Agenda packet — La Quinta City Council, September 21, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

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 337
DRAFT City Council Resolution No. 2022 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Coral Mountain Resort
Adopted:

Page 3 of 5 ends

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 Findingsof the City Council.
338
DRAFT City Council Resolution No. 2022 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Coral Mountain Resort
Adopted:

Page 4 of 5 ends

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 September 21, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:
339
DRAFT City Council Resolution No. 2022 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Coral Mountain Resort
Adopted:

Page 5 of 5 ends

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
340

CEQA FINDINGS
and

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
for the

CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT PROJECT
341
i

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………. 1
Project Description ........................................................................................5 Project Components .......................................................................................6 Project Construction.......................................................................................7 Project Implementation ..................................................................................8 Responsible Agencies ....................................................................................8 Project Objectives ..........................................................................................9 II. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ......................................................................9 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................10 Effects on scenic vistas ..................................................................................10

Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................12 GHG Emissions that may Significantly Impact the Environment .................12 III. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

WHICH ARE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT LEVEL ..............................................................................17 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................17 Impact a Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway Corridor ...........17 Light and Glare ..............................................................................................19 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................22 Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant ..................22 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ...............25 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................28 Candidate, sensitive or special status species and Riparian habitat ...............28 Movement of wildlife ....................................................................................32 Consistency with local policies and applicable habitat conservation plan ....35 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................35 Impacts to Historical Resources.....................................................................35 Impacts to Archaeological Resources ............................................................37 Impacts to human remains .............................................................................39 342
ii
Geology and Soils ................................................................................................40 Expose People or Structures to Effects Involving
Seismic-Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction .............................40 Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit or Expansive Soil ............................42 Impacts to a Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or Unique Geologic Feature ................................................................................45 Noise ....................................................................................................................46 Consistency with Established Noise Standards/Increase in Ambient Noise Levels........................................................................46 Transportation ......................................................................................................50 Consistency with an Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing the Circulation System .............................................................................50 Effect of a Geometric Design Features ..........................................................55 Emergency Access .........................................................................................57 Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................58 Impacts to Significant Tribal Cultural Resources ..........................................58 IV. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ..............................................................................................63 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................63 Effects to the Visual Character or Quality of the Site ..................................63 Air Quality ...........................................................................................................64 Consistency with implementation of applicable air quality plans and standards ...........................................................................................64 Create objectionable odors .............................................................................64 Energy ..................................................................................................................65 Consumption of Energy Resources ................................................................65 Consistency with a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency ....................................................................................65

Geology and Soils ................................................................................................67 Direct or Indirect Effects Involving Strong Seismic Shaking/Landslides ....67 Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil ....................................................................67

Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................68 Consistency with Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation .............................68

Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................68 Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Material, Including Accidental Release ...................................................................................................68 343
iii
Effect on an Emergency Response Plan ........................................................69 Risk of Wildfires ............................................................................................69 Other Potential Hazards ........................................................................................... 69 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................70 Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements ...........................................................................................70 Effect on of Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge ..................................................................................................71 Potential Impacts from Alteration of Existing Drainage Patters ...................71 Inundation by Flooding, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow .................................71 Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan.....................................................................................72

Land Use
Consistency with Any Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation ........................75 Noise ....................................................................................................................77 Generation of Ground Borne Vibration .........................................................77 Public Services .....................................................................................................77 Transportation ......................................................................................................78 Consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)[VMT] ................................................................................................78 Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................................81 Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water, Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities ............................................................81 Sufficiency of Water Supplies .......................................................................82 Wastewater Treatment System Capacity .......................................................82 Generate Excess Solid Waste .........................................................................82 Comply with Statues and Regulations Related to Solid Waste .....................82 V. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTDS HAVING NO
IMPACT .....................................................................................................89 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................89 Federally protected wetlands ........................................................................89 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................89 Effects Involving Rupture from Known Fault..............................................89 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................89 Hazardous Materials within ¼ mile of a school ...........................................89 Sites with Known Hazardous Materials Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 .........................................................................90 344
iv
Effects Having No Impact and Not Analyzed Further in Draft EIR ....................90 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE ANALYZED THE DIER AND REJECTED ..................................................................................................90

