Planner, Danny Castro AFachments: image001.png
Monika and Co,
We will begin forwarding these over to you as it is going in front of the Council now. Let us know if you need help with anything. Thanks!! Cheri Flores | Planning Manager
Design & Development Department
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. (760)777-7067
[email protected]
www.LaQuintaCA.gov
From: Teresa Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 4:48 PM
To: Jon McMillen <[email protected]>
Cc: Cheri Flores <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]> Subject: COMMENTS: Surf Park - Opposed
From:

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 4:40 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Surf Park
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and cauLon when opening a\achments, clicking links or responding to requests for informaLon. 466 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

I am wriLng to urge you not to approve the Kelly Slater surf resort. Governor Newsome is imposing extreme restricLons on property owners regarding water usage. It is unconscionable to even consider such a project under current circumstances with an unknown future of droughts. Some people are under the mistaken belief that this will lure people to the area and give locals something to do. This park will serve an elite few. We have miles of coastline in California. That’s where people go to surf. The only reason a project like this is even being considered has to be that La Quinta is going to obtain some short term financial gain.

At what cost? Please do not pass this project. It will turn into a huge debacle and when it fails this council will be forever burdened with the fact that they approved it.

Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
467 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:10 AM
To: Marco Hanlon; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Hanlon,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Marco Hanlon
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Hello There,

Wanted to reach out to you all to express our family’s excitement and support for the upcoming discussion and consideration of the Coral Mountain project. We’re life-long southern Californian’s spending most of our time in Orange and San Diego counties. For decades, we’ve enjoyed spending vacation time in La Quinta and it’s surrounding cities as well. We’ve always considered your community a great place to visit, and possibly one day, own a home and live. We’ve been following along over the past few years on the possibility of the Coral Mountain project coming to La Quinta and believe it would be a tremendous asset to the city and community in so many ways for both locals and visitors!

Thank you for your consideration!

Marco and Nicole Hanlon
Encinitas, CA

468 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:20 AM
To: Tania Flores
Subject: Fw: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Consulting Planner <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:19 AM
To: Doug Harold Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

Mr. Harold,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Doug Harold
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 9:49 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

I am reaching out to advocate support for this project. I am a frequent visitor to La Quinta to play golf, see friends at the Hideaway and the Quarry, and I am an avid sports enthusiast…surfer, golfer, and racquet sports of all types. I reside in San Diego and hope to have a second home in the Coral Mountain community. I think it will be wonderful for the community, and will bring in fresh you active folks who will positively impact the Coachella valley and all residents and businesses. I hope you will please vote yes to support this amazing project.

Thank you and regards,
BDH
469 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 B. Douglas Harold | CEO | Mobile/Text: 760-805-2675 | Email: [email protected] Schedule a call with Doug

****************************************************************************************** This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above or may contain information that is legally privileged.

If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the original message and any copies immediately thereafter.

If you received this email as a commercial message and would like to opt out of future commercial messages, please let us know and we will remove you from our distribution list.

Thank you.
****************************************************************************************** FAFLD
470 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:17 PM
To: Tania Flores
Subject: Fw: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Very, very supportive Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Consulting Planner <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:16 PM
To: Gary Hewson ; Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Very, very supportive

Mr. Hewson,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Gary Hewson
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:43 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Very, very supportive

** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Hello,
I live between Santa Monica California and Scottsdale Arizona.

I have been coming to La Quinta since I was a child where my family would play golf growing up. 471 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 I can’t count the amount of times I’ve stayed at the La Quinta resort.

I used to own a home on Fairway Drive in Indian wells.

The desert has always been an amazing place and I think the addition of this wave pool project would take the desert to a new level.

That entire area for me was always an escape and a destination to play golf or tennis: I think the addition of this wave pool(which I had the opportunity to surf up at the original one) Would open up the sports and activity destination to a wider group of people who will discover how truly special the La Quinta area is.

I know that after May and until October the desert gets so hot that it really becomes less attractive but I think adding some thing like a wave pool could really extend your season and just be a net positive for everyone.

This is a project that I know a lot of people like me are incredibly excited for and I hope it becomes a reality. www.hewsoninvest.com
Gary Hewson
CEO
Hewson Investment Group
472 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Randall Hunt; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Support for Coral Mountain Wave Project
Mr. Hunt,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Randall Hunt
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 9:56 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Coral Mountain Wave Project

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Hello! I am writing to express my support for the Coral Mountain Wave project. I am a Newport Beach resident that spends considerable time in the desert communities. My family – and many other families that I know – love coming to La Quinta and would love to see Coral Mountain help improve an undeveloped area of the community in a responsible manner that will generate significant lifestyle and economic advantages. Please let me know if there are other ways I can voice my support!

Randall Hunt
Newport Beach, CA

473 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 4:52 PM
To: Tania Flores
Subject: Fw: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Alan Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:57 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Dear City Council,
Without carrying on and on I will cut right to the point. Approval of the Coral Mountain Wave Project is imperative. Having spent the last 50 years of my life in Southern California I have seen many changes. One of the changes that is taking place and needs to happen in more areas is alternative healthy lifestyle options that are actually fun. Currently, the desert has many golf options and this involves not always buy typically a lot of drinking. Each club and community is a bit different but really it is the same exact experience.

One of the reasons I am passionate about alternative options is my work in the addiction field for the last 18 years. We all need variety and exposure to new and exciting lifestyle choices. Golf is fantastic but why not compliment it with surfing, mountain biking, etc? In my opinion, this project will spearhead other developers to start thinking out of the box. The amount of global press is almost guaranteed which would be amazing to know that this project will be a national and international trend setter.

Coral Mountain will be a tipping point. I sincerely hope that you see the same vision that is available for La Quinta. Please feel free to contact me at any time if you have further questions.
474 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 Sincerely,
Alan Johnson
.

Newport Beach, CA 92660

475 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 10:21:47 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 9:49:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Danilo Kawasaki
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
AEachments: image001.png, image002.png, image003.png, image004.png, image005.png To Whom It May Concern,
When I first heard about the Coral Mountain project, I got very excited about the possibility of having surf and golf next to each other. I sold my second home in Palm Springs and bough a home in La Quinta, right across from Coral Mountain on Salida del Sol and also joined The Quarry.

Needless to say, I am a big fan and supporter of the Coral Mountain project. I truly believe this will be an oneof-a-kind community that will aWract health conscious people looking to partake in not only surfing and golfing, but also other outdoor acXviXes and wellness in general. This project will be a tremendous addiXon to the city of La Quinta, bringing not only more revenues, but also more notoriety as a world-class desXnaXon.

I am available to answer any quesXons that you may have.

Sincerely,
Danilo Kawasaki, CFP®, CPWA®
Vice-President and COO, Gerber Kawasaki Wealth & Investment Management 2716 Ocean Park Blvd. #2022
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(310) 441-9393
(310) 441-9982 fax
CA Insurance Lic. # 0D68977
www.GerberKawasaki.com
[email protected]
*InvestmentNews 40 Under 40 Advisor

GK VIEWPOINT
DOWNLOAD MY MONEY PAGE APP FOR IOS.

476 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

_______________________________________________________________________________ Advisory Services offered through Gerber Kawasaki Inc., a SEC registered investment advisor. SEC registraXon does not imply an endorsement from the agency. All investments have risk and past performance is not indicaXve of future results.

CerXfied Financial Planner™ Board of Standards Inc. owns the cerXficaXon marks CFP®, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ and CFP® (with flame logo)® in the U.S., which it awards to individuals who successfully complete CFP® Board's iniXal and ongoing cerXficaXon requirements.

The informaXon contained in this email message is being transmiWed to and is intended for the use of only individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any disseminaXon, distribuXon or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete. 477 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:22:10 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: Re: Knox, Gary: Coral Mtn Resort Comments on the Gamlin Guest Column Date: Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 11:21:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Nicole Criste
To: Monika Radeva
From: Monika Radeva <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, May 12, 2022 at 10:19 AM
To: Tania Flores <[email protected]>, ConsulNng Planner <[email protected]> Cc: Laurie McGinley <[email protected]>, Monika Radeva <[email protected]> Subject: Knox, Gary: Coral Mtn Resort Comments on the Gamlin Guest Column Comments below for today’s staff report on the Coral Mountain Resort project.

All comments going forward will be processed by the Clerk’s Office and will be included as “written public comments” for the 5/17/2022 Council meeting.

Thank you.

Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
From: Gary Knox
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 7:45 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]> Cc: Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Monika Radeva <[email protected]> Subject: Comments on the Gamlin Guest Column
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and cauNon when opening a^achments, clicking links or responding to requests for informaNon.

Mayor and City Council Members:

Open the morning newspaper, tune in any evening tv news broadcast, surf the internet. Regardless of one’s source(s) for what’s happening day-by-day around the globe, there’s one topic every news source addresses today that affects the current La Quinta debate about whether a wave basin should be allowed on the Coral Mountain Resort grounds. Simply put, the media stories declare that the West has run dry. Fresh water is disappearing. Images of broadening white rings around the shorelines of Lake Mead, Lake Powell, Lake 478 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

Shasta, Lake Oroville and far too many others illustrate the tragic saga. We now find ourselves on the front lines of the most brutal drought in the West in over 1200 years.

As mounNng evidence of this unprecedented drought reached headline proporNons, the Desert Sun called the wave basin idea a “frivolous water-wasNng project.” I just read the “Valley Voice: Opinion” guest column in the Sun penned last week by John Gamlin, president of CM Wave Development LLC and the determined developer of the wave basin project. He challenged the editorial posiNon of the newspaper, specifically for what he calls their “mischaracterizaNons” about the Coral Mountain Resort wave basin project. While the newspaper may have mischaracterized a thing or two, their overall message was spot on. The problem for the project is not any descripNve mischaracterizaNons but rather that Mr. Gamlin’s Nming for construcNng the wave basin is terrible.

I don’t think that Mr. Gamlin’s project would be frivolous in another age. He’s serious and his facility is apparently well-conceived, but I can’t imagine how his Nming could be any poorer. He acknowledges that the wave basin will lose significant water each day. That is the crux of the problem since we cannot ignore that our surrounding area – for hundreds of miles – is parched with no significant moisture relief in sight. For example, the city of our county seat now requires residents to raNon water, as does the whole of San Bernardino County to our immediate north. Moreover the governor has called on all Californians to cut their water use by 15% and more stringent restricNons lie ahead on June 1.

Mr. Gamlin seeks to jusNfy the wave basin’s loss of water by comparing it to the much greater volume that he contends golf courses lose. His asserNon that the wave basin will use only 10-15% of golf course irrigaNon usage triggers my response that we be^er soon take a very hard look at golf course watering and see how to rein that in. But that’s for another Nme. Not here.

In his column he suggests that reclaimed water could be used for his facility. It is, he says, used in his company’s Lemoore, CA, wave basin. He makes no commitment, however, to restricNng his water source to reclaimed water here. He never tells us that he intends to fill the basin with previously used and treated water. Yet through his choice of words, he has led readers to believe that he will use only reclaimed water.

We face a huge conundrum when seeking to rely on reclaimed water as a viable alternaNve to otherwise potable water in any situaNon, including for the Coral Mountain wave machine. In total we have only a limited volume of reclaimed water. I don’t know how much that is in La Quinta, but I assume that what we hold is already fully allocated to irrigate parks, roadway medians, street parkways, possibly some golf courses, and similar non-domesNc uses. That’s a good, if not ideal, use. But once the demand for the reclaimed water exceeds the supply, the situaNon takes an evil turn. Suddenly we must subsNtute fresh/potable water to replace the promised previously used water.

As the Desert Sun implores, the Nmes don’t allow us to make that trade. Indeed we cannot frivolously (or otherwise) waste any clean water and that includes not allowing potable water to replace any shorMall supply of reclaimed water. On the other hand, if we are throwing away a certain amount of untreated water that cannot be reclaimed because there is no treatment plant, the construcNon of a treatment facility by the wave 479 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

basin developer might offer a great soluNon for the city and the project. It would meet a classic definiNon of a bona fide miNgaNon. But I’m unsure whether such a trade-off would be poliNcally viable now.

The poliNcal dimension is very real here. So let’s examine the wave basin approval issue from a broader public perspecNve. Turn again to your source of news. Lakes Mead, Powell, Shasta and Oroville -- the la^er two are California’s two biggest reservoirs – loom bigger every day in the media as the remaining water volume shrinks dramaNcally. With each successive news image we are shown that the once plenNful water in each has fallen sNll further, now to levels never before recorded so low in early May. And with these pictures we hear stories about devastaNons that are about to hit us because of these criNcally low water supplies.

Now suppose that the proposed water basin were to be approved by the La Quinta City Council and neither the state nor other water resource authoriNes subsequently intervened to stop it. In that scenario I predict that the Coral Mountain Resort Wave Basin will make nasty headlines for La Quinta. Pictures of our new water-wasNng surfing facility will be unceremoniously juxtaposed alongside the disasters unrolling at Mead, Powell, Shasta and Oroville – and beyond. Some pictures will show desperate farmers, citywide blackouts, baked lawns, small creeks meandering through thirsty lake beds, etc. Next to these disaster scenes, folks across the naNon will see a photo of our wave basin. The picture from the wave basin will be selected to emphasize that some people thumb their noses at the historic water crisis. Oh, they’ll realize, those people are in La Quinta, CA. At that point we can shout “mischaracterizaNon” all we want. But to no avail. Viewers around our country will see our community as one that thinks it’s okay to waste precious water even though our closest neighbors and most westerners have been mandated to follow water raNoning schedules as they further experience periodic electrical brownouts. This scenario would not portray La Quinta in a posiNve light.

Permission to establish the wave basin is clearly environmentally wrong. Thumbing our noses at others who face real hardship with the loss of potable water is morally wrong. And poliNcally it hasn’t a chance, it is poliNcally wrong throughout any period of drought. Please vote NO.

I wish you all the best in handling this controversy. I fully understand much of what you’re facing since I’ve endured similar hot topic events that brought out persons who vehemently quesNoned courses of acNon the school board with whom I worked was considering.

Sincerely,
Gary A. Knox
La Quinta, CA 92253
Sent from Mail for Windows
480 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Monika Radeva
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 6:02 PM
To: Consulting Planner; Tania Flores
Cc: Monika Radeva
Subject: Knox, Gary 2022-05-09 Mitigating the Impact of Water Loss by the Coral Mountain Wave Basin Comments provided below by Mr. Gary Knox regarding the Coral Mountain Resort project to be included in the project file.

Thank you.

Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
From: John Pena <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 9:56 AM
To: Gary Knox
Cc: Monika Radeva <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: Mitigating the Impact of Water Loss by the Coral Mountain Wave Basin Gary,
Thank you for a very informative email and I can assure you that it will be included in our public comments going thru the hearing process. I look forward to meeting with you as we go thru the process although with the treat of litigation on this project, our legal counsel has advised the city council to not make any determinations on the project prior to the hearing process. As a native Coachella Valley resident I am very sensitive to our environment and projects proposed for development. Again, thank you for your time.

John Peña | Member of the City Council
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760.777.7030
www.laquintaca.gov
www.playinlaquinta.com
481 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 From: Gary Knox
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]> Cc: Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Mitigating the Impact of Water Loss by the Coral Mountain Wave Basin EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Mayor and Council Members:

Last week I shared with you my opposition to the proposed Coral Mountain Resort surfing facility. The sole reason for my opposition remains the loss of fresh water (whether directly or indirectly). We know that any water used by the facility will necessarily evaporate. But the global threat to our survival brought on by he changing climates means that we can’t afford to waste a drop. In light of these deteriorating environmental conditions a move such as the developers propose would be a disingenuous use of scarce water in the midst of our unprecedented catastrophic drought.

As the resort’s proposal is presented to you from the planning commission, therefore, I ask that you each vote NO.

On the other hand, big moves and some roll-up-the-sleeves work could make the effort a viable, paradigmshifting reality, though still problematic.

To be clear, my hardcore opposition is not against the facility per se, but against the tragic loss of otherwise accessible water that one day soon will not reach La Quinta kitchen faucets. Understand that my personal aquatic background and my prior political activities show my otherwise keen support for such a facility. For example, in the past decade as a board member of a central Oregon HOA I promoted, and our resort community passed, a bond issue to build a multi-million dollar water park. Though not as elaborate as the Coral Mountain Resort proposal, it is extensive. I would certainly reconsider supporting the Coral Mountain proposal if certain steps were taken to offset the inevitable loss of useable domestic water as a condition of its approval.

After offering my reasons previously for opposing the Coral Mountain Resort proposal – based on my own experiences and layman’s knowledge of the consequences, I set out to investigate further. I wanted to determine, for example, how much water would likely be lost if this private surfing lagoon were approved.

Let me jump in here at the outset to share the conclusion I reached. I found that the environmental downside of the facility could be effectively mitigated by any of several different means. Basically, as you’ll read below, it comes down to the adoption of one or more possible ‘cap and trade’ solutions. But only you can require such mitigations should, as city council members, you decide to advance the project.

In my investigation my first task was to assess what a trade-off requirement might be (that is, what is the impact of the loss that needs addressing?). I found that determining any likely water loss is surprisingly problematic. Yet all who have tackled similar problems concede that loss is significantly real. In their pursuits various agencies and academic institutions have sought to come up with precise formulas to calculate real losses. What they conclude among them, however, is widely disparate since so many variables are at work – air temperature, water temperature, local terrain, humidity, wind, soil conditions, etc. 482 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
3 As a lay person in all this I chose to follow an often cited “rule of thumb” that says that losses (taking in all the variables) stand at roughly one-quarter of an inch per day, year-round. This is necessarily a “back-of the napkin” approach but one that carries scholarly weight. And, as found acceptable in the Phoenix, AZ-area, such a rough estimate seemingly will work pretty well for a similarly impacted, desert-dwelling La Quinta. So beginning with this reasonable fractional number for our calculations and rounding off that quarter-inch-daily estimate over 365 days (i.e., a quarter-of-an-inch times 365 days a year) we find a total evaporative loss of roughly 100 inches per year. This stands at nearly eight feet of water loss annually.

Large amounts of water are commonly described in acre-feet, that is, an acre-foot equals the amount of water contained in a foot of water spread over an acre of land. And each acre-foot equals slightly less than one-third of a million gallons. Having calculated above that our presumed water loss each year nears eight feet means that something like two-and-a-half million gallons of water annually disappears (one-third of a million gallons times eight feet) for each surface acre of non-flowing water (including in our proposed water basin).

The important question then becomes, what impact will that amount of loss directly have annually on La Quinta’s residents? Generally an acre-foot of water is said to provide water for two to two-and-a-half households per year. Phoenix did a recent study, however, that showed that with conservation efforts (which appear to be on the horizon as a mandatory practice within the Coachella Valley -- as it was in the 2010s) each acre-foot could serve some four households for an entire year, every year. (A household in the Phoenix study was a family of four.) Thus the eight acre-feet of loss will directly affect between 32 and 64 residents for each acre of surface water times the number of acres in the surfing lagoon.

I understand that the developers proposed 16.6 acres as the surface water footprint for the project. That would mean that water to households would be annually lost to at least 531 La Quinta residents but could impact over 1000 locals. This equates to some two-and-a-half percent of La Quinta’s population. Depressingly, I expect that the 1000 number is closer to real since my initial “rule of thumb” measurement accounts for only “still” water calculations, not water that is further exposed to a condition that knowingly hits the La Quinta area.

Here’s what I mean. I spent eight full summers and more as a beach lifeguard (and surfer) in Manhattan Beach, CA. There I saw the primary effects of Santa Ana winds on six-foot waves (the height that the basin developers see as optimal for their proposed facility). First, when the wind directly hits the face of any wave, the wind delays the crashing of the wave so a surfer can often get a very much longer ride. But secondly, as the wind rips over the top of each wave it blows jets of water into the air, and few of these drops fall back to the surface. Such atomized wind-borne water simply evaporates! While the developers apparently do not favor operating their facility in blustery conditions, the wind does blow in La Quinta, sometimes fiercely, and the facility will undoubtedly operate at times when measurable winds howl. So any wind hitting against any wave will cause more loss than the calculated still water “rule-of-thumb” implied. This means yet another net negative for water retention within their wave basin.

Moreover, my rough calculations above do not address at all the water loss that will occur when the water basin is initially filled. This I calculate to be a one-time loss of 166 acre-feet, or close to fifty-five million (55,000,000) gallons of water. This lost volume does, indeed, exceed even the annual water loss when the wave basin functions.

So how, then, might the project overcome my concerns about the likely losses of our now diminishing fresh water resources? I offer several means of mitigation that could, at minimum, approach or exceed a net zero score. Only you, the developer, and local and regional water authorities, however, can assess whether any one or combination of various mitigation possibilities would work for this project. But the global environmental changes we now face require some direct effort to offset the predicted loss of precious water by this project. In the end, we need zero loss as a minimum; a net gain would be highly desirable. 483 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
4 1. I had personal water professional friends in Yuma, AZ (Bureau of Reclamation, local irrigation district). They shared that water districts, for example, were replacing open water delivery channels with underground pipes. The burying of water channels eliminates open-to-the-air evaporation. A condition of the Coral Mountain Resort approval could be that the developer invest in a similar Coachella Valley Water District project, for example, that would save as much fresh water as the wave basin will dissipate into the atmosphere.

2. A similar effort could be taken with area farmers in which the developer would help them convert from their current above watering systems (e.g., flood irrigation, sprinklers) and install underground irrigation means. In this scenario they would be required to invest to the extent that the farmers in their upgrades would be saving as much water each year as the Coral Mountain Resort facility stands to lose.

3. An alternative might be to develop public-private partnership(s) in which some water-saving project is worked out with Lake Cahuilla authorities (or the City of La Quinta or Riverside County) to offset the Coral Mountain losses.

4. Another attack on the evaporation problem, but not a definitive solution, would find the wave basin shut down anytime the wind hits a certain speed for a specified length of time. In this case regulators would have to estimate how much water was reasonably saved over a year. This calculation would, however, only lower the amount of mitigation required by the surfing lagoon operators.

5. Many homeowners effectively combat evaporation from their swimming pools and larger water features. They simply cover those water bodies when not in use with evaporation covers such as bubble blankets, floating ball blankets, solar rings, etc. Thus the developer could establish a fund which La Quinta homeowners, as well as possibly local resorts and golf courses, could tap to offset some percentage of their future purchase of similar products. The fund amount would need to equal the cost of purchasing devices that together equal the 16.6 acres of the wave basin.

6. Or the developer could be required to drill wells to inject purified reclaimed water into our aquafer. The amount of injected water would necessarily have to equal the amount annually lost to evaporation. Naturally this possibility would have to meet environmental and legal standards and restrictions. I do not believe that using reclaimed water as a mitigating offset by irrigating, for instance, golf course fairways, park shrubbery or road median plantings, is a worthy trade-off. While previously commendable, these offsets do not save or create fresh water for domestic use since this reclaimed water immediately evaporates and is lost.

7. Another possible solution could limit the water in the lagoon to exclusively reclaimed water -- from the first drop that falls in when initially filling the basin to the last drop ever used in operating the facility. The burden to improve the quality of water between its source (sewage plant?) and putting it in the lagoon rests fully with the owner of the facility. Yet, even as each drop of reclaimed water is lost, pressure on our fresh water resources will continue to build at an alarming rate. That’s because the limited uses for any reclaimed water demands can be hardly satisfied with the available reclaimed water. That means that at that point fresh water must necessarily make up for the waste water deficiency.

My investigation has ended. I urge you to follow one of two actions when the planning commission approval for the Coral Mountain Resort proposal appears as a city council meeting agenda item. Either:
• Vote NO to squelch the proposal entirely.
or
484 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
5 • Table the motion for later approval until after the city and the developer agree to carry out sufficient, specified
mitigation efforts that will fully offset the loss of all water caused by operation of the surfing lagoon.

Our planet desperately needs the help of each of us. The La Quinta City Council can help as it has the opportunity to sidestep a clearly negative practice. Please do not make things worse by failing to do one of the two above actions.

Indeed for the survival of our grandchildren and their offspring I ask you, as the leadership of the City of La Quinta, to take these steps, if not the specifics at least in the spirit I have offered. You will be protecting a goodly measure of the increasingly diminishing water resources that still remain in our Coachella Valley.

Sincerely,
Gary A. Knox
La Quinta, CA 92253
Sent from Mail for Windows
485 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 2:18 PM
To: Dan Markus; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Markus,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Dan Markus
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 1:33 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Hi,
My name is Dan Markus and I currently live in Southern California.

I wanted to briefly share my thoughts and support for the Coral Mountain Wave Project. As you can probably guess, I am an avid surfer and I have been fortunate enough to have ridden this new technology in wave machines. It would be a dream opportunity for me and my family to enjoy the desert and have accessible this man made wave. I am very receptive to investing more time and money in this La Quinta project and the community.

I am hoping this project receives final approval and can break ground as soon as possible.

Regards,
Dan Markus
Malibu, CA 90265
486 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Monika Radeva
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 7:58 PM
To: Consulting Planner; Tania Flores
Subject: Coral Mtn Resort: Myrmo, Morgan (STVR) written comments - 17 MAY 2022 Meeting Attachments: STVR comments 4 May 2022.pdf; STVR comments 4 May 2022.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
I have confirmed “receipt” and will include in the 5/17/22 meeting, but since these comments are related to the Coral Mountain Resort project, I am forwarding to you to include in the project file.

Thank you.

Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
From: morgan myrmo
Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 6:41 PM
To: Monika Radeva <[email protected]>
Subject: Myrmo, Morgan (STVR) written comments - 17 MAY 2022 Meeting EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Aloha Monika,
Would you please share my letter (attached in PDF & Word) for the next City Council meeting? I belive this to be May 17, 2022.
re: STVRs/New Development
Thanks!
Morgan Myrmo
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Never trust wiring instructions sent via email. Cyber criminals are hacking email accounts and sending emails with fake wiring instructions. These emails are convincing and sophisticated. Always independently confirm wiring instructions in person or via a telephone call to a trusted and verified phone number. Never wire money without double-checking that the wiring instructions are correct. 487 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
La Quinta New Development Zoning: Serving the Elite 4 May 2022 Dear City Clerk Monika Radeva,
I fear the combination of short-term vacation rental (STVR) density deceleration, coupled with the new Tourist Commercial (TC District)/other STVR-approved zone designations, may not serve the best interests of current STVR operators.

The density deceleration of non-permitted STVR areas, such in the La Quinta Cove, continue to reduce the number of mom-and-pops thriving in the local tourism-housing industry. While limiting density here is understandable, the city must acknowledge that these new regulations have forced La Quinta STVR investors to solely pursue TC Districts, or other STVR-approved districts, to continue or expand their footprint in providing short-term housing solutions.

While this may be a good thing, I fear the new TC District zones, under current guidance from the City of La Quinta, appear to only facilitate investments from the rich, or from corporations or investor groups, while neglecting the mom-and-pops. For example, how is a home-owner in the cove, with an income of $60,000 per year, able to finance a $1.3 million home in PGA Signature, or a $1 million+ condo at Kelly Slater’s new surf park? The truth is they can’t.

In fact, most local business owners that support STVR housing will not be able to buy into these elite new properties. Coupled with the slow decline in homes for rent, as well as limited “budget-friendly” STVR options (such as Legacy Villas), the average tourist will likely shift to more affordable locations outside city limits.

One solution would be to create a new mandate in TC developments, where smaller, affordable units must be set aside for current STVR owners to purchase and operate. Remember, these are the people who have paid into the TOT coffers for several years, while supporting their own cleaning, landscape, and maintenance crews that also rely on such income from tourist housing.

Without creative solutions like this, in 10 years most of the tourist housing income will go to investor groups and elites who can afford high-end properties. While this may be beneficial from a tax collection perspective, it shows no allegiance to those who rightfully deserve a shot to stay in business. Personally, as an STVR owner, I’d like to stay in business, continue to support my team, and continue to pay my taxes to support the City of La Quinta. Due to my history as an STVR-owner, I could testify for hours to I have done, personally, to make La Quinta a better place. I may not be “rich,” however I am “great” for the city, and I’d like a “fair” shot.

If Kelly Slater is forced to build 50 units, or even half his units, under $500k, his people will still make money. While Kelly Slater, Kim Kardashian, and the Madison Club are cool, doesn’t the City want to take care of its own, also?
Best regards,
Morgan Myrmo
488 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
489 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From:

Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 6:23 PM
To: Planning WebMail; Consulting Planner;
Cc:

Subject: Water amounts
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

HELLO PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS & DESERT SUN:

AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SURFPARK PROJECT, DALE TYERMAN REPEATED SOMETHING JOHN GAMLIN HAD SAID ABOUT THE WAVE BASIN USING ONLY 13% OF THE PROJECT’S WATER. REALLY??? THAT SEEMS INCREDIBLY HARD TO BELIEVE.

SO…GIVEN THE LATEST PROJECTIONS ABOUT DECLINING AVAILABILITY OF COLORADO RIVER WATER… https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/30/us/west-drought-lake-powell-hydropower-or-water-climate/index.html …AND HOW THIS DECLINE WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WATER CVWD IS COUNTING ON…WE MUST ASK MERIWETHER TO PROVIDE EXACT FIGURES FOR THE WATER USAGE OF EVERY PART OF THEIR PROPOSED PROJECT. AND BY EXACT, WE DO NOT MEAN VAGUE ESTIMATES COUCHED IN TERMS THAT MAKE EVERYTHING SOUND GOOD. THEY NEED TO PROVIDE EXACT FIGURES FOR & EXPLANATIONS OF:

A) THE AMOUNT OF WATER REQUIRED TO FILL THE WAVE BASIN

B) WHERE IS THAT WATER COMING FROM
C) IS IT BEING TREATED…AND IF SO, WHERE AND HOW (ARE CHEMICALS BEING KEPT ON THE PROPERTY FOR

WATER TREATMENT)

D) THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WILL BE LOST FROM THE WAVE BASIN DUE TO EVAPORATION

E) THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WILL NEED TO BE ADDED & HOW OFTEN TO KEEP THE WAVE BASIN FULL F) THE AMOUNT OF WATER IN OTHER WATER FEATURES ON THE PROPERTY – POOLS (HOW MANY), LAGOONS (FOR PADDLEBOARDING, ETC.), FOUNTAINS

G) THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WILL BE USED AT THE HOTEL

H) THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WILL BE USED AT THE RESTAURANTS

I) THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WILL BE USED FOR ALL THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

J) THE AMOUNT OF WATER FOR LANDSCAPING
K) HOW WILL ALL OF THE ABOVE BE AFFECTED BY WATER USE RESTRICTIONS – BY THE STATE, BY THE COUNTY, BY

THE CITY
ONLY WITH THESE FIGURES CAN INFORMED DECISIONS BE MADE ABOUT THIS PROJECT. EVERYONE WE KNOW BELIEVES THIS IS AN UNBELIEVABLY IRRESPONSIBLE PROJECT TO BE CONSIDERING IN OUR CURRENT WATER CRISIS.

THANK YOU.

BRIDGETT & PHIL NOVAK
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
490 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 4:53 PM
To: Ivana Paige; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Ms. Paige,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Ivana Paige
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 3:08 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

To the City Council of La Quinta,
I hope you are having a wonderful day! I am emailing you because I wanted to voice my support in moving forward with Coral Mountain. I am 31 years young, and was born and raised in Los Angeles. Throughout my life, the main reason I would visit the desert was primarily for Coachella, or to see my friend's grandparents. Unfortunately, if it's not due to festivals, most of my generation associates the desert with the elderly, and because of this, I strongly believe Coral Mountain will open the eyes to a vast majority of people! I can genuinely say that if Coral Mountain gets built, I will spend a lot of time at the luxurious hotel!
I have never surfed before, until I went to Lemoore to try the prototype wave, and it was easily the best weekend of my life! What people do not understand until they experience it for themselves, is that the wave is more than "surfing." Experiencing the wave made me feel like I could face my fears, accomplish whatever I set my mind to, and it created such a special bond between myself and the random people I had met surfing that weekend; and that is something I wish everyone could experience! I truly hope to have a family of my own by the time Coral Mountain gets built, because I would love more than anything to incorporate this "magical" place into my family's traditions, and because it's not far from Los Angeles, I would easily come at least once a month to enjoy a weekend of innocent, fun, life changing experiences with my friends and family (and I can guarantee we will make a plethora of new, like-minded friends as well)! Because of how strongly I am in support of this project, there is no doubt in my mind that the world could use Coral Mountain now, more than ever!
491 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 Thank you for your time and consideration,
Ivana Paige Steelman
492 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 4:55 PM
To: Timothy Pappas; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro; City Clerk Mail
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Pappas,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Timothy Pappas
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 3:46 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>; City Clerk Mail <[email protected]> Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Dear La Quinta City Government;
I am a homeowner at Andalusia Country Club and feel that it’s important to write and express my support for the Coral Mountain Wave Project. As a younger family, we purchased a home in La Quinta during the pandemic and have enjoyed the experience of desert living.

We constantly look for activities to undertake as a family. Golf and tennis are great, but surfing, biking, yoga, and many other amenities planned for Coral Mountain will add significant diversity to this part of the valley. Living a healthy, active lifestyle is important to us and we know that the families that will be attracted to the Coral Mountain Wave Project will have a lot in common with us and our neighbors.

I think that the few potential issues that have been expressed (light at night and noise) are not significant and can be mitigated easily if (and that’s a big “if”) they should materialize. We live across Madison Street from this planned development and have zero concerns.

Thank you for helping to bring this exciting project to life! Sincerely,
Tim Pappas
493 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 La Quinta, California
---

Timothy A. Pappas
494 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:16 AM
To: Spencer Plumb; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Plumb,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Spencer Plumb
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:05 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

I would like to see the Coral Mountain project in La Quinta move forward. I have enjoyed Kelly Slater’s original wave in Lemoore, CA several times and would love to have one closer to home. The technology is amazing and this wave is 2nd to none. I am a potential investor in this project and other real estate in your area. I would also be interested in buying a home at this project.

Thank you for your support,

Spencer G. Plumb
President & CEO
Sabin Holdings, LLC
17180 Bernardo Center Drive,
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92128
Cell: 858-717-7666
[email protected]

495 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
496 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

Approving SURF-PARKS in La Quinta & The Coachella Valley During This Unprecedented Catastrophic Mega-drought for the Mega-Rich Is Not Only TONE-DEAF but will come back to bring shame and derision on the City of LaQuinta & EnZre Coachella Valley for approving these OBSCENE & FRIVOLOUS wastes of our precious and vanishing water.

Everyday it becomes more inevitable. Lush SoCal Landscapes, Lawns & Turf Are Going Away Quickly.........

SoCal's environment and visual look is completely changing, almost overnight.

Water "SHAMING" will become a very big cultural thing. This will apply to high-end golf course / country clubs / lushly landscaped homes, lagoons and Surf-Parks. The Class / Elite Privilege & EnZtlment Will BE Too Glaring To Ignore.

This "Shaming" will be aimed directly at LaQuinta and the Coachella Valley.

How can any City or Development In The SoCal Desert Approve These Profligate Wastes And Expect The Public & Press To Ignore This Environmental & Societal Abuse Of This Rapidly Vanishing Resource?
It is no longer business as usual for the Coachella
Valley. To act otherwise is just TONE-DEAF
WHISTLING IN THE GRAVEYARD.
h0ps://www.ny]mes.com/2022/05/03/climate/las-vegas-lawn-grass-ban.html Where Lawns Are Outlawed (and
Dug Up, and Carted Away)
With drought and growth taking a toll on the Colorado River, the source of 90 percent of the region’s water, a new law in Las Vegas mandates the removal of turf, patch by patch.
497 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

No Lawns / Non-FuncZonal Turf Are Next For
SoCAL....
h0ps://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/new-la-water-restric]ons-conserva]on-drought-mayorgarcel-ladwp/2889703/ What are the new outdoor water
restrictions in Los Angeles?
Outdoor watering will be limited for LADWP customers to two days per week, starting June 1. That's a change from the current limit of three days per week.

Homeowners will be assigned two watering days per week based on even- and odd-number addresses. Watering will be permitted at odd-numbered street addresses on Mondays and Fridays, and at even-numbered addresses on Thursdays and Sundays.

The city also strongly recommends using pool covers to decrease evaporation of pool water and washing vehicles at commercial car wash businesses.

That's in addition to existing watering restrictions, which include limiting watering with sprinklers to eight minutes per station and using water conserving nozzles limited to 15 minutes per station.

All watering will have to be done in the evening or early morning, with no watering
permitted outdoors between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

People who don't follow the rules will receive a warning, followed by increasing fines for subsequent violations.

Truly, A Very Rapid RepudiaZon of the California
Dream Is Becoming A Reality............
498 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
499 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

Stakeholders,
The following should make clear that CVWD's rewriTng of history for their allocaTon of Colorado River Water(CRW) being Non-Potable is false.

CRW, by law, is for IrrigaTon and potable purposes. The newest Statewide Emergency Guidelines State that the applicaTon of potable water cannot be applied to NonFuncTonal Purposes:
(1) “Commercial, industrial and insTtuTonal” refers to commercial water users, industrial water users, and insTtuTonal water users as respecTvely defined in Water Code, secTon 10608.12, subdivisions (e), (i), and (j), and includes homeowners’ associaTons, common interest developments, community service organizaTons, and other similar enTTes but does not include the residences of these enTTes’ members or separate interests. (5) “Non-funcTonal turf” means turf that is solely ornamental and not regularly used for human recreaTonal purposes or for civic or community events. NonfuncTonal turf does not include sports fields and turf that is regularly used for human recreaTonal purposes or for civic or community events.
(e) (1) To prevent the unreasonable use of water and to promote water conservaTon, the use of potable water is prohibited for the irrigaTon of nonfuncTonal turf at commercial, industrial, and insTtuTonal sites. “Any part of the golf course that is
being used for the game of golf, such
as the greens and the fairways, are
functional,” said Edward Ortiz, a
spokesperson for the state water
board. “However, water agencies and
golf courses need to evaluate
whether other turf on a golf course
property is functional or not.”
500 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

This NON-FuncTon Water Ban would extend to all Driving Ranges and Current "out-ofbounds" areas on Golf Courses. In addiTon, a very strong can be made water only being used for the greens and fairways. This would be a "links-style course" such as Desert Willow in Palm Desert.

Obviously, Surf Parks, Lagoons, Water Features all are considered NON-FuncTonal and an UNREASONABLE USE OF WATER under these guidelines.

I have aFached 2 files directly on point. You can find many such references to the actual Boulder Canyon Agreement and the Agreements between CVWD & IID.

All Colorado River Water Delivered To CVWD is For IRRIGATION AND POTABLE PURPOSES. COLORADO RIVER WATER IS CONSIDERED POTABLE UNDER THE QSA & BOULDER CANYON AGREEMENTS. It is also used by MWD and San Diego Water District For Potable Purposes.

It is true the CVWD must treat Colorado River Water for Drinking Water Purposes but they also must treat all groundwater for drinking water purposes.

CVWD misleads the public by saying Colorado River Water is Non-Potable as Congress and all agreements for this water clearly show it to be for potable purposes.

CVWD should be required to follow State Water Resources Control Board's mandatory emergency restricTons as to all DomesTc Water in the State.

CVWD's Board conTnues to game the public and the state by the "FICTION' of Colorado River Water Being Non-Potable. The law and facts do not bear this out.

Whether CVWD delivers this water to Golf Courses, HOA's, Lagoons, Surf-Parks via Groundwater, Canal Water or even a small mix of recycled with Canal Water(less than 10%) they are not adhering to the State Mandates for DomesTc Water. 2003 QSA AGREEMENT BETWEEN IID AND CVWD -
B. CVWD is a county water district organized under the California County Water District Law, codified at §§ 30000 et seq. of the California Water Code, and delivers Colorado River water in Riverside
County, California for irrigaTon and potable
purposes.
501 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

BOULDER CANYON PROJECT ACT [PUBL IC-NO. 642-70TH CONGRESS) [H. R. 5773] no charge shall be made for water or for the
use, storage, or delivery of water for irrigaTon
or water for potable purposes in the Imperial
or Coachella Valleys;
SecTon 1 of the Project Act, which provided for the dam at Black Canyon, also authorized the construcTon of a new canal, the All-American Canal, which would replace the Alamo Canal and would traverse only territory located in the United States. A new diversion dam for Imperial Valley water was also authorized.

SecTon 1 went on to provide that no charge
should be made for the storage or delivery of
irrigaTon or potable water to Imperial or
Coachella Valley
502 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Cheri Flores
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 9:54 AM
To: Tania Flores
Cc: Consulting Planner; Danny Castro
Subject: FW: IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS BY NOW....RESCIND ALL APRPOVALS AND FUTURE APPROVALS OF

SURF-PARKS, LAGOONS, WATER FEATURE AND REQUIRE ALL COCHELLA GOLF COURSE TO GO "LINKS-STYLE ONLY FUNCTIONAL PORTIONS CAN BE WATERED
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR CM RESORT.

Cheri Flores | Planning Manager
Design & Development Department
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico | La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. (760)777-7067
[email protected]
www.LaQuintaCA.gov
From:

Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 4:33 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Cheri Flores <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>;
Subject: IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS BY NOW....RESCIND ALL APRPOVALS AND FUTURE APPROVALS OF SURF-PARKS, LAGOONS, WATER FEATURE AND REQUIRE ALL COCHELLA GOLF COURSE TO GO "LINKS-STYLE ONLY FUNCTIONAL

PORTIONS CAN BE WATERED
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

All interested persons and Stakeholders,
This just came in from the La Times: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-24/california-bans-wateringof-non-functional-grass?mc cid=8965f63fa6&mc eid=5f26efca65 503 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 The regulations define “non-functional” turf as grass that is “solely ornamental” and not regularly used for recreational purposes or community events.
“Any part of the golf course that is being used for the game of golf, such as the greens and the fairways, are functional,” said Edward Ortiz, a spokesperson for the state water board. “However, water agencies and golf courses need to evaluate whether other turf on a golf course property is functional or not.”
It is abundantly clear. All current and pending approvals for Surf-Parks, Lagoons, Water Features must be rescinded and revisited at a later date if the Mega-Drought conditions subside. All of CVWD's water comes from the Colorado River and natural run-off. A very little amount of reclaimed water is mixed with Colorado River Water Via the MVP to become NON-Potable. This water is only used for Golf Courses and Landscaping. Since the vast Majority of this MVP water 80%+ is Colorado River Water it too must be conserved.

Lastly, East Valley AG has done nothing to meet their 2010 -2022 State Water Management Goals of a 14% reduction in Water from the Ground and The Colorado River Water.

CVWD AG is using more than 310,000AF of ground and canal water yearly. a 14% reduction will save 43, 400 AF a Year. If they practiced Israeli and Australian Agricultural Water Conservation they could save 75,000AF.

BUT RIGHT NOW, AG SAVES NOTHING BECAUSE THEY CONSIDER IT "FREE AND / OR CHEAP" until the leaders of Coachella Valley Demand CVWD look at the entire Valley's Public Interest and not the AG Board Members, John Powell, Anthony Bianco and Peter Nelson. This water will never be saved to provide resilience for the Coachella Valley's Future.

The Savings from 124 Coachella Valley Golf Courses going "links Style" will be in excess of 20,000+AF. Adding in stopping the Lagoons and SURFPARKS will save the Valley another 15,000+AF AG Savings = 43,400AF
Golf Savings =20,000AF+
Surf&Lagoon = 15,000+
HOA's = 10,000+
--------------------------------
Water conserved could easily reach 88,000AF+ Per Year. It is more than possible to exceed 100,000AF + per year in conserved water.

THIS 88,000AF COULD IMMEDIATELY GO INTO THE WHITEWATER REPLENISHMENT PONDS AND MAKE UP FOR THE 0- 5% SWP ALLOCATIONS CVWD IS RECEIVING. WITH LEVEL 2 AND MORE COLORADO RIVER CUTBACKS FORECASTED THE

SOONER THIS CONSERVATION STARTS THE SOONER COACHELLA VALLEY'S AQUIFER CAN MAXIMIZE THE VALLEY'S WATER SECURITY / RESILIENCE GOING FORWARD.
504 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
3 MAKE NO MISTAKES....YOU CAN NO LONGER DO BUSINESS AS USUAL IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY. YOU MUST REQUIRE CVWD TO REPRESENT ALL 300,000+ RESIDENTS AND NOT 3 BOARD MEMBERS + A SMALL HANDFUL OF MULTI-MILLIONAIRE FARMENTS.

California bans watering “non-functional” grass in some areas, strengthening drought rules
The California water board is proposing a ban on watering ‘non-functional’ grass in some areas.

Above, water droplets on grass from a sprinkler in Pasadena. (Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times)
505 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
4 BY IAN JAMESSTAFF WRITER
MAY 24, 2022 3:39 PM PT
California’s top water regulators adopted emergency drought rules Tuesday that scale up conservation requirements for water suppliers throughout the state and prohibit watering grass that is purely decorative at businesses and in common areas of subdivisions and homeowners associations.

The regulations outlaw the use of potable water for irrigating “non-functional” grass at commercial, industrial and institutional properties.

The ban doesn’t apply to yards at individual homes. There are exemptions for sports fields, grassy areas where people gather, and for watering to keep trees healthy.

The State Water Resources Control Board voted to adopt the emergency drought regulations following an executive order by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measures also require local water suppliers statewide to activate “Level 2" of their local contingency plans to prepare for a shortage of up to 20%.
“We need to activate Californians and really lean into the conservation that we’re needing to see,” said Joaquin Esquivel, chair of the state water board.

ADVERTISING
The regulations require each urban water supplier to submit an annual water supply and demand assessment. Each agency that has filed a shortage contingency plan should take steps to reduce water use to prepare for a shortage of between 10% and 20%.

Water agencies that haven’t yet turned in a contingency plan to the state are required to take similar steps, including having a public information campaign focused on conservation and enforcing a rule limiting outdoor watering to two days a week, with limited hours before 10 a.m. or after 6 p.m.

The regulations define “non-functional” turf as grass that is “solely ornamental” and not regularly used for recreational purposes or community events.
“Any part of the golf course that is being used for the game of golf, such as the greens and the fairways, are functional,” said Edward Ortiz, a spokesperson for the state water board. “However, water agencies and golf courses need to evaluate whether other turf on a golf course property is functional or not.”
506 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
5 Areas that are irrigated with recycled wastewater aren’t subject to the grass-watering ban. 507 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 8:05 AM
To: Tania Flores
Subject: Fw: The wave
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: MICHAEL ROSENFELD
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 7:14 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: The wave

** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** I attended the planning commission meeting on April 26. There were soooo many good presentations given that showed why the wave should not be approved. However, even though this meeting occurred and all of the commissioners sat through it and appeared to listen, they obviously did not HEAR a thing because they still advised the city council to approve the project! REALLY!?
I’m hoping the city council has more integrity and the members are able to see a larger picture.

Judy carey. 38 year resident of LQ
Sent from my iPad
508 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 16:58:58 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Date: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 3:52:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Trevor Schultz
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
I support Coral Mountain as someone who comes to la Quinta all the Ome to visit friends in surrounding communiOes.
509 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Monika Radeva
Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 8:41 AM
To: Consulting Planner; Tania Flores
Subject: Coral Mountain Resort
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Forwarding for the record. Thank you.

Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Brett Smith
Date: Fri, May 6, 2022 at 8:43 AM
Subject: Coral Mountain Resort
To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Good Morning:

I am a full-time resident and retired teacher in Palm Springs. I am absolutely appalled that the city of La Quinta has approved of the Coral Mountain Resort.

Coral Mountain Resort is a $200 million master-planned resort community proposed by CM Wave Development LLC that includes a private-use, 16.6-acre wave basin which has been the source of opposition from residents living in neighboring communities including Trilogy and Andalusia. Concerns about the potential for increased traffic, noise and lighting from the wave basin also have been voiced by opponents.

California declares unprecedented water
restrictions amid drought
Residents have been warned to scale down their water usage this summer, as critical shortages loom. 510 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 Officials worry Southern California won't have
enough water to get through summer without
unprecedented cuts.

These are just a few of the headlines in regards to the severity of our drought! To build yet another (PRIVATE) wave park, joined with a massive Hockey Arena, and a Disney development that again focuses on an artificial lake is beyond irresponsible! Has it truly boiled down to the almighty dollar? Please explain how you can ignore the science and data and allow for such a wasteful amount of our precious water supply? When we are no longer allowed to water our yards, the parks, the medians, the schools, what do we do then? Because the wealthy "need" a private surf park, and they can use water that is needed to grow crops, water landscaping, and keep us alive in this HOT desert environment, I will be forced to pay huge increases for what I need, until the supply runs out? Then what? Who will serve these entitled individuals? NO ONE will be able to afford to live here, and quite frankly, who will want to? This decision shows greed at its worst and reflects the very selfish motives of the La Quinta City Council. I guess the future environment for our kids and what they will inherit has no concern for this group of individuals.

Brett Smith
Palm Springs, CA
511 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Monika Radeva
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 3:59 PM
To: Brett Smith; City Clerk Mail; Jon McMillen
Cc: Consulting Planner; Tania Flores
Subject: Smith, Beth: California is in a water crisis, yet usage is way up. Officials are focused on the wrong problem, advocates say
Good afternoon Ms. Smith, your written public comments provided via the email below and dated 5/15/2022 have been received and will be included in the public record for this project.

Thank you.

Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
From: Brett Smith
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2022 6:47 AM
To: City Clerk Mail <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]> Subject: California is in a water crisis, yet usage is way up. Officials are focused on the wrong problem, advocates say EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

How can you possibly justify more outdoor lakes and surf pools? We will all SUFFER major consequences! This is criminal!
California is in a water crisis, yet usage is way up. Officials are focused on the wrong problem, advocates say https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/15/us/california-water-usage-increase-drought-climate/index.html 512 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 11:10 AM
To: James Sprague; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Sprague,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: James Sprague
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:48 AM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

To whom it may concern,
I'm writing in support of the Coral Mountain Wave Project being considered by the City Council this week. My family has a house in the PGA West community just down the street from the proposed project. While we live in Los Angeles, we are in the area regularly during peak season to golf and enjoy the amenities of the town of La Quinta. Our family believes that the wave project would offer an opportunity for us to increase our visits during the peak and summer season to enjoy the wave pool. Further, we have extended friends and family that are aware of the project and will consider buying in La Quinta if the project moves forward. The increase in residents and visitors seems to benefit both the City of La Quinta, the home owners and values, as well as those that would travel to visit.

In addition to the community benefits, I believe this project with be the first of its kind, which in itself is amazing. It's a very exciting time to be a part of La Quinta. I hope the City moves forward with the approval.

Please accept this note as an endorsement of the project.

Sincerely,
James Sprague
513 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 14:05:13 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: "Coral Mountain Resort DEIR"
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 1:43:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:

To: [email protected]
To provide comments in response to this notice (please include "Coral Mountain Resort DEIR" in the subject line) in writing, by August 6, 2021, to: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner, City of La Quinta, 78‐495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253, or [email protected]. Please include your name, address, and other contact information in your response.

Hi Nicole,
Would it help if the water used in this and other water surf parks in Palm Springs was not local water, but was surplus water from areas of potential flooding? I've been proposing for years that spring flooding in the Midwest and eastern parts of the US could be reduced/mitigated by hauling away surplus snow before it melts and causes flooding. One good source for collecting some of this surplus is snow plowed from large expanse parking lots. As it is plowed and scooped it can be easily deposited into reusable containers similar in size and shape to household plastic trash bins. Each time those bins are filled they could be loaded onto freight trucks destined for the west coast. On their way through Palm Springs those containers, or the water in those containers, could be dropped off at the water parks (and in lakes and reservoirs throughout California) and stored in the containers until needed in the surf park pools. After the containers are emptied, they could be stacked and a stack of empties loaded back onto trucks returning with new freight from the coast and shipped back to the heavy snow accumulation areas to be refilled again, over and over.

Many trucks have unfilled capacity that would allow enough space for at least a few of these containers to be added to their existing loads. Some trucks might not always have a load at all when returning to the west coast and could accommodate over 100 such containers. For more details on this proposal feel free to contact me. I'd be happy to provide more specifics on how this could help bring more new water supplies into California and Arizona, and all states in the west, as well as mitigate spring flooding in the midwest and eastern states, provide more revenue for truckers, and reduce parking lot damage caused by piles of ice created by snow plowed from those lots that participate. Thank you for reading and sharing.

Joe Tomlinson
514 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Monika Radeva
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2022 6:58 PM
To: Cher Van Wagenen
Cc: City Clerk Mail; John Pena; Consulting Planner; Tania Flores; Cheri Flores Subject: Van Wagenen, Cher - Newsom’s Statement re Water Conservation Good afternoon,
The City is in receipt of the written comments submitted via the emails below. The comments will be included in the public record for the Coral Mountain Resort project.

Thank you.

Monika Radeva, CMC | City Clerk
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253
Tel: (760) 777-7035
[email protected]
From: Cher Van Wagenen
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 10:34 AM
To: John Pena <[email protected]>; City Clerk Mail <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Newsom’s Statement re Water Conservation
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

John
Thank you for your response to my email regarding Gov. Newsom’s plea to reduce water usage to a 15% reduction. As you should know, within the week, Gov. Newsom is prepared to mandate conservation to far more stringent requirements to all California residents and businesses.

Since Coral Mountain Wave Project uses potable water, using 80 million gallons to fill the lagoon, but has not included the 2022 stats of evaporation, the project is obscene to consider in this multi year drought.

Additionally, when East Coachella Valley residents (Oasis, Thermal, North Shore, etc.) have arsenic tainted ground water, using potable water for “the largest Wave/Surf Project” in the world is unconscionable.

I see few reports on the electrical draw of the Coral Mountain project. Logistically, with the light standards and electrical energy to generate the waves it must consume enormous electricity.. Over the last years, the Coachella Valley has suffered repeated brown outs and complete electrical outages. Coral Mountain Wave Project will drain our already taxed electric grid.

I beg you to reconsider this project, do not fall prey to the big moneyed developers, who’s only interest is a landslide dollar return at the detriment of the future of La Quinta and the Coachella Valley at large. The Aquifer reserve may not survive years of the Coral Mountain water waste.

Most emphatically,
Jeff Van Wagenen
515 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
516 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
3 EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

Gov. Gavin Newsom renewed his calls for strict water conservation measures across California in a meeting on Monday, May 23, with the state’s largest urban water suppliers — warning that if local efforts don’t save enough water, the state will have to enact mandatory restrictions. “Every water agency across the state needs to take more aggressive actions to communicate about the drought emergency and implement conservation measures,” Newsom said. “Californians made significant changes since the last drought but we have seen an uptick in water use, especially as we enter the summer months. We all have to be more thoughtful about how to make every drop count.”
Newsom will meet with the agencies again in two months to get an update on conservation efforts. He also asked them to submit water use data more frequently and increase transparency so the state can more accurately measure whether it is meeting its conservation goals.

The State Water Resources Control Board is scheduled to vote Tuesday on a statewide ban on watering non-functional turf at commercial, industrial and institutional locations. The board will also consider requiring local agencies to implement water use restrictions. Local water agency restrictions currently only cover about half of California’s population.

The city of Los Angeles will enact two-day outdoor watering restrictions starting on June 1, down from the current three, with watering permitted at odd-numbered street addresses on Mondays and Fridays, and at even-numbered addresses on Thursdays and Sundays.

On Friday, Mayor Eric Garcetti met with California Natural Resources Agency Secretary Wade Crowfoot to highlight the need to protect the region’s trees, even with water restrictions, amid the historic drought. Trees can capture stormwater, improve water quality and reduce flood risk, along with helping air quality and the impacts of heat waves.

Once the watering restrictions take effect in Los Angeles, outdoor watering with sprinklers will be limited to eight minutes per station. Sprinklers with water-conserving nozzles will be limited 517 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
518 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 4:54 PM
To: Larry Wares; Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Jon McMillen; Danny Castro
Cc: Tania Flores
Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support
Mr. Wares,
Thank you for your comments. They will be provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Larry Wares
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Jon McMillen <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Danny Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project - Support

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

My name is Larry Wares. My wife and I (Cyndi) raised 5 amazing children in the Southern California area. We just had our 14th grandchild this morning!

We are a family that embraces the concept of spending active time together doing things that challenges us. Our vacations and free time almost always included activities like dirt bike riding, surfing, snowboarding, mountain biking, etc. While other kids were at parties on the weekends, our kids were almost always with mom, dad and siblings expanding and enhancing their mental and athletic skills. Our children now have endless memories spending quality time with their family. As parents, we always hoped our family time with them would provide a balance that helped them navigate the challenges they would face with their own little family. Our hopes have been realized. Four of our five children now have their own families, and they all seem to be replicating the same process with their children. This definitely keeps nana and papa motivated to stay fit!

Why am I telling you this story? Our family surf trips often included places like Tahiti, Mexico, Hawaii, Indonesia and many other locations out of the USA to find perfect waves. Our family also golfs. We spend quite a bit of time in the desert playing golf at some of the nicest resorts in town with other friends. We also come to the desert to ride motorcycles in the cooler season. Being able to come to La Quinta to a resort like Coral Mountain Wave Park to surf perfect warm waves would be a dream-come-true for the Wares family, and for hundreds of other families who do what the we do.

519 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 I have surfed at the Kelly Slater Ranch in Lamore a few times. I can tell you that this concept is designed to create memories of a lifetime for families like ours. This is not a spring break concept – it’s a family concept. Everything about the venue is family-oriented. We have several friends that reside at the neighboring Andalusia community. I just played golf with them last week. They had the impression that this was going to be a loud spring break/surfer/party place. After I explained the “real” concept, they had a completely different mindset. I showed them photos of the Lamore location. I showed them videos of the machine that created the waves. They said “I don’t hear the motors running”. After learning the mechanism is nearly silent, they were surprised. After learning this is not a spring break place, they were excited about the development. None of the people I played golf with last week surf, but after better understanding how incredible it would be to bring Tahiti, Indonesia and Hawaii waves to the desert would be, they finally “got it”. I told them it like bringing the wonder of Ireland golf to the deserts of California. You don’t have to travel for days to golf perfection.

We want all of you to know that the Wares family, and many others like us, are routing for this dream vacation project approval.

Sincerely;

Larry Wares
Principal
RM Dalton Corporation
(949) 300-0039 C
www.rmdalton.com

PLEASE UPDATE YOUR RECORDS - WE HAVE MOVED.

Our new office location / mailing address is:
18952 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 320
Irvine, CA 92612

520 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
521 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 La Quinta is becoming much more than a place for retirees to play golf. I knew it was only a matter of time before something like the Coral Mountain project would happen, and I couldn’t be more excited for this to come to fruition. I am in the process of building a home in The Quarry, which is right next door to this project. I am extremely confident that this development as a whole, with the hotel and all of the amenities, will be a very big draw for people from all over the world and I also believe that it will drive real estate values up even higher than where they are now.

I am a HUGE SUPPORTER of this project and feel that change and evolution are very important for a community and a city like La Quinta. Coral Mountain is going to be the first of its kind and I am proud that La Quinta will be the home of such an amazing forward thinking master planned community.

Please approve this project and lets show the world what careful planning and forward thinking looks like.

Thank youJason Weiss
Property Advisory Refined
TheLuxuryDesert.com
JasonAWeiss.com
310-972-8877
522 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Tania Flores
From: Consulting Planner
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 8:51 AM
To: Kathy Weiss
Cc: Linda Evans; ; Robert Radi; Danny Castro; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Robert Radi; Steve Sanchez; Planning WebMail; Tania Flores;
Subject: Re: Wave Park Legal Notice Press Release
Ms. Weiss,
Thank you for your comments. They will be included in the materials provided to the City Council when they consider the application at hearing.

Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
From: Kathy Weiss
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 10:44 PM
Cc: Linda Evans <[email protected]>; Consulting Planner <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Danny Castro
<[email protected]>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <[email protected]>; John Pena <[email protected]>; Robert Radi <[email protected]>; Steve Sanchez <[email protected]>; Planning WebMail <[email protected]>; Tania Flores <[email protected]>; Subject: Wave Park Legal Notice Press Release

EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.

FYISending PR to you in case you were not aware. Please pass on to your peers, LQ Planning Commission members, and the LaQuinta Community. It would be redundant to ask you if you really want another SilverRock.

Thank you,
Kathy Weiss
https://beachgrit.com/2022/05/american-wave-machines-sues-wsl-owned-surf-ranch-florida-and-othersover-abandoned-palm-beach-florida-wavepool-project/

Kathy D. Weiss
Summer Residence
, Carbondale, CO 81623
523 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 Winter Residence:
, La Quinta, CA 92253

524 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
DRAFT
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2022 – XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2021020310)
FOR THE CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT PROJECT;

ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
CASE NUMBERS:

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0010
APPLICANT:

CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on June 7, 2022, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH #2021020310), as mandated by State law for the Coral Mountain Resort Project consisting of a master planned community on 386 acres of a 929 acre area located south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and east and west of Madison Street, more particularly described as:

Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs):
764-200-076, 764-210-007, 764-210-028, 764-210-029, 766-070-003, 766-070-006, 766-070-012, 766-070-014, 766-080-001,766-080-002,766- 080-004 & 766-080-005
WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on May 27, 2022, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2022-010 to recommend the City Council certify Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 at a duly noticed Public Hearing on April 26, 2022, following public hearings held on March 22, and April 12; and
525 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
DRAFT City Council Resolution No. 2022 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Coral Mountain Resort
Adopted:

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”), and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of La Quinta (“City”) is the Lead Agency for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of a Draft EIR for the Coral Mountain Resort on or about February 17, 2021, and it was transmitted to the State Clearinghouse, local and regional agencies, and posted at the Riverside County Clerk’s office for a 30-day comment period where comments and participation were sought from the public and all interested and affected groups and agencies; and
WHEREAS, on or about June 20, 2021, the City published a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) which initiated a 45-day public review and comment period of the Draft EIR for the Proposed Project and released the Draft EIR for public review and comment between June 22 and August 6, 2021; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and other interested parties during the 45-day public review and comment period and received 98 comments; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Final EIR, consisting of the comments received during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR, written responses to those comments, revisions to the Draft EIR and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. For the purposes of this Resolution, the “EIR” shall refer to the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR, together with the other sections of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the Lead Agency finds are of no impact or constitute a less than significant impact and do not require mitigation are described in Sections IV and V of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which the Lead Agency finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the incorporation of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR are described in Section III of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR as potentially significant but which the Lead Agency finds cannot be mitigated to 526 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
DRAFT City Council Resolution No. 2022 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Coral Mountain Resort
Adopted:

a less than significant level, despite the imposition of feasible Mitigation Measures identified in the EIR are described in Section II of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Proposed Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VI of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program setting forth the mitigation measures to which the Lead Agency shall bind itself in connection with the Proposed Project, is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the Lead Agency has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Lead Agency has not received any comments or additional information that constituted substantial new information requiring recirculation under Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:

SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the City Council.
527 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
DRAFT City Council Resolution No. 2022 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Coral Mountain Resort
Adopted:

SECTION 2. That the City Council does adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Section VII of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herewith by this reference.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B.

Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.

The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City Council after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require recirculation.

Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 5. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at La Quinta City Hall, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of La Quinta or designee. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2).

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the City of La Quinta City Council, held on June 7, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:
528 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
DRAFT City Council Resolution No. 2022 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Coral Mountain Resort
Adopted:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

_________________________
LINDA EVANS, Mayor
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
________________________
MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
WILLIAM H. IHRKE, City Attorney
City of La Quinta, California
529 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

CEQA FINDINGS
and

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
for the

CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT PROJECT

EXHIBIT A
530 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
i

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………. 1
Project Description ........................................................................................4 Project Components .......................................................................................6 Project Construction .......................................................................................7 Project Implementation ..................................................................................7 Responsible Agencies ....................................................................................8 Project Objectives ..........................................................................................8 II. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ......................................................................9 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................9 Effects on scenic vistas ..................................................................................9

Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................11 GHG Emissions that may Significantly Impact the Environment .................11 III. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WHICH ARE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT LEVEL ..............................................................................16 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................17 Impact a Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway Corridor ...........17 Light and Glare ..............................................................................................19 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................21 Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant ..................21 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ...............24 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................27 Candidate, sensitive or special status species and Riparian habitat ...............27 Movement of wildlife ....................................................................................31 Consistency with local policies and applicable habitat conservation plan ....34 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................34 Impacts to Historical Resources.....................................................................34 Impacts to Archaeological Resources ............................................................36 Impacts to human remains .............................................................................38 531 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
ii
Geology and Soils ................................................................................................39 Expose People or Structures to Effects Involving
Seismic-Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction .............................39 Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit or Expansive Soil ............................41 Impacts to a Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or Unique Geologic Feature ................................................................................44 Noise ....................................................................................................................45 Consistency with Established Noise Standards/Increase in Ambient Noise Levels ........................................................................45 Transportation ......................................................................................................49 Consistency with an Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing the Circulation System .............................................................................49 Effect of a Geometric Design Features ..........................................................54 Emergency Access .........................................................................................55 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................56 Impacts to Significant Tribal Cultural Resources ..........................................56 IV. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ..............................................................................................61 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................61 Effects to the Visual Character or Quality of the Site ..................................61 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................62 Consistency with implementation of applicable air quality plans and standards ...........................................................................................62 Create objectionable odors .............................................................................63 Energy ..................................................................................................................64 Consumption of Energy Resources ................................................................64 Consistency with a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency ....................................................................................64

Geology and Soils ................................................................................................65 Effects Involving Strong Seismic Shaking/Landslides .................................65 Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil ....................................................................66

Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................66 Consistency with Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation .............................66

Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................67 Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Material, Including Accidental Release ...................................................................................................67 532 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
iii
Effect on an Emergency Response Plan ........................................................67 Risk of Wildfires ............................................................................................68 Other Potential Hazards ........................................................................................... 68 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................69 Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements ...........................................................................................69 Effect on of Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge ..................................................................................................69 Potential Impacts from Alteration of Existing Drainage Patters ...................70 Inundation by Flooding, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow .................................70 Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan .....................................................................................70

Land Use
Consistency with Any Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation ........................74 Noise ....................................................................................................................75 Generation of Ground Borne Vibration .........................................................75 Public Services .....................................................................................................76 Transportation ......................................................................................................77 Consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)[VMT] ................................................................................................77 Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................................79 Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water, Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities ............................................................79 Sufficiency of Water Supplies .......................................................................80 Wastewater Treatment System Capacity .......................................................80 Generate Excess Solid Waste.........................................................................81 Comply with Statues and Regulations Related to Solid Waste .....................81 V. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTDS HAVING NO
IMPACT .....................................................................................................87 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................87 Federally protected wetlands ........................................................................87 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................87 Effects Involving Rupture from Known Fault..............................................87 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................87 Hazardous Materials within ¼ mile of a school ...........................................87 Sites with Known Hazardous Materials Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 .........................................................................87 533 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
iv
Effects Having No Impact and Not Analyzed Further in Draft EIR ....................88 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE ANALYZED THE DIER AND REJECTED ..................................................................................................88

Alternative 1: No Project/No Build .....................................................................89 Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements..................................................90 Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative ........................................................91 Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative ...............................................91 Alternative 5: The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative .....................................92 Additional Findings Regarding the Environmentally Superior Alternative ........93 VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS .............................94 VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR ..................98 534 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Final EIR SCH No. 2021020310
GPA 2019-0002, ZC 2019-0004, SP 2019-003, SP 2020-0002, TTM 2019-0005, SDP 2021- 0001, DA 2021-0002
The City of La Quinta (City) has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort (Project) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. as amended).

I. INTRODUCTION
The project proposes several applications allowing for the development of a master planned community with a hotel, recreational surf wave facility, as well as planned residential neighborhoods and commercial and recreational uses. The ultimate build-out of the approximately 386-acre Specific Plan area includes up to 600 residential units, a resort hotel with up to 150 keys and complementary resort uses and amenities, a 16.62-acre recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet of tourist commercial uses, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and additional open space and recreational uses totaling 23.6 acres.

The applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019-0002), Zone Change (ZC 2019-0004), Specific Plan (SP 2020-0002), a Specific Plan Amendment to SP 03- 067, Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2019-0005), Site Development Permit (SDP 2021-0001), and Development Agreement (DA 2021-0002), as a part of the entitlement process.

The City distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a Draft EIR for a 30-day comment period between February 17, 2021 and March 19, 2021. The NOP review period was extended until April 2, 2021 in order to include the Development Agreement in the project description pursuant to Article 2.5 of Chapter 4, Division 1, Title 7 of the State California Government Code.