Alternative 1: No Project/No Build .....................................................................91 Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements..................................................92 Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative ........................................................93 Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative ...............................................94 Alternative 5: The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative .....................................94 Additional Findings Regarding the Environmentally Superior Alternative ........95 VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS .............................96 VIII. FINDINGS REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR ..................100 345
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.
346
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. 347
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; • The draft Specific Plan and all other application materials relating to the Project, as amended;
• All testimony and written comments received prior to or 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 hearings on June 7, 2022, July 5, 2022, and September 21, 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 348
4 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; • All materials submitted by the project applicant relating to the Project, including reports submitted by expert consultants and all supporting materials referenced therein, which include without limitation the supplemental noise memoranda supplied by Meridian Consultants and Urban Crossroads on April 25, 2022 and April 26, 2022, respectively, the letter from Urban Crossroads dated May 25, 2022, and the letter from James Vaughn dated August 22, 2022 and all expert reports and other exhibits attached thereto;
• The City staff reports relating to short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) dated March 1, 2022 and June 7, 2022, and the email from James Vaughn dated June 7, 2022, submitting these reports to be included in the record of proceedings for the Project; • 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.
349
5 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.

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 350
6 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 IIIB). 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 351
7 • 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 • 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.
352
8 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.

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) 353
9 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 hasidentified 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 multiuse 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, 354
10 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.

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-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. 355
11 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 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.
356
12 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.

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 357
13 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, 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 358
14 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 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.
359
15 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 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 360
16 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.

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 commentslack 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, 361
17 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.

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.
362
18 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 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. 363
19 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.

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)
364
20 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 originally-proposed 80-foot tall Wave Basin lighting would 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 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 365
21 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.

Following the Planning Commission public hearings and recommendation for project approval, and after receiving further public comment at and prior to the City Council hearings on June 7. 2022 and July 5, 2022, the applicant submitted specifications for a revised lighting system that reduces the height of the light poles from 80-feet to 40-feet, and reduces the number of fixtures on each light pole from 4 to 2. Based on both the original line-of-sight exhibits contained in the Draft EIR and the revised line-of-sight exhibits submitted by the applicant on August 22, 2022, neither the light poles nor the lighting itself will be visible from outside the project’s perimeter walls. See Exhibit B to James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022. Moreover, based on the August 8, 2022 Memorandum from Musco Lighting and the lighting contour exhibit attached thereto, no perceptible level of light will extend outside the immediate Wave Basin area. See Exhibit C to James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022. Rather, the reduced height of the light poles and reduced intensity of the lighting has resulted in a reduction in overall size/extent of the 0.01 foot candle light contour, which reflects that the lighting is no longer perceptible outside the project site. The revised lighting contours take into account all aspects of the revised lighting system, which include an increase to fifty-four poles, but with only two, 550-watt light fixtures per pole (as opposed to the four, 1,200-watt fixtures previously proposed for some of the 80-foot poles and used during the November 2021 lighting demonstration). See Exhibit D to James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022. This change represents a reduction in the impacts analyzed in the Draft and Final EIR.

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 Minagar & 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 Minagar & 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 have been visible from outside the project boundaries with the original 80-foot light poles, the City Council finds, based on the additional line-of-sight exhibits and other substantial evidence presented prior to and during the public hearings, that with the revised lighting system with 40-foot poles, no portion of the Wave Basin lighting will be visible from outside the project boundaries. Furthermore, the project lighting is 366
22 considered consistent with the other sources of light and glare in the area and will not have any significant adverse effects on the surrounding communities or the public.

Conclusion
Through compliance with the proposed Specific Plan design guidelines, revised 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.

367
23 Mitigation Measures:

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. 368
24 • 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.