The comment period was extended to allow public comments until April 2, 2021. The NOP included an evaluation of the environmental topics that will and will not be analyzed within the Draft EIR. The evaluation was prepared using Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse and to all responsible and trustee agencies, and to interested parties. Issues raised by agencies and the public in response to the NOP were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and comments received are contained in Appendix A of the EIR.

Based on the preliminary review conducted by the City and responses to the NOP, the City found that the Project could have potentially significant environmental effects, including effects on the following: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Noise, Public Services, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. In accordance with CEQA, the City determined the Project could have potentially significant impacts and determined that an environmental impact report should be prepared.
535 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 The Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45-day public review period from June 22, 2021 to August 6, 2021. The Final EIR for the Project consists of the Draft EIR, revisions to the Draft EIR, a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, comments received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments. A copy of the Final EIR was made available for public review and provided to all parties commenting on the Draft EIR at least 10 days prior to certification.

The Final EIR evaluated potential effects for the following environmental areas: Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.

The Final EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects related to Aesthetics (scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character, light/glare), Air Quality (construction-source and operational-source emissions), Biological Resources (sensitive species, sensitive habitat); Cultural Resources (historical resources, known and unknown cultural resources during project excavation); Geology and Soils (seismic-related ground failure, soil erosion, destruction of unique resources), Greenhouse Gas Emissions (generation of GHG emissions and conflicts with applicable plans), Noise (temporary construction noise and ground borne vibration, operational and traffic noise); Transportation (VMT, plan consistency, construction traffic, impacts related to special events); and Tribal Cultural Resources (known and unknown tribal cultural resources). The Final EIR determined that the potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures throughout implementation of the project, with the exception of the significant and unavoidable impacts discussed in Section III below (scenic vistas and GHG emissions).

The Final EIR identified no impact or less than significant impacts related to Agriculture and Forest Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, and Wildfire.

Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the City of La Quinta, as lead agency for this project, prepare written findings for any identified significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 536 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
3 (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), the City finds that the project will have significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics (adverse effect on scenic vistas), and greenhouse gas emissions, even after all feasible mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR are implemented. The City finds that for each of the significant effects identified in the Final EIR, other than the aesthetic and greenhouse gas emission impacts identified above, changes or alterations (project design features and mitigation measures) have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially lessen each of the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. The significant effects (impacts) and mitigation measures are stated fully in the Final EIR. The rationale for this finding for each impact is discussed below.

After consideration of an EIR, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project.

For purposes of CEQA and for the Findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’ Findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum:
• The City’s General Plan, as amended, and all environmental documents relating thereto;
• The Draft EIR for the Project, including all Appendices thereto and all supporting materials referenced therein;
• The Final EIR for the Project, including all comments on the Draft EIR, all responses thereto, and all supporting materials referenced therein; • All testimony and written comments received at any public hearing relating to the Project, including the March 30, 2021 public scoping meeting, September 28, 2021 joint Planning Commission and City Council study session, the Planning Commission hearings on March 22, 2022, April 12, 2022, and April 26, 2022, and the City Council hearing on June 7, 2022;
• The groundwater management plan documents submitted to the City on April 23, 2022, which include (1) the Coachella Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan (2021), (2) the CVWD Water Supply Assessment Fact Sheet (updated March 22, 2022), (3) the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update – CompiledFinal (adopted December 2021), (4) Indio Subbasin Annual Report Workshop PowerPoint (March 17, 2022), and (5) Indio Subbasin Annual Report – Final (February 2022).
• All reports of the City relating to the Project, including reports submitted to the City by expert consultants, and all supporting materials referenced therein; 537 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
4 • These Findings made by the City and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) adopted by the City for the Project;
• All final City Staff reports relating to the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and/or the Project;
• All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning documents relating to the Project, the Draft EIR or the Final EIR, prepared by the City, consultants to the County, or responsible or trustee agencies, or submitted to the City prior to the close of the City Council hearing on the Project; • All prior environmental impact reports and studies related to the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03-067; and
• All matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to the City’s policies, guidelines and regulations.

The official custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings is:

City of La Quinta
Planning Division
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Phone: 760-777-7000
Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Copies of all these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City’s decision is based, are, and at all relevant times have been, available upon request at the offices of the City, the custodian for such documents.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project area encompasses 929 acres that are currently a part of the “Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03-067”, which includes the area south of Avenue 58 and east and west of Madison Street. The area east of Madison Street encompasses the Andalusia Country Club property. The area west of Madison Street is currently vacant. Amendment V of Specific Plan 03- 067 is being processed to remove the area west of Madison Street from the Specific Plan area, thus, creating two separate and distinct communities, “Coral Mountain Resort”, west of Madison Street, and “Andalusia Country Club”, east of Madison Street. 538 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
5 The applicant is requesting approval of the following entitlements, which if approved, would allow for and govern the development of the project site:
• Specific Plan Amendment- The Specific Plan Amendment (Amendment V of Specific Plan 03-067) is being processed to remove the area west of Madison Street from the Specific Plan area, thus, creating two separate and distinct communities, “Coral Mountain Resort”, west of Madison Street, and “Andalusia Country Club”, east of Madison Street. The Specific Plan Amendment will result in only the deletion of the westerly 386 acres. No changes to land use designations, densities or intensities of uses, or development standards or guidelines are proposed for the lands east of Madison Street. It is expected that Andalusia will continue to build out under the requirements of the SPA. • General Plan Amendment- A General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019-0002) will amend the current General Plan land use designations for the Specific Plan Area from General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Open Space – Recreation to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space – Recreation. • Zone Change- The proposed Zone Change (ZC 2019-0004) will revise the existing zoning of the Specific Plan Area from Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Golf Course, to Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Low Density Residential (RL), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Tourist Commercial (CT).
• Specific Plan- Approval of the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan (SP 2020-0002) will establish a new master plan governing the allowable land uses, design guidelines, and development standards for the 386-acre property west of Madison Street, to allow creation of a boutique resort and master-planned community. The project will result in a variety of land uses on the Specific Plan area’s 386 acres. Low Density Residential land uses will occupy approximately 232.3 acres and result in a maximum of 496 dwelling units. Tourist Commercial land uses will include up to 104 dwelling units, 150 hotel rooms, and 57,000 square feet of private resort-serving commercial uses available to residents and hotel guests, on approximately 120.8 acres. Neighborhood commercial land uses will occupy approximately 7.7 acres, with up to 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses available to the general public. Open Space Recreation land uses will occur on approximately 23.6 acres in the southwest portion of the site.
• Tentative Tract Map- The Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2019-0005) subdivides the property into smaller lots for development. The TTM will subdivide all of Planning Area III (PA III), and the western corner of PA II into lots suitable for the development of the uses permitted for these areas in the Specific Plan, and for ancillary facilities including streets.

Future TTMs may be filed with each phase of development as necessary to implement the balance of the project.
• Site Development Permit- The Site Development Permit (SDP 2021-0001) is required by the City to establish the location, architectural design and landscape plan for the Wave Basin along with associated mechanical equipment and improvements (Planning Area III539 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda 6 B). Future SDPs will be filed with each phase of development as necessary to implement the balance of the project. The SDP includes:
• The Wave Basin site plan
• Winch Plans and sections of the Wave Basin (the winches are located in the mechanical buildings and assist in making the waves)
• Surf Lighting layout
• Architecture Plans and elevations of the maintenance yard, maintenance building, water tank, water treatment building, north and south winch. • Photometric Plans for the lighting surrounding the Wave Basin • Landscape Architecture Plans for the proposed landscaped areas around the Wave Basin
• Development Agreement- The Development Agreement (DA 2021-0002) would establish the responsibilities of the applicant and the City, including vesting the project approvals, establishing standards authorizing vacation rentals, and setting financial obligations of the development.

PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Project build out components include:
• 600 Dwelling Units of varying types
o 496 single family attached and detached dwellings and affiliated amenities (Low Density Residential land use)
• Low Density Residential product types may include estate compounds, singlefamily detached/attached units, alley loaded homes, and clustered products. o 104 resort residential units (Tourist Commercial land use) • Resort residential product types may include single family detached units, townhomes, and stacked flats.
• 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible neighborhood commercial building space • 150-key resort with customary resort amenities
o The Resort Hotel will provide a hospitality component, with amenities such as a restaurant and bar, retail shop, meeting space, swimming pool, fitness center, spa and lodging.
o Lodging options will provide a range of traditional hotel rooms, suites, and casitas. • 57,000 square feet of resort-serving commercial and recreational building space o Residents and guests of the property will have exclusive use of resort commercial amenities.
• The Wave Basin

16.62-acre artificial surf Wave Basin (approximately 12.5 acres of water surface area, plus decking and related improvements)
o Residents and guests of the property will have exclusive use of the Wave Basin o Equipment and service space for the Wave Basin includes 540 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
7 • Two approximately 6,000-square-foot winch areas, each having:
• 1,900-square-foot winch buildings
• 2,800-square-foot shade structures
• 37,500-square-foot Service Yard, including:
• 2,400-square-foot Maintenance Workshop
• 2,400-square-foot Water Treatment building
• 0.5-million-gallon (MG) Water Tank
o The Specific Plan includes the potential occurrence of special events at this location involving attendance of up to 2,500 guests per day, for up to 4 days, and up to 4 events per year, subject to City approval of a temporary use permit. • 26.5 acres of graded area, south of the Wave Basin
o Providing unprogrammed gathering and staging space for temporary equipment such as portable toilets, shade structures, tenting for inclement weather, event parking and catering equipment, as well as parking.
• Approximately 24 acres of natural open space for low-impact active and passive recreational activities.
o Including hiking, biking, and ropes courses.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
According to the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, project construction will occur in eight (8) primary development areas with buildout anticipated to occur in three primary phases. Each primary development area may be broken into subphases in response to market conditions and consumer demand. Phased development will be accompanied by the orderly extension of circulation and parking facilities, public utilities, and infrastructure in accordance with the final conditions of approval for the project.

The applicant proposes to commence construction of the Wave Basin first, due to longer construction timelines than the other uses within the Specific Plan. The Site Development Permit (SDP 2021-0001) for the Wave Basin described above is being processed concurrently with the initial entitlements. Following this entitlement and construction schedule, it is anticipated that the Wave Basin and other Tourist Commercial and Residential land uses will be completed and ready for occupancy at approximately the same time.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Should the project be approved, implementation would include the following entitlement processes:

Tentative Tract Map (TTM) – In addition to the TTM which is part of the initial entitlements, future TTMs are intended to implement the project and subdivide the property into smaller lots for development. TTMs may be filed with each phase of development as necessary. Each TTM will require review by the Planning Commission.
541 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
8 Site Development Permit (SDP): SDPs will be required by the City for final approval of landscape design, architectural design, and site plans for each phase of development. These may be processed concurrent with or subsequent to other entitlement approvals. Each SDP will require public hearings before the Planning Commission.

Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Uses that require a CUP shall be processed in accordance with Section 9.210.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code.

Temporary Use Permit (TUP): TUPs are required by the City to accommodate special, unique, or limited duration activities that might otherwise be outside the provisions of normal zoning.

Temporary uses are anticipated and allowed by the Specific Plan, subject to the City’s TUP requirements set forth in Section 9.210.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. TUPs are reviewed administratively by the Design and Development Director and do not require a public hearing.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
The following are anticipated responsible agencies which may rely on the Final EIR for their discretionary approvals required to implement the project:

Imperial Irrigation District
Approval or certification related to any other applicable general order, rule, or regulation concerning utility modification, conveyance, or delivery.

Coachella Valley Water District
Review and approval of the design and plans for the project’s domestic water and wastewater systems.

Colorado Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 7) Approval may include but is not limited to: (1) General Construction Stormwater Permit; (2) Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan; and (3) Submittal of a Recycled Water Report for the use of recycled water as a dust control measure for construction. Additionally, approval of a Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act may be required to verify compliance with water quality requirements (waste discharge and water quality).

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project has identified the following objectives:
• To implement a plan that recognizes and responds to the natural and aesthetic character of the property.
• To create a private resort community with a variety of interrelated and mutually supportive commercial and recreational land uses that will also generate transient occupancy and sales tax revenues in order to enhance the City’s economic base and long-term financial stability. • To promote walkability and non-motorized connectivity as an integral part of the project design, including: (1) establishing residential neighborhoods that are linked through multi542 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda 9 use trails that connect neighborhoods throughout the project; and (2) providing “walk streets” in the Resort area to provide internal connection between facilities within the Resort and the Wave Basin.
• To maintain the overall density previously included for this property in the Andalusia Specific Plan, while establishing a density hierarchy that situates the highest density development within the Resort and gradually reduces density toward the project perimeter and surrounding residential communities.
• To provide a variety of open space and recreational uses (active and passive). • To design a planned community that compliments existing development in the surrounding area and is compatible with the surrounding environment. • To develop a high-quality private wave basin that provides unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project, attracts resort guests, and creates a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s reputation as the “Gem of the Desert.” II. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS This section identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued by the City upon approval of the project. Based on the analysis contained in the Final EIR, the following impacts to aesthetics and greenhouse gas emissions have been determined to be significant and unavoidable, after all feasible mitigation measures have been considered and adopted. These unavoidable impacts are overridden by the project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta finds that, for each of the following significant effects, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid these significant effects on the environment to the maximum extent feasible. Nevertheless, the City of La Quinta further finds that for each of the significant effects, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR. However, the City finds that with respect to the significant and unavoidable impacts described below, specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section VII below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These findings are explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.

AESTHETICS
Effects on scenic vistas.

The proposed project will result in potentially significant direct impacts to scenic views and implementation of all feasible mitigation measures will not reduce the impacts to a less than significant impact because development of the project site will result in obstructed and partially obstructed views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. 543 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
10 The project’s perimeter walls, landscaping, and structures will partially obstruct views of these scenic resources, which is considered a significant impact. To reduce project impacts to scenic vistas to the greatest extent feasible the project will implement Mitigation Measure AES-1, which requires the perimeter walls to be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rightsof-way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City’s review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans, and Mitigation Measure AES-2, which requires a minimum setback of 75 feet between any residential structure and the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way, (refer to Section IV below). However, impacts associated with scenic vistas cannot be reduced to less than significant levels and will remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures:

The project includes mitigation measures in the MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

AES-1 The perimeter walls around the low density residential planning areas shall be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City’s review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains.

AES-2 All residential structures shall be setback by a minimum of 75 feet from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains.

Finding
The City Council of the City of La Quinta finds direct impacts to the scenic resources of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains from development of the project site with perimeter walls, landscaping and structures, to be significant. Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid these significant effects on the environment to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, mitigation measures AES-1 and AES-2 will increase setbacks of the perimeter walls and residential structures to reduce impacts on views of these scenic resources to the maximum extent feasible.

The City of La Quinta further finds that for this significant effect, any development of the site consistent with the City General Plan would have comparable impacts on views of these scenic vistas, and for this reason, finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives, if any, identified in the Final EIR. In fact, the EIR did not identify any mitigation measures or project alternatives that would further reduce the project’s unavoidable impact on views of these scenic vistas except the no project/no development alternative, which is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and deemed 544 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
11 unacceptable by the City Council, as explained in more detail in Section VI below. Furthermore, the City finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project, including but not limited to generating transient occupancy and sales tax revenues to enhance the City’s economic base and ensure its long-term financial stability, outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section VII below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These findings are further explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.

Facts in Support of Finding
The project will result in potentially significant direct impacts to views of Coral Mountain. As shown in the line-of-sight analysis and visual simulations included as Exhibits 4.1-4 through 4.1- 13, the Wave Basin, hotel, and other proposed development in Planning Area III will not significantly impact views of Coral Mountain or the Santa Rosa Mountains due to the distance and intervening topography and improvements between this portion of the Project and the viewing locations from the surrounding roadways and communities (see Draft EIR pp. 4.1-22 through 4.1- 45). However, the perimeter walls, landscaping, and structures will obstruct some views of these scenic resources from the surrounding roadways and neighborhoods. These perimeter improvements will ensure that the Project is visually consistent and compatible with the surrounding residential communities, which also have such walls and landscaping. Moreover, these perimeter improvements would be required by the City for any permitted development of the site. Accordingly, none of the project alternatives, other than the no project/no development alternative, would substantially reduce or avoid this impact. While these impacts will be mitigated by AES-1 and AES-2 to the maximum extent feasible, the impacts are considered significant and unavoidable because the perimeter improvements associated with development of the project property will result in obstructed and partially obstructed views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG Emissions that may Significantly Impact the Environment.

The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project after implementation of all feasible emission reduction measures, including both enforceable Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measure GHG-1, are reduced to less than the applicable annual threshold of significance of 3.65 MTCO2e/service population (see Draft EIR Table 4.7-8).

While implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would offset the GHG emissions generated by the project that are in excess of the applicable threshold, by reducing GHG emissions elsewhere through the purchase of carbon credits, it would not change the actual GHG emissions levels of the project itself. In addition, the purchase of carbon credits has not been widely used as mitigation for GHG emissions for residential and resort projects in the Coachella Valley, and therefore, the City Council finds that there is some uncertainty as to whether the purchase of carbon credits adequately, feasibly, and fully mitigates the project’s impacts relating to GHG emissions to a less than significant level. Accordingly, the City finds that the project’s potential impacts relating to GHG emissions remain significant and unavoidable.
545 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
12 Project Design Features:

The Specific Plan incorporates the following design features for promoting energy efficiency and sustainability, which shall be enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement and Specific Plan:

• Pedestrian connections shall be provided to surrounding areas consistent with the City’s General Plan. Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. The project would provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project would minimize barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity.
• Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transport. For example, when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs. A description of diverse uses for urban and suburban areas is provided below
• The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood include street accessibility, usually measured in terms of average block size, proportion of four- way intersections, or number of intersections per square mile.

Design is also measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian-oriented environments from auto-oriented environments.
• Voluntary Commute Trip Reduction Program – A multi-strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures. It is presented as a means of preventing double-counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reductions that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a voluntary program. • Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules reduces the number of commute trips and therefore VMT traveled by employees. Alternative work schedules could take the form of staggered starting times, flexible schedules, or compressed work weeks.
• This project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle. A vanpool will usually service employees’ commute to work while a shuttle will service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more.

The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee.

Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost.
• The project will design building shells and building components, such as windows; roof systems: electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, 546 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
13 and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards which are expected to result in 30% less energy use for non-residential buildings and 53% less energy use for residential use due to lighting upgrades.
• The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development. • Using electricity generated from photovoltaic (PV) systems displaces electricity demand which would ordinarily be supplied by the local utility. Since zero GHG emissions are associated with electricity generation from PV systems, the GHG emissions reductions from this PDF are equivalent to the emissions that would have been produced had electricity been supplied by the local utility. A minimum of 15% of the project’s electricity demand will be generated on-site. • In order to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills, the project would be required to implement a 65% waste diversion as required by AB 939. • Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project will include a ride-sharing program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. The project will promote ride-sharing programs through a multi-faceted approach such as:
 Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles
 Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles
 Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides • The project will implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips.

Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies without a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include:
 New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options  Event promotions
 Publications
• Specified use of Energy Star appliances.
• Installation of water-efficient plumbing fixtures.
• Installation of tankless water heater systems.
• Installation of light-emitting diode (LED) technology within homes. • Use of recycled water for common area landscape irrigation. • Use of drought-tolerant plants in landscape design.
• Installation of water-efficient irrigation systems with smart sensor controls. • Lighting sources contribute to GHG emissions indirectly, via the production of the electricity that powers these lights. Public street and area lighting includes:
streetlights, pedestrian pathway lights, area lighting for parks and parking lots, and outdoor lighting around public buildings.
• Lighting design should consider the amount of light required for the area intended to be lit. Lumens are the measure of the amount of light perceived by the human eye. Different light fixtures have different efficacies or the amount of lumens produced per watt of power supplied. This is different than efficiency, and it is 547 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
14 important that lighting improvements are based on maintaining the appropriate lumens per area when applying this measure. Installing more efficacious lamps will use less electricity while producing the same amount of light, and therefore reduces the associated indirect GHG emissions.

Mitigation Measures:

To mitigate potential impacts concerning GHG emissions, the following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall purchase a minimum of 72,000 MTCO2e credits (2,400 MTCO2e per year for 30 years). The purchase of carbon credits must be made from a CARBapproved carbon registry with independent third-party verification.

Examples of approved registries include the American Carbon Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Verra. The applicant shall submit documentation of the offset purchase to the City demonstrating that it mitigates a minimum of 2,400 MTCO2e per year (72,000 MTCO2e over a 30-year period), prior to any occupancy of the site. Alternatively, the Project Applicant may submit a GHG reduction plan to the City for approval that achieves an equal level of GHG reduction outlined herein. The GHG plan must include enforceable actions that reduce GHG emissions to at or below the total mitigated values presented herein.

Finding:

The City Council of the City of La Quinta finds that impacts associated with GHG emissions generated by the proposed project are considered significant. Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid these significant effects on the environment to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, the project design features listed above, including the project’s mix of complimentary uses and enhanced connectivity that reduce vehicle miles traveled, and the increased energy and water efficiency measures, substantially reduce the project’s GHG emissions.

In addition, mitigation measure GHG-1 requires the purchase of carbon credits to partially offset the GHG emissions that will be generated by the project. Nevertheless, the City of La Quinta further finds that while implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would offset the GHG emissions generated by the project that are in excess of the applicable threshold, by reducing GHG emissions elsewhere through the purchase of carbon credits, it would not change the actual GHG emissions levels of the project itself. In addition, the purchase of carbon credits has not been widely used as mitigation for GHG emissions for residential and resort projects in the Coachella Valley, and therefore, the City finds that there is some uncertainty as to whether the purchase of carbon credits adequately and fully mitigates the project’s impacts relating to GHG emissions to a less than significant level. Accordingly, the City finds that these specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives, if any, identified 548 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
15 in the Final EIR. In fact, the EIR did not identify any mitigation measures that could feasibly reduce GHG emissions more effectively than the PDFs and Mitigation Measure GHG-1. Only the No Project and Reduced Density alternatives (Alternatives No. 1 and No. 3) would further reduce or avoid the project’s impact regarding GHG emissions, and the City finds that these alternatives are unacceptable because they will not generate sufficient transient occupancy and sales tax revenue to enhance the City’s economic base and ensure its long-term financial stability, and because these alternatives would require reducing the number of residential homes, both of which the City Council finds unacceptable, as described in more detail in Section VI below. Furthermore, the City finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project, including but not limited to generating transient occupancy and sales tax revenues to enhance the City’s economic base to ensure its long-term financial stability, outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section VII below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These findings are further explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The City of La Quinta relied on the SCAQMD’s project level efficiency threshold methodology for determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions. Specifically, the City evaluated SCAQMD’s project level 2020 target of no more than 4.8 metric tons of CO2 emissions (MTCO2e) per service population (SP) per year and its 2030 target of no more than 2.88 MTCO2e/SP per year, and determined that for the project’s proposed 2026 buildout year, the appropriate threshold of significance was interpolated at 3.65 MTCO2e/SP per year (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.7-9 through 4.7-10). The project emissions were calculated for all sources of emissions, including construction emissions, operational emissions, and the maximum number of special events allowed per year, and as shown in Table 4.7-7 of the Draft EIR, the project was projected to generate a total of 17,270.47 MTCO2e per year, or 6.46 MTCO2e/SP per year. With implementation of the PDFs set forth above, the project’s total GHG emissions are substantially reduced to 12,078.31 MTCO2e per year, which divided by the service population of 2,672 equals

4.52 MTCO2e/SP per year.

As this still exceeds the City’s threshold of significance of 3.65 MTCO2e/SP per year, the Draft EIR identified Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requiring the purchase of sufficient carbon credits to reduce the project’s total GHG emissions by an additional 2,400 MTCO2e per year, which reduces the emissions per SP to 3.62 MTCO2e/year. This is below the threshold of significance of 3.65 MTCO2e/SP per year, and therefore, this mitigation would reduce the project’s GHG emissions to a level of less-than-significant (see Draft EIR at pp. 4.7-13 through 4.7-20). However, as stated above, the purchase of carbon credits offsets the project’s GHG emissions but does not eliminate the actual GHG emissions that will be generated by the project. In addition, the purchase of carbon credits has not been widely used as mitigation for GHG emissions for residential and resort projects in the Coachella Valley, and therefore, to ensure the maximum disclosure of this impact, the City finds that there is uncertainty as to whether the purchase of carbon credits adequately, feasibly, and fully mitigates the project’s impacts relating to GHG emissions to a less than significant level.

As a result, the City considers the project’s GHG emissions to be significant and unavoidable, and the City is adopting a statement of overriding considerations as described above and in in Section VII below.
549 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
16 The City Council reviewed and considered the Draft EIR comments relating to GHG emissions, including Comments 52-k, 79-h, 79-i and 79-q (which is a letter from SWAPE attached as Exhibit A to Comment letter 79). The City Council finds that these comments lack merit and fail to provide any substantial evidence of any new or more severe significant adverse effects relating to GHG emissions, beyond what is described above and in the Draft EIR, or of any inaccuracies in the Draft EIR or technical studies. Rather, the City Council finds Final EIR Responses 52-k, 79-h, 79-I and 79-q persuasive, and hereby adopts those responses and incorporates them into the City Council’s findings, analysis and conclusions regarding GHG emissions.

The City Council also reviewed and considered all subsequent correspondence and comments received after release of the Final EIR, including the letters submitted by Mitchell Tsai, SWAPE, and Bruce Bauer. The City Council finds that these comments lack merit and fail to provide any substantial evidence of any new or more severe significant adverse effects relating to GHG emissions, beyond what is described above and in the Draft EIR, or of any inaccuracies in the Draft EIR or technical studies. In particular, the City Council rejects the assertion in the April 12, 2022 letter from Mitchell Tsai and April 6, 2022 letter from SWAPE that the City has failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures prior to making the findings set forth above regarding GHG emissions. Rather, the City Council accepts as accurate and persuasive the supplemental expert letter from Haseeb Qureshi at Urban Crossroads, dated May 25, 2022, which explains that all feasible GHG mitigation set forth in the comment letters referenced above, or their equivalent, have been adopted and imposed on the project, either as mitigation measures or enforceable project design features. The City Council finds that all other GHG mitigation measures identified in these comment letters, including the measures set forth in the April 6, 2022 letter from SWAPE, will not substantially reduce the project’s remaining GHG emissions because all applicable and feasible measures from this list have been incorporated into the project. This conclusion is based on the supplemental expert letter from Mr. Qureshi, which is hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference.

III. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WHICH ARE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that, for each of the following significant effects identified in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects on the environment, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels. The significant effects and mitigation measures are stated fully in the Final EIR and each of the mitigation measures have been imposed on the Project and are enforceable pursuant to the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions. These findings are explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.

550 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
17 AESTHETICS
Impact a Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway Corridor.

There are no State or locally designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project.

However, the City General Plan identifies views of the Santa Rosa Mountains from certain arterial roadways as “Image Corridors,” which include the segment of Madison Street that lies east of the project site, as well as Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. In addition, a partially collapsed adobe house located near the center of the project area, along with concrete pads and footings associated with the residential and agricultural buildings of the ranch on the project site, may be the remains of structures dating from the 1920s or before. The site may also include the original trash pits or privies which, if located, could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. Per the findings of the Cultural Report, the site meets the definition of a historical resource and impacts to it would be significant.

Mitigation Measures:

To mitigate potential impacts concerning impacts to scenic resources, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

AES-1 The perimeter walls around the low density residential planning areas shall be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City’s review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains.

AES-2 All residential structures shall be setback by a minimum of 75 feet from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains.

CUL-1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project’s Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The 551 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
18 footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre-1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun-colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al. 1998:54).

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the potentially significant effect on scenic resources described above, and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR, and the City Council further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures AES-1, AES-2, and CUL-1, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

As stated above, there are no State or locally designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (Draft EIR at p. 4.1-45). The City General Plan identifies views of the Santa Rosa Mountains from certain arterial roadways as “Image Corridors,” which include the segment of Madison Street that lies east of the project site, as well as Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. The Specific Plan includes a 22-foot maximum height on residential structures within a 150-foot setback distance from these perimeter roadways in compliance with LQMC § 9.50.020. In addition, mitigation measures AES-1 and AES-2 identified above will be implemented and will further reduce potential impacts to these Image Corridors, which avoid any significant effects on the City’s Image Corridors (Draft EIR at p. 4.1-45).

While the project site contains partially collapsed remains of an adobe structure that qualifies as a significant historic resource, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will assure that this significant historic resource is protected, and as a result, there will be no impact relating to damage of a historic scenic resource (Draft EIR at p. 4.1-46 and Appendix E). In addition, due to the vandalized and deteriorated condition of the structure, and the fact that it is not readily visible to drivers and pedestrians on the perimeter roadways, this structure is not considered a significant scenic resource, even though it has historical significance. Based on the foregoing, with the implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1, the Project will not have a significant effect on scenic resources within a state scenic highway corridor. 552 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
19 Light and Glare.

The development site for the proposed project occurs on approximately 386 acres of vacant land with scattered vegetation throughout. The project site does not currently have existing sources of lighting. Presently, existing sources of fixed nighttime lighting in the project vicinity can be attributed to the existing residential areas located north, east and south of the site, which include landscape lighting along Madison Street, Avenue 58, and Avenue 60 east of Madison Street. The proposed project will result in potentially significant direct and cumulative impacts by creating a new source of light or glare which could adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Mitigation Measures:

To mitigate potential impacts concerning light and glare, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

AES-3 The operation of the Wave Basin will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the lighting will only be permitted between dusk and 10:00 p.m. to ensure compliance with the City’s outdoor lighting requirements (LQMC 9.100.150)
Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the potentially significant effects related to light and glare described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measure AES-3, which has been adopted by the City and is enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The Project will comply with the City’s outdoor lighting requirements (LQMC 9.100.150), including the permitted hours of lighting, as well as the required shielding to prevent light and glare spillage outside of the Project site (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-60 – 4.1-61). In addition, the majority of project lighting will consist of lighting typical of residential and commercial development and will fully comply with the City’s Municipal Code requirements.

With respect to the Wave Basin lighting system, the lighting analysis performed for the Project and included in the Draft EIR confirms that the Wave Basin lighting will not emit light outside of the immediate area of the Wave Basin itself, and minimal to no glare will be perceived outside the Wave Basin planning area (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-61 – 4.1-64 and Exhibits 4.1-14 – 4.1-19). As further explained in the Final EIR at pp. 2-5 – 2-11, the 80-foot LED light fixtures proposed around the Wave Basin will be Musco Total Lighting Control (TLC) for LED technology fixtures, are the 553 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
20 optimal height to allow for adequate lighting of the Wave Basin while maximizing the cut off angle to minimize the visibility of direct light and avoid up-lighting and light spill to adjacent areas. As shown on page 2-10 of the Final EIR, the Wave Basin lighting will drop to 0.01 foot candles (FC) within or immediately adjacent to the Wave Basin planning area boundary, which is an imperceptible light level (also see Final EIR Appendices B.1 and B.2). The Wave Basin lighting system fully complies with the City’s “dark skies” lighting requirements set forth in Section

9.100.150 of the Municipal Code (Draft EIR at p. 4.1-62). Finally, mitigation measure AES-3 limits the Wave Basin lighting to the hours of dusk to 10:00 p.m., in compliance with the City’s outdoor recreational lighting limitations (LQMC § 9.100.150).

In response to requests made by City officials, an actual demonstration of the Musco TLC for LED lights proposed to be used for the Wave Basin was performed on November 17, 2021, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Two poles and lighting fixtures were staged on-site, one at the exact height and location of proposed pole 8, which is the pole closest to Coral Mountain. The other was staged at the exact height of proposed pole 16 (the pole nearest adjacent residences) but was staged approximately 135’ south of the proposed location (closer to the adjacent residences) due to physical access constraints. Although only two 600-Watt lighting fixtures are proposed for poles 8 and 16, to be conservative in disclosing impacts, four 1200-Watt fixtures were used for both poles to provide a demonstration of the proposed lighting system that exceeds the amount of lighting proposed in these two, most-sensitive locations. Light readings were taken before and after the light fixtures were turned on and these readings validated and confirmed the computer modeling described in the Draft EIR and above. At 120-feet behind and to the side of each pole, the light readings were consistently at 0.01 FC, an imperceptible level that matched background light levels, indicating that these locations were receiving no light from the test fixtures. These test results are included and described in Final EIR Appendix B.2, which is incorporated herein by this reference.

The City Council reviewed the Draft EIR comments regarding concerns raised by the public over the Wave Basin lighting system and its potential impacts, including Comments 52-i, 83-z, 83-aa, 83-bb, 83-cc, 83-dd, and the two-page letter from Minegar & Associates, dated August 2, 2021, attached to Comment letter 83, and considered the comments made during the public hearings.

Based on the information cited above in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and Appendices, and the additional evidence presented at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings, the City Council finds that these comments, including the Minegar & Associates letter, do not accurately describe the proposed Wave Basin lighting or its effects on the surrounding communities, nor do they contain substantial evidence that the project will have any significant impacts regarding light and glare, or other aesthetic impacts, beyond what is disclosed in the Final EIR and set forth in these Findings. Instead, the City Council finds persuasive and adopts the substantial evidence, analysis, and conclusions set forth in Final EIR Responses 52-I, 83-z, 83-aa, 83-bb, 83-cc, and 83- dd, and hereby incorporates those Responses into these Findings. With respect to the “cones of light” described during the public hearings that may be visible from outside the project boundaries, the City Council finds, based on the additional line-of-sight exhibits and other substantial evidence presented during the public hearings, that while some portion of the Wave Basin lighting may be visible from outside the project boundaries, such limited views of the lighting will be consistent with the other sources of light and glare in the area and will not have any significant adverse effects.
554 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
21 Conclusion
Through compliance with the proposed Specific Plan design guidelines, lighting system design, and existing City of La Quinta ordinances and requirements, as well as the implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-1, AES-2, and AES-3, development of the project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetic resources, with the exception of impacts to scenic vistas of the Santa Rosa Mountains and Coral Mountain as described in Section III of these Findings.

AIR QUALITY
Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant The project’s construction emissions (without mitigation) are shown in Table 4.2-5 of the Draft EIR and would exceed SCAQMD’s regional threshold for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during Phase 1 construction activities. Construction phases involving paving and architectural coating are sources of VOC and NOX emissions. The exceedance is caused by the overlapping of paving and architectural coating assumed in the analysis. The VOC emissions generated would therefore exceed SCAQMD thresholds for cumulatively considerable net increases in criteria pollutants, and thus result in significant impacts requiring mitigation.

Project operational-source emissions (without mitigation) are shown in Table 4.2-7 of the Draft EIR and would exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for emissions of VOCs during Phase 3 activities. In addition, the proposed special events could cause cumulatively considerable net increases in VOC and nitrous oxide (NOx) that exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance without mitigation, as shown in Table 4.2-9 of the Draft EIR, which would also constitute a significant adverse effect.

Project Design Features.

The PDFs are site design elements and operations recognized by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) for providing project-level emissions reductions through a reduced automobile use (reduced vehicle miles traveled), energy efficiency, and other area source reductions, which will be enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement.

The following PDFs apply: pedestrian connections, mixture of land uses, walkability and connectivity design elements, commute trip reduction program, telecommuting and alternative work schedules, employer-sponsored shuttles, compliance with 2019 Title 24 standards, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445, on-site photovoltaic electricity supply (15%), and waste diversion per AB 939.

Mitigation Measures:
555 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
22 To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative air quality impacts regarding criteria pollutants, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

AQ‐1: During Phase 1 of construction, the paving installation activity shall not overlap with the architectural coating (building painting) activity. That prohibition shall be included on all building plans.

AQ‐2: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), the Construction Contractor shall ensure that off‐road diesel construction equipment that complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

AQ‐3: The project will require the use of low VOC paints for re‐painting and maintenance of exterior structures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 (not to exceed 50 grams per liter VOCs for interior and exterior building envelope re‐painting). Under federal and state law, SCAQMD is under a legal obligation to enforce air pollution regulations. These regulations are primarily meant to ensure that the surrounding (or ambient) air meets federal and state air quality standards. The South Coast AQMD also has broad authority to regulate toxic and hazardous air emissions, and these regulations are enforced in the same manner as those which pertain to the ambient air quality standards.

The following standard regulatory requirements and best available control measures shall appear on all project grading plans, construction specifications and bid documents, and the City shall ensure that such language is incorporated prior to issuance of any development permits:

BACM AQ‐1: The contractor shall adhere to applicable measures contained in Table 1 of Rule 403 including, but not limited to:
• All clearing, grading, earth‐moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid‐morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are limited to 15 miles per hour or less. 556 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
23 BACM AQ‐2: The following measures shall be incorporated into project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 (3):
• Only “Low‐Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter (g/L) of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used.

BACM AQ‐3: The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development.

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the significant air quality effects related to criteria pollutants described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of the PDFs, mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, and BACM AQ-1 through BACM AQ-3, as described and recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction phases involving paving and architectural coating are sources of VOC and NOX emissions, and as stated above, would exceed SCAQMD’s regional threshold of significance during Phase 1 construction activities without mitigation. However, through the implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1, the overlap of these activities will be prevented, such that it will avoid simultaneous emissions of these pollutants and, therefore, peak emissions will remain below the established thresholds and the associated impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels (Draft EIR Table 4.2-6). Additionally, MM AQ-2 would decrease localized emissions and further reduce construction impacts in compliance with the EPA and CARB Tier 3 emissions standards, which are aimed at reducing motor vehicle emissions, including nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure that project construction emissions are below applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds, and thus do not constitute a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant.

Project operational‐source emissions will be reduced to less than significant levels after implementation of PDFs and MM-AQ-3. The following PDFs apply: pedestrian connections, mixture of residential and commercial land uses, walkability and connectivity design elements, a commute trip reduction program, telecommuting and alternative work schedules, employer‐ sponsored shuttles, compliance with 2019 Title 24 standards, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445, on‐site photovoltaic electricity supply (15%), and waste diversion per AB 939. In addition, MM AQ‐3 establishes a paint VOC content limit of 50 grams per liter to perform interior and exterior re‐painting during the life of the project. After implementation of PDFs and MM AQ‐3, special event operational‐source emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for emissions of any criteria pollutant. The PDFs are site design elements and 557 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
24 operations and will be enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. As shown in Tables 4.2-8 and 4.2-10, with implementation of the PDFs and mitigation measures, the project operations, including during special events, will not generate cumulatively considerable increases in any criteria pollutants, thus reducing the project’s impacts to a less than significant level.

The City Council also reviewed and considered all correspondence and comments concerning potential air quality impacts, including the letters submitted by Mitchell Tsai, SWAPE, and Bruce Bauer. The City Council finds that these comments lack merit and fail to provide any substantial evidence of any new or more severe significant adverse air quality effects, beyond what is described above and in the Draft EIR, or of any inaccuracies in the Draft EIR or technical studies.

In particular, the City Council rejects the assertion that it has failed to properly evaluate air quality effects and/or adopt all feasible mitigation measures prior to making the findings set forth above.

The City Council finds that all potential air quality effects of the project have been properly evaluated in the Final EIR and technical appendices, and that the project design features evaluated in that analysis have properly been made enforceable by the City through the project Development Agreement and conditions of approval.

Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Localized air quality impacts were evaluated at sensitive receptor land uses nearest the project site.

Due to the phased nature of the project development, future phases have the potential to generate construction impacts to the residents of previous phases of development. Phase 2 building construction activities will impact on-site sensitive receptors in Phase 1. Similarly, Phase 3 building construction activities will impact on-site sensitive receptors in Phases 1 and 2.

Construction Emissions: Without mitigation, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions for NOX, CO or PM2.5, but would exceed PM10 emissions by 0.28 pounds per day during Phase 1 of construction. Phase 2 and Phase 3 construction would involve relatively smaller disturbance areas not resulting in exceedances for this criteria pollutant. The PM10 exceedance during Phase 1 represents a potentially significant impact that requires mitigation.

To evaluate the potential impacts of Phase 2 and Phase 3 grading on on-site sensitive receptors, such as Phase 1 and Phase 2 dwelling units that become occupied, the mitigated emissions from those construction activities were compared against the lowest localized emission thresholds for the closest distance interval available in the SCAQMD Look-Up Tables for the Coachella Valley.

The applicable construction-source mitigation measures are Mitigation Measure AQ-1 aimed at preventing paving activity from overlapping with architectural coating activities and Mitigation Measure AQ-2 aimed at ensuring that equipment greater than 150 horsepower complies with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards and to ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

Operational Emissions: The project is proposed to consist of a wave pool, a 150-key hotel, 104 attached resort residential DUs, associated resort commercial development, 496 detached DUs, and 60,000 sf of retail. According to SCAQMD’s LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the 558 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
25 operational phase of a proposed project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). The proposed project does not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Mitigation Measures:

To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative air quality impacts relating to exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

AQ‐1: During Phase 1 of construction, the paving installation activity shall not overlap with the architectural coating (building painting) activity. That prohibition shall be included on all building plans.

AQ‐2: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), the Construction Contractor shall ensure that off‐road diesel construction equipment that complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment shall be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

The following standard regulatory requirements and best available control measures shall appear on all project grading plans, construction specifications and bid documents, and the City shall ensure that such language is incorporated prior to issuance of any development permits:

BACM AQ‐1: The contractor shall adhere to applicable measures contained in Table 1 of Rule 403 including, but not limited to:
• All clearing, grading, earth‐moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.
• The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid‐morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. • The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are limited to 15 miles per hour or less. 559 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
26 Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the significant air quality effects related to exposure to substantial concentrations of pollutants described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 and BACM AQ-1, as described and recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

As described above, without mitigation, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions for NOX, CO or PM2.5, but would exceed PM10 emissions by 0.28 pounds per day during Phase 1 of construction. As shown in Table 4.2-12 and discussed on pages 4.2-36 – 4.2-40, the PM10 emissions during Phase 1 of construction would exceed the SCAQMD localized threshold at the nearest off-site sensitive receptor location, identified as R7 (the nearest exiting residence located north of Avenue 60, approximately 37 feet from the project boundary, as shown in Exhibit 4.2-1). However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, all criteria pollutant emissions, including PM10, will be below SCAQMD’s localized significance threshold (see Table 4.2-13). Phase 2 and Phase 3 construction would involve relatively smaller disturbance areas not resulting in exceedances for any criteria pollutant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 (Draft EIR, at p. 4.2-40 and Table 4.2-14). Accordingly, the project will not cause any significant effects, including adverse health effects, as a result of construction related air emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Please also see Final EIR, Response to Comment 42-f, which is hereby incorporated by this reference.

As described above and analyzed in further detail in the Draft EIR at p. 4.2-40, the proposed project does not include stationary emissions sources (e.g., factories) or uses that require lengthy idling of vehicles (e.g., transfer stations or warehouses), and therefore, the project will not cause long-term operational emissions that could exceed SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds or cause any significant health or other impacts on sensitive receptors in the area.

The City Council also considered the supplemental letters from Mitchell Tsai, dated April 12, 2022, and SWAPE, dated April 6, 2022, and finds that those letters fail to provide evidence of any new or substantially more severe effects than previously disclosed and analyzed in the EIR. The City Council specifically rejects the assertion in those letters that the air quality analysis in the EIR understates operational emissions, and the City Council bases this conclusion on the supplemental expert letter from Haseeb Qureshi at Urban Crossroads, dated May 25, 2022, which confirms that the operational emissions were calculated properly. Based on Mr. Qureshi’s expert letter, which is hereby incorporated into these findings, the City Council also rejects the assertion that a separate health risk assessment for diesel particulate matter is required or appropriate for the project because the project will not generate sufficient diesel particulate matter to cause any potential adverse 560 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
27 effects. The City Council further finds that the Air Quality analysis properly disclosed and analyzed the potential health risks associated with the project’s construction and operational toxic air contaminant emissions, based on the expert evidence and explanation in Mr. Qureshi’s supplemental letter.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Candidate, sensitive or special status species and Riparian habitat.

The proposed project site will result in potentially significant impacts related to species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species and sensitive natural communities. These species are identified on pages 4.3-11 – 4.3-15 of the Draft EIR, and include the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (PBS), a federally endangered species and State endangered and California Fully Protected species, the Burrowing owl, and numerous species of bats. In addition, the project site has the vegetation to potentially support nesting birds which are protected by California Fish and Game Code and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which are addressed in the “movement of wildlife” section below.

Mitigation Measures:

To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special status species, the following mitigation measure are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

BIO-1: Burrowing owl surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist, approved by the City prior to any site disturbance activities. A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted following accepted protocol and the requirements specified in the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4-168 & 4-169). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to 500 feet outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160-foot diameter buffer will be established during non-breeding season or a 250-foot diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow.

If the burrow is found to be unoccupied, the burrow will be made inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied, owls shall be relocated pursuant to accepted 561 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
28 Wildlife Agency protocols. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP.

BIO-7: To ensure that the Project will avoid any significant construction or operational noise impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain, noise monitoring will occur for (1) all construction activities within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain, and (2) operational noise levels during any special events and at least once annually during regular Wave Basin operations, or as determined appropriate by the City Manager or his/her designee. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction and/or operational changes shall be made, as applicable, to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA.

BIO-8: Existing native vegetation, particularly palo verde trees, will be retained where feasible. Landscaping shall include native desert species.

BIO-9: Onsite lakes will be designed and constructed by industry professionals and will incorporate proper aeration, circulation and filtration to maintain a balanced lake ecosystem. Lakes will be stocked with beneficial fish and plant species. Limited chemical applications will be utilized as necessary.

Ongoing maintenance will ensure that onsite lakes function properly to control any invasive species or other nuisance conditions.

BIO-10: An education program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the resort, open space, and low-density community programs through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged.

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects on candidate, sensitive, or special status species described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes 562 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
29 or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-7 through BIO-10, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

Burrowing Owls: Mitigation measure BIO-1 conforms to the protocols and requirements of the CVMSHCP and will ensure that construction activities will not impact any burrowing owls or active nests. Although CDFW requested revisions to mitigation measure BIO-1 in its letter dated August 13, 2021 (Comment letter 13), these revisions exceed what is required under the CVMSHCP and the City finds that these further revisions are not required to fully mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owls. Also see Comment No. 13-o and the response thereto in the Final EIR, which is hereby incorporated by this reference.

Peninsular Bighorn Sheep: PBS in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountain ranges is a covered species under the CVMSHCP. PBS Habitat within these two mountain ranges are part of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, one of twenty-one Conservation Areas that comprise the Reserve System identified in the CVMSHCP. The project site itself does not contain suitable PBS habitat and is located approximately 0.62 acres to the east of the Conservation area (see ELMT Biological Assessment, Appendix D.5 of the Final EIR). Coral Mountain provides limited foraging habitat and limited escape cover for PBS, and the project has the potential to act as an attractant for food and water sources. The intervening area between Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains consisting of both hilly and flat terrain owned by the Bureau of Land Management, which provides some escape cover, but exposes PBS venturing out of the Santa Rosas to predation by coyotes and other large predators.

The Coral Mountain project site is not within or adjacent to the boundaries of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area and, therefore, but is subject to the CVMSHCP Conservation Measures. It is recognized that habitat modification from development can attract PBS and create threats to PBS in the form of collisions with vehicles, poisoning by toxic landscape plants, entanglement in wire fences, harassment by dogs, increased predation by native predators, coyote and mountain lion, and exposure to toxins such as herbicides and insecticides. In addition, Coral Mountain and the adjacent BLM open space were identified as “essential habitat” in the USFW 2000 PBS Recovery Plan.

Accordingly, to avoid any significant impacts to PBS and its essential habitat the project will comply with the Adjacency Guidelines in the CVMSHCP relating to PBS because the sheep are known to travel outside the designated Conservation Area for sources of forage and water. The project as proposed is consistent with these guidelines which address toxic and other hazardous plants, drainage, exposure to toxic chemicals and byproducts, lighting, noise, grading near conservation areas because the Specific Plan includes a Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan that defines a fencing plan for the project site. The barrier/fence along the western edge of the site would eliminate these potential threats to PBS from site development (See ELMT memo and Exhibit 2, 563 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
30 at Final EIR Appendix D.5). A barrier/fence would prevent PBS from exiting Coral Mountain onto the site, where there is no escape cover and where they would be vulnerable to predation and exposure to toxic plants, herbicides and insecticides. PBS would still be able to transverse the open space associated with the BLM lands between the Santa Rosas and Coral Mountain but will not be able to migrate off Coral Mountain onto the valley floor area of the project site. Also see Final EIR, pp. 2-11 – 2-16. The fence/wall design will be approved by the City of La Quinta in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). It will draw from the prototypical fencing types described in the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) “PBS Barrier Project” and will be consistent with the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

In addition, and consistent with the CVMSHCP adjacency guidelines, the Specific Plan plant palette has been modified to include approved specimens listed as “Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” and will avoid specimens listed as “Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants” on lands adjoining the sheep barrier. In addition, the approved project plant palette will be referenced in the Project CC&Rs and will be enforceable by the property owners’ association for the life of the project. Finally, mitigation measure BIO-8 has been added to retain native vegetation where feasible.

At the request of CDFW, two mitigation measures have been added to further minimize any potential to attract PBS to the project site or to impact PBS. Mitigation measure BIO-9 requires that all water features be designed and maintained to eliminate the potential for arboviral disease vectors (BIO-9). In addition, mitigation measure BIO-10 requires implementation of an educational program about PBS and its habitat that includes the preparation of informational materials for distribution to homeowners and hotel guests on the local environmental setting, including proper interactions with PBS. In addition, the project developer will collaborate with the Desert Recreation District (DRD) regarding the planned public trail connection through the property. The DRD master plan envisions interpretative materials on the trail and markers intended to educate and inform experiences regarding the local setting, including desert flora and fauna.

Please also see Response 13-m in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR, at pp. 2-86 – 2-88.

Finally, to ensure that the project will avoid any significant construction or operational noise impacts on PBS and other wildlife using Coral Mountain, Mitigation Measure BIO-7 requires noise monitoring for (1) all construction activities within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain, and (2) operational noise levels during any special events and at least once annually during regular Wave Basin operations, or as determined appropriate by the City Manager or his/her designee. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction and/or operational changes shall be made, as applicable, to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA. Also see Response 13-q at p. 2-93 of the Final EIR.

Based on these project features, and the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-7, BIO-8, BIO-9 and BIO-10, the project will be consistent with the CVMSHCP and will not result in significant direct or indirect impacts to PBS or involve the development of suitable habitat that could create an attractive nuisance for PBS.
564 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
31 Movement of wildlife.

There is no evidence of migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites on the project site or adjacent properties. Since the project property does not lie within a CVMSHCP-designated wildlife corridor and the project site is adjacent to development, the proposed project is not anticipated to have significant impacts related to habitat fragmentation and regional wildlife movement. However, the project site has the vegetation to potentially support nesting birds which are protected by California Fish and Game Code and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

MBTA makes it unlawful to “take” any migratory bird including their nests, eggs, or products.

Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and many others. Burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, black-tailed gnatcatcher, and Le Conte’s thrasher could occur on the site, and are covered by the MBTA. Therefore, potential impacts on nesting birds are considered a significant adverse effect, and mitigation is required to reduce the impact to nesting birds to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures:

To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to the movement of wildlife, including migratory birds and bats, the following mitigation measure are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

BIO-2: In June 2021, a qualified bat biologist will conduct a second round of focused nighttime surveys for roosting bats at locations where suitable roosting habitat is identified. The nighttime survey will include a combination of acoustic and exit count methods, and will take place during the bat maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley) to enable detection of maternity-roosting bats. If maternity roosts are identified within the project area, the biologist will coordinate with CDFW to implement avoidance measures during the bat maternity season in accordance with CDFW’s established standards. No construction activities will occur within a 300-foot buffer of maternity roost sites during the bat maternity season unless concurrence is received from CDFW to reduce that buffer distance based upon the bat species present and the activities occurring.

BIO-3: Removal of trees (including palm trees) shall occur outside the bat maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley), which coincides with the bird nesting season, to avoid the potential for “take” of flightless young. Trees and snags that have been identified as confirmed or potential roost sites require a two-step removal process and the involvement of a bat biologist to ensure that no roosting bats are killed during this activity.

Consistent with CDFW protocols this two-step removal shall occur over two consecutive days as follows: on Day 1, branches and limbs not containing cavities, as identified by a qualified bat biologist, will be removed. On Day 2, the remainder of the tree may be removed without 565 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
32 supervision by a bat biologist. The disturbance caused by limb removal, followed by an interval of one evening, will allow bats to safely abandon the roost.

BIO-4: To avoid impacts to roosting bats from the installation of new light fixtures associated with the proposed development, all lighting fixtures shall have light shields or similar devices (i.e., dark sky compliant lighting) installed to ensure that there is no light trespass on to Coral Mountain and surrounding open space. A supplemental light study will be performed to collect nighttime lighting measurements and confirm that no light trespass onto Coral Mountain is occurring; this will be submitted for City approval prior to issuance of any permit for occupancy or use of the Wave Basin.

BIO-5: A qualified bat biologist shall confirm the absence of roosting bats prior to any restoration work or other disturbance of the adobe site. If bats are found or if the absence of bats cannot be confirmed, the bat biologist will install or directly supervise installation of humane eviction devices and exclusionary material to prevent bats from roosting in the building.

Implementation of the humane eviction/exclusions is typically performed in the fall (September or October) preceding construction activity at each structure to avoid impacts to hibernating bats during the winter months or during the maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley), when nonvolant (flightless) young are present. Any humane eviction/exclusion devices must be installed at least 10 days prior to the demolition of a structure housing bats to allow sufficient time for the bats to vacate the roost(s).

BIO-6: To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities shall be conducted outside the general bird nesting season. Any vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and/or construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 1 – August 31) will require that all suitable habitats be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist approved by the City. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 days prior to grounddisturbing activities. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using his or her best professional judgment. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using his or her best professional judgment to avoid any take of nesting birds. 566 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
33 BIO-7: To ensure that the Project will avoid any significant construction or operational noise impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain, noise monitoring will occur for all construction activities using heavy equipment within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction or operational changes or other modifications shall be made, as directed by the project biologist to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA.

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects on the movement of wildlife, including migratory birds and bats, described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-7 through BIO-10, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

To ensure compliance with the California Fish & Game Code and the MBTA, mitigation measure BIO-6 requires completion of pre-construction nesting surveys by a qualified biologist prior to any ground-disturbing activities during the nesting season, and requires biological monitoring to continue as needed. No construction will occur within a 300-foot buffer of any nests (500 feet for raptors). Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-6 will avoid any take of nesting birds. Also see Comment 13-p and Response 13-p on pp. 2-91 and 2-92 of the Final EIR.

Bats: To avoid impacts to all potential bat species which may occur on the site, additional maternity-season surveys were performed in June 2021 to maximize the probability of detection of maternity roosts for all bat species (implementing proposed mitigation measure BIO-2.) The results of the maternity season surveys determined that large numbers of bats consistent with the presence of maternity roosting were observed emerging from the crevices and small caves along the rock outcrops in a portion of Coral Mountain (see Updated Focused Bat Surveys report, Appendix D.3 to the Final EIR, at p. 9). Although no construction will occur at these rock outcrops, roosting bats in this area could be adversely affected by increases in artificial lighting and noise. To reduce potential impacts to roosting bats to less than significant levels, mitigation measures BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-5 require all tree removals to comply with CDFW protocols, prohibit artificial lighting on any portion of Coral Mountain and confirmation of same through a further light study once the Wave Basin lighting system is installed, and an additional roosting bat survey by a qualified biologist prior to any restoration work or other disturbance of the adobe site.

In addition, to ensure that the project will avoid any significant construction or operational noise impacts on bats, Mitigation Measure BIO-7 requires noise monitoring for (1) all construction activities within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain, and (2) operational noise levels during any special events and at least once annually during regular Wave Basin operations, or as 567 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
34 determined appropriate by the City Manager or his/her designee. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction and/or operational changes shall be made, as applicable, to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA. Also see Response 13-q at p. 2-93 of the Final EIR.

Also see Responses 13-r at pp. 2-94 – 2-95 of the Final EIR.

Consistency with local policies or applicable habitat conservation plan.

The project lies within the boundary of the CVMSHCP which outlines policies for conservation habitats and natural communities and is implemented for this property by the City of La Quinta.

As the site lies outside the plan’s designated conservation areas, the CVMSHCP does not establish any policies applicable to the removal of the species of trees and other habitat on the project site, except that the project will be required to pay the CVMSHCP mitigation fee to mitigate the loss of habitat for covered species in the Coachella Valley. However, compliance with the CVMSHCP also requires compliance with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines specified in Section 4.5 of the plan and, to the extent applicable, the specific conservation measures identified for the covered species. Failure to comply with such guidelines is considered a potentially significant impact.

There are no other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans currently in place, other than the CVMSHCP, that are applicable to the proposed project.

The project’s consistency with the CVMSHCP is fully addressed under the discussion of protected and special status species above, which is hereby incorporated by this reference.

With payment of the required CVMSHCP fee and implementation of the required sheep barrier and mitigation measures BIO-7 through BIO-10, the project is fully consistent with the CVMSHCP, including all applicable species conservation measures and adjacency guidelines.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts to Historical Resources.

Implementation of the proposed project will result in potentially significant impacts to historical resources, including California Historical Resources Inventory Site 33-038838, which is the remains of a partially collapsed adobe house and other features of the former Coral Reef Ranch located on the project site. Historical research suggests that the adobe house was likely constructed in the 1920s or 1930s, and may be one of the earliest settlements and agricultural enterprises to be established in the present day boundary of the City. Although the adobe building has been badly damaged and vandalized, further damage to this known historic resource from project construction would be considered a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to historic resources, the following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
568 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
35 CUL-1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project’s Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre-1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun-colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al. 1998:54).

Finding
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the significant effects on historic resources described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

While implementation of the proposed project has the potential to impact the identified historical resources described above and in the Draft EIR (see pp. 4.4-12 – 4.4-15), these potentially significant impacts to historical resources will be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, which requires a comprehensive recordation program for the remains of the adobe structure (Site 33-008388) to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. To avoid impacts to this site, no earth moving activities shall occur until the site 569 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
36 is fenced and flagged; a comprehensive recordation project of the site has been completed; and preservation and stabilization of the remains in place as a community feature with an informational plaque has been completed, as described in mitigation measure CUL-1. The measure also requires the preservation of the site in perpetuity by the Homeowners’ Association for the project. The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce impacts to less than significant levels (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.4-12 – 4.4-13).

Impacts to Archaeological Resources.

Implementation of the proposed project will result in potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources, including Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, termed the “Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex.” Construction of the project will involve ground-disturbing activities with the potential to unearth unknown buried resources or adversely impact these known resources as well as previously unidentified archaeological historical resources.

Mitigation Measures:

To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

CUL-2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

CUL-3: An approved Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Native American Cultural Resource Monitor shall be present during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys) for the project. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the Tribal monitor can assess the significance of the find.

CUL-4: Prior to ground disturbance during any phase of the project, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all workers, conducted by the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO).

CUL-5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contains the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Deed restrictions shall be recorded for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance of 570 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
37 any portion of Planning Area III. For the balance of Site 33-001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to ground disturbance to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance.

The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI and their approval provided to the City in writing prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site.

Finding
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects on archaeological resources described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures CUL-2 through CUL-5, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

A total of eight sites and seven isolates are known to be present within or partially within the project boundary today. Only three sites constitute an archaeological and historical resource, which contain panels of rock art as well as milling features and ceramics contributory to the rock art panel areas (33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545). These sites are situated in proximity to one another along the eastern base of Coral Mountain and have been termed the “Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex”. The Final EIR technical analysis determined that the sites are eligible for listing in the California Register. As a result, impacts to these sites resulting from development of the project would be considered significant and must be mitigated. To that end, mitigation measure CUL-5 assures fencing and delineation of the area prior to any development activity; the long-term protection of these sites, through prohibition of development, and the recordation of protective easements, as well as a program of research and documentation of the sites. For the balance of Site 33-001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation is required in mitigation measure CUL-5 to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project.

In addition, mitigation measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 require monitoring on the site for all earth moving activities (including vegetation removal, grubbing, grading and excavation) by both an archaeological and Tribal monitor. These monitoring activities will provide further protection of 571 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
38 these resources and ensure that any previously undiscovered human remains or other historical or archaeological resources will be properly handled to avoid any significant effects.

In addition, during Tribal consultation, the ACBCI requested further mitigation, which is provided in Section 4.13, Tribal Cultural Resources. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to significant cultural resources, including sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, will be reduced to less than significant levels (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.4-14 – 4.4-15).

Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5, and the Mitigation Measures listed in Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources, projectspecific and cumulative effects on cultural resources will be less than significant (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.4-16 – 4.4-18).

Impacts to human remains.

The project occurs in a highly sensitive area, and ground disturbing activities could result in the identification of additional resources, including previously unidentified cremations and human remains, and this is considered a potentially significant adverse effect.

Mitigation Measures:

To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts concerning the discovery of human remains, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

CUL-2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

CUL-3: An approved Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Native American Cultural Resource Monitor shall be present during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys) for the project. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the Tribal monitor can assess the significance of the find.

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects concerning human 572 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
39 remains described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures CUL-2 and CUL-5, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines 15064.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains. Compliance with these legal requirements, along with implementation of mitigation measures CUL-2 and CUL-3, which require the presence of a qualified archaeologist and Native American resource monitors during all ground disturbing activities, will ensure that potential impacts relating to human remains will be less than significant.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Expose People or Structures to Effects Involving:

Seismic-Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction: Implementation of the proposed project has the potential for significant adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, due to the active faults in the project vicinity and the fact that the southeastern portions of the City of La Quinta are considered highly and moderately susceptible to liquefaction.

Mitigation Measures:

To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

GEO-1 All designs for any water body on the site shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and comply with all seismic codes in effect at the time they are constructed. All designs shall be based on and incorporate the recommendation of a qualified soils engineer in a site and water body specific report attached to the plans submitted to the City.

GEO-2 All earthwork including excavation, backfill and preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, presented below, and portions of the local regulatory requirements, as applicable. All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified soil engineer. The following 573 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
40 geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project are based on observations from the field investigation program, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analyses.
• Stripping: areas to be graded shall be cleared of the vegetation, associated root systems and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old fills and any irreducible matter. The stripping shall be removed off-sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas.

Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction shall be properly backfilled in accordance with the compaction recommendations of this report.
• Preparation of the Residential Building Areas: in order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, the primary foundation bearing soil shall be over-excavated and recompacted. Over-excavation shall extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet blow the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Once adequate removals have been verified, the exposed native soil shall be scarified, the moisture-conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
• Preparation of the Hotel Building: In order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, over-excavation and recompaction through the building and foundation area shall be required as recommended by the Project Soils engineer and as directed by the City. All artificial fill soil and low density near surface native soil shall be removed to a depth of at least 4 feet below existing grade or 4 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is greater. Remedial grading shall extend laterally, a minimum of five feet beyond the building perimeter. The exposed surface shall then be scarified, the moisture conditioned to within two percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. • Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain irreducible matter greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension.

All fill materials shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be of a non-expansive nature and shall meet the following criteria:

Plastic Index Less than 12
Liquid Limit Less than 35
Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% and 35%
Maximum Aggregate Size 3 Inches
The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the exposed subgrade shall be observed by a representative of 574 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
41 Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials.
• Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill shall be anticipated.

It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent.

Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained.

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The Wave Basin design will incorporate the necessary structural concrete design features to handle the pressure and drainage associated with the wave generation. This is identified as Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Through this design, water intrusion generated by seismic events will be properly mitigated and contained to prevent seismic-related ground failure. Since the project site is potentially susceptible to liquefaction, the project site will be required to comply with the site preparation and foundation recommendations listed in the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation in order to ensure project safety as set forth in Mitigation Measure GEO-2. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, and State building standards, impacts of seismic related ground failure at the project will be reduced to less than significant. Please also see Responses 22-h, 42-g, 86-a, and 86-b, which are hereby incorporated into the City Council’s findings, analysis and conclusions.

Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit or Expansive Soil
The native materials on the project site consist primarily of silty sand and sandy silt, with minor portions of clay. While the project geotechnical evaluation determined that the project soils have a very-low to medium potential for expansion, development of homes and other project components on the project site could potentially expose persons and property to substantial damage and harm, which is considered a potentially significant adverse effect. 575 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
42 Mitigation Measures:

To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects associated with development on an unstable geologic unit or expansive soil, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

GEO-1 All designs for any water body on the site shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and comply with all seismic codes in effect at the time they are constructed. All designs shall be based on and incorporate the recommendation of a qualified soils engineer in a site and water body specific report attached to the plans submitted to the City.

GEO-2 All earthwork including excavation, backfill and preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, presented below, and portions of the local regulatory requirements, as applicable. All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified soil engineer. The following geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project are based on observations from the field investigation program, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analyses.
• Stripping: areas to be graded shall be cleared of the vegetation, associated root systems and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old fills and any irreducible matter. The stripping shall be removed off-sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas.

Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction shall be properly backfilled in accordance with the compaction recommendations of this report.
• Preparation of the Residential Building Areas: in order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, the primary foundation bearing soil shall be over-excavated and recompacted. Over-excavation shall extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet blow the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Once adequate removals have been verified, the exposed native soil shall be scarified, the moisture-conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
• Preparation of the Hotel Building: In order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, over-excavation and recompaction through the building and foundation area shall be required as recommended by the Project Soils engineer and as directed by the City. All artificial fill soil and low density near surface native soil shall be removed to a depth of at least 4 feet below existing grade or 4 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is greater. Remedial grading shall extend laterally, a minimum of five feet beyond the building perimeter. The exposed surface shall then be scarified, the 576 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
43 moisture conditioned to within two percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. • Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain irreducible matter greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension.

All fill materials shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be of a non-expansive nature and shall meet the following criteria:

Plastic Index Less than 12
Liquid Limit Less than 35
Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% and 35%
Maximum Aggregate Size 3 Inches
The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the exposed subgrade shall be observed by a representative of Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials.
• Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill shall be anticipated.

It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent.

Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained.

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to development on an unstable geologic unit or expansive soil described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval. 577 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
44 Facts in Support of Finding:

Since the project site is being developed on a site with potentially unstable or expansive soils. The project site will be required to comply with the current California Building Code (CBC) standards, City requirements, and the site preparation and foundation recommendations listed in the projectspecific Geotechnical Investigation in order to ensure the proper removal and recompaction of undocumented fill and unstable or expansive soils, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-2.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, and compliance with State building standards, impacts from potentially unstable or expansive soils at the project will be reduced to less than significant. Please also see Responses 22-h, 42-g, 86-a, and 86-b, which are hereby incorporated into the City Council’s findings, analysis and conclusions.

Impacts to a Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or Unique Geologic Feature The project specific paleontological report included both a records search and field surveys, and while no significant resources were found, the report concluded that significant fossil vertebrate remains could be encountered during deeper excavations into subsurface lakebed sediments from Holocene Lake Cahuilla, which are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity. This is considered a potentially significant adverse effect.

Mitigation Measures:

To avoid or substantially reduce potential adverse effects on a unique paleontological resource, site or geologic feature, the following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

GEO-3 All earth-moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become necessary if undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered. The monitor shall be empowered to stop earth moving activities if fossils are identified. The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. A monitoring plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any earth moving permit, or the disturbance of any soils on the site, which will include:
• Samples of sediments shall be collected and processed to recover small fossil remains.
• Recovered specimens shall be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future.
• A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance when appropriate, shall 578 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
45 be prepared upon completion of the research procedures outlined above.

The report shall be provided to the City within 30 days of the conclusion of monitoring activities.

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for the significant effects relating to paleontological resources described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measure GEO-3, as recommended in the Final EIR, which has been adopted by the City and is enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

In order to reduce impacts to paleontological resources encountered at depth on the project site, Mitigation Measure GEO-3 requires all earthmoving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet to be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become necessary if undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered.

With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts associated with fossils on the project site will be less than significant.

Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that all potentially significant project-specific and cumulative impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3.