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 369
25 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 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. 370
26 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 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:

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. 371
27 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 372
28 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 373
29 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 374
30 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, 375
31 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.
376
32 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 377
33 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. 378
34 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 379
35 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:
380
36 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 381
37 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 any portion of Planning Area III. For the balance of Site 33-001715, where 382
38 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 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. 383
39 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:

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 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 384
40 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 geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project are based on observations from the field investigation program, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analyses.
385
41 • 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 Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials.
386
42 • 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.

387
43 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-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 388
44 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.

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.

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.

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 project389 45 specific 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 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.
390
46 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).

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 65 dBA noise 391
47 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 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.
392
48 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 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. 393
49 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 proposed Wave Basin will use similar technology and equipment as the existing facility in Lemoore, California and, for this reason, noise measurements were collected at the existing Wave Basin and used in the analysis of the noise levels that would be generated by the Wave Basin included in the project. The proposed Wave Basin includes the following improvements that will reduce overall noise levels: (1) the tower-mounted speakers in Lemoore have been replaced by a set of smaller speakers located near the water surface level to reduce the announcement noise level, and (2) most of the winch cable system will be submerged under water, which will further reduce noise levels. See Exhibits L and M to the James Vaughn letter date August 22, 2022. However, the noise study did not reduce projected noise levels based on these enhancements, and instead, considered the actual, louder noise readings taken in Lemoore. 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 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, 394
50 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 and August 16, 2022), addressing noiserelated 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.

Finally, on the specific issue of potential noise impacts from the speaker system used at the Wave Basin to make safety announcements, the City Council accepts and relies upon the evidence supplied by Kelly Slater Wave Co., dated August 8, 2022, and from Urban Crossroads, dated August 16, 2022, describing the details of the speaker system, which will not exceed City of La Quinta noise standards in any location. See Exhibits L, K, and M to James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022.

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.
395
51 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:

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 396
52 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.

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 397
53 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:

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) 53 requires 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 398
54 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.

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. Finally, the applicant has agreed to a prohibition on any special events during the first two years of Wave Basin operations to allow the applicant and City to monitor actual Wave Basin operations, including traffic patterns, and to use that information to ensure that adequate conditions are imposed on any future Temporary Use Permit to avoid any significant impacts on the surrounding community. This provision is assured to be enforceable by the Development Agreement, approved concurrently with the project.

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 399
55 (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 Minagar & 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 and incorporates by this reference Appendix L.3 to the Final EIR, which responds to each of the comments and issues raised the Minagar & 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 400
56 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 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. 401
57 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.

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 402
58 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 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 403
59 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 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 404
60 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 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. 405
61 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).

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 406
62 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.

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 407
63 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:

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 408
64 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). The fact that the revised lighting system reduces the maximum height of light poles to 40-feet, which will not be visible from the surrounding roadways over the perimeter walls, further supports this conclusion. 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.

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- 409
65 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.

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.

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.
410
66 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 · 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 411
67 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.

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. 412
68 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.

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 413
69 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).

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. 414
70 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 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- 415
71 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 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). 416
72 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 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 417
73 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.

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 418
74 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 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 419
75 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 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 420
76 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:

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 421
77 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. Finally, the City Council accepts and relies upon the City staff reports on STVRs in the City of La Quinta, dated March 1, 2022 and June 7, 2022, which demonstrate that STVRs located in Tourist Commercial and other “exempt” areas of the City have extremely low complaint rates, as compared with the City’s “nonexempt” neighborhoods.

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 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. 422
78 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.

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 423
79 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 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.
424
80 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 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. 425
81 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 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). 426
82 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 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). 427
83 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.

In addition, the project’s final engineering plans will undergo additional review by CVWD to assure compliance with all applicable requirements.

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 428
84 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 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. 429
85 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 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.

In addition to these measures, the applicant has agreed to remove the 2.32-acre ornamental lake previously proposed for Planning Area III-F (referenced as the “Farm Lake”), which will further reduce the overall water demands of the project. See James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022, at p. 3 and Exhibit G. In addition, the water surface area of the Wave Basin has been reduced to 430
86 12.14 acres, which is a substantial reduction from the original 18.72 acres assumed in the WSA/WSV. See James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022, at p. 4 and Exhibit H.

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.

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. 431
87 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.

The City Council has also 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 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 432
88 to be inapplicable here, and finds the arguments and information in the Bauer letter lack substantial evidence.

The City Council has also reviewed and considered all comments received prior to and during the public hearings on this project, concerning the ongoing drought conditions and the adequacy of water supplies to serve the project and all other existing and planned future development. The City Council is well aware of the ongoing drought conditions and has evaluated whether the WSA/WSV approved by CVWD remains adequate and valid in light of the existing and anticipated future condition of the Colorado River and other imported water supplies. The City Council accepts and relies upon the expertise of CVWD in its position as the regional water provider and manager of the basin, as well as expert evidence supplied by Mr. Tom Levy, retired General Manager and Chief Engineer of CVWD, regarding the accuracy of the WSA/WSV and the adequacy of the long-term supply of water from the Colorado River. See Exhibits H and I to the James Vaughn letter dated August 22, 2022. Based on this evidence, as well as the public expert reports regarding the Indio Subbasin groundwater management efforts, which were submitted by the applicant on April 23, 2022 and included in the record of proceedings for this project, the City Council finds and concludes that the WSA/WSV is valid and accurate. The City Council further concludes that there will be adequate water supplies for the project and all other existing and planned future development in the Coachella Valley, due to the water shortage contingency plans and other ongoing groundwater management efforts of CVWD and the other Indio Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, even in light of the potential future reductions in the availability of Colorado River water during drought conditions.

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).

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. 433
89 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 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 434
90 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 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:
435
91 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 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. 436
92 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.

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 437
93 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.

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).
438
94 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.

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 439
95 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 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.
440
96 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 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 441
97 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 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 TOT revenue-generating short-term vacation rentals (STVRs), at the homeowners’ option, within a master planned, mixeduse community that is designed to successfully accommodate such STVRs with complementary 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.

442
98 3. The project will fund and implement a grass turf reduction plan that is projected to permanently remove and replace more than 2 million square feet of existing grass turf on private property within the City of La Quinta at full buildout, which could save more than 200 acre-feet of water annually.

4. 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.

5. 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 currently lacks any neighborhood serving commercial uses, thus requiring lengthy trips by residents to meet their most basic commercial needs.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 443
99 boundary, which will contribute to CVCC’s ongoing efforts to protect the Peninsular bighorn sheep from communities located on the valley floor.

11. 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;
(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 444
100
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.

12. 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. In addition, the project will pay substantial City Development Impact Fees and Quimby fees that will provide funding sources intended to allow Desert Recreation District to accelerate the timing and completion of Coral Mountain Park and related trail system. The implementation of this measure is assured and enforceable because it is included in the Development Agreement and conditions of approval for the Specific Plan.

13. The project imposes a 0.25% fee on the re-sale of all residences within the project, which will be distributed by a Coral Mountain non-profit organization to support health and social programs in La Quinta and the eastern Coachella Valley, such as clean water initiatives in underserved rural neighborhoods, community food security, and homeless and impoverished services. The implementation of this measure is assured and enforceable through the terms of the Development Agreement and will be an enforceable obligation of all future owners of homes in the project through recorded CC&Rs.

14. The project will create a unique recreational opportunity to La Quinta’s residents by allocating a minimum of 1,000 person hours of time on the Wave Basin for charitable and public interest purposes, such as an annual surf camp program and/or fundraising auction prizes for qualified charities. The implementation of this program is assured and enforceable through the terms of the Development Agreement.

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, 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; 445
101

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. 446
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, July 5 and September 21, 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 447
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:

Page 2 of 10 ends

La Quinta City CouncilSeptember 21, 2022

La Quinta City Council
September 21, 2022