NOISE
Consistency with Established Noise Standards/Increases in Ambient Noise Levels.

As analyzed in the Final EIR, the project will generate short-term construction noise and longterm increases in traffic noise and operational noise, including from the proposed Wave Basin.

These increases in noise would be considered a significant adverse effect if they exceed the City’s established noise standards. The City’s Municipal Code establishes a daytime exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL near sensitive receptors, including residential communities. The City also considers increases in existing ambient noise levels to be significant if they exceed 1.5 dBA where ambient noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, exceed 3 dBA where ambient noise levels are between 60 dBA and 65 dBA, or exceed 5 dBA where existing noise levels are less than 60 dBA.

For construction noise, the City has established a significance threshold of 85 dBA, consistent with the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (See Draft EIR at pp. 4.11-18 – 4.11-21). 579 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
46 Construction of the proposed project would generate short-term increases in noise, which would be considered a significant impact if these noise increases exceed the City’s significance threshold.

While the noise study determined that construction noise levels would not exceed the 85 dBA threshold at any nearby receptors, including future project residents (see Draft EIR Tables 4.11- 15 and 4.11-16), it identifies Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-4 to reduce construction noise. The project will not generate operational noise levels that exceed the City’s noise 65 dBA noise standard or have any significant impact on any sensitive receptors, including residents in the surrounding communities. In addition, operational noise levels will not cause any substantial increases in ambient noise levels in excess of the significance thresholds specified above.

However, off-site traffic generates traffic noise on the project site that could expose future project residents to noise levels that exceed the City’s noise standard of 65 dBA.

Mitigation Measures:

To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative effects relating to noise, and to further minimize any noise increases for existing residents in the project vicinity, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

NOI-1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that project construction activities shall comply with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code requirements.

NOI-2 During all project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with property operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site.

NOI-3 The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receivers nearest the project site during all project construction (i.e., to the center).

NOI-4 The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck-related noise.

NOI-5 A six-foot perimeter wall will be developed along the northern and eastern property boundaries, adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area (PA II), in order to protect the proposed onsite residential uses from off-site traffic noise. The barriers shall provide a weight of at least four pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or lineof-sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or 580 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
47 decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking.

NOI-6 The operation of the Wave Basin and associated Wave machines shall be limited to the daytime and evening hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., compliant with the recreational operational hours allowed by the City of La Quinta.

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to noise described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures NOI-1 through NOI-6, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

Construction of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts. While construction activities will create temporarily high noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the equipment, noise will not exceed the 85 dBA standard established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) identified by the City as the threshold of significance for noise impacts from construction activities. The highest construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receptors (residences) are projected to range from 58 dBA to 76.5 dBA, which are well below the established threshold of significance (Draft EIR, Table 4.11-15). Additionally, the City of La Quinta established construction hours of operation to lessen the impacts of construction noise (see Draft EIR, Table 4.11-2). Although the project will not result in significant construction noise impacts, the project will be required to implement mitigation measures NOI-1 through NOI-4, to further reduce and minimize the generation of construction noise.

The Noise Study analyzed operational noise generated by the proposed project, including off-site and on-site traffic noise generated by project-related increases in vehicular traffic, noise generated by the proposed special events, and noise generated by the Wave Basin. Measurements of existing noise levels at various locations were conducted in proximity to the proposed project. The ten locations where measurements were collected were chosen to represent noise sensitive areas, such as nearby residential properties.

Traffic Noise: The project will generate a noise level increase of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL in all study area roadway segments except for segment 27 (Avenue 60 west of Madison Street), which will experience and increase of up to 3.2 dBA CNEL (Draft EIR, Tables 4.11-17, 4.11-18, and

4.11-19). Based on the significance criteria, the project-related noise level increases are considered less than significant under existing, plus ambient growth, plus cumulative development 581 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
48 in buildout year 2026 (EAC 2026) with project conditions at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic, because all but one segment (Avenue 60, west of Madison St.) experience increases of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL. While the segment of Avenue 60 west of Madison Street will experience an increase in roadway noise of 3.2 dBA under existing plus ambient and cumulative conditions, this increase does not exceed the established threshold of significance of a 5 dBA or greater increase in areas with ambient noise levels below 60 dBA (Draft EIR, Table 4.11-8). Therefore, offsite traffic would result in less than significant levels.

Off-site traffic also generates traffic noise on the project site; therefore, six-foot perimeter walls will be developed along the existing rights-of-way and adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area (PA II) (Mitigation Measure NOI-5). While this is not considered a significant impact under CEQA under the California Supreme Court decision in California Building Industry Assn. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 392), implementation of mitigation measure NOI-5 and standard building construction and windows, will ensure that future project residents will not be exposed to interior or exterior noise levels that exceeds the City’s established limits (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.11-42 – 4.11-43).

Special Events: Noise generated by off-site traffic during the proposed special events was also analyzed in the Noise Study (see Draft EIR Table 4.11-20). The Noise Study projects that off-site roadway noise levels during special event conditions will range from 60.5 to 73.9 dBA CNEL, and will result in a noise level increases of 1.5 dBA or less at all sensitive receptor locations (excluding segment 27 described above, which will experience an increase of 3.2 dBA). Based on the significance criteria, the project-related roadway noise level increases are considered to be less than significant under the project with special events condition at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic.

Operational Noise: In addition to construction noise and off-site traffic noise, the Draft EIR (and the Noise Study and supplemental Noise Memo prepared by Urban Crossroads attached as Appendix K.1 and K.2 to the DEIR) analyzed operational noise impacts generated by the proposed project. Operational activities analyzed included activities associated with use of the Wave Basin, outdoor pool/spa activities, outdoor activities, and activities at the neighborhood commercial center. The operational noise levels that would be experienced at the sensitive receptor locations range from 39.8 dBA to 52.2 dBA, and the increase in ambient noise levels range from 0.0 dBA to 0.9 dBA at all locations except location R8 (the closest adjacent residence), which will increase

4.9 dBA, from 43.8 dBA to 48.7 dBA, which is still substantially below the City’s outdoor noise standard of 65 dBA (Draft EIR, Tables 4.11-25 and 4.11-26).

The Wave Basin proposed in the 48equiret will use the same technology and equipment and, for this reason, noise measurements were collected at the existing Wave Basin in Lemoore, California, and used in the analysis of the noise levels that would be generated by the Wave Basin included in the project. These measurements included ten wave events, measured at eight different locations, over a period of 53 minutes. The reference noise levels indicate that during peak wave events, the Wave Basin generates noise levels ranging from 62.6 dBA Leq at the end of the Wave Basin, 73.8 dBA Leq in the lifeguard tower and 75.7 dBA Leq near the cable roller system. To describe the worst-case reference noise level conditions, the highest reference noise level describing each peak wave noise event of 75.7 dBA Leq at a distance of 12 feet was used in the 582 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
49 analysis Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-45 – 4.11-46. The referenced noise level measurements included all sources of noise associated with the Wave Basin in Lemoore, including loudspeaker announcements, noise generated from the waves and associated machinery and use of jet skis in the basin (See Final EIR, Appendix K.3). These noise levels taken at the noise source were input into the noise modelling software used by Urban Crossroads, CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement), which is a three-dimensional noise model that analyzes multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels at the selected receptor locations (see Noise Study, pp. 73-74, at Draft EIR Appendix K.2). As shown on Table

4.11-26 in the Draft EIR, the operational noise levels at noise sensitive receptors ranged from 39.8 dBA to 52.2 dBA, and cause increases in ambient noise levels of less than 1.0 dBA at all but one location. In location R8, approximately 38 feet from the project site and south of Avenue 60, the ambient noise level would increase from 43.8 dBA to 48.7 dBA, which remains substantially below the City’s established standard of 65. dBA (and the increase is below the applicable standard of 5.0 dBA) (see Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-47 – 4.11-49.

On the specific issue of whether significant noise levels will be amplified by bouncing off Coral Mountain, the FEIR notes that based on Federal Highway Administration studies and guidance, if all noise striking a hard surface were reflected back to a given receiving point, the maximum increase in noise would be limited to 3dBA. However, not all acoustical energy is reflected back to the same point, and accordingly, FHWA measurements show that reflective noise increases do not exceed 1-2 dBA, which is not perceptible to the human ear (see Final EIR, at pp. 2-31 – 2-32, and Appendix K.2 to the Draft EIR). The City Council accepts and agrees with this expert analysis of potential noise impacts, and also adopts and incorporates by reference the analysis and conclusions set forth in Responses 52-h, 59-e, and 62-f in the Final EIR. The City Council also accepts and agrees with the supplemental noise memoranda submitted by Meridian Consultants (April 25, 2022) and Urban Crossroads (April 26, 2022), addressing noise-related comments made during the public hearings, and find that these memoranda further confirm that the project will not have any significant noise impacts on the surrounding communities.

TRANSPORTATION
Consistency with an Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing the Circulation System.

The proposed project would add traffic to area roadways that could result in significant changes in the level of service at area intersections and thus potentially conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, which is considered a potentially significant adverse effect.

Mitigation Measures:

To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative effects relating to traffic and transportation, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:
583 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
50 TRA-1 The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required by the City of La Quinta.

TRA-2 The project proponent shall contribute TUMF traffic impact mitigation fees prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

TRA-9 If Special Events are to take place prior to the completion of Phase 3 construction, Phase 3 typical operations traffic improvements will be completed or the applicant shall provide a focused traffic analysis with the Temporary Use Permit that identifies any improvements that are not necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at study intersections. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied
TRA-10 If Special Events are to take place prior to the construction of Phase 3, a special event traffic and parking plan will be submitted with each Temporary Use Permit to ensure that special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied
TRA-11 Traffic Management Plans will be submitted to the City and the Police Department for review and approval prior to special events. Timing for installation of traffic management measures will be scaled to the size and duration of the event. In general, signage for large events should be in place five days prior and two days following special events. The City and Police Department may impose additional measures if determined to be necessary.

Individual management plans for specific special events shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to the start of the event. The special event Traffic Management Plans shall include the measures identified in Mitigation Measures TRA-12 through TRA-14 below.

TRA-12 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the project proponent shall include the use of Portable changeable message signs (CMS) or moveable mechanical electronic message boards. CMS will be located at critical locations identified by the La Quinta Police Department (LQPD) and in place 5 days ahead of the event and 2 days after.

TRA-13 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan the project proponent shall include the use of law enforcement personnel and/or special event flaggers to direct traffic in locations reviewed and approved by the City and Police Department.

TRA-14 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan the project proponent shall include the use of public service announcements (PSA) to provide information to event guests and surrounding neighborhoods prior to the event. Examples include online event information, brochures and 584 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
51 changeable message signs that include details such as suggested routes, drop-off and parking facility locations.

TRA-15 The project proponent shall ensure that the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by the Desert Recreation District Master Plan and associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into project plans. Accommodations for this trail shall be located along the approximate toe of Coral Mountain, within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property.

Conditions of Approval:

The project shall be conditioned to construct the following roadway improvements as identified in the Final EIR, which will be enforceable through both the conditions of approval and the Development Agreement:

Phase 1 Improvements: Improvements to Avenue 58, Madison Street, Avenue 60, and project access points, and the project’s fair share contributions toward planned traffic signals and related improvements at 5 area intersections as identified in Table 4.13-20 (see pages 4.13-29 – 4.13-33 of Draft EIR).

Phase 2 Improvements: Increased fair share contributions toward planned traffic signals and related improvements at 6 area intersections as identified in Table 4.13-22 (see pages

4.13-34 – 4.13-37 of Draft EIR).

Phase 3 Improvements: Installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Madison St. and Avenue 58 and increased fair share contributions toward planned traffic signals at nine other intersections as identified in table 4,13-24 (see pages 4.13-37 – 4.13-41 of the Draft EIR).

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to traffic and transportation described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures TRA-1, TRA-2, TRA-9 through TRA-15, and construction of the conditioned traffic improvements described above, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, Specific Plan, MMRP, and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:
585 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
52 Project Operations: Traffic related to project activities (both construction and operational) were analyzed in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation (Draft EIR, Appendices L.1 and L.2). The TIA was prepared in accordance with the City of La Quinta’s Traffic Study Guidelines (Engineering Bulletin #06-13, dated July 23, 2015) and Engineering Bulletin #10-01, dated August 9, 2010, the City General Plan, and a traffic study scope reviewed and approved by City staff during the scoping process.

The project will be gated and private, with the exception of the neighborhood commercial project at the northeast corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The Wave Basin facility will be utilized by hotel guests, but outside trip generation was also included for employee trips at the hotel, resort commercial, and Wave Basin. Area residents and visitors will use the commercial retail area located in the northeast corner of the project, which will not be restricted to project residents and hotel guests.

At project buildout, the site is anticipated to generate a net total of 6,994 external trip-ends per day on a typical weekday with 447 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 638 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. Under build out conditions, nine study area intersections will be impacted without the development of the project. The addition of the project will result in a total of ten impacted intersections under build out (“Phase 3”) conditions.

For Phase 3 traffic conditions, eight study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable level of service (LOS). Project and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) improvements will result in acceptable LOS for all intersections.

Mitigation measure TRA-1 requires payment of the City’s DIF, which funds the traffic improvements in the CIP program, which will result in less than significant impacts at all area intersections. In addition, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.90 or less at buildout.

The County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) 52equirees a LOS E or better for regional roadways. The generation, distribution, and management of project traffic is not expected to conflict with the CMP; no CMP roadways occur in the vicinity of the project. The project and background traffic will not exceed City level of service standards or travel demand measures, or other standards established by the City or Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for designated roads or highways. Following the payment of required fees such as TUMF and DIF, as required under mitigation measures TRA-1 and TRA-2, less than significant impacts are anticipated relative to the CMP.

Special Events: The applicant anticipates the potential occurrence of multi-day special events at this location involving attendance of not-to-exceed 2,500 guests per day. Any event occurring prior to the build out of the project, and concurrent roadway improvements and traffic signal installations, could result in a significant impact on traffic operations. Therefore, if project special events are held prior to the construction of Phase 3 improvements, Mitigation Measures TRA-9 and TRA-10 condition issuance of the required Temporary Use Permit on (1) completion of the required improvements or, alternatively, a focused traffic analysis demonstrating that any required improvements that have not been completed are not necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service in all locations, and (2) a special event traffic and parking plan demonstrating that the special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. 586 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
53 In addition, Mitigation Measure TRA-11, requires City and Police Department approval of a Special Event Traffic Management Plan prior to issuance of a Temporary Use Permit for any special events (whether or not the Phase 3 traffic improvements have been completed). Timing for installation of traffic management measures will be scaled to the size and duration of the event to ensure that the special events will not have any significant adverse effects.

With implementation of the mitigation measures specified above, all project entries and other facilities were determined to be adequate for special event conditions, and the impacts associated with special events will be reduced to less than significant levels. Also see Final EIR Responses 52-n, 52-p, 83-h, and 90-e, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the City Council’s findings, analysis and conclusions.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Interior to the project, Project Design Features (PDF) are incorporated that encourage the use of alternative transportation measures including pedestrian and bicycle travel. The project will provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site.

The proposed project Is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to existing bike lanes.

Temporary impacts may occur during construction; however, any bicycle access adjacent to the project will be restored to existing conditions. Accordingly, the project will be consistent with the City’s General Plan Update 2035 with respect to pedestrian and alternative transportation facilities.

The Desert Recreation District Master Plan includes a proposed trail along the toe of Coral Mountain associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center. The proposed trail alignment falls within the project boundaries. As shown in Mitigation Measure TRA-15 project plans will include accommodations for this trail within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property to assure mitigation of….

Based on the foregoing, the project, including during special events, will not conflict with any applicable plans or policies addressing the circulation system, and will not have any projectspecific or cumulative adverse effects on the roadways and intersections surrounding the project (see Final EIR, pp. 2-32 – 2-35 and Appendices L.2 and L.3; and Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-17 – 4.13- 51 and Appendices L.1).

The City Council has reviewed the Draft EIR comments raising concerns about the project, including special events increasing traffic in the area, including Comment 22-j, Comments 83-e through 83-k and the August 3, 2021 letter from Minegar & Associates attached as Exhibit 2 to Comment letter 83, and Comment 90-d. The City finds that these comments contain inaccurate statements regarding the project and the traffic study (Draft EIR Appendices L.1 and L.2), and do not contain substantial evidence of any significant transportation effects that will not be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant, nor do they contain substantial evidence of any material inaccuracies in the project traffic study and analysis. Rather, the City Council finds the Final EIR Responses to these comments to be persuasive, and hereby adopts those responses and incorporates them into the City Council’s findings, analysis and conclusions regarding potential transportation impacts (Final EIR Responses 22-j, 83-e through 83-k, and 90-d). The City Council also adopts 587 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
54 and incorporates by this reference Appendix L.3 to the Final EIR, which responds to each of the comments and issues raised the Minegar & Associates letter attached as Exhibit 2 to Comment letter 83.

Effect of Geometric Design Features.

The project has the potential to create traffic hazards if the line-of-sight from project entrances are inadequate, or if traffic queuing at project entrances exceeds the storage length of the applicable turn lanes.

Mitigation Measures:

To mitigate potential effects relating to traffic hazards, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

TRA-3 The project proponent shall ensure that streetscape improvement plans for the project frontage on Avenue 58, Madison Street and Avenue 60, are submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the initiation of landscape or roadway improvements.

TRA-4 The project proponent shall ensure that clear unobstructed sight distances are provided at all site access points and internal intersections. Sight distances shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of landscape and street improvement plans.

TRA-5 The project proponent shall ensure that final layout and site access design are subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to final project approval.

TRA-7 The project proponent shall ensure that traffic signing and striping plans shall be developed in conjunction with street improvement plans and submitted to the City of La Quinta for review and approval during the project approval process.

TRA-8 The project proponent shall ensure that Construction Traffic Control Plans are reviewed and approved by the City prior to project construction. These plans are to be implemented during construction activities. Construction includes onsite and offsite improvements.

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to traffic and transportation hazards described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that 588 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
55 all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures TRA-3 through TRA-5, TRA-7 and TRA-8, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, Specific Plan, MMRP, and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The project will be developed in accordance with design guidelines included in the Specific Plan and will not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. As provided in Mitigation Measures TRA-3 and TRA-4, the project’s access points will be located with adequate sight distances, which will be required to meet City standards. In addition, a queuing analysis was performed to ensure adequate turn lanes and stacking distances at all project entrances. The installation of site and landscape improvements will be required to avoid interfering with adequate sight distances. Project plans will be reviewed for any sight distance conflicts and will require approval by the City.

As required in Mitigation Measures TRA-5 and TRA-7, the internal circulation system would provide adequate fire department access. Final layout and site access design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer as well as the Fire Department to ensure compliance with their established standards.

As provided in Mitigation Measure TRA-8, Traffic Control Plans will be implemented during construction activities. These plans will reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic, consistent with City standards.

Accordingly, the project is not anticipated to increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses. Following implementation of the mitigation measures, as well as the City review and approval process for all improvement plans, impacts will be less than significant.

Emergency Access.

As the project will be a gated, private community (other than the neighborhood commercial area near Madison St. and Avenue 58), there is a potential for emergency access to be impeded by the access gates or other project features, and accordingly, this is considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures:

To mitigate potential project effects relating to emergency access, the following mitigation measure is hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

TRA-5 The project proponent shall ensure that final layout and site access design are subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to final project approval.
589 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
56 TRA-6 The project proponent shall ensure that emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access are provided for the project prior to final project approval.

TRA-7 The project proponent shall ensure that traffic signing and striping plans shall be developed in conjunction with street improvement plans and submitted to the City of La Quinta for review and approval during the project approval process.

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to emergency access described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measure TRA-5 through TRA-7, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, Specific Plan, MMRP, and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

For gated projects, the Fire Department requires the installation of a Knox-Box Rapid Entry System or similar device to facilitate emergency access by fire fighters and other emergency first responders (Mitigation Measure TRA-6). The internal circulation system would provide adequate fire department access. Final layout and site access design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer as well as the Fire Department to ensure compliance with their established standards. (Mitigation Measures TRA-5 and TRA-7). Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access, and with mitigation, impacts will be less than significant.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts to Significant Tribal Cultural Resources
The proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on Tribal Cultural Resources within or near the project site. In particular, the project site and the adjacent Coral Mountain contain three sites that have been determined to constitute a significant archaeological and historical resource which are also a “Tribal Cultural Resource” as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 (Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545). These three sites are situated along the eastern base of Coral Mountain and contain panels of rock art as well as other associated artifacts and features. These sites, known collectively as the “Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex,” could be adversely affected by development of the Project. The project could also impact five other previously identified sites and seven isolates that were determined through Tribal 590 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
57 consultation to have significance to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI).

Additionally, construction of the project would involve ground-disturbing activities such as grading and surface excavation, with the potential to unearth or adversely impact other known or previously unidentified tribal cultural resources. These are considered significant adverse impacts.

Mitigation Measures:

To mitigate potential project specific and cumulative effects relating to Tribal Cultural Resources, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

TCR-1: Before ground disturbing activities begin, the applicant shall contact the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to arrange cultural monitoring.

The project requires the presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt in the vicinity of the deposits, and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines), within 24 hours, to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

TCR-2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and provided to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

TCR-3: Before ground disturbing activities, the project’s archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval.

The Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action to approve the plan is taken within 30 days from submission for approval. If the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office rejects two Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site.

TCR-4: Before ground disturbing activities, the project’s archaeologist shall prepare a Rock Art Management Plan, based on recommendations made in the report by McCarthy and Mouriquand, and shall submit the plan to the 591 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
58 ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Rock Art Management Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action is taken to approve the plan within 30 days of submission for approval. If the ACBCI Historic Preservation Office rejects two Rock Art Management Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Rock Art Management Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site.

TCR-5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contain the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas; the Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be recorded on the property, and proof of recordation shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III. Nominations of these sites to the National Register of Historic Places shall be filed with the appropriate federal agency prior to the issuance of the first grading permit; and the sites shall be subject to the provisions of the Rock Art Management Plan.

TCR-6: For the portion of Site 33-001715 outside the preservation area established in TCR-5, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI’s satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance.

TCR-7: Prior to ground disturbance in Planning Area III, a qualified archaeologist shall complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for sites 33-1716, 33-1717, 33-8386, 33-9001, 33-9003, 33-28907, 33-28908, 33-28909, 33-28910, 33-28911, 33-28912. A report of findings including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI’s satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance.

TCR-8: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off 592 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
59 during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project’s Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre-1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun-colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al. 1998:54).

TCR-9: The applicant shall coordinate with ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to ensure there are a sufficient number of Native American monitors for the number of earth-moving machinery for each phase of development.

The applicant shall provide the City with fully executed monitoring agreements prior to each phase of ground disturbing activity.

TCR-10: Should human remains be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbance, the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 shall be followed. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24-hours.

TCR-11: Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall sign a curation agreement with the ACBCI THPO. A fully executed copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City.

TCR-12: Prior to any ground disturbance, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all contractors with the staff at the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO).
593 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
60 Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to Tribal Cultural Resources described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures TCR-1 through TCR-12, as recommended in the Final EIR, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, Specific Plan, MMRP, and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The City of La Quinta initiated and completed Tribal consultation as required under SB 18 and AB 52. The ACBCI requested consultation, which was conducted between February 2020 and June 2020. During consultation, ACBCI indicated that the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex is especially important, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) requested that this area be avoided and preserved. Mitigation Measure TCR-5 will ensure that the sites are avoided and protected in situ during any development activity through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. To provide long term protection of these sites, Mitigation Measures TCR-5 and TCR-6 require prohibition of development and the recordation of protective easements, as well as a program of research and documentation of the sites. For the balance of one of the sites, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation is required to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project (Mitigation Measure TCR-6). In addition, the project’s archaeologist will be required to prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan and a Rock Art Management Plan prior to ground disturbing activities. Both plans are to be submitted to the ACBCI THPO for approval, and once approved provided to the City (Mitigation Measures TCR-3 and TCR-4). Mitigation Measures TCR-3 through TCR-7 will mitigate potential disturbance of the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex less than significant level.

The project archaeologist determined that the remaining five of the eight previously identified cultural resource sites and all seven isolates, recorded within or partially within the current project area, do not constitute a unique archaeological resource or an historical resource. During Tribal consultation, however, the ACBCI disagreed. Based on their resource inventories, and the breadth and significance of resources identified in and surrounding the project site, the area is considered significant to the Tribe. The Tribe requested further surface investigation, testing, and excavation, if necessary, of these sites and isolates to assure that impacts to Tribal resources in the area are not significant. In order to assure that the impact is reduced to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure TCR-7 requires a qualified archaeologist to complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for the sites. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI’s reasonable satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance.
594 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
61 Since the project is located within the ACBCI’s Tribal Traditional Use Area and the Tribe’s records indicate that Tribal cultural resources are located within the project area, cultural monitoring, including an ACBCI monitor, is required to address the Tribe’s concern for the presence of Tribal cultural resources (Mitigation Measure TCR-1). In addition, TCR-2 and TCR9 require monitoring on the site for all earth moving activities (including vegetation removal, grubbing, grading and excavation) by both archaeological and Tribal monitors. These monitoring activities will provide further protection of these resources.

In addition, as described above concerning Cultural Resources, most of the project area had been developed by the 20th century into an agricultural business known in the 1950s as the Coral Reef Ranch. At least four buildings were present on the landholdings of the ranch, all clustered on the northern edge of the project area. The remains of the ranch complex, including the partially collapsed adobe house, have been recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory. The ranch complex has historic significance and although ACBCI stated that this site is not significant to Tribal history, it has significance to the region’s early farming traditions. Significant adverse effects to this resource are avoided through mitigation measure TCR-8 and mitigation measure CUL-1 (described above concerning Cultural Resources).

California law requires the protection of historic—era and Native American human burials, cremations, skeletal remains and items associated with Native American interments from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. Mitigation Measure TCR-10 provides for this with the implementation of State law relating to human remains. To further protect resources that may be uncovered during project development, Mitigation Measures TCR-11 and TCR-12 will require a standard curation agreement with the ACBCI and construction worker sensitivity training during all aspects and phases of project construction. Together, these mitigation measures will assure that impacts to Tribal resources unearthed during all phases of project construction will be reduced to less than significant levels. For the reasons set forth above, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-12, impacts to Tribal Resources will be reduced to less than significant levels.

IV. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT
The Final EIR also determined, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the following impacts associated with the project are less than significant and no mitigation is required. The City hereby adopts the findings, analysis, and conclusions regarding these potential impacts set forth in the Final EIR, and incorporates the same herein by this reference.

AESTHETICS
Effects to the Visual Character or Quality of the Site.

The project will change the visual character of the site from a former ranch site and largely undeveloped desert open space to a developed resort residential and mixed-use project.

Finding:
595 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
62 The City Council finds that the project fits with the resort residential community character of this portion of the City, and through compliance with the design guidelines in the Specific Plan and the applicable City requirements, the project’s effects relating to the visual character and quality of the site will be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Facts in Support of Finding:

All proposed development within the project area is required to be cohesive and complementary to the adjacent land uses by incorporating improvements such as landscaping and block walls along the perimeter of the project. The project will comply with the City standards and guidelines regarding building heights in Image Corridors within 150 feet of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, as required by the La Quinta Municipal Code, in order to reduce impacts to scenic resources, Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. In addition, the project’s perimeter landscaping, block wall, and the entry points will be similar in appearance and quality to the existing communities to the north, east, and south. Likewise, the majority of the project’s perimeter areas will be developed with low-density residential uses, consistent with surrounding communities (Draft EIR at p. 4.1- 48). The residential and resort uses within the project will be subject to the regulations outlined within the Specific Plan and will be consistent with the prevailing desert-themed architectural styles of other resort and residential developments in the City, including the gated residential communities to the north, Andalusia Country Club to the east, and gated residential communities to the south (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-48 – 4.1-51). The neighborhood commercial uses at the corner of Madison St. and Avenue 58 will also comply with the City’s Municipal Code height requirements for commercial buildings and will not result in any significant impacts to visual character or scenic quality (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-51 – 4.1-53). The Wave Basin, resort hotel, and other uses in the project’s Tourist Commercial planning area are located in the southwest portion of the project site and will not be readily visible from the perimeter of the project or other off-site locations (See Draft EIR line-of-sight and visual simulations, Exhibits 4.1-4 – 4.1-13). Based on the foregoing, the project will be consistent and compatible with the visual character and quality of the project site and surrounding communities and will not have any significant effects.

AIR QUALITY
Consistency with implementation of applicable air quality plans and standards.

California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded.

The project site is located within Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and is subject to SCAQMB’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. In addition, the City enacted its Fugitive Dust Control ordinance in Chapter 6.16 of the Municipal Code to ensure construction projects comply with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1. Violations of, or inconsistencies with implementation of the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan or the City’s Fugitive Dust Control ordinance would constitute a significant adverse effect.
596 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
63 Create objectionable odors
The project does not include any of the land uses generally associated with odor complaints; the low density residential, open space recreational, tourist commercial, wave basin, and general commercial uses associated with the project are not expected to operate in a manner resulting in other emissions leading to objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed project’s (long-term operational) uses.

Finding:

The City Council finds that the project is consistent with all applicable air quality plans and will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or contribute to a new violation, and accordingly, impacts will be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. The City Council further finds that the project’s odor related impacts will be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The project would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds or localized significance thresholds (LST) for construction activity after implementation of the Best Available Control Methods (BACM AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3) listed above (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-15 – 4.1- 18)1
. In addition, the project’s operational emissions would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds or LST (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1.16 – 4.1-18, and Table 4.2-8 and 4.2-13). In addition, the project is consistent with the growth projections included in the 2016 AQMD.

Accordingly, the project is consistent with all applicable air quality plans, including SCAQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than significant. It is expected that project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The proposed project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed project construction and operations would be less than significant.

1 Pages 1 – 34 of the Air Quality Chapter of the Draft EIR (Chapter 4.2) were inadvertently mis-numbered as pages

4.1-1 through 4.1-34, instead of 4.2-1 through 4.2-34.
597 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
64 ENERGY
Consumption of Energy Resources.

The project construction activities will consume energy resources, primarily in the form of petroleum and electricity. However, there are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable construction activities, or that would violate current emissions standards (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-20 – 4.5-25), and therefore, construction-related impacts would be less than significant. The project would increase demand for energy in the project area, including electricity, natural gas, and petroleum, and is located within the service areas of (Imperial Irrigation District) IID and SoCal Gas Company. The project would not, however, include wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of these energy resources. The project proposes a complimentary mix of uses that will reduce vehicle miles traveled, and thus reduces the consumption of petroleum projects for vehicle use. In addition, the project includes energy efficiency measures that will reduce the consumption of electricity, including energy efficient windows, roof systems, electrical lighting systems, and HVAC systems, and will be compliant with Title 24 energy efficiency requirements.

Consistency with a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency.

The project is subject to CALGreen Building Codes and Title 24 codes and standards for both residential and nonresidential components of the project, as well as the City of La Quinta’s GHG Reduction Plan and General Plan goals and policies for reducing energy consumption. As a result, the project is required to incorporate energy efficient design features that result in substantial reductions in energy consumption and GHG emissions, including the measures described below and in the Draft EIR.

Project Design Features:

Energy-saving and sustainable design features, as well as operational programs would be incorporated into the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-22 – 4.5-29). Because these features/attributes are integral to the project, and/or are regulatory requirements, they are not considered to be mitigation measures but will be made enforceable by the City pursuant to the Specific Plan, Development Agreement, and/or project conditions of approval. The project will require submittal to the appropriate agencies discussed in this section for review and approval of on-site design for circulation, building standards and utility installation. The following PDFs are part of the project:
· Specified use of Energy Star appliances
· Installation of water-efficient plumbing fixtures
· Installation of tankless water heaters
· Installation of light-emitting diode (LED) technology within homes · Use of recycled water (non-potable) for common area landscape irrigation · Use of drought-tolerant plants in landscape design
· Installation of water-efficient irrigation systems with smart sensor controls 598 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
65 · Installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems (15% of electricity supply) · Installation of high efficiency lighting
· Applying energy efficient design building shells and components In addition, the mixed-use design of the project, combined with walkability and connectivity design elements and the multi-model transportation system, optimize on-site interaction and result in reduced vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled, as compared to purely residential or other standalone projects, thus reducing petroleum use (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-31 – 4.5-32).

Finding:

The City Council finds that compliance with existing state, regional, and City regulations, plans, and programs, in addition to the incorporation of the PDFs identified above and in the Draft EIR, including the use of energy efficient building materials and design features, would ensure that the project is consistent with all applicable state and local plans for energy efficiency and that consumption of energy resources would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, and therefore, project impacts related to energy resources will be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Facts in Support of Finding:

Project construction and operation will not result in significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation because the project is consistent with CALGreen Building Codes and Title 24 codes and standards for both residential and nonresidential components of the project, as well as the City of La Quinta’s GHG Reduction Plan and General Plan goals and policies for reducing energy consumption (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-20 – 4.5-34). The project proposes a mixed-use development that provides complementary uses with an emphasis on connectivity and alternative modes of transportation to reduce vehicle use within the project. In addition, the mandatory PDF’s identified above result in a 17.25% reduction in projected electricity, thus further avoiding any wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-25 – 4.5-28). Therefore, the project is consistent with General Plan Policy SC-1.5 and associated programs in the Livable Community Element in the General Plan. In addition, the Project will provide multiple transportation facilities for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers of electric vehicles throughout the property and connecting to public transportation systems (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-30 – 4.5-33). The City Council also incorporates Responses 52-k, 59-b, and 61-h, into the City Council’s findings, analysis, and conclusions regarding the project’s energy use.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Direct or Indirect Effects Involving Strong Seismic Shaking or Landsides:

Strong Seismic Shaking: The project site is located approximately 7.75 miles southwest of the closest active fault zone, the San Andreas Fault. The Geotechnical Investigation states that due to the multiple active faults in the project’s vicinity, the site has been subjected to past ground shaking, and strong seismic shaking is expected during the design life of the proposed project. 599 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
66 Landslides: Coral Mountain, an elevated topographic feature defines the project property’s southwest boundary, is identified in the City’s General Plan as having a high or very high possibility of earthquake induced slope instability and potential for soil block slides, soil slumps, and rock falls.

Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil:

The project site is located in an area defined in the City’s General Plan as having high and very high susceptibility to wind erosion. The project site is also subject to potential waterborne erosion. Project development has the potential to cause significant adverse erosion effects, including the generation of fugitive dust.

Finding:

The City Council finds that compliance with existing state, regional, and City regulations, plans, and programs will avoid significant risks from strong seismic shaking, landslides and soil erosion, and these geology and soils impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The project will be required to comply with the most current seismic design coefficients and ground motion parameters in the California Building Code, and all site work will be conducted in accordance with the project-specific geotechnical and soils analysis, and therefore, impacts from strong seismic groundshaking are expected to be less than significant.

The project does not propose any development at the base of Coral Mountain and the closest habitable structure would be located approximately 170 feet away. Accordingly, impacts relating to landslides will be less than significant.

The project is required to implement the Coachella Valley PM10 Plan to avoid windblown sand from leaving the site. The project will also be required to implement a SWPPP to avoid stormwater from carrying soil or sand from the site. Finally, the project will require a Water Quality Management Plan for long-term operations to prevent soil or contaminants from being washed from the site. Compliance with these legal requirements will ensure that impacts relating to soil erosion are less than significant.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Consistency with Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation.

The project’s construction and operations will generate some additional GHG emissions, and to the extent those emissions conflict with the CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan or the City’s GHG Reduction Plan, the project would have a significant adverse effect.

600 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
67 Finding:

The City Council finds that the project is consistent with the applicable CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, as described in detail on pages 4.7-20 through 4.7-25 of the Draft EIR, which analysis and conclusions are incorporated by this reference, and based thereon, finds that the project will not have any significant impacts relating to inconsistencies with applicable GHG plans, policies or regulations.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The facts in support of this finding are set forth in Table 4.7-9 of the Draft EIR (Scoping Plan Consistency Summary), which demonstrate that the project does not conflict with any of the plan components and supports seven of the Plan’s action categories. In addition, the City Council reviewed and considered the Draft EIR comments relating to GHG emissions, including Comments 52-k, 79-h, 79-I and 79-q (which is a letter from SWAPE attached as Exhibit A to Comment letter 79), as well as the subsequent letters from Mitchell Tsai dated March 22, April 12, and April 26, 2022, and from SWAPE dated April 6, 2022. The City Council finds that these comments lack merit and fail to provide any substantial evidence of any new or more severe significant adverse effects relating to GHG emissions, beyond what is described above and in the Draft EIR, or of any inaccuracies in the Draft EIR or technical studies. Rather, the City Council finds Final EIR Responses 52-k, 79-h, 79-I and 79-q persuasive, and hereby adopts those responses and incorporates them into the City Council’s findings, analysis and conclusions regarding GHG emissions.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Including Accidental Release The project will use oils, fuels, and other potentially flammable substances and materials in connection with construction activities. Project operations will include the transport, storage and use of sodium hypochlorite and sulfuric acid to treat and disinfect the Wave Basin, as well as other cleaning agents, building maintenance products, paints, solvents, fertilizers, and similar substances in amounts typical for resort projects.

Effect on an Emergency Response Plan
Project implementation will not interfere with the critical facilities, emergency transportation and circulation, or emergency preparedness coordination as set forth in the Emergency Services Element of the 2035 La Quinta General Plan and the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.8-21 – 4.8-23). Prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department will review each sub-area plan as it is brought forward, to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access, and project impacts will be less than significant (Draft EIR, at p. 4.8- 23).

601 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
68 Risk of Wildfires
The project site, located on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, is currently vacant with scattered desert vegetation. Existing land uses that surround the project include a mix of residential uses and vacant, undeveloped land. According to CALFIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsible Areas Map, the project site is not located in a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Additionally, CALFIRE’s Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in Locally Responsible Areas (LRAs) Map indicates that the project is located in a Local, State/Federal non-VHFHSZ area. Therefore, impacts of exposing people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires will be less than significant (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.8-23 – 4.8-24).

Other Potential Hazards
During the public review period for the Draft EIR, members of the public raised questions regarding whether the water temperature of the Wave Basin could reach temperatures that could be harmful to surfers, including from “brain eating ameba.” These concerns are addressed in the Final EIR Responses 65-c and 77-u, and in Appendix M.2, which are hereby adopted by the City Council and incorporated in its findings, analysis and conclusions. As stated in those Responses, the size of the Wave Basin, the circulating wave action, and the relatively cooler temperatures at night avoid the risk of water temperatures reaching unsafe levels. In addition, the project is subject to Riverside County and State of California Department of Health regulations that ensure the water is properly treated and maintained to avoid any risk of unsafe bacteria levels. The Council finds the substantial evidence provided in those Responses demonstrates that the Wave Basin operations will not subject surfers or others to hazardous or unsafe water condition.

Finding:

The City Council finds that compliance with existing federal, state, regional, and City regulations will ensure impacts related to project construction and operations, including the maintenance of the Wave Basin and landscaped areas (i.e., disinfectants, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.), the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials, the potential effects on emergency response plans, the risk of wildfires, and other potential hazards will be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The Wave Basin is treated through a combination of filtration, UV treatment, and typical poolmaintenance chemicals (sodium hypochlorite and sulfuric acid), and these chemicals will be properly stored on-site in polyethylene tanks located in a pre-engineered metal building with chemical resistant coating (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.8-18, and Final EIR, Appendix M.2). The project is required to comply with the permitting and hazardous material handling requirements of Riverside County Municipal Code Chapter 8.64 and California Health & Safety Code Chapter

6.95, which further ensures that the project will not have any significant adverse effects relating to the transport, use, storage, or accidental release of hazardous materials (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.8-19 –

4.8-20). Also see Final EIR Responses 52-l and 65-c, which are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in the City Council’s findings, analysis and conclusions. Finally, the City Council 602 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
69 rejects the assertion in the letter from Mitchell Tsai, dated April 26, 2022, that the EIR’s analysis of hazardous materials is inadequate because it failed to include a Phase I environmental site assessment (ESA) and because it did not specifically analyze “contaminants of emerging concern” or “CEC,” including “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.” Rather, the City Council finds that the EIR properly determined that project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites, and that there is no evidence of any hazardous materials on the project site (Draft EIR, at pp.

4.8-20 – 4.8-21). The City Council finds that neither a Phase I ESA or a separate analysis of CECs is warranted or appropriate under CEQA given the particular facts and circumstances of the project and project site.

In addition, as explained above and in the Draft EIR, the project is not located in a Moderate, High or Very High Fire Hazard Area and all implementing plans will be reviewed by the police and fire departments, so impacts relating to wildfires and emergency response plans will be less than significant.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements During construction and operation (life of the project), implementation of the proposed development will be required to comply with CWA, NPDES, state, and local regulations to prevent violations or impacts to surface water quality standards and waste discharge requirements pertinent to surface or ground water quality. These requirements include development and implementation of a project-specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and compliance with NPDES General Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-00014-DWQ and 2012-006- DWQ, during all construction activities (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-16 and 4.9-17). The project is also required to develop and implement a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and to comply with the NPDES Order No. R7-2013-0011 (Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) within the Whitewater River Watershed) during long-term operations (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-18 – 4.9-19).

Effect on Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge The project will increase demand for potable and non-potable water as a result of developing currently vacant land with residential and resort uses, including the Wave Basin. The project’s long-term water demand, and the availability of adequate water supplies, including from groundwater in the Indio subbasin, were evaluated in a project-specific Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification approved by CVWD (“WSA/WSV”). The project’s total water demand is projected to be 958.63 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 0.49 percent of the total projected growth in water demand presented in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-19 and 4.19-20). In addition, the WSA/WSV and the Indio Subbasin Groundwater Management Plan Update confirm that CVWD has adequate water supplies to serve the project and all other existing and planned future uses without substantially decreasing groundwater supplies. Finally, the project will not cause any direct or indirect impacts 603 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
70 to the Thomas Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility or otherwise interfere with CVWD’s ongoing groundwater replenishment activities.

Potential Impacts From Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns Existing conditions across the project site are characterized by leveled terrain with scattered vegetation coverage resulting from past site clearing and agricultural operations on most of the property. The proposed uses will result in an increase in impervious surfaces that, without engineering controls, would result in an increase in total stormwater runoff volume, an increase in runoff velocity, and the potential to cause erosion impacts, flooding, and polluted runoff.

However, as required through the City’s engineering standards for land subdivisions and development, the project will incorporate on-site drainage and flood control improvements to intercept, convey, and retain stormwater runoff from the controlling 100-year storm event.

Inundation by Flooding, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow
The project is located in FEMA’s Zone X designation, which applies to areas with “reduced flood risk due to levee.” In this case, the project is protected from flood inundation by CVWD’s Dike No. 2 and Dike No. 4. The project is not located near any coastal areas where tsunami damage is a risk. Although the project includes a Wave Basin that can create waves in excess of 6 feet tall, the Wave Basin is engineered to contain all water within the Wave Basin, including with sufficient freeboard to contain waves from the Wave Machine. This would also adequately address any risk of seiche (wave oscillations from wind, atmospheric conditions, or seismic activity).

Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
As discussed above, the project is required to comply with the applicable water control plans during both construction and for the life of the project. The project’s consistency with the applicable Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan is also discussed above.

Finding:

The City Council finds that the project will not have any significant adverse effects relating to hydrology and water quality, including causing any violations of water quality standards or discharge requirements, causing any flooding or water quality impacts resulting from alterations to the existing drainage patterns in the area, creating any risk of release of pollutants, or conflicting with any water control plan. In addition, the City Council finds that the project will not have any significant adverse effects on existing or future groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with CVWD’s ongoing groundwater recharge efforts.

Facts Supporting Findings:

Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements During the construction phase compliance with water quality and waste discharge requirements will be achieved through the permit registration and coverage process under the NPDES General 604 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
71 Permit identified above. This will require development and implementation of a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes a strategy of BMPs that prevent pollution from leaving the site (see Draft EIR, at p. 4.9-17). During the life of the project, the water quality standards and discharge requirements will be met through compliance with the NPDES permit identified above, including developing and implementing a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) demonstrating site design and source controls that prevent pollutant runoff and meet 100 percent of the Low Impact Development (LID) Site Design requirements, including the use of retention basins on-site. Compliance with these established regulatory requirements will ensure that the project will not violate any water quality or waste discharge requirements, and impacts will be less than significant.

Effect on Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge The Draft EIR incorporates information from the WSA/WSV approved by CVWD as required by Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines (Draft EIR, Appendix M).

For this proposed project, the City requested that CVWD prepare and approve a WSA/WSV.

CVWD will be the public water supplier for the project with the source of domestic (potable) water supply for the project being the Indio Subbasin via CVWD’s potable water distribution system.

CVWD approved a WSA/WSV providing an assessment and verification of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years over a 20-year projection period to meet the projected demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD as required by the Water Code. The project’s total water demand is projected to be 958.63 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 0.49 percent of the total projected growth in water demand presented in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-19 and 4.19-20).

Conditions in the Indio Subbasin are continually being assessed and quantified in management plans developed and implemented by CVWD. In December 2021, CVWD approved the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, which provides the most current assessment of the subbasin and other water supplies, including consideration of the potential for extended extreme drought conditions. The Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update analyzes several scenarios over the 50-year period required by SGMA to address potential future water supply conditions, changes in land use, and implementation of water management projects including source substitution and new water supply projects. Climate change conditions were considered in all of these scenarios. To account for the potential effects of future climate change, the projections assume CVWD will contribute water to California’s Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan allotment for Colorado River water. Under this plan, CVWD is obligated to contribute approximately 14,000 to 24,500 AFY, which equals about 7 percent of California’s total contribution, to prevent Lake Mead water levels reaching critically low levels (see Final EIR, at pp. 2-23 – 2-25).

The modeling of these scenarios shows that implementation of water management projects that are already planned and CVWD’s ongoing management actions can maintain the water balance in the Indio Subbasin, even with the expected effects of future climate change in the Colorado River Basin and on the State Water Project (see Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, pp. 605 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
72 ES-9 – ES-12, p. 7-89, and Figures ES-6 and ES-8). Of note, the projections in this update include four projects with water features such as surf parks with a total projected demand of 500 AFY and for which CVWD has approved WSAs, inclusive of the 120 AFY demand for the Wave Basin in the Coral Mountain project. Accordingly, this information supports the conclusions in the DEIR that the project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Indio Subbasin.

Groundwater Recharge Efforts: The nearest groundwater recharge facility to the project is the Thomas Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility, located south of the project and separated from it by Dike No. 4. The proposed development will not result in any physical modifications to the existing CVWD recharge facility, nor will it result in any stormwater runoff condition capable of interfering with the facility operation. Surface and underground retention, result in infiltration and therefore contributes to on-site groundwater recharge. Existing off-site tributary runoff is also incorporated into the on-site retention system, such that the project will not impede the existing naturally occurring infiltration. Less than significant impacts are anticipated pertaining to interference with groundwater recharge (Draft EIR, at p. 4.9-22).

Potential Impacts From Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns Erosion or Siltation. For every drainage area associated with project implementation, the retention facilities will meet the City’s requirements and will have varying amounts of surplus capacity. By conveying project runoff along engineered flow lines (pipes, surface swales, curb and gutter) instances of substantial erosion or siltation will be prevented. The on-site pervious areas of the project will be stabilized in accordance with approved landscaping plans. All on-site impervious and pervious land cover resulting from project implementation, including the storm drain system and surface basins, will be subject to proper operation and maintenance during the life of the project, as mandated by the WQMP agreement that will be required of this project prior to issuance of a grading permit. Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected pertaining to substantial erosion or siltation, on- or off-site (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-22 – 4.9-24).

Substantially Increase Surface Runoff Water Causing Flooding. As a standard requirement under the City’s Engineering Bulletin #06-16, the hydrology and storm drain design must account for flood protection of structures from the 100-year storm. Off-site flows from the tributary hillside areas to the west are also handled by the project through retention facilities to be constructed onsite. As such, the proposed storm drainage and flood control improvements will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-24 – 4.9-25). Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

Exceed Stormwater Drainage Systems or Cause Polluted Runoff. The proposed development will incorporate on-site storm drain system improvements designed to capture and infiltrate stormwater runoff through retention facilities corresponding to each on-site drainage management area. Pertaining to runoff pollution, the on-site storm drain system’s detention system will capture project area runoff in accordance with a WQMP, preventing uncontrolled release into any public MS4 facilities. Therefore, the project will not result in stormwater runoff conditions which would burden the City’s existing MS4 capacity, create or contribute runoff water which 606 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
73 would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-25 – 4.9-26). Therefore, the impact will be less than significant.

Impacts to Flood Flows. The project site is not located in an area with mapped flood flows, such as FEMA-designated floodways, nor are there any naturally occurring drainage courses. The site exhibits a relatively flat condition having resulted from prior agricultural land uses. The only known surface flows are those directly resulting from rain events and following the shallow elevation gradients. The project allocates space for stormwater retention facilities sized based on a Master Hydrology Report. Flood flows are not present on or around the project site, such that impedance, obstruction, or redirection would result from project implementation, and accordingly, impacts will be less than significant (Draft EIR at p. 4.9-26).

Inundation by Flooding, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow
Although the project is not located in any mapped seiche zones, such as those associated with large bodies of water, the proposed development will include a recreational wave feature which will be capable of creating mechanical waves in excess of 6 feet tall and the dissipation of that energy is calculated into the sloped edges. The facility will include sufficient freeboard, such that no water will escape the edges of the machine limits. All structural elements of the wave facility will be certified with structural engineering calculations during the building permit process to account for the anticipated seismic activity at this location and ensure the ability to safely withstand seismic wave forces. Through this design, water oscillations generated by seismic events will contained to prevent releases of water or potential inundation impacts, resulting in less than significant impacts (Draft EIR, at p. 4.9-27, and Final EIR Responses 42-g, 86-a, and 86-b, and Appendix M.2).

The proposed land uses and facilities are not expected to involve the storage or handling of substantial amounts of chemicals, petroleum products or other hazardous materials, such that pollutant release would occur in the event of inundation. Project operations will involve the use of pollution prevention source control measures under the Final WQMP. These measures include restrictions to prevent contact between potential pollutants and stormwater facilities, including inlets, conveyances, and retention areas. The Wave Basin and all proposed on-site retention basins are designed with sufficient capacity and freeboard to adequately contain the controlling 100-year storm event, thus preventing ponding and other uncontrolled drainage conditions that could allow for pollutant releases (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-27 and 4.9-28). Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

The project is not located near any coastal areas and therefore is not prone to tsunami hazards. No impacts are associated with this aspect (Draft EIR, at 4.9-27).

Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan
The project proponent is required to implement a project-specific WQMP to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit. The WQMP includes guidelines for facility 607 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
74 maintenance, pool water drainage, and other operations aimed at complying with local surface water quality requirements. The WQMP will incorporate grading, hydrology, and other plans to document the site design, source controls, and treatment controls with a required operation and maintenance program to comply with water quality objectives. Moreover, the project’s storm water retention facilities will ensure that urban runoff is recharged into the ground via infiltration (Draft EIR, at p. 4.9-28). Therefore, impacts will be less than significant.

LAND USE
Consistency with Any Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation.

The project proposes development of a mixed-use project that includes low-density residential, commercial, resort, and open/space recreational uses. Current General Plan land use designations and zoning allow for low-density residential, neighborhood commercial, and open space/golf course uses, so the project includes applications for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to allow the proposed Tourist Commercial uses. These proposed changes are illustrated in the Draft EIR, at Tables 4.10-2 and 4.10-3.

The Draft EIR evaluated the project’s consistency with the City’s 2035 General Plan Update goals and policies regarding Land Use, Circulation, Livable Communities, Economic Development, Parks, Recreation and Trails, Housing, Water Resources, Open Space and Conservation, Noise, Soils and Geology, Flooding and Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, Emergency Services, and Water, Sewer, and other Utilities. After evaluating the applicable goals and policies in each of these portions of the City’s General Plan, the Draft EIR describes the reason the project is considered consistent with those goals and polices of the General Plan (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.10-15 – 4.10-24). The project’s consistency with the other chapters of the General Plan are evaluated and found consistent in the corresponding chapters of the Draft EIR (Air Quality in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR, Biological Resources in Chapter 4.3, Cultural Resources in Chapter 4.4, Energy in Chapter 4.5, and Public Facilities/Services in Chapter 4.12). With implementation of all identified mitigation measures and project design features, the Draft EIR concluded that the project is consistent with the General Plan with respect to all chapters. As the project is consistent with the General Plan and with the community character of this portion of the City, the project will not have any significant cumulative land use and planning impacts.

Findings:

The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates herein the findings, analysis and conclusions set forth in the Draft EIR, and further specifically finds that the project is consistent with the General Plan as to each and every of these chapters. The City Council also finds that the project Specific Plan will serve as the regulatory document providing the zoning requirements and restrictions for the project, and therefore, the project will be fully consistent with the applicable zoning. The City Council also specifically finds that the project is consistent with the character of the surrounding residential and golf course communities.

Facts Supporting Findings:
608 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
75 The project has been designed to maintain low-density residential development along nearly all of the perimeter arterial roadways, and will be visually consistent and compatible with the other development along Madison Street, Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. The neighborhood serving commercial will complement the existing and planned future residential communities and reduce the need for lengthy trips for basic residential commercial needs of the residents. The project’s hotel, Wave Basin and related tourist commercial uses will be located in the southwest portion of the site, a significant distance from the surrounding roadways and screened with perimeter walls, landscaping and low-density residential development.

The City Council has reviewed the asserted General Plan inconsistencies set forth in Draft EIR comments 41-c and 83-v through 83-jj and finds those asserted inconsistencies to be lacking in any merit or substantial evidence. The City Council has also reviewed the Final EIR Responses 41-c and 83-v through 83-jj and finds those responses persuasive. Responses 41-c and 83-v through 83-jj set forth in the Final EIR are hereby specifically adopted by the City Council and hereby incorporated into its findings, analysis and conclusions regarding the project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan.

Finally, the City Council reviewed Draft EIR comments 52-f, 52-g, and the other public comments asserting that the project’s allowance of short-term vacation rentals (STVRs), pursuant to the terms of the proposed Development Agreement, is inconsistent with the General Plan and would have adverse environmental effects that have not been fully analyzed or disclosed. The City Council finds those assertions to be lacking in merit and in any substantial evidence, and further finds that the allowance of STVRs in the project pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Development Agreement will not be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan or have any undisclosed or unmitigated adverse environmental effects (other than as set forth in Section III of these Findings). The City Council has also reviewed the Final EIR Responses 52-f and 52-g, and hereby adopts those responses and incorporates them by this reference into the City Council’s findings, analysis and conclusions regarding the allowance of STVRs.

NOISE
Generation of Ground Borne Vibration.

The Final EIR analyzed the potential impacts of vibration created by the proposed project.

Potential ground-borne vibration is associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities.

Findings:

The City Council finds that the project’s impacts relating to the generation of ground borne vibration will be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings:

As described in the Draft EIR, ground-borne vibration levels from automobile traffic, including heavy trucks, are rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and the project generated traffic would not cause any significant adverse effects, including on the surrounding residential 609 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
76 communities (Draft EIR, at p. 4.11-50). In addition, the wave machine and wave action will not generate any measurable vibration outside of the Wave Basin itself (Final EIR, Appendix M.2, at pp. 1-2, and Response 42-g).

To evaluate potential construction-related vibration, ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment were analyzed, and as determined in the Noise Study, vibration levels at all nearby sensitive receptor locations would be below the perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec. (Draft EIR, Table 4.11-27). Accordingly, potential impacts form the generation of ground borne vibration and ground borne noise by project construction activities would be less than significant.

PUBLIC SERVICES
The Draft EIR analyzes the project’s potential effects relating to the provision of public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.12-9 – 4.12-15). The project will add residents, workers, and visitors to the project site, which will cause incremental increases in the demand for these public services.

Findings:

The City Council finds that the project’s impacts on public services, including police services, fire protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities will be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings:

As described in the Draft EIR, with payment of the applicable City Development Impact Fees (DIF) and statutory school developer fees, the project will not have any significant project-specific or cumulative adverse effects on public services. Specifically, the project is required to pay the City’s DIF in the amount in effect at the time of construction (the current DIF is $9,380 per residential unit) (Draft EIR at p. 4.12-11). These fees are used by the City to fund additional public facilities, including fire stations, police cars and facilities, parks, public buildings, and traffic improvements.

With respect to emergency services, the nearest fire station is located within 2 miles of the project site and the project can be adequately served without the need for additional facilities (Draft EIR, at p. 4.12-10). No additional police facilities are anticipated to be required to serve the project, but the La Quinta Police Department may increase staffing to maintain its ratio of officers to residents (currently approximately 1.25 officers per 1,000 residents) (Draft EIR, at p. 4.12-11). P With respect to schools, pursuant to Government Code §§ 65995 et seq., the payment of statutory school fees is deemed to be full and complete mitigation for a project’s impacts on schools, and the project is subject to those fees.
610 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
77 With respect to parks, the City currently exceeds its General Plan policy of providing a minimum of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents and exceeds the amount of parkland required under Quimby.

In addition, the project proposes approximately 24 acres of recreational open space and private recreational facilities that will substantially reduce the demands the project residents will put on City park facilities. With payment of the City’s DIF, impacts are expected to be less than significant.

The project will also generate substantial transient occupancy taxes and sales tax that will add to the City’s general fund, which is used to fund police and fire services, which is of particular importance for development in this portion of the City because the City will not receive any portion of the property taxes from this area until existing redevelopment bonds (issued by Riverside County before annexation into the City) are fully paid, which is not expected to occur until approximately 2035.

TRANSPORTATION
Consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) [VMT].

Travel demand modeling of VMT for the project based upon City of La Quinta guidelines indicates a potential impact for residential uses while also indicating the project’s non‐residential uses do not exceed VMT thresholds. Project design features considered after the modeling process reduce residential VMT to below the City’s VMT residential threshold for a significant impact. The unique mixed‐use characteristics of the project, combined with walkability and connectivity design elements, optimize on‐site interaction and result in a lower VMT than standalone uses.

Project Design Features:

Project VMT is reduced by the following project design features/attributes, which are enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement and/or Specific Plan, and are anticipated to collectively reduce project home-based VMT by approximately 6%.

The placement of different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non‐auto modes of transport.

For example, when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as commercial and resort land uses, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her recreational and retail needs. The project’s mixed‐use environment could provide for a potential reduction in project residential VMT of 3% according to CAPCOA guidance.

The project includes improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity, and encourage the use of alternative transportation. Recognized improved street network characteristics within the project include sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian‐oriented environments from auto-oriented environments. The project provides a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project minimizes barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. The project includes sidewalk connections, particularly to / from the retail areas resulting in interaction with residential and resort 611 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
78 uses on‐site. The project’s implementation of this measure is anticipated to result in a potential reduction in project residential VMT of 2% according to CAPCOA guidance.

The project will implement marketing strategies to optimize on‐site resort and residential uses.

Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful trip reduction strategies. Marketing strategies may include: resident member benefits that include use of the resort amenities; event promotions; and publications.

Findings:

The City Council finds that with implementation of the project design features stated above, which are being made enforceable through the Development Agreement, the project will be consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, and impacts relating to VMT will be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings:

The Urban Crossroads VMT Evaluation calculated project VMT using the most current version of the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM). Adjustments in socioeconomic data (SED) (i.e., employment) were made to a separate Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) within the RIVTAM model to reflect the project’s proposed population and employment uses, consistent with industry standards.

The project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,698 project residents and 19,773 HomeBased VMT for baseline (2020) conditions. This results in approximately 11.64 home-based VMT/Capita for the 2020 Baseline with project conditions (Draft EIR, Table 4.13-31). In addition, the cumulative (2040) project scenario results in approximately 12.14 VMT/Service Population.

Because the project exceeds the City’s VMT/Capita threshold of 11.03 (based on the City’s standard requiring a 15% reduction below its Citywide VMT/capita of 12.98), impacts would be considered potentially significant. However, the project incorporates design features and attributes promoting trip reduction which reduce residential VMT from 11.64 VMT/resident to 10.94 VMT/resident, including the placement of different land use types near one another as well as elements of the project that enhance walkability and connectivity between the mix of use types such as sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings and the presence of street trees (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.13-54 – 4.13-55). Implementation of the project design features will reduce potential impacts to below the City’s established threshold for a significant VMT impact, and therefore, the residential portion of the project would have a less than significant VMT impact. The project Development Agreement and/or conditions of approval will ensure that the project design features identified in the Draft EIR are enforceable by the City.

The VMT analysis methodology for retail uses (including hotels) focuses on the net increase in the total existing VMT for the region. The project consists of approximately 674 employees. Travel activity associated with total link-level VMT was extracted from the “without project” and “with non-residential project” RIVTAM model run for 2012 and 2040 conditions, then interpolated for baseline (2020) conditions. This methodology is referred to as “boundary method,” and evaluates hotel occupants, Wave Basin visitors and retail patrons Draft EIR, 4.13-55 – 4.13-56). Using the boundary method, the Coachella Valley Association of Government’s (CVAG) area VMT with 612 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
79 project employment is compared to without project conditions to determine whether there is a significant impact. The CVAG subregion VMT/SP without project is estimated at 21.56, whereas with the project employment, the CVAG subregion VMT is estimated at 21.53 (Draft EIR, Table

4.13-33). Therefore, the project’s effect on VMT (for non-residential uses) is not significant because it results in a cumulative link-level boundary decrease under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition (see pages 4.13-55 and 4.13-56 of the Draft EIR).

The unique mixed‐use characteristics of the project, combined with walkability and connectivity design elements, optimize on‐site interaction and result in a lower VMT than standalone uses.

Implementation of the previously stated project PDFs will reduce potential impacts to below the City’s established threshold for a significant VMT impact, and therefore, the project would have a less than significant VMT impact. Please also see Final EIR Responses 83-k and Appendix L.3, which the City Council hereby incorporates into its findings, analysis and conclusions.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water, Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities.

The Draft EIR analyzes the construction of new or expanded facilities for water, wastewater, drainage, and utilities, and whether the construction of such facilities would have any significant adverse effect.

Water: As noted in CVWD’s Comment 10-a and Final EIR Response 10-a, the project will require implementation of the previously planned water line extension in Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, to connect the project to CVWD’s existing water facilities, which will be located in the existing disturbed right-of way and will not have any significant adverse effects, as described on page 2-52 of the Final EIR. In addition, the project’s final engineering plans will undergo additional review by CVWD to assure compliance with all applicable requirements. Accordingly, the project will not have any project-specific or cumulative adverse effects relating to water infrastructure.

Wastewater Facilities: The project will not have any significant project-specific or cumulative adverse effects concerning wastewater facilities because CVWD’s existing Mid-Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) has adequate capacity to serve the project (which will add approximately 3.3 percent to the existing flows to WRP-4), and because the project will connect to CVWD’s existing sewer mains adjacent to the project site, which have adequate capacity to convey the additional flows from the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-17 – 4.15-18, and 4.15-32).

In addition, the project’s final engineering plans will undergo additional review by CVWD to assure compliance with all applicable requirements.

Storm Water Facilities: Pursuant to the project-specific Master Plan Hydrology Report (Draft EIR, Appendix J.3), the project provides sufficient on-site storm water retention to retain flows from the 100-year storm event, including flows coming onto the site from adjacent roadways, consistent 613 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
80 with City requirements, including La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-16. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-18 – 4.15-21).

Electrical Facilities: The project site is located within the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) service area for electric service. The project will be required to install twelve, 6-inch conduits along Avenue 58 to bring additional power to the site and install a transformer bank at IID’s existing substation yard located at Avenue 58 and Monroe Street (Draft EIR, at p. 4.15-21). These facilities were included in the project description and their potential adverse effects were fully evaluated in the Draft EIR and found to be less than significant because all improvements will occur on the substation site and previously disturbed road right-of-way. As discussed in the finding regarding energy above, and in Chapter 4.5 of the Draft EIR, the project is expected to require approximately 8,642,729 kWh of electricity per year, which constitutes approximately 0.19 percent of IID’s total estimated demand in 2031, and IID has adequate capacity to serve the project and all other current and planned future users within its service area. Accordingly, impacts relating to electrical facilities are less than significant (Draft EIR, at pp, 4.15-21 – 4.15-22).

Other Facilities: Natural gas and telecommunications/cable facilities are currently located adjacent to the project site along Madison Street and Avenue 58, and as analyzed in the Draft EIR, the utility providers (SoCal Gas, Frontier, and Charter Communications) can serve the project without the need for to construct new or expanded facilities (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-22 – 4.15-23).

Accordingly, impacts will be less than significant.

Sufficiency of Water Supplies
To determine the adequacy of available water supplies to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, the Draft EIR incorporates information from the WSA/WSV approved by CVWD as required by Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines (Draft EIR, Appendix M).

For this proposed project, the City requested that CVWD prepare and approve a WSA/WSV.

CVWD will be the public water supplier for the project with the source of domestic (potable) water supply for the project being the Indio Subbasin via CVWD’s potable water distribution system.

CVWD approved a WSA/WSV providing an assessment and verification of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years over a 20-year projection period to meet the projected demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD as required by the Water Code. The WSA/WSV determined that project’s total water demand is projected to be 958.63 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 0.49 percent of the total projected growth in water demand presented in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-19 and 4.19-20).

Wastewater Treatment System Capacity
CVWD provides sanitary sewer service to the project, and the capacity of CVWD’s wastewater treatment facilities are addressed in the Draft EIR at pp. 4.15-17 through 4.15-18, and 4.5-32. The project will connect to existing sewer mains located adjacent to the project, and the project will 614 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
81 add approximately 3.3 percent to the existing flows to CVWD’s existing Mid-Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4).

Generate Excess Solid Waste
As described on pages 4.15-32 and 4.15-33 of the Draft EIR, the project is projected to generate 581.6 tons of solid waste per year, which equals 3,574.5 cubic yards of solid waste per year. Solid waste from the City of La Quinta is transported to the Edom Hill Transfer Station, and then sent to the Lamb Canyon Landfill (8.7 million tons of remaining capacity) or the Badlands Landfill (5.1 million tons of remaining capacity) (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-4 and 4.15-5).

Comply with Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste.

The project is required to comply with the mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341 and the Cal Green requirement for a construction waste management plan that includes diversion of at least 65% of construction and demolition materials from landfills, through recycling and/or reuse (Draft EIR, at p. 4.15-33).

Findings:

The City Council finds that the project’s impacts concerning utilities and service systems will be less than significant. The City Council finds that the new and expanded utilities facilities to be constructed as part of the project, including the upgraded electrical substation, additional electrical conduit, and water line extension, will not have any significant adverse effects. The City Council further finds that there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and all reasonably foreseeable future development, as well as all existing uses within the Indio Subbasin, during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and further finds that the project’s impacts relating to water use are less than significant. The City Council also finds that there is adequate capacity in CVWD’s wastewater treatment system and Riverside County Department of Waste Resources’ landfills to meet the project’s wastewater and solid waste demands, and finds that the project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies, and guidelines, Facts in Support of Findings:

Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water, Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities.

Water: As noted in CVWD’s Comment 10-a and Final EIR Response 10-a, the project will require implementation of the previously planned water line extension in Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, to connect the project to CVWD’s existing water facilities, which will be located in the existing disturbed right-of way and will not have any significant adverse effects, as described on page 2-52 of the Final EIR. In addition, the project’s final engineering plans will undergo additional review by CVWD to assure compliance with all applicable requirements. Accordingly, the project will not have any project-specific or cumulative adverse effects relating to water infrastructure.
615 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
82 Wastewater Facilities: The project will not have any significant project-specific or cumulative adverse effects concerning wastewater facilities because CVWD’s existing Mid-Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) has adequate capacity to serve the project (which will add approximately 3.3 percent to the existing flows to WRP-4), and because the project will connect to CVWD’s existing sewer mains adjacent to the project site, which have adequate capacity to convey the additional flows from the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-17 – 4.15-18, and 4.15-32).

In addition, the project’s final engineering plans will undergo additional review by CVWD to assure compliance with all applicable requirements.

Storm Water Facilities: Pursuant to the project-specific Master Plan Hydrology Report (Draft EIR, Appendix J.3), the project provides sufficient on-site storm water retention to retain flows from the 100-year storm event, including flows coming onto the site from adjacent roadways, consistent with City requirements, including La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-16. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-18 – 4.15-21).

Electrical Facilities: The project site is located within the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) service area for electric service. The project will be required to install twelve, 6-inch conduits along Avenue 58 to bring additional power to the site and install a transformer bank at IID’s existing substation yard located at Avenue 58 and Monroe Street (Draft EIR, at p. 4.15-21). These facilities were included in the project description and their potential adverse effects were fully evaluated in the Draft EIR and found to be less than significant because all improvements will occur on the substation site and previously disturbed road right-of-way. As discussed in the finding regarding energy above, and in Chapter 4.5 of the Draft EIR, the project is expected to require approximately 8,642,729 kWh of electricity per year, which constitutes approximately 0.19 percent of IID’s total estimated demand in 2031, and IID has adequate capacity to serve the project and all other current and planned future users within its service area. Accordingly, impacts relating to electrical facilities are less than significant (Draft EIR, at pp, 4.15-21 – 4.15-22).

Other Facilities: Natural gas and telecommunications/cable facilities are currently located adjacent to the project site along Madison Street and Avenue 58, and as analyzed in the Draft EIR, the utility providers (SoCal Gas, Frontier, and Charter Communications) can serve the project without the need for to construct new or expanded facilities (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-22 – 4.15-23).

Accordingly, impacts will be less than significant.

Sufficiency of Water Supplies
Approved WSA/WSV Wave Basin Water Demand Estimate
CVWD approved a WSA/WSV for the project providing an assessment and verification of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years over a 20-year projection period to meet the projected demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD as required by the Water Code. CVWD estimates the project’s total domestic water demand for indoor and outdoor use will be approximately 958 acrefeet per year (AFY). The vast majority of this water is for outdoor uses, which total 801.47 AFY of the total 958 AFY for the project. The project’s outdoor water use is calculated pursuant to the express requirements of CVWD Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4, and those calculations are 616 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
83 shown in Table 2.0-3, Outdoor Water Demand from the Approved WSA/WSV (also copied on Final EIR p. 2-18).

The Wave Basin itself is projected to use 119.58 AFY, or approximately 15% of the projected outdoor water use. The CVWD Landscape Ordinance defines a “Water Feature” as any water applied to the landscape for non-irrigation, decorative purposes, including fountains, streams, ponds and lakes. The Wave Basin is considered a water feature under CVWD Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4 and is assigned the highest evapotranspiration upward adjustment factor of

1.2 for a moving body of water. Page 22 in the WSA/WSV WSA identifies the information used to estimate the annual water demand for the proposed Wave Basin:
• 64.22 inches per year for a reference Eto;
• ET adjustment factor of 1.2 for a moving water body;
• 815,443 square feet of area; and
• a conversion of 0.62 to convert to gallons.

Based on these factors the MAWA for the Wave Basin was determined to be 119.58 AFY.

It should be noted that for purposes of determining the MAWA for the proposed Wave Basin, the approved WSA/WSV applies the water demand factor to the Wave Basin structure as defined in the Specific Plan, which at the time the WSA was prepared was conservatively estimated to be

18.72 acres (815,443 square feet). However, the surface area of the Wave Basin water body will not occupy this entire area. The water surface area of the proposed Wave Basin will occupy approximately 12.5 acres (544,500 square feet) of this 18.72 acres (815,443 square foot) area (see Draft EIR, Project Description, at pp. 3-19 – 3-20). The remainder of the Wave Basin area contains the deck and other areas around the Wave Basin. The water demand estimate for the Wave Basin in the approved WSA/WSV is, therefore, conservative as it applies the water demand factor to

18.72 acres when the Wave Basin water body will only occupy 12.5 acres of this area (see Final EIR, at p. 2-19).

The project also includes significant water reduction and sustainability measures, consistent with City and CVWD requirements. Specifically, as described on page 4.15-16 of the Draft EIR, the following water conservation measures are standard requirements of the City and CVWD landscape ordinances and applicable state law requirements, and will be implemented at the project to ensure the most efficient use of water resources for the proposed uses, and to meet the applicable Water Management Plan goals throughout the life of the project:

1. Native plant materials and other drought tolerant plants shall be used in all non‐ turf areas of project landscaping. Large expanses of lawn and other water‐ intensive landscaped areas shall be kept to the minimum necessary and consistent with the functional and aesthetic needs of the project, while providing soil stability to resist erosion.

2. In the event recycled water becomes available to the project, the potential use of tertiary treated water will be reviewed to determine feasibility of its use for onsite landscaped 617 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
84 areas to reduce the use of groundwater for irrigation.

3. The installation and maintenance of efficient onsite irrigation systems will minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize effective watering of plant roots. Drip irrigation and moisture detectors will be used to the greatest extent practicable to increase irrigation efficiency.

4. The use of low-flush toilets and water conserving showerheads and faucets shall be required in conformance with Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code and applicable sections of Title 24 of the State Building Code.

5. Project developers will pay any required CVWD groundwater replenishment fees for the purpose of buying additional supplies of water for importation into the basin.

Approved WSA/WSV Water Supplies and Entitlements:

This WSA/WSV approved by CVWD also includes identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply for the project and quantities of water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, contracts, and agreements. In reviewing those sources, including an examination of the current condition of the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, the WSA/WSV concluded that the water supplies available from the Indio Subbasin, the State Water Project (SWP), the Colorado River, and other sources will be adequate to supply the project and all other existing and planned uses in accordance with California Water Code Section 10910 et seq., as further described in the Draft EIR at pp, 4.15-26 – 4.15-31. Those findings by CVWD are hereby incorporated by this reference.

Conditions in the Indio Subbasin are continually being assessed and quantified in management plans developed and implemented by CVWD. In December 2021, CVWD approved the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, which provides the most current assessment of the subbasin and other water supplies, including consideration of the potential for extended extreme drought conditions. The Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update analyzes several scenarios over the 50-year period required by SGMA to address potential future water supply conditions, changes in land use, and implementation of water management projects including source substitution and new water supply projects. Climate change conditions were considered in all of these scenarios. To account for the potential effects of future climate change, the projections assume CVWD will contribute water to California’s Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan allotment for Colorado River water. Under this plan, CVWD is obligated to contribute approximately 14,000 to 24,500 AFY, which equals about 7 percent of California’s total contribution, to prevent Lake Mead water levels reaching critically low levels (see Final EIR, at pp. 2-23 – 2-25).

The modeling of these scenarios shows that implementation of water management projects that are already planned and CVWD’s ongoing management actions can maintain the water balance in the Indio Subbasin, even with the expected effects of future climate change in the Colorado River 618 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
85 Basin and on the State Water Project (see Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, pp.

ES-9 – ES-12, p. 7-89, and Figures ES-6 and ES-8). Of note, the projections in this update include four projects with water features such as surf parks with a total projected demand of 500 AFY and for which CVWD has approved WSAs, inclusive of the 120 AFY demand for the Wave Basin in the Coral Mountain project. Accordingly, this information supports the conclusions in the DEIR that the project (i) will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Indio Subbasin; and (ii) will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and therefore, will not have any significant adverse effects relating to water use.

Based on both the project-specific WSA/WSV and the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, the City Council finds that CVWD has correctly calculated for, and demonstrated that it can supply the water demand generated by the proposed project, as well as all other existing and projected future demands.

In addition, the City Council has reviewed and considered the public comments questioning the accuracy of the water demand calculations in the WSA/WSV, including the alternative water demand and evaporation figures cited in Comment 65-d in the Final EIR. The City Council finds these alternative evaporation figures and calculations to lack sufficient verified information regarding the project site and the proposed Wave Basin to constitute substantial evidence regarding the project’s water demands or the sufficiency of available water supplies. On the other hand, the City Council finds the information in the WSA/WSV, the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update approved by CVWD, and the Topical Response on Water Resources in the Final EIR (pp. 2-17 – 2-28), to be valid and persuasive substantial evidence that the project will not have any significant adverse effects on groundwater supplies or CVWD’s recharge activities and other groundwater basin management efforts. The City Council also adopts Final EIR Responses 52-o, 65-d, 83-l, and 83-m and incorporates those responses as part of its findings, analysis and conclusions that there are adequate available water supplies to serve the project and all other existing and planned future uses, and that the project will have less than significant effects on groundwater supplies and CVWD’s recharge and other groundwater management efforts.

Finally, the City Council has reviewed and considered the letter and accompanying memo submitted by Bruce Bauer on February 7, 2022, and the letter dated April 12, 2022, asserting errors and inadequacies in the WSA/WSV. The City Council finds that, contrary to the assertion in the Bauer letters, both the WSA/WSV and the Draft EIR provide complete and accurate information regarding the evaporation and water demand calculations for the project in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA, including the specific water demands of the proposed Wave Basin.

The City Council further finds that the analysis of water evaporation and water use at the proposed DSRT SURF project located in Palm Desert is inapplicable to the proposed project because that location has different evaporation rates, and the two projects have different designs and operational characteristics. .

With regard to evaporation, CVWD defines evaporation (ETo) rates for each of four different climate zones in its service area which reflect several important factors including local elevation, wind, and shadow conditions, in addition to temperatures (see Appendix C to Landscape 619 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
86 Ordinance 1302.4). The project site is located in Zone #3 with the Wave Basin proposed near the border of Zone #2 and adjacent to Coral Mountain, which experience lower evaporation rates than Zone #5 due to lower winds, lower temperatures, and increased shadowing from the nearby mountains. The DSRT SURF lagoon water feature planned in the Desert Willow project in Palm Desert is located in Zone #5, the zone that experiences the greatest evaporation in the Coachella Valley. CVWD’s estimated water demand for the Wave Basin accounts for the localized elevation, wind, and shadow conditions of the Coral Mountain Project site is appropriate for the project site.

In addition, the WSA/WSV and Final EIR for the project take into account the specific size and design features of the proposed Wave Basin, not the features proposed for the DSRT SURF project, which are substantially different based on the statements in the memo attached to the Bauer letter.

Accordingly, the City Council finds the water demand analysis used for the DSRT SURF project to be inapplicable here, and finds the arguments and information in the Bauer letter lack substantial evidence.

Wastewater Treatment System Capacity
The project will not have any significant project-specific or cumulative adverse effects concerning CVWD’s wastewater treatment system capacity because CVWD’s existing Mid-Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) has adequate capacity to serve the project (which will add approximately 3.3 percent to the existing flows to WRP-4), and because the project will connect to CVWD’s existing sewer mains adjacent to the project site, which have adequate capacity to convey the additional flows from the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-17 – 4.15-18, and 4.15-32).

Generate Excess Solid Waste
As described on pages 4.15-32 and 4.15-33 of the Draft EIR, the project is projected to generate 581.6 tons of solid waste per year, which equals 3,574.5 cubic yards of solid waste per year. Solid waste from the City of La Quinta is transported to the Edom Hill Transfer Station, and then sent to the Lamb Canyon Landfill (8.7 million tons of remaining capacity) or the Badlands Landfill (5.1 million tons of remaining capacity) (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-4 and 4.15-5).

In addition, all future development would be required to comply with mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines; and the project will be served by landfills (El Sobrante and Lamb Canyon) with sufficient capacity to serve the project (Draft EIR, at pp.

4.15-32 – 4.15-33). Therefore, impacts relative to solid waste are less than significant.

Comply with Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste.

The project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines. All development is required to comply with the mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The California Green Building Standards Code (Cal Green) applies to all cities in California, and mandates that all new building construction develop a waste management plan that includes diversion of at least 65% of construction and demolition material from landfills, through recycling and/or reuse. Prior to applying for a permit, the contractor or property owner must submit a Construction & Demolition Debris Management Plan to the City’s 620 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
87 Environmental Coordinator. There will be no significant adverse effects relating to applicable solid waste regulations because the project is required to, and will comply with all such regulations (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-33).

V. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS HAVING NO
IMPACT

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Federally protected wetlands.

The site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, federally protected wetlands, marshes or other drainage features. No blue-line stream corridors (streams or dry washes) are shown on U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) maps for the project site nor are there botanical indicators of such corridors. As a result, implementation of the project would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption to federally protected wetlands. Therefore, the project will have no impacts on federally protected wetlands (Draft EIR, at p. 4.3-17).

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Effects Involving Rupture of a Known Fault.

There are no known active faults near or at the project site, and the project is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, there will be no impact associated with fault rupture on-site (Draft EIR p. 4.6-15).

HAZARDS AND HAZADOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous Materials within ¼ mile of a school.

The project site is not located within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school. The closest school to the project site is Westside Elementary School, located approximately 1.30 miles northeast of the project. Offsite improvements include the construction and operation of a transformer bank at an existing IID substation located at 81600 Avenue 58. The substation is located approximately one mile southwest of Westside Elementary School. Therefore, the project’s proposed onsite and offsite improvements will have no impact on schools as it relates to hazardous materials.

Sites with Known Hazardous Materials Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Government Code section 65962.5 requires that a list of the location of hazardous materials release site be maintained and updated least annually. The GeoTracker and ECHO databases listed sites within one mile of the project. The GeoTracker database listed one registered Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Site within a one-mile radius of the project site. The potential contaminant of concern at this site was identified as gasoline; however, the site has a 621 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
88 status of “Completed-Case Closed” as of October 1999. Therefore, the facility will not affect the project or result in any hazard to the public (Draft EIR, at p. 4.8-20).

The ECHO database highlighted one facility registered under the Clean Water Act (CWA) as a minor general permit covered facility, which is located approximately 0.75 miles from the project site. The facility has remained in compliance for three consecutive years with no identified violations, and due to its distance from the proposed project, the registered site is not anticipated to affect the project site (Draft EIR, at p. 4.8-20 – 4.8-21). Therefore, hazardous waste sites will have no impact on the proposed project.

Effects Having No Impact and Not Analyzed Further in Draft EIR In addition to the foregoing potential environmental effects, for which the City Council finds that the following impacts associated with the project will have no impacts and do not require mitigation, the City Council further finds that the following impacts associated with the project will have no impacts, do not require mitigation, and did not need to be analyzed in further detail within the Final EIR: Agriculture and Forest Resources, Geology and Soils (with respect to septic tanks/alternative wastewater disposal systems only), Hazards and Hazardous Materials (safety hazards for projects located within an airport land use plan only), Land Use and Planning (physically divide an established community only), Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Noise (exposure to airport noise), Recreation, and Wildfire. The Final EIR summarizes these impacts that were found to be insignificant in Chapter 6, and the City Council hereby adopts the findings, analysis and conclusions set forth therein.

VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE DEIR AND

REJECTED
The State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) requires the discussion of a “a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The Guidelines states that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” (Section 15126(c)). The Final EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives are:

Alternative 1: No Project/No Build
Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements
Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative
Alternative 5: The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative
When a lead agency has determined that a proposed project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, prior to approving the project as mitigated, the agency must 622 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
89 determine whether there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior with respect to such impacts and feasible within the meaning of CEQA.

An alternative may be rejected if it is “infeasible” or if it fails to achieve most of the basic project objectives identified within the EIR. “Feasibility” under CEQA encompasses the desirability of the project based on a reasonable balancing of relevant economic, environmental, social, or other considerations which make infeasible the project alternatives.

Alternative 1: No Project/No Build
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e) requires the analysis of alternatives to include the specific alternative of “No Project.” The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. Under the No Project/No Build Alternative (“Alternative 1”), the project would remain in its current and existing vacant condition. The existing visual character and visual resources would remain the same, and none of the significant impacts of the project would occur.

Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
Although the No Project/No Build Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative in that it would avoid the significant adverse effects of the project; the City Council of the City of La Quinta rejects the No Project/No Build Alternative for the following reasons:

1. The No Project/No Build Alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan, insofar as this alternative would not implement the General Plan’s land uses for the property, which the City Council considers inconsistent with its vision for City land use policy under the General Plan.

2. The No Project/No Build Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives.

3. In particular, the project will create a private resort community with a variety of interrelated and mutually supportive commercial and recreational land uses that will generate transient occupancy and sales tax revenues in order to enhance the City’s economic base and long‐term financial stability, which are significant public benefits that will not be realized under the No Project/No Build Alternative.

4. This alternative could result in the loss of the adobe structure and would leave the pre‐ historic Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex resources at the base of Coral Mountain unprotected, which could result in a significant impact to historic and pre‐historic resources.

5. The project site remaining in its existing condition is not considered the most likely outcome if the proposed project is not approved, due to the existing entitlements associated with SP 03‐067, which would remain in effect if the project is disapproved. 623 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
90 The City Council therefore finds the No Project/No Build Alternative is unacceptable and rejects it.

Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements
Under this alternative, the 386‐acre portion of the project would be developed under the existing Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan (03‐067). This Alternative would develop approximately 8.4 acres of General Commercial, 204.2 acres of Low Density Residential, and approximately 171.9 acres of Open Space (Recreation) land uses. Alternative 2 would include the development of 750 low density residential units and a golf course. It is anticipated that the golf course would be privately owned and would be operated as a resort‐style course that is available to the public to play on a daily fee basis to ensure economic viability. The neighborhood commercial uses would be typical of those found in other neighborhood commercial centers in the City, providing a range of retail uses.

Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of La Quinta rejects the No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative for the following reasons:

1. This Alternative would not generate the transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues anticipated with the proposed project that would enhance the City’s economic base and support the City’s long‐term financial stability, which is considered a significant public benefit of the proposed project.

2. The No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative does not meet many of the basic project objectives, including developing a private resort community with a variety of interrelated and mutually supportive commercial and recreational land uses that promote walkability and non-motorized connectivity, in addition to generating TOT revenue that offsets the public service costs associated with any development of the project site.

3. This Alternative would have increased adverse environmental effects in the areas of Air Quality, GHG Emissions, Vehicle Miles Traveled, as described on pages 7-17, 7- 20 – 7-21, and 7-26 of the Draft EIR, due to the lack of complimentary land uses and connectivity, and would increase the project water demands due to inclusion of the golf course uses (see Draft EIR, page 7-27). The Air Quality and GHG Emissions would be significant and unavoidable impacts, and would be somewhat greater than those anticipated with the proposed project. While this Alternative would reduce the project’s aesthetic impacts, the significant and unavoidable impact on views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains would still result from construction of the perimeter walls, landscaping and single-family homes. Impacts concerning electricity use, land use and planning, and noise would be incrementally reduced, but these impacts would also be reduced to less-than-significant levels under the proposed project.
624 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
91 The City Council therefore finds the No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative unacceptable and rejects it.

Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative
The project would be reduced by one‐third of the proposed density of the project under this Alternative. Therefore, this Reduced Density Alternative would develop 400 residential dwelling units, 100 resort/hotel rooms, 38,000 square feet of resort commercial uses, and 40,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses. The Wave Basin and other proposed recreational amenities would remain part of the project as presently proposed.

Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of La Quinta rejects the Reduced Density Alternative for the following reasons:

1. The Reduced Density Alternative does not meet all of the project objectives, including maintaining the overall density previously included for this property in the Andalusia Specific Plan.

2. The Reduced Density Alternative would fail to generate the same levels of transient occupancy and sales tax revenues in order to enhance the City’s economic base and long‐term financial stability.

3. This Alternative would reduce the GHG emissions estimated for the proposed project by reducing the number of hotel rooms, residences, and commercial areas (Draft EIR, at pp. 7-35 – 7-36), but as described above, this Alternative fails to maintain the overall density included for this property in the City’s General Plan and fails to meet the City’s desired level of tax revenues for the City, and for those reasons, deemed by the City Council to be infeasible.

4. This Alternative would not reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact on views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains, which would still result from construction of the perimeter walls, landscaping, and single-family homes (Draft EIR, at pp. 7-30 – 7-32).

The City Council therefore finds the Reduced Density Alternative unacceptable and rejects it.

Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative
This Alternative would develop a resort hotel of 150 hotel rooms and associated recreational, restaurant and retail amenities, an 18‐hole championship golf course that would be open to the public to play on a daily fee basis, and 600 low‐density residential units, but would not include the Wave Basin and related uses.
625 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
92 Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of La Quinta rejects the Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative for the following reasons:

1. The proposed project will develop a high‐quality private wave basin (The Wave) that provides unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project, and that attracts resort guests and creates a landmark facility, which would not occur with this alternative.

2. This alternative would generate greater air quality impacts (Draft EIR, p. 7-46) and GHG emissions (Draft EIR, 7-49) because the project’s projected 12-15% emissions reductions resulting from the complimentary and integrated mix of uses and other PDFs would not be achieved under this alternative, and these impacts would potentially be significant and unavoidable.

3. This alternative would also increase the project’s water demands by 133.88 acre-feet per year (an increase of approximately 14%) because the golf course would use substantially more water than the Wave Basin amenity (Draft EIR, pp. 7-54 – 7-55).

4. This alternative would also fail to substantially reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project. Although the project would have incrementally reduced impacts in the areas of aesthetics, energy, and noise, these impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level, as would the proposed project. Accordingly, this alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project.

The City Council therefore finds the Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative unacceptable and rejects it.

Alternative 5: The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative
This Alternative would develop a lake amenity, instead of the Wave Basin, and would include 750 low‐density residential units and 8.4 acres of commercial uses at the northeast corner of the property, consistent with the existing entitlements for the project site. The lake would be approximately 75 acres, and would be used for typical lake uses, including small electric boats, sailing, kayaking and paddle boarding (but not gas‐powered boats or recreational watercraft). This Alternative would not have the hotel or other Tourist Commercial uses and would not have the occasional special events that would be associated with the Wave Basin.

Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of La Quinta rejects the Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative for the following reasons:

1. This Alternative would not generate the transient occupancy tax revenues anticipated with the proposed project that would enhance the City’s economic base and support the 626 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
93 City’s long‐term financial stability, which is considered a significant public benefit of the proposed project.

2. The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative does not meet many of the basic project objectives, including developing a private resort community with a variety of interrelated and mutually supportive commercial and recreational land uses that promote walkability and non-motorized connectivity, in addition to generating TOT revenue that offsets the public service costs associated with any development of the project site.

3. This Alternative would have increased adverse environmental effects in the areas of Air Quality (Draft EIR, pp. 7-59 – 7-60), GHG Emissions (Draft EIR, p. 7-62), and Vehicle Miles Traveled (Draft EIR, p. 7-67), due to the lack of complimentary land uses and connectivity, and would increase the project water demands due to inclusion of the 75-acre lake (Draft EIR, p. 7-68). The increased Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and VMT impacts would be significant and unavoidable. While this Alternative would reduce the project’s aesthetic impacts, the significant and unavoidable impact on views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains would still result from construction of the perimeter walls, landscaping and single-family homes (Draft EIR, pp. 7-58 – 7- 59). Impacts concerning electricity use and noise would also be incrementally reduced, but these impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels consistent with the proposed project. Accordingly, this Alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project.

The City Council therefore finds the Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative unacceptable and it is rejected.

Additional Findings Regarding the Environmentally Superior Alternative A summary comparison of impacts associated with the project Alternatives is provided in the Draft EIR in Table 7-6, Comparison of Alternatives to Project. Of the Alternatives considered in this Draft EIR section, the No Project/No Build Alternative is environmentally superior to the other Alternatives because this Alternative would avoid any impacts identified for the project or any other alternative.

Although Alternative 1 is environmentally superior, it does not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project because it would not involve any development of the site.

The CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative to the project and “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[e][2]. In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives.

Of the remaining alternatives, Alternative 3 (reduced density project) would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in incremental reductions with respect 627 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
94 to the following environmental topics: air quality, energy, noise, public services, transportation, and utility & services. This Alternative would also avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact regarding GHG emissions. However, Alternative 3 would fail to adequately meet the proposed project’s basic objective of maintaining the overall density count previously included in the Andalusia Specific Plan, which the City Council finds to be inconsistent with the General Plan and unacceptable for that reason. This Alternative also would fail to generate the same levels of transient occupancy and sales taxes to enhance the City’s economic base and long-term financial stability. While Alternative 3 is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative, the City Council rejects it as infeasible because it is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and considered economically infeasible due to the reduced TOT and sales tax revenue that the City Council considers critical for this property because until 2035, 100% of all real property taxes from the project site must be used to retire a long-term debt from the County’s former Thermal Redevelopment Project Area. As a result, Alternative 3 is rejected.

VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.” As described in Section III of these Findings, the project will have significant and unavoidable impacts in the following two areas:
(1) the project’s perimeter walls, landscaping and low-density residential homes will obstruct existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains from public views and surrounding properties; and
(2) the project will generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s established threshold of significance, and even with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure requiring the purchase of carbon credits, this effect is considered significant and unavoidable because the use of carbon credits has not been established in the Coachella Valley area as effective mitigation for residential and resort communities, and because even with the purchase of such credits, the project will still generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold.

As permitted under CEQA Guideline 15093(b) the City Council of the City of La Quinta adopts and makes this statement of overriding considerations concerning the project’s unavoidable significant impacts to aesthetics and greenhouse gas emissions to explain why the project’s specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, outweigh its unavoidable impacts.

In general, the project site provides an appropriate location for the proposed residential, recreation and commercial uses that will provide employment, housing, recreation, and increased property and sales tax revenue opportunities for the City, its residents and visitors. The City 628 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
95 Council of the City of La Quinta finds that the project’s significant environmental impacts are acceptable when balanced with the project’s benefits. Each of the benefits cited below constitutes a separate and independent basis that justifies approval of the project and outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of approving the project, and thus make the adverse environmental effects acceptable. Thus, even in the absence of one or more of the reasons set forth below, the City has determined that each remaining reason, or any combination of reasons, is a sufficient basis for approving the project, notwithstanding any significant and unavoidable impacts that may occur.

1. The project will generate substantial transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenue for the City from the proposed hotel, which the City Council considers a critical component of the project because this site is part of the former Thermal Redevelopment Project Area, and as a result, 100% of all real property taxes from the project site must be used by the County to retire a long-term debt for bonds previously issued by Riverside County. Without the TOT revenue, development of the project would generate substantial City general fund costs with no source of revenue to cover those additional costs. Based on the City’s Fiscal Impact Analysis, the project is forecast to generate revenues substantially in excess of the costs associated with providing public services to the project, which will help offset the budget deficit associated with providing public services to the other nearby communities that were also included in the Thermal Redevelopment Project Area.

2. The project provides a unique opportunity to allow short-term vacation rentals (STVRs), at the homeowners’ option, that will also generate substantial TOT revenues for the City within a master planned, mixed-use community that is designed to successfully accommodate such STVRs with complimentary commercial, resort and recreational amenities onsite and centralized management of the STVRs. The project will also include CC&Rs, rules and regulations, sales disclosures, and community enforcement mechanisms designed to accommodate STVRs and avoid any adverse effects on project residents and the surrounding communities. This approach allows the City and project homeowners to receive the benefits of STVRs, while also allowing potential future residents to choose whether or not to live in a private, gated community that allows STVRs.

3. The project provides a unique mix of interrelated and mutually supportive residential, resort, commercial and recreational uses that create a private resort community which minimizes GHG emissions and vehicle miles traveled associated with the proposed uses through promoting walkability and non-motorized connectivity as an integral part of the project design, including (1) establishing residential neighborhoods that are linked through multi-use trails that connect neighborhoods and planning areas throughout the project; and (2) providing “walk streets” in the resort area to provide internal connection between facilities within the Tourist Commercial planning area.

4. The project provides neighborhood commercial uses at the corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 to serve existing and future residents in this portion of the City, which 629 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
96 currently lacks any neighborhood serving commercial uses, thus requiring lengthy trips by residents to meet their most basic commercial needs.

5. The project maintains the overall density of planned development for the site, adding to the diversity of housing, resort uses, and recreational amenities within the City, while also maintaining low-density residential uses around the majority of the project perimeter that matches the surrounding residential communities.

6. The high-quality private wave basin (The Wave) and Kelly Slater brand provide unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project and will attract resort guests and create a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s reputation as the “Gem of the Desert” and elevate the La Quinta destination brand consciousness all over the world.

7. The project will contribute to both temporary and permanent employment and economic growth opportunities in this portion of the City, including a projected 674 permanent jobs (Draft EIR, Table 4.13-30), which provides a significant public benefit to the City and its residents.

8. The project will generate significant funding for public infrastructure improvements within the City and surrounding area, including improvements to the local and regional circulation system through the payment of TUMF and DIF fees, and fair share contributions to multiple signalization projects required as part of General Plan build out.

9. The project will benefit the unique biological resources in the City and broader Coachella Valley region by contributing substantial funding through payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee to support CVCC’s ongoing efforts to acquire and maintain essential habitat for special status species, and by constructing a sheep barrier along the base of Coral Mountain and the remaining western project boundary, which will contribute to CVCC’s ongoing efforts to protect the Peninsular bighorn sheep from communities located on the valley floor.

10. The project will support and implement all eight of the guiding principles of the City’s 2035 General Plan, including:
(i) supporting “a fiscally sound community” that capitalizes on the City’s unique development opportunities;
(ii) supporting “a resort oriented community” that maintains and improves the opportunities for La Quinta to be recognized, both nationally and internationally, as a top resort and recreational destination; (iii) supporting “a neighborhood oriented community” that strives to ensure that existing and future housing for all residents continues to be diverse in type and of high quality;
630 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
97 (iv) supporting “a healthy, vibrant and heritage minded community” that ensures that all land uses cohesively exist with the area’s natural, cultural, and historical heritage, including by protecting the Coral Mountain Art Rock Complex at the base of Coral Mountain and the remnants of the adobe structure located on the project site, which are currently subject to potential vandalism and deterioration;
(v) supporting “a conservation focused community” that promotes the efficient use of water and energy resources through replacing the previously approved golf course use on the site with the Wave Basin and other recreational amenities that use less water than the uses currently approved for development on the site, and incorporating integrated design principles and state-of-the-art efficiency features to ensure an environmentally sustainable development; (vi) supporting “a safe community” through development standards that promote safe indoor and outdoor spaces in this gated community that will provide onsite private security and provide substantial funding for emergency services (both through payments of DIF and generation of substantial TOT and sale tax revenue);
(vii) supporting “a full service community” that provides and maintains adequate service levels and facilities for streets, water, sewer, storm drains and other infrastructure, which here include privately owned and maintained streets within the project as well as improvements to the City’s arterial streets and funding for areawide circulation system upgrades, as well as constructing all required sewer, water, and storm drain infrastructure; and (viii) supporting “a circulation minded community” that promotes and encourages a broad range of transportation opportunities that reduce impacts on the environment by providing a complimentary mix of residential, resort, commercial, and recreational uses that are interconnected through multi-modal roads, trails and paths that reduce the length of vehicle trips and promote nonmotorized travel.

11. The project will provide an important public connection through the project site for the Coral Mountain park and recreational trail system planned for the area by the Desert Recreation District.

Conclusion:

In light of the foregoing, and the information contained within the Final EIR and other portions of the project record of proceedings, the City Council concludes that implementation of the Coral Mountain Resort Project will result in the development of a unique project that provides substantial economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, as outlined above, which outweigh and make acceptable the significant, 631 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
98 unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the Coral Mountain Resort Project and, accordingly, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations.

VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of La Quinta as the lead agency under CEQA is responsible for certification of the EIR and therefore makes the following findings:

1. The Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and its Guidelines;

2. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to making its decision on the Project;

3. The certification of the Final EIR and the findings set forth herein reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis in its capacity as lead agency; and

4. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A) to reduce or avoid the significant and mitigable impacts of the project.

5. The City Council finds that the Final EIR properly evaluated the project’s potentially significant cumulative impacts based on General Plan buildout, and that this analysis included all past, present and probable future projects in the project vicinity that could cause or contribute to such significant cumulative effects.

6. The City Council finds that the additional information and evidence submitted after release of the Draft EIR and prior to certification of the Final EIR does not constitute “significant new information,” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, but rather, merely clarifies and amplifies the information provided in the Draft EIR.

By these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the Final EIR. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the mitigation measures specified therein, as well as the project design features identified in the Draft EIR, are hereby approved and adopted, and shall be fully enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as permit conditions, agreements or other measures. Any finding made by the City shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. The City intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or committed to be made by the City with respect to any particular subject matter of the Final EIR, shall be deemed to be made if it appears in any portion of these findings.

If any term, provision or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City. 632 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0  MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR  4‐
3 February 2022
Table 4‐1
Coral Mountain Resort Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Potential Impacts on
the Environment  Mitigation Measure  Responsible for  Monitoring  Timing  Level of  Significance  After Mitigation Section 4.1, Aesthetics
a. Adverse effect on
scenic vistas
c. Visual character
or scenic quality
AES‐1  The perimeter walls around the low density residential planning areas shall be setback from the Madison Street and  Avenue  58  public  rights‐of‐way  by  a  minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC),  which  shall  be  confirmed  through  the  City’s review  and  approval  of  final  perimeter  wall  and landscape plans  to  reduce impacts  to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains.

City Council/
Planning
Commission
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
During review
of Tentative
Tract Maps
Significant and
Unavoidable
AES‐2  All residential structures shall be setback by a minimum of 75 feet from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights‐of‐way  to  reduce  impacts  to  existing  views  of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains.

City Council/
Planning
Commission
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
During review
of Tentative
Tract Maps
Significant and
Unavoidable
d. Light and glare AES‐3   The operation of the Wave Basin will be limited to the hours  of  7:00 a.m.  to  10:00  p.m., and  the  lighting  will only  be  permitted  between  dusk  and  10:00  p.m.  to ensure  compliance  with  the  City’s  outdoor  lighting requirements (LQMC 9.100.150).

Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
During
operation of
the Wave
Basin
Less than
Significant
Section 4.2, Air Quality  a. Conflict with
implementationof applicable airquality plan
b. Result in a
Construction‐Source Mitigation Measures AQ‐1: During  Phase  1  of  construction,  the  paving  installation activity shall not overlap with  the architectural coating (building  painting)  activity.  That  prohibition  shall  be included on all building plans.

AQ‐2: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), the  Construction  Contractor  shall ensure  that  off‐road City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project
Contractor
During ground
disturbing
activities &
construction
Less than
Significant

EXHIBIT B
633
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐
4 February 2022
cumulatively considerable net increase if any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard c. Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
diesel  construction  equipment  that  complies  with Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)/California  Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards and shall  ensure  that  all  construction  equipment  is  tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

Operational‐Source Mitigation Measures AQ‐3: The project will require the use of low VOC paints for re‐ painting  and  maintenance  of  exterior  structures consistent  with  SCAQMD  Rule  1113(not  to  exceed  50 grams  per  liter  VOCs  for  interior  and  exterior  building envelope  re‐painting).    Under  federal  and  state  law, SCAQMD  is  under  a  legal  obligation  to  enforce  air pollution  regulations.  These  regulations  are  primarily meant  to ensure  that  the surrounding  (or ambient) air meets federal and state air quality standards. The South Coast AQMD also has broad authority to regulate toxic and hazardous air emissions, and these regulations are enforced in the same manner as those which pertain to the ambient air quality standards.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project
Contractor
During
Construction
Less than
Significant
Standard  Regulatory  Requirements/Best  Available  Control Measures Measures  listed  below  (or  equivalent  language)  shall appear  on  all  project  grading  plans,  construction specifications  and  bid  documents,  and  the  City  shall ensure such language is incorporated prior  to issuance of  any  development  permits.  South  Coast  Air  Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules that are currently applicable  during  construction  activity  for  this  project include but are not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) (2) and  Rule  1113  (Architectural  Coatings).  It  should  be noted  that  these  Best  Available  Control  Measures (BACMs) are standard regulatory requirements.

BACM  AQ‐1:  The  contractor  shall  adhere  to  applicable City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project
Contractor
Prior to the
approval of
grading plans
Less than
Significant
634
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐
5 February 2022
measures contained in Table 1 of Rule 403 including, but not limited to:
 All  clearing,  grading,  earth‐moving,  or  excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD  guidelines  in  order  to  limit  fugitive  dust emissions.  The  contractor  shall  ensure  that  all  disturbed
unpaved  roads  and  disturbed  areas  within  the project  are  watered  at  least  three  (3)  times  daily during  dry  weather.  Watering,  with  complete coverage  of  disturbed  areas,  shall  occur  at  least three  times  a  day,  preferably  in  the  mid‐morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.  The  contractor  shall  ensure  that  traffic  speeds  on unpaved roads and project site areas are limited to 15 miles per hour or less.

BACM AQ‐2: The following measures shall be incorporated into project  plans  and  specifications  as  implementation  of SCAQMD Rule 1113 (3):
 Only  “Low‐Volatile  Organic  Compounds  (VOC)”
paints  (no  more  than  50  gram/liter  (g/L)  of  VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used.

BACM AQ‐3: The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule  445,  which  prohibits  the  use  of  wood  burning stoves and fireplaces in new development.

Section 4.3, Biological Resources  a. Candidate,
sensitive or special status species
d. Interfere with
movement of native resident or
BIO‐1: Burrowing owl surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist,  approved  by  the  City  prior  to  any  site disturbance  activities.  A  minimum  of  two  surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in  advance  of  any  site  disturbance  activities.  If disturbance  activities  are  expected  to  start  during  the burrowing owl breeding season,  three surveys shall be completed.  The  final  burrowing  owl  survey  shall  be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre‐construction survey shall Qualified
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to
ground
disturbance
Less than
Significant
635
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐
6 February 2022
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors be  conducted  following  accepted  protocol  and  the requirements specified in the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4‐168 & 4‐169).  Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to 500 feet outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by  burrowing  owls.  If  the  burrow  is  determined  to  be occupied,  the  burrow  will  be  flagged,  and  a  160‐foot diameter buffer will be established during non‐breeding season  or  a  250‐foot  diameter  buffer  during  the breeding  season.  The  buffer  area  will  be  staked  and flagged.  No  development  activities  will  be  permitted within  the  buffer  until  the  young  are  no  longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow.

If the burrow is found to be unoccupied, the burrow will be  made  inaccessible  to  owls,  and  construction  may proceed.  If  either  a  nesting  or  escape  burrow  is occupied, owls shall be relocated pursuant to accepted Wildlife  Agency  protocols.  Determination  of  the appropriate  method  of  relocation,  such  as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based  on  the  specific  site  conditions  (e.g.,  distance  to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If  burrowing  owls are  observed within  the  Project  site during  construction  activities,  CDFW  shall  be  notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization  measures,  consistent  with  the requirements of the CVMSHCP.

BIO‐2:  In  June  2021,  a  qualified  bat  biologist  will  conduct  a second round of focused nighttime surveys for roosting bats  at  locations  where  suitable  roosting  habitat  is identified.  The  nighttime  survey  will  include  a combination  of  acoustic  and  exit  count  methods,  and will take place during the bat maternity season (March 15–August  31  in  the  Coachella  Valley)  to  enable Qualified Bat
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
June 2021   Less than  Significant
636
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐
7 February 2022
detection of maternity‐roosting bats. If maternity roosts are identified within the project area, the biologist will coordinate  with  CDFW  to  implement  avoidance measures during the bat maternity season in accordance with  CDFW’s  established  standards.  No  construction activities will occur within a 300‐foot buffer of maternity roost  sites  during  the  bat  maternity  season  unless concurrence  is  received  from  CDFW  to  reduce  that buffer distance based upon the bat species present and the activities occurring.

Applicant/
Developer
BIO‐3:  Removal  of  trees  (including  palm  trees)  shall  occur outside the bat maternity season (March 15–August 31 in  the  Coachella Valley), which  coincides with  the  bird nesting  season,  to  avoid  the  potential  for  “take”  of flightless  young.  Trees  and  snags  that  have  been identified as confirmed or potential roost sites require a two‐step removal process and the involvement of a bat biologist to ensure that no roosting bats are killed during this activity. Consistent with CDFW protocols  this  two‐step  removal shall occur over  two consecutive days as follows:  on  Day  1,  branches  and  limbs  not  containing cavities, as identified by a qualified bat biologist, will be removed. On Day 2, the remainder of  the tree may be removed  without  supervision  by  a  bat  biologist.  The disturbance  caused  by  limb  removal,  followed  by  an interval of one evening, will allow bats to safely abandon the roost.

Qualified Bat
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Outside bat
maternity
season
(March 15 –
August 31)
Less than
Significant
BIO‐4: To avoid impacts to roosting bats from the installation of new  light  fixtures  associated  with  the  proposed development, all lighting fixtures shall have light shields or  similar  devices  (i.e.,  dark  sky  compliant  lighting) installed  to ensure  that  there is  no light  trespass  onto Coral  Mountain  and  surrounding  open  space.  A supplemental  light  study  will  be  performed  to  collect nighttime  lighting  measurements  and  confirm  that  no light trespass onto Coral Mountain is occurring; this will Qualified Bat
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to the
installation of
light poles
Less than
Significant
637
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐
8 February 2022
be submitted for City approval prior to issuance of any permit for occupancy or use of the Wave Basin.

BIO‐5:  A  qualified  bat  biologist  shall  confirm  the  absence  of roosting  bats  prior  to  any  restoration  work  or  other disturbance of the adobe site. If bats are found or if the absence of bats cannot be confirmed, the bat biologist will  install  or  directly  supervise  installation  of  humane eviction  devices  and  exclusionary  material  to  prevent bats  from  roosting  in  the  building.  Implementation  of the humane eviction/exclusions is typically performed in the fall (September or October) preceding construction activity at each structure to avoid impacts to hibernating bats during the winter months or during the maternity season  (March  15–August  31  in  the  Coachella  Valley), when  nonvolant  (flightless)  young  are  present.  Any humane eviction/exclusion devices must be installed at least  10  days  prior  to  the  demolition  of  a  structure housing  bats  to  allow  sufficient  time  for  the  bats  to vacate the roost(s).

Qualified Bat
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
10 days prior
to the
demolition of
a structure
housing bats
Less than
Significant
BIO‐6:  To  ensure  compliance  with  California  Fish  and  Game Code and  the MBTA and  to avoid potential impacts  to nesting birds, vegetation removal and ground‐disturbing activities  shall  be  conducted  outside  the  general  bird nesting  season.  Any  vegetation  removal,  ground disturbance,  and/or  construction  activities  that  occur during  the  nesting  season will  require  that all  suitable habitats be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist that is pre‐approved by the CDFW. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall  conduct  preconstruction  surveys  within  14  days and  repeated  3  days  prior  to  ground‐disturbing activities.  If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet  (500  feet  for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction  will  be  delineated,  flagged,  and  avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological Qualified Bat
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
14 days prior
to clearing
activities
Outside the
general bird
nesting
season
Less than
Significant
638
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐
9 February 2022
monitoring  activities  at  a  frequency  recommended  by the qualified biologist using his or her best professional judgment,  or  as  otherwise  directed  by  the  Wildlife Agencies. If  nesting  birds are  detected, avoidance and minimization  measures  may  be  adjusted  and construction  activities  stopped  or  redirected  by  the qualified  biologist  using  their  best  professional judgment as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies to avoid Take of nesting birds.

BIO‐7:  To  ensure  that  the  project  will  avoid  any  significant construction  noise  impacts  on  wildlife  using  Coral Mountain,  noise  monitoring  will  occur  for  all construction  activities  using  heavy  equipment  within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain.  If noise levels exceed  75  dBA,  construction  operational  changes  or other project modifications shall be made, as directed by the project biologist to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA.

City Manager
Project
Developer
During
construction
activities
within 150
feet of Coral
Mountain
During Special
Events
Once annually
Less than
Significant
BIO‐8: Existing native vegetation, particularly palo verde trees, will  be  retained  where  feasible.  Landscaping  shall include native desert species.

City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
During
Landscaping
Less than
Significant
BIO‐9:  Onsite  lakes  will  be  designed  and  constructed  by industry  professionals  and  will  incorporate  proper aeration,  circulation  and  filtration  to  maintain  a balanced  lake  ecosystem.  Lakes  will  be  stocked  with beneficial  fish  and  plant  species.  Limited  chemical applications  will  be  utilized  as  necessary.  Ongoing maintenance  will  ensure  that  onsite  lakes  function properly  to  control  any  invasive  species  or  other nuisance conditions.

Project Applicant  During  operation  Less than  Significant BIO‐10: An educational program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the resort, open space, and City Planning
Department   During  operation  Less than  Significant
639
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐10 February 2022
low‐density  community  programs  through  the  use  of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program  should  inform  the  reason  of  why  specific measures  are  being  taken  to  support  recovery  of Peninsular  bighorn  sheep.  The  Education  Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what  threats  this  species  is  currently  facing,  and  how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information  that explains:  (1) why  restrictions on  toxic plants,  fences,  and  pesticides  are  needed;  (2)  how artificial  feeding  of  coyotes  could  adversely  affect bighorn sheep; and  (3) how  recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged.

Project Applicant

4.4 Cultural Resources  a. Adverse change
to Historical Resources
b. Adverse change
to Archaeological Resources
c. Disturb human
remains
CUL‐1:   A  comprehensive  recordation  program  shall  be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33‐008388. The  program  shall  contain  detailed  drawings  and measurements  to  preserve  the  information  on  the adobe  building.  Such  information  would  include  the floor  plan,  elevations,  building  materials  and  their configurations,  and  any  other  notable  structural  and architectural  details. The  adobe  remains  and  an appropriate  buffer  determined  by  the  project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the  project  proponent  shall  provide  the  City  with  the CC&Rs  for  the  project  area,  demonstrating  that  the feature  would  be  maintained  in  perpetuity  by  the project’s  Homeowners  Association.  Special  attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating  from 1920s or before. The  footings and slabs at this  location  should  be  cleared  and  measured,  and Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning &
Engineering
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to the
occupancy of
any structure
in Planning
Area II
Less than
Significant
640
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐11 February 2022
attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or  privies  which  could  contain  valuable  artifacts revealing much about life in  the harsh environment at such  an  early  date.  The  scatter  of  artifacts  has  the greatest  number  of  pre‐1925  artifacts,  mostly  in  the form  of  sun‐colored glass,  but also in  brown and  olive glass,  porcelain,  ceramics  and  more.  There  may  be remains  of  an  early  structure  near  this  point,  hidden amidst  the  broad  stand  of  tamarisk  trees,  an  original windbreak.  Search  of  these  remains  is  required  to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century  artifacts  and  features.  Photos, measurements,  and  artifacts  shall  be  catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al.1998:54).

CUL‐2:  The  presence  of  a  qualified  archaeologist  shall  be required  during  all  project  related  ground  disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity  for  all  construction  phases  and  activities.  If potentially  significant  archaeological  materials  are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological  discovery  until  the  archaeologist  can assess the significance of the find.

Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning
Department
ACBCI
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
CUL‐3: An  approved  Agua  Caliente  Band  of  Cahuilla  Indians (ACBCI)  Native  American  Cultural  Resource  Monitor shall be present during any ground disturbing activities (including  archaeological  testing  and  surveys)  for  the project. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the Tribal monitor can assess the significance of the find.

City Planning
Department
Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla
Indians – Native
American
Resource
Monitor
Project Applicant
During ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
641
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐12 February 2022
CUL‐4:   Prior  to  ground  disturbance  during  any  phase  of  the project,  cultural  sensitivity  training  shall  take  place  for all  workers,  conducted  by  the  Agua  Caliente  Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO).

Agua Caliente
Tribal Historic
Preservation
Office
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activity
Less than
Significant
CUL‐5:  Sites  33‐00193,  33‐001715,  and  33‐009545,  along  the base  of  Coral  Mountain  and  at  the  toe  of  the  slope, which contains the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project  construction  through  the  establishment  of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Deed restrictions shall be recorded for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance of any portion of Planning Area III. For the balance of Site 33‐001715,  where  scattered  artifacts  but  no  features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation  shall  be  completed  prior  to  ground disturbance  to  recover a  representative  sample  of  the cultural  materials  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the project and  as a  condition  of  grading  permit  issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological  units,  shovel  test  pits,  and  backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe  recovery of cultural  remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI and their approval provided to the City in writing prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site.

City Planning
Department
ABCBI
Project Applicant
Section 4.6, Geology and Soils a. Expose people or
structures to potential substantial
GEO‐1 All  designs  for  any  water  body  on  the  site  shall  be prepared  by  a  qualified  engineer  and  comply  with  all seismic codes in effect at the time they are constructed. All  designs  shall  be  based  on  and  incorporate  the recommendation  of a  qualified  soils engineer  in a  site and  water  body  specific  report  attached  to  the  plans submitted to the City.

Qualified Soils
Engineer
City Planning,
Engineering &
Prior to site
plan approval
Less than
Significant
642
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐13 February 2022
adverse effects involving:
iii. Seismic‐related
ground failure, including liquefaction
c. Located on an
Unstable Geologic Unit
d. Located on
Expansive Soil
f. Destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature Public Works
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
GEO‐2 All  earthwork  including  excavation,  backfill  and preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in accordance  with  the  geotechnical  recommendations, presented  below,  and  portions  of  the  local  regulatory requirements,  as  applicable.  All  earthwork  should  be performed  under  the  observation  and  testing  of  a qualified  soil  engineer.  The  following  geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project are  based  on  observations  from  the  field investigation program,  laboratory  testing  and  geotechnical engineering analyses.  Stripping: areas to be graded shall be cleared of the vegetation, associated root systems and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old  fills  and  any  irreducible  matter.  The  stripping shall be removed off‐sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall  be  removed  in  its  entirety  and  replaced  as engineered  fill.  Voids  left  by  obstruction  shall  be properly  backfilled  in  accordance  with  the compaction recommendations of this report.  Preparation  of  the  Residential  Building  Areas:  in order  to  provide  firm  and  uniform  foundation bearing conditions, the primary foundation bearing soil shall be over‐excavated and recompacted. Over‐excavation  shall  extend  to  a  minimum  depth  of  3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet blow the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Once adequate removals have been verified, the exposed native soil Qualified Soils
Engineer
City Planning,
Engineering &
Public Works
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
During ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
643
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐14 February 2022
shall  be  scarified,  the  moisture‐conditioned  and compacted  to  a  minimum  of  90  percent  relative compaction.  Preparation  of  the  Hotel  Building:  In  order  to provide  firm  and  uniform  foundation  bearing conditions,  over‐excavation  and  re‐compaction through  the  building  and  foundation  area  is recommended. All artificial  fill soil and low density near surface native soil shall be removed to a depth of at least 4 feet below existing grade or 4 feet below the  bottom  of  the  footings,  whichever  is  greater. Remedial grading shall extend laterally, a minimum of  five  feet  beyond  the  building  perimeter.  The exposed surface shall then be scarified, the moisture conditioned  to  within  two  percent  of  optimum moisture  content  and  compacted  to  at  least  90 percent relative compaction.  Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be  free  of  organic  material,  debris  and  other deleterious  substances,  and  shall  not  contain irreducible  matter  greater  than  six  (6)  inches  in maximum  dimension.  All  fill  materials  shall  be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be  of  a  non‐expansive  nature  and  shall  meet  the following criteria:

Plastic Index  Less than 12
Liquid Limit  Less than 35 Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% and 35%
Maximum Aggregate Size
3 Inches
The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the 644
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐15 February 2022
exposed  subgrade  shall  be  observed  by  a representative  of  Sladden  Engineering  prior  to  fill placement. Compaction  testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials.  Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of
the  material  that  is  excavated  and  replaced  as controlled  compacted  fill  shall  be  anticipated. It  is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to  25  percent. Subsidence  of  the  surfaces  that are scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained.

GEO‐3  All earth‐moving operations reaching beyond the depth of  two  feet  shall  be  monitored  by  a  qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become  necessary  if  undisturbed,  potentially fossiliferous lakebed  sediments  are  encountered.  The monitor  shall  be  empowered  to  stop  earth  moving activities  if  fossils  are  identified.  The  monitor  shall  be prepared  to  quickly  salvage  fossils,  but must  have  the power  to  temporarily  halt  or  divert  construction equipment  to  allow  for  removal  of  abundant  or  large specimens. A monitoring plan shall be provided  to  the City prior to the issuance of any earth moving permit, or the  disturbance  of  any  soils  on  the  site,  which  will include:  Samples  of  sediments  shall  be  collected  and processed to recover small fossil remains.
 Recovered specimens shall be identified and curated
at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future.

A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered  specimens  and  a  discussion  of  their City Planning,
Department
Qualified
Paleontological
Monitor
Project
Applicant/
Developer
During earth‐
moving
operations
reaching
beyond the
depth of two
feet
Less than
Significant
645
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐16 February 2022
significance when appropriate, shall be prepared upon completion of the research procedures outlined above. The report shall be provided to the City within 30 days of the conclusion of monitoring activities.

Section 4.7,Greenhouse Gas Emissions a. GHG Emissions
that may Significantly Impact the Environment
GHG‐1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the project applicant shall purchase a minimum of 72,000 MTCO2e credits  (2,400  MTCO2e  per  year  for  30  years).  The purchase of carbon credits must be made from a CARB‐approved carbon registry with independent third‐party verification. Examples of approved registries include the American Carbon Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Verra. The applicant shall submit documentation of the
offset  purchase  to  the  City  demonstrating  that  it mitigates a minimum of 2,400 MTCO2e per year (72,000 MTCO2e over a 30‐year period), prior to any occupancy of  the  site.  Alternatively,  the  project  applicant  may submit  a  GHG  reduction  plan  to  the  City  for  approval that achieves an equal level of GHG reduction outlined herein. The GHG plan must include enforceable actions that  reduce  GHG  emissions  to  at  or  below  the  total mitigated values presented herein.

City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits
Significant and
Unavoidable
Section 4.11, Noise a. Generation of
noise levels in excess of established standards
b. Generation of
excessive groundborne vibration
NOI‐1  Prior  to  approval  of  grading  plans  and/or  issuance  of building  permits,  plans  shall  include  a  note  indicating that project construction activities shall comply with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code requirements.

NOI‐2  During  all  project  site  construction,  the  construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or  mobile,  with  property  operating  and  maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction  contractor  shall  place  all  stationary construction  equipment  so  that  emitted  noise  is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to the
approval of
grading plans
and/or
issuance of
building
permits
Less than
Significant
646
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐17 February 2022
NOI‐3  The  construction  contractor  shall  locate  equipment staging  in  areas  that  will  create  the  greatest  distance between construction‐related noise sources and noise‐sensitive  receivers  nearest  the  project  site  during  all project construction (i.e., to the center).

NOI‐4  The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the  exposure  of  sensitive  land  uses  or  residential dwellings to delivery truck‐related noise.

NOI‐5  A  six‐foot  perimeter  wall  will  be  developed  along  the northern and eastern property boundaries, adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area (PA II),  in  order  to  protect  the proposed  onsite  residential uses from off‐site traffic noise. The barriers shall provide a weight of at least four pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line‐of‐sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways.   The barrier must  present  a  solid  face  from  top  to  bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
During
construction
Less than
Significant
NOI‐6 The operation of  the Wave Basin and associated Wave machines  shall  be  limited  to  the  daytime  and  evening hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., compliant with  the recreational operational hours allowed by the City of La Quinta.

City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
During
Operation
Less than
Significant
Section 4.13, Transportation
a. Conflict with an
applicable plan or
TRA‐1  The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required by the City of La Quinta.

TRA‐2  The  project  proponent  shall  contribute  TUMF  traffic impact mitigation fees prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

City Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
Building
Permits.

Less than
Significant
647
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐18 February 2022
policy addressing the circulation system
c. Increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
d. Result in
inadequate emergency access
TRA‐3  The  project  proponent  shall  ensure  that  streetscape improvement plans for the project frontage on Avenue
58, Madison  Street  and  Avenue  60,  are  submitted  to the City for review and approval prior to the initiation of landscape or roadway improvements.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to the
initiation of
landscape or
roadway
improvements
Less than
Significant
TRA‐4  The  project  proponent  shall  ensure  that  clear unobstructed  sight  distances  are  provided  at  all  site access points and internal intersections. Sight distances shall  be  reviewed  and  approved  by  the  City  prior  to approval of landscape and street improvement plans.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to the
approval of
landscape or
roadway
improvements
Less than
Significant
TRA‐5  The project proponent shall ensure that final layout and site  access  design  are  subject  to  the  review  and approval  of  the  City  Traffic  Engineer  prior  to  final project approval.

City Traffic
Engineer
Project Applicant
Prior to final
project
approval
Less than
Significant
TRA‐6  The  project  proponent  shall  ensure  that  emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access are provided for the project prior to final project approval.

Fire Department
City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to final
project
approval
Less than
Significant
TRA‐7  The project proponent shall ensure that traffic signing and  striping  plans  shall  be  developed  in  conjunction with  street  improvement  plans  and  submitted  to  the City  of  La Quinta  for  review  and  approval  during  the project approval process.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
During the
project
approval
process
Less than
Significant
TRA‐8  The  project  proponent  shall ensure  that  Construction Traffic Control Plans are reviewed and approved by the City prior to project construction. These plans are to be implemented  during  construction  activities. Construction includes onsite and offsite improvements.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to
project
construction
Less than
Significant
648
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐19 February 2022
TRA‐9  If  Special  Events  are  to  take  place  prior  to  the completion  of  Phase  3  construction,  Phase  3  typical operations  traffic improvements will be completed or the  applicant  shall  provide  a  focused  traffic  analysis with  the  Temporary  Use  Permit  that  identifies  any improvements  that  are  not  necessary  to  maintain acceptable levels of service at study intersections. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied.

TRA‐10  If  Special  Events  are  to  take  place  prior  to  the construction  of  Phase  3,  a  special  event  traffic  and parking plan will be submitted with each Temporary Use Permit to ensure that special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Qualified Traffic
Engineer
Project Applicant
During Special
Events, prior
to Phase 3
construction
Less than
Significant
TRA‐11 Traffic Management Plans will be submitted to the City and the Police Department for review and approval prior to  special  events.  Timing  for  installation  of  traffic management  measures  will  be  scaled  to  the  size  and duration  of  the  event.  In  general,  signage  for  large events should be in place  five days prior and two days following special events. The City and Police Department may  impose  additional  measures  if  determined  to  be necessary.  Individual  management  plans  for  specific special events shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to  the  start  of  the  event.  The  special  event  Traffic Management Plans shall include the measures identified in Mitigation Measures TRA‐12 through TRA‐14 below.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Police
Department
Project Applicant
30 days prior
to Special
Events
Less than
Significant
649
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐20 February 2022
TRA‐12  In  developing  the  Special  Event  Traffic  Management Plan,  the  project  proponent  shall  include  the  use  of Portable changeable message signs (CMS) or moveable mechanical  electronic  message  boards.  CMS  will  be located at critical locations identified  by  the  La Quinta Police Department (LQPD) and in place 5 days ahead of the event and 2 days after.

TRA‐13  In  developing  the  Special  Event  Traffic  Management Plan the project proponent shall include the use of law enforcement personnel and/or special event flaggers to direct traffic in locations reviewed and approved by the City and Police Department.

TRA  14  In  developing  the  Special  Event  Traffic  Management Plan  the  project  proponent  shall  include  the  use  of public  service  announcements  (PSA)  to  provide information  to  event  guests  and  surrounding neighborhoods  prior  to  the  event.  Examples  include online  event  information,  brochures  and  changeable message  signs  that  include  details  such  as  suggested routes, drop‐off and parking facility locations.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Police
Department
Project Applicant
During
development
of Special
Event Traffic
Management
Plan
Less than
Significant
TRA‐15 The project proponent shall ensure that the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center  trail designated by the  Desert  Recreation  District  Master  Plan  and associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center  is  incorporated  into  project  plans. Accommodations for this trail shall be located along the approximate  toe  of  Coral  Mountain,  within  the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property.

City Planning
Department
Desert
Recreation
District
Project Applicant
Prior to
project
approval
Less than
Significant
Section  4.14,  Tribal Cultural Resources TCR‐1: Before ground disturbing activities begin, the applicant  shall  contact  the  ACBCI  Tribal  Historic  Preservation Office  to  arrange  cultural  monitoring.  The  project requires  the  presence  of  an  approved  Agua  Caliente Qualified
Archaeologist
Agua Caliente
Native American
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
650
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐21 February 2022
a. Cause substantial
adverse change in significance of tribal cultural resource that is i. A site listed in
the CRHR or Local Register, Tribal Cultural Resources
ii. A resource
determined to be significant to a California Native American tribe.

Native  American  Cultural  Resource  Monitor(s)  during any  ground  disturbing  activities  (including archaeological  testing  and  surveys).  Should  buried cultural  deposits  be  encountered,  the  Monitor  may request that destructive construction halt in the vicinity of the deposits, and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines),  within  24  hours,  to  investigate  and,  if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan  for submission  to the  State  Historic  Preservation  Officer  and  the  Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

Cultural
Resource
Monitor
ACBCI Tribal
Historic
Preservation
Office
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
TCR‐2:  The  presence  of  a  qualified  archaeologist  shall  be required  during  all  project  related  ground  disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and provided to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing  activity  for  all  construction  phases  and activities.  If  potentially  significant  archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity  of  the  archaeological  discovery  until  the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

Qualified
Archaeologist
ACBCI
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
During all
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
651
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐22 February 2022
TCR‐3:  Before  ground  disturbing  activities,  the  project’s archaeologist  shall  prepare  an  Archaeological Treatment,  Disposition,  and  Monitoring  Plan  to  be submitted  to  the  ACBCI  Tribal  Historic  Preservation Office  for  approval.  The  Treatment,  Disposition  and Monitoring  Plan  shall  be  deemed  rejected  by  ACBCI’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action to approve the  plan  is  taken  within  30  days  from  submission  for approval. If the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office rejects two Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plans submitted  for  approval,  the  applicant  may  appeal  the second  denial  to  the  La Quinta  City  Council  for  a  final determination.  The  approved  Treatment,  Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site.

TCR‐4:  Before  ground  disturbing  activities,  the  project’s archaeologist  shall  prepare  a  Rock  Art  Management Plan, based on recommendations made in the report by McCarthy and Mouriquand, and shall submit the plan to the  ACBCI  Tribal  Historic  Preservation  Office  for approval.  The  Rock  Art  Management  Plan  shall  be deemed rejected by ACBCI’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action is taken to approve the plan within 30 days  of  submission  for  approval.  If  the  ACBCI  Historic Preservation  Office  rejects  two  Rock  Art Management Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination.  The  approved  Rock  Art  Management Plan  shall  be  provided  to  the  City  prior  to any  ground disturbance on the site.

Qualified
Archaeologist
ACBCI Tribal
Historic
Preservation
Office
City Planning
Department
City Council
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
TCR‐5:  Sites  33‐00193,  33‐001715,  and  33‐009545,  along  the base  of  Coral  Mountain  and  at  the  toe  of  the  slope, which contains the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project  construction  through  the  establishment  of Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning
Department
During project
construction
& Prior to
ground
disturbance in
Less than
Significant
652
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐23 February 2022
Environmentally  Sensitive  Areas;  the  Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be recorded on  the property, and proof of recordation shall be provided to the City prior to  any  ground  disturbance  in  Planning  Area  III. Nominations  of  these  sites  to  the National  Register  of Historic Places shall be filed with the appropriate federal agency prior to the issuance of the first grading permit; and  the  sites  shall  be  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the Rock Art Management Plan.

Project Applicant  Planning Area
III
TCR‐6:  For  the  portion  of  Site  33‐001715  outside  the preservation  area  established  in  TCR‐5,  mitigative surface  collection  and  subsurface  excavation  shall  be completed prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area  III  to  recover  a  representative  sample  of  the cultural  materials  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the project and  as a  condition  of  grading  permit  issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological  units,  shovel  test  pits,  and  backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe  recovery of cultural  remains. The survey protocols  shall  be  approved  by  ACBCI.    A  report  of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI’s satisfaction, shall be provided  to  the City prior to ground disturbance.

TCR‐7:  Prior  to  ground  disturbance  in  Planning  Area  III,  a qualified archaeologist shall complete surface collection, testing  and  excavation  if  necessary,  for  sites  33‐1716, 33‐1717,  33‐8386,  33‐9001,  33‐9003,  33‐28907,  33‐28908,  33‐28909,  33‐28910,  33‐28911,  33‐28912.  A report  of  findings,  including  written  confirmation  of completion to ACBCI’s satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance.

Qualified
Archaeologist
ACBCI
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbance in
Planning Area
III
Less than
Significant
TCR‐8:  A  comprehensive  recordation  program  shall  be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33‐008388.

Qualified
Archaeologist   Prior to the  occupancy of  Less than  Significant 653
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐24 February 2022
The  program  shall  contain  detailed  drawings  and measurements  to  preserve  the  information  on  the adobe  building.  Such  information  would  include  the floor  plan,  elevations,  building  materials  and  their configurations,  and  any  other  notable  structural  and architectural  details. The  adobe  remains  and  an appropriate  buffer  determined  by  the  project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the  project  proponent  shall  provide  the  City  with  the CC&Rs  for  the  project  area,  demonstrating  that  the feature  would  be  maintained  in  perpetuity  by  the project’s  Homeowners  Association.  Special  attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating  from 1920s or before. The  footings and slabs at this  location  should  be  cleared  and  measured,  and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or  privies  which  could  contain  valuable  artifacts revealing much about life in  the harsh environment at such  an  early  date.  The  scatter  of  artifacts  has  the greatest  number  of  pre‐1925  artifacts,  mostly  in  the form  of  sun‐colored glass,  but also in  brown and  olive glass,  porcelain,  ceramics  and  more.  There  may  be remains  of  an  early  structure  near  this  point,  hidden amidst  the  broad  stand  of  tamarisk  trees,  an  original windbreak.  Search  of  these  remains  is  required  to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century  artifacts  and  features.  Photos, measurements,  and  artifacts  shall  be  catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al.1998:54).

City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
any structure
in Planning
Area II
654
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

4.0   MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR   4‐25 February 2022
TCR‐9: The applicant shall coordinate with ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation  Office  to  ensure  there  are  a  sufficient number of Native American monitors for the number of earth‐moving  machinery  for  each  phase  of development. The applicant shall provide the City with fully  executed  monitoring  agreements  prior  to  each phase of ground disturbing activity.

ACBCI THPO
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to each
phase of
ground
disturbing
activity
Less than
Significant
TCR‐10:  Should  human  remains  be  inadvertently  discovered during ground disturbance,  the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section  7050.5, and  the CEQA Guidelines  Section  15064.5  shall  be  followed.  In  the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to  overlay  adjacent  remains,  until  the  County  Coroner has  examined  the  remains.  If  the  coroner  determines the  remains  to  be  Native  American  or  has  reason  to believe  that  they  are  those  of  Native  American,  the coroner  shall  contact  the  Native  American  Heritage Commission within 24‐hours.

County Coroner
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
During ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
TCR‐11:  Prior  to  any  ground  disturbance,  the  applicant  shall sign a curation agreement with the ACBCI THPO. A fully executed copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City.

ACBCI THPO
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
TCR‐12:  Prior  to  any  ground  disturbance,  cultural  sensitivity training shall take place for all contractors with the staff at  the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO).

ACBCI THPO
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
655
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
656
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
DRAFT
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2022 – XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN
2019-0003 (AMENDMENT V TO ANDALUSIA SPECIFIC
PLAN), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2019-0002,
SPECIFIC PLAN 2020-0002 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
2019-0005, TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT, SOUTH OF AVENUE 58,
NORTH OF AVENUE 60, AND EAST AND WEST OF

MADISON STREET
CASE NUMBERS:

SPECIFIC PLAN 2019-0003 (AMENDMENT V TO ANDALUSIA SPECIFIC PLAN) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2019-0002
SPECIFIC PLAN 2020-0002
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2019-0005
APPLICANT: CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on June 7, 2022, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CM Wave Development LLC for approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map for a master planned community on 386 acres of a 929 acre area located south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and east and west of Madison Street, more particularly described as:

APN 764-200-076, 764-210-007, 764-210-028, 764-210-029, 766-070-003, 766-070-006, 766-070-012, 766-070-014, 766-080-001,766-080-002,766- 080-004 & 766-080-005
WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on May 27, 2022, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2022-011 to recommend to the City Council approval of the Specific Plan Amendment, General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map at a duly noticed Public Hearing on the April 26, 2022, following public hearings held on March 22 and April 12, 2022; and 657 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
DRAFT Council Resolution No. 2022 – XXX
Specific Plan 2019-0003 (Amendment V to the Andalusia Specific Plan SP2003-067 General Plan Amendment 2019-0002
Specific Plan 2020-0002
Tentative Tract Map 2019-0005 (TTM 37805)
Project: Coral Mountain Resort
Adopted: