La Quinta City Council
March 5, 2024

clerical errors to this ordinance to ensure consistency of all approved text amendments prior to the publication in the La Quinta Municipal Code.

SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY: If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared unconstitutional.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held this ____________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

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
168 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Ordinance No. XXX
Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals – Amending Subsection 3.25.050(G) regarding Declaration of Non-Use Adopted: ____________, 2024

EXHIBIT A

3.25.050 Short-term vacation rental permit – Required.
…
G. An owner or owner's authorized agent or representative who claims not to be operating a short-term vacation rental unit or who has obtained a valid short-term vacation rental permit and business license pursuant to this chapter, may voluntarily opt-out of the requirements of this chapter, prior to the issuance or expiration of a short-term vacation rental permit and business license that are applicable to the short-term vacation rental unit, only upon the owner, the owner's authorized agent or representative and/or the owner's designated local contact person submitting a written request or executing, under penalty of perjury, a declaration of non-use as a short-term vacation rental unit, in a form prescribed by the city (for purposes of this chapter, a "declaration of non-use"). Upon the receipt and filing bywith the city of a written request or a fully executed declaration of non-use, the short-term vacation rental permit and business license shall be closed and the owner or owner's authorized agent or representative shall be released from complying with this chapter as long as the property is not used as a short-term vacation rental unit. Use of the property as a short-term vacation unit after the city's receipt and filing of a written request or a declaration of non-use, is a violation of this chapter. If, after a written notice or a declaration of non-use has been received and filed bywith the city, the owner or owner's authorized agent or representative wants to use that property as a short-term vacation rental unit, the owner shall apply for a new short-term vacation rental permit and business license and fully comply with the requirements of this chapter and the code; provided, however, that if a short-term vacation rental permit is or will be suspended on the date an owner or owner's authorized agent or representative submits to the city a declaration of non-use for the short-term vacation rental unit under suspension, then the owner may apply for a new short-term vacation rental permit and business license only after twelve (12) consecutive months have elapsed from the date of the city’s receipt of the written notice or the declaration of non-use, and the owner and owner's authorized agent or representative otherwise shall fully comply with the requirements of this chapter and the code. 169 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Ordinance No. XXX
Chapter 3.25 Short-Term Vacation Rentals – Amending Subsection 3.25.050(G) regarding Declaration of Non-Use Adopted: ____________, 2024

(STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF LA QUINTA )
I, MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true, and correct copy of Ordinance No. ____ which was introduced at a regular meeting on the ___ day of _________, 2024, and was adopted at a regular meeting held on the ____ day of ____________, 2024, not being less than 5 days after the date of introduction thereof.

I further certify that the foregoing Ordinance was posted in three places within the City of La Quinta as specified in the Rules of Procedure adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2022-027.
________________________
MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California

DECLARATION OF POSTING
I, MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was posted on the __ day of _________, 2024, pursuant to Council Resolution.
________________________
MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk
City of La Quinta, California
170 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
City of La Quinta
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 5, 2024

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: DISCUSS TRANSPORTATION DESIGN CONCEPTS FOR THE HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT NO. 2019-05

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss transportation design concepts for the Highway 111 Corridor Implementation Project No. 2019-05.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The Highway 111 Corridor Plan (Plan) seeks to address connectivity, pedestrianand bicycle-friendliness, transit, green infrastructure, economic development, and the retrofitting of the existing suburban fabric.
• In September 2020, Council approved a contract with GHD, Inc. to continue planning efforts to implement the Plan including exploring form-based code zoning and roadway design.
• In September 2023, the draft specific plan was presented to Council and Planning Commission during a special joint public meeting.
• Transportation design concepts have been developed for the Plan with a safety focus.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) program, beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2019/20 has allocated a budget each FY for projects to be implemented along Highway 111, including planning, design, and construction. The next 5-year CIP allocates $1,000,000 each FY for future project implementation.

Fiscal Year Budget
2019/20 $1,000,000
2020/21 $250,000
2021/22 $1,000,000
2022/23 $1,000,000
2023/24 $1,000,000
Total: $4,250,000
STUDY SESSION ITEM NO. 1
171 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The Plan seeks to address connectivity, pedestrian- and bicycle-friendliness, transit, green infrastructure, economic development, and the retrofitting of the existing suburban fabric. Recommendations for implementation of the Plan detail a strategy for improvements, recognizing the dual functions of moving vehicles and creating a safe, walkable environment that will lead to increases in economic competitiveness, neighborhood livability, and sustainability in La Quinta.

The current contract for planning and engineering services to carry this vision forward consists of four phases:
• Phase 1: Form Based Zoning Code Assessment and Sample Code – Completed • Phase 2: Corridor Roadway Design Concept – Draft Complete • Phase 3: Engineered Plans, Specs and Estimates – Not yet initiated • Phase 4: Highway 111 Specific Plan – In progress
The proposed Highway 111 roadway design concepts were developed as part of Phase 2, and focus on safety, reducing vehicle speeds and rear-end collisions, and protecting pedestrians. Design development considered the level of traffic stress, traffic operations, collision history, and CV Link connectivity; and include protected intersections, cultural trail, Adams Street road diet and roundabout, and improvements to internal streets.

Protected intersections:
• Physically separate bicycles and cars
• Increase comfort and safety for people of all ages and abilities • Reduce high-speed motor vehicle turns
• Improve sightlines
• Reduce conflict exposure time for bicyclists and pedestrians at intersections Roundabouts:
• Reduce fatal and injury crashes by 78% compared to signalized intersections (FHWA)
• Increase mobility and comfort for pedestrians crossing the street • Longer service life, less cost and maintenance over time than traffic signals • Continuous movement for decreased delays and queues which reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Prepared by: Julie Mignogna, Management Analyst
Approved by: Bryan McKinney, Public Works Director/City Engineer Attachment: 1. Map of Highway 111 Corridor and Transportation Concept 172 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 2019-05

PROJECT MAP
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
173 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT 2019-05

PROJECT MAP
174 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
City of La Quinta
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 5, 2024

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTIONS TO 1.) CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 (EA 2019-0010) AND 2.) APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-1000, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2023-0003, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2023-0005; INTRODUCE FOR FIRST READING ORDINANCES TO APPROVE 1.) ZONE CHANGE 2023-1000 AND 2.) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2023-1000; FOR THE CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT CONSISTING OF 750 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A GOLF COURSE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE; CEQA: THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT ALTERNATIVE 2 OF PREVIOUSLY PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EA 2019-0010, APPLIES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT; LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST AND WEST OF MADISON STREET, AND NORTH OF AVENUE 60

RECOMMENDATION
A. Adopt a resolution making Findings and approving a Statement of Overriding Considerations certifying Alternative No. 2 of the Coral Mountain Resort Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021020310).

B. Adopt a resolution approving General Plan Amendment 2023-1000, Specific Plan 2023-0003, and Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005.

C.1 Move to take up Ordinance No. ___ by title and number only and waive further reading, approving Zone Change 2023-1000.

C.2 Move to introduce at first reading, Ordinance No. ___ approving Zone Change 2023- 1000.

D.1 Move to take up Ordinance No. ___ by title and number only and waive further reading, approving Development Agreement 2023-1000, for the Club at Coral Mountain project.

D.2 Move to introduce at first reading, Ordinance No. ___ approving Development Agreement 2023-1000, for the Club at Coral Mountain project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 A project was considered in 2022 for this site, which included residential units, a hotel, a mechanical wave pool, resort residential, and commercial development. The PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1
175 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Council denied the project at its meeting of September 21, 2022.  The applicant has modified the project to make minor modifications to the west half of the Andalusia Specific Plan relating primarily to the design guidelines, allowing a contemporary architecture, but preserving the approved 750 residential units, golf course, and commercial corner (Attachment 1).
 The project includes General Plan and Zoning Map amendments to reflect changes in the layout of the future golf course and residential units.  A Development Agreement is proposed to establish the responsibilities of the developer in building out the project.
 The project was heard by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2024. The Commission recommended certification of the EIR for Alternative No. 2, and approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement, with a strong recommendation that the City Council consider a cap on the number of Short-Term Vacation Rentals (STVRs) allowed within the project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Development Agreement includes the payment of a mitigation fee to cover expenses associated with public safety, because this portion of the City does not generate sufficient property tax to offset these costs.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The project area consists of the westerly 387 acres of the 929-acre Andalusia Specific Plan land area (Attachment 2). No changes to that portion of the Specific Plan occurring east of Madison Street are proposed. The project consists of the following components:

1. A General Plan Map Amendment (GPA) to modify the layout of the Low Density Residential, Open Space/Recreation, and General Commercial land use designations.

2. A Zoning Map Amendment (ZC) to match the GPA and assure consistency with the General Plan.

3. A Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to update and modify the Andalusia Specific Plan (SP2003-067, Amendment V) to change the design guidelines, and make minor modifications to the balance of the Specific Plan affecting the west half of the Plan area only.

4. A Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to subdivide the 387 acres on the west side of Madison Street into 7 lots for financing purposes only. 176 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Should these applications be approved, the applicant would be required to submit Site Development Permits (SDP) for the golf course, residential units, and commercial square footage, and Tract Maps for any further division of the lots for single family homes. The applicant has not yet submitted any subsequent permits. The Specific Plan document contains a graphic of the design concept for the future project on which the current applications are based:

Exhibit 1
Project Design Concept
The following discussion addresses each of the applications individually.

General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
The GPA and ZC are proposed to modify the layout of the Low Density Residential, General Commercial/Neighborhood Commercial and Open Space Recreation/Golf Course designations on the site to allow for a slightly different layout for these uses. The proposed GPA map is Exhibit A to the project resolution and the proposed Zoning map is Exhibit A to the ZC Ordinance. As shown in Table 1, the changes in layout also result in minor changes to the acreage in each designation. As such, the GPA and ZC will result in a minor decrease in Low Density Residential Land and increase in Golf Course land. This change is negligible but is necessary to assure that projects brought forward in the future on the site will be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning for the design concept shown in Exhibit 1 above. Neither the GPA nor the ZC will change the character, vision, or intent of the General Plan for this property. The findings for approval can be made and are provided in Attachment 2.
177 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Table 1
Land Use Summary*
Land Use Zoning Existing
Acres
Proposed
Acres
Change
(acres)
General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial
(CN) 8.4 7.7 -0.7
Low Density
Residential
Low Density Residential
(RL) 204.2 191.8 -12.4
Open Space
(Recreation)
Golf Course (GC) 171.9 187.5 +15.6
*Note that Existing acreage is calculated on net (384.5 acres) and Proposed is calculated on gross (387 acres).

Specific Plan Amendment
The currently approved Andalusia Specific Plan allows the development of 750 residential units, a golf course, and a retail commercial corner on the western 387 acres. The SPA will not change that allowance, except that it will limit the commercial square footage to 60,000 square feet, which is less than what is currently allowed (about 84,000 square feet).

It should be noted that the Specific Plan currently allows for STVRs, and the applicant preserves that allowance in the SPA, and in the Development Agreement (see below). The Planning Commission, in its deliberations, expressed its concerns regarding the potential that all 750 units within the west half of the Specific Plan area become STVRs. Although some members suggested that the number of STVRs be capped to a specific percentage of units, the Commission ultimately moved to recommend approval with a strong recommendation to the City Council that it consider a cap on the number of STVRs, without attaching a specific percentage to that recommendation.

The SPA (Exhibit C of the project Resolution) is provided in “red-line” format for the Council’s review. The changes proposed include:

1. Updates text and maps to reflect current conditions.

2. Adds a map of the current development concept for the west side (page 1.7) and modifies the Planning Area maps for the west side (page 2.2).

3. Modifies acreage and maps for Planning Area III (residential areas); Planning Area V (commercial corner); and Planning Area VI (golf course); the interior circulation plan and street sections on the west side in Chapter 2.

4. Adds a new Section 2.8 Design Guidelines for the west side which provides for contemporary architecture and a revised landscape palette for the west side.

5. Adds Section 2.8.5, Sheep Protection Plan to address protection of Bighorn Sheep at Coral Mountain, as provided in the project EIR.

6. Adds a golf course clubhouse with a building height of 35 feet (page 3.10) and golf course maintenance facilities (page 3.11) as permitted uses in Planning Area III (residential).
178 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

7. Limits commercial development in the west side commercial corner to 60,000 square feet (page 3.15).

8. Adds Section 4.2 to provide a General Plan Consistency analysis for the west side amendments (page 4.7).

9. Other minor editorial changes to correct or change language to reflect current conditions.

The most significant change in the Specific Plan is the addition of a new Design Guidelines section for the west side. The style proposed is contemporary, which is a significant departure from the Spanish architectural style that is permitted and has been constructed on the east side, within the Andalusia country club. This change, however, will not impact the existing Andalusia, and will not be incompatible with it because the west side is physically separated by roadways from the existing Andalusia. The two sides will function as independent projects, much like Andalusia and Trilogy do now, although they were once part of the same Specific Plan.

The SPA also allows golf course clubhouse and maintenance facilities in the residential Planning Area, rather than Planning Area VI, which applies to the golf course lands.

The standards in Planning Area III (residential) currently allow outdoor recreational facilities. The amendment will maintain this use, and adds the clubhouse, fitness center and similar recreational facilities, both indoor and outdoor. Although no SDP is currently proposed, the applicant has indicated, and the concept plan supports, centralized recreational amenities in addition to the golf course, including a recreational lake in the west-central portion of the site.

The SPA does not change any of the land uses currently allowed, nor does it change density/intensity of those land uses, except that it reduces the commercial square footage maximum of the commercial corner. The changes proposed are not substantial, and the Specific Plan remains consistent with the vision and intent of the Andalusia Specific Plan.

Tentative Tract Map
The Subdivision Map Act allows for multiple types of maps. The currently proposed map is one which allows subdivision only for the purposes of financing. The 387 acres will be subdivided into seven large lots. These lots can be sold or used for the purpose of securing financing but cannot be built upon until subsequent maps and permits are obtained. As shown in Exhibit C of the project Resolution, in this case the TTM subdivides the land into parcels that conform to the layout of the future golf, residential, and commercial areas. The conditions of approval (Exhibit D of the project Resolution) reflect the limited nature of the TTM, and do not include improvements or bonding. These requirements will be applied to subsequent maps and SDPs as they are brought forward.

The TTM conforms to the GPA, ZC and SPA, and is consistent with the Municipal Code.

The findings for approval can be made and are provided in Attachment 2. 179 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Development Agreement
A Development Agreement (DA) is proposed for the project (Exhibit A of the DA Ordinance). It includes the following terms:

1. Vests the project approvals and requires that the applicant develop the project pursuant to those approvals to include up to 750 residential units, a golf course, and 60,000 square feet of commercial space.

2. Allows STVRs for the residential units within the project.

3. Requires compliance with project design features and mitigation measures in the EIR.

4. Imposes an annual $1,000.00 per unit mitigation fee for public safety costs.

5. Allows the reduction or elimination of the per unit mitigation fee based on the amount of transient occupancy tax received by the City in two previous years.

6. Establishes a 10-year phased development schedule, with the backbone infrastructure and golf course being completed within 4± years, and the residential and commercial within 10 years.

The DA provides the City with both a timeline for project development, and a fee structure to allow the City to recover public safety costs for this area of the City, where property tax revenues are limited. In addition, the DA provides for assurance to the applicant STVRs can occur within the project. Although this is already allowed in the Specific Plan, the addition to the DA is consistent with the defined exemptions in the STVR code.

AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW
All written comments received are on file and available for review with the Design and Development Department. All applicable comments have been adequately addressed and/or incorporated in the recommended COAs.

Public Hearing Notice
This public hearing for this Project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 23, 2024, distributed to properties within 500 feet of the Site, and emailed or mailed to all interested parties requesting notification of the project. Public comments received by the Planning Commission, and additional comments received since the Commission hearing are provided in Attachment 3.

Tribal Consultation
In accordance with SB18 and AB52, Tribal Consultation was conducted with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI), who were the only tribe to request consultation.

Mitigation measures in the EIR address ACBCI’s concerns regarding the site. 180 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Coral Mountain EIR was prepared and released for public review in June of 2021.

When the City Council determined that it would deny the Project, no action was taken on the EIR. It is important to note that since that time, conditions have not changed, and the property and environment remain as they were in 2021.

The EIR included, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, five alternatives to the proposed Project:

1. No Project/No Build – the parcel remains in its current condition.

2. No Project/Existing Entitlements – the existing Specific Plan is implemented, allowing 750 residential units, an 18-hole golf course, and 8.4 acres of retail commercial at the northeast corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58.

3. Reduced Density – the project would result in 400 residential units, 100 hotel rooms, 78,000 square feet of commercial and the artificial surf basin.

4. Golf/Resort Hotel – the project would result in 150 hotel rooms and associated resort commercial, an 18-hole public golf course, and 600 residential units.

5. Lake Amenity/No Hotel – the project would result in 750 housing units, 8.4 acres of commercial uses, and a 75-acre lake which would be used for recreation.

All the Alternatives were analyzed, as required under CEQA, to provide the public and decision makers with sufficient information to determine if they could reduce the significant impacts of the Project, and still meet most of the Project’s objectives. Because this was project-level analysis, the Alternatives quantified impacts, including air quality, water demand and traffic. Under Alternative No. 2, the EIR concluded that some impacts would be comparable to the Preferred Alternative, some would be reduced, and some would be significant and unavoidable, including aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and vehicle miles traveled.

The applicant’s current proposal is consistent with Alternative No. 2: it would allow 750 housing units, a golf course, and 60,000 square feet of commercial on the corner. The changes to the General Plan and Zoning maps are minor and will not change the build-out potential. Therefore, the current proposal has been analyzed in the EIR.

To assure that the current proposal is indeed consistent with Alternative No. 2, a technical memo has been prepared, which demonstrates consistency with the Alternative No. 2 analysis in the EIR. It is attached to this staff report as Exhibit C of the EIR Resolution. As described in that memo, the currently proposed project is consistent with the analysis of Alternative No. 2 of the EIR and will not increase the impacts identified for Alternative No. 2 in the EIR. The Draft and Final EIR documents are available at https://www.laquintaca.gov/our-city/city-departments/design-and-development/planningdivision/planning-projects/club-at-coral-mountain.

181 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA clearly states that the purpose of the alternatives is, in part, to “foster informed decision making and public participation” (Guidelines 15126(a)). Alternative No. 2 was analyzed, and it was determined that it would still have significant and unavoidable impacts.

It will still require that the City Council consider whether the benefits of the Project outweigh those significant impacts. In order to certify the EIR, Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared, and are attached to the EIR Resolution as Exhibit A. Also required is the preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached to the EIR Resolution as Exhibit B.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may elect to approve the project as recommended, approve with modifications, or deny the project.

Prepared by: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
Approved by: Danny Castro, Design and Development Director Attachments: 1. Project Information

2. Findings for Approval

3. Vicinity Map

4. Public Comments
182 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 – XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA

QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE CORAL MOUNTAIN
RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2021020310)
FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 FOR THE CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN
PROJECT CONSISTING OF 750 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A GOLF
COURSE AND 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL
SPACE; ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
CASE NUMBER:

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2019-0010
APPLICANT:

CM WAVE DEVELOPMENT LLC
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did, on March 5, 2024, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2019- 0010 and its Environmental Impact Report (EIR, SCH #2021020310), as mandated by State law for the Club at Coral Mountain Project (“Proposed Project”) consisting of a master planned community on 386 acres of a 929 acre area located south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and east and west of Madison Street, more particularly described as:

Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs):
764-200-076, 764-210-007, 764-210-028, 764-210-029, 766-070-003, 766-070-006, 766-070-012, 766-070-014, 766-080-001, 766-080-002,766-080-004 & 766-080-005 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on February 23, 2024, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site, and emailed or mailed to all interested parties who have requested notification relating to the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2024-003 recommending the City Council adopt Findings and a Statement of Overriding Consideration and certify Environmental Assessment 2019-0010 for Alternative No. 2 of the Coral Mountain Resort Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021020310) certify at a duly noticed Public Hearing on January 23, 2024; and 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 183 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Resolution No. 2024 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Club at Coral Mountain
Adopted: March 5, 2024

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 (“Previous Project”) 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 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 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 revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Proposed Project. 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 a CEQA Compliance Memo prepared to demonstrate consistency of the Proposed Project with Alternative No. 2 as analyzed in the EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council denied the Previous Project, as previously proposed, on September 21, 2022, and took no action on the EIR; and WHEREAS, the EIR included complete and thorough analysis of five Alternatives, including the No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative (Alternative No. 2); and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the Proposed Project in 2023 which includes General Plan Amendment 2023-1000, Zone Change 2023-1000, Specific Plan Amendment 2023-0003, Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005 and Development Agreement 2023-1000, which would allow the development of up to 750 residential units, a golf course and 60,000 square feet of retail commercial within the same land area as was studied in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Proposed Project is consistent with Alternative No. 2 as analyzed in the EIR, and as supported by substantial evidence provided in Exhibit C of this Resolution; and
184 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Resolution No. 2024 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Club at Coral Mountain
Adopted: March 5, 2024

WHEREAS, the EIR found that although most environmental impacts of Alternative No. 2 can be reduced to less than significant levels, impacts to aesthetic resources, air quality emissions, greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled will remain significant and unavoidable; and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts identified in the EIR for Alternative No. 2 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 for Alternative No. 2 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 for Alternative No. 2 as potentially significant but which the Lead Agency finds cannot be mitigated to 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, findings regarding the selection of Alternative No. 2 as being preferable to the Previous Project are described in Section VII 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 Alternative No. 2, 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
185 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Resolution No. 2024 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Club at Coral Mountain
Adopted: March 5, 2024

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 Alternative No. 2 have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

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

SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2. That the City Council does adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for Alternative No. 2 contained in Section VIII of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herewith by this reference.

SECTION 3. That the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Proposed Project 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 Proposed 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. That 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 for Alternative No. 2, based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 5. That 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).
186 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Resolution No. 2024 – XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Club at Coral Mountain
Adopted: March 5, 2024

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta City Council, held on March 5, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

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
187 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Club at Coral Mountain
Adopted: March 5, 2024

CEQA FINDINGS
and

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

OF THE CITY COUNCIL

FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA
for the

CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN PROJECT
General Plan Amendment 2023-1000
Zone Change 2023-1000
Specific Plan Amendment 2023-0003
Tentative Tract Map 2023-0005
Development Agreement 2023-1000

EXHIBIT A
188 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
i

FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................. .1 Project Description ....................................................... 7 Project Components ...................................................... 8 Project Construction ...................................................... 9 Project Implementation ................................................. 9 Responsible Agencies .................................................... 10 Project Objectives ......................................................... 10 II. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ............................................ 11 Aesthetics ........................................................................ 11 Effects on scenic vistas ................................................ 11

Air Quality ........................................................................ 14 Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant ...................................................................... 14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................. 19 GHG Emissions that may Significantly Impact
the Environment.................................................... 19 Transportation .................................................................. 25 Consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)[VMT] ..................................................... 25 III. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT

IMPACTS WHICH ARE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL………………………………….29
Aesthetics ........................................................................ 29 Impact a Scenic Resources within a State Scenic
Highway Corridor .......................................................... 29 Air Quality ........................................................................ 32 189 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
ii
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations ................................................ 32 Biological Resources .......................................................... 36 Candidate, sensitive or special status species and Riparian habitat ........................................................................ 36 Movement of wildlife ..................................................... 41 Consistency with local policies and applicable habitat
conservation plan ......................................................... 45 Cultural Resources ............................................................ 46 Impacts to Historical Resources ...................................... 46 Impacts to Archaeological Resources ............................... 48 Impacts to human remains ............................................. 50 Geology and Soils ............................................................. 53 Expose People or Structures to Effects Involving
Seismic-Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction ...... 53 Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit or Expansive Soil ..... 55 Impacts to a Unique Paleontological Resource, Site or
Unique Geologic Feature……………………………………………………... 58
Noise ............................................................................... 60 Consistency with Established Noise Standards/Increase
In Ambient Noise Levels………………………………………………………. 60
Transportation .................................................................. 66 Consistency with an Applicable Plan or Policy Addressing The Circulation System………………………………………………………... 66
Effect of a Geometric Design Features ............................. 71 Emergency Access ........................................................ 73 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................... 74 Impacts to Significant Tribal Cultural Resources ................ 74 IV. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT ............................................... 80 Aesthetics ........................................................................ 81 Effects to the Visual Character or Quality of the Site ......... 81 Light and Glare ............................................................ 82 Air Quality ........................................................................ 86 190 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
iii
Consistency with implementation of applicable air quality plans and standards……………………………………………………………… 86
Create objectionable odors ............................................. 86 Energy ............................................................................. 87 Consumption of Energy Resources .................................. 87 Consistency with a State or Local Plan for Renewable
Energy or Energy Efficiency…………………………………………………. 88

Geology and Soils ............................................................. 90 Direct or Indirect Effects Involving Strong Seismic
Shaking/Landslides ..................................................... 90 Soil Erosion or Loss of Topsoil ...................................... 90

Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................. 91 Consistency with Applicable Plan, Policy or Regulation .... 91

Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................ 92 Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Material,
Including Accidental Release………………………………………………… 92
Effect on an Emergency Response Plan ............................ 93 Risk of Wildfires ............................................................ 93 Other Potential Hazards ....................................................... 93 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................. 95 Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste
Discharge Requirements………………………………………………………. 95
Effect on of Groundwater Supplies or Interference with
Groundwater Recharge……………………………………………………. 95
Potential Impacts from Alteration of Existing Drainage
Patterns ....................................................................... 96 Inundation by Flooding, Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow ......... 96 Consistency with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan ...................................... 96

Land Use
Consistency with Any Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation .. 101 Noise ............................................................................... 103 Generation of Ground Borne Vibration ............................ 103 Public Services .................................................................. 104 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................. 105 191 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
iv
Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded
Facilities for Water, Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities……….. 105 Sufficiency of Water Supplies ......................................... 107 Wastewater Treatment System Capacity .......................... 107 Generate Excess Solid Waste .......................................... 107 Comply with Statues and Regulations Related to
Solid Waste .................................................................. 107 V. FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTDS
HAVING NO IMPACT………………………………………………… 115
Biological Resources ........................................................ 115 Federally protected wetlands ......................................... 115 Geology and Soils ............................................................. 115 Effects Involving Rupture from Known Fault .................... 115 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................ 115 Hazardous Materials within ¼ mile of a school ................. 115 Sites with Known Hazardous Materials Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 ................................ 116 Effects Having No Impact and Not Analyzed Further in
Draft EIR ......................................................................... 116 VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE ANALYZED
THE DEIR AND REJECTED ............................................... 117

Alternative 1: No Project/No Build ....................................... 117 Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative ........................... 118 Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative .................... 119 Alternative 5: The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative ............ 120 Additional Findings Regarding the Environmentally Superior Alternative ....................................................................... 121 VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE 2 SELECTED

AS PREFERRABLE TO THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED
PROJECT ........................................................................ 123 Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements ..................... 123 VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ........... 124 IX. FINDINGS REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR .. 130 192 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 Final EIR SCH No. 2021020310
GPA 2023-1000, ZC 2023-1000, SP 2023-0003, TTM 2023-0005, DA 2023-1000
The City of La Quinta (City) 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). At the public hearing on the Coral Mountain Resort Project on September 21, 2022, the City Council denied the project applications, primarily based on its determination that the proposed Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to allow the Wave Basin and other proposed Tourist Commercial uses at the project site would not be compatible with the surrounding residential communities, and thus would not be in the best interests of the City and its residents. As a result, the applicant revised the proposed project to align with the existing entitlements for the site, including the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP03-067) and the existing Zoning and General Plan land use designations, which was analyzed in the EIR as Alternative 2. The revised proposal is known as the Club at Coral Mountain, and is consistent with the existing Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space (Recreation) land use designations that currently exist on the project site. The Club at Coral Mountain no longer proposes a Tourist Commercial designation or uses.

I. INTRODUCTION
The Club at Coral Mountain project includes a Neighborhood Commercial corner on approximately 7.7 acres allowing up to 60,000 square feet of retail development, an 18-hole golf course on approximately 187.5 acres, and up to 750 residential units on 191.8 acres (the “Revised Project”). While the Revised Project requires technical amendments to the General Plan land use map and Zoning map to modify the layout of the golf course and low-density residential acreages, the Revised Project contains the same land uses on the same property as Alternative 2 in the EIR and the existing General Plan land use and Zoning map, with substantially the same permitted development.

Therefore, in connection with approving the Revised Project, the City Council makes these findings in support of its certification of the EIR, its adoption of Alternative 2 as the City’s Preferred Alternative, and its adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. To avoid confusion, when these findings refer to the previously proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project, it will use the term “Previously Proposed Project.”
In order to implement the Revised Project, the applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-1000), Zone Change (ZC 2023- 193 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 1000), Specific Plan Amendment (SP 2023-0003), Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2023-0005), and Development Agreement (DA 2023-1000), 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.

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, responses to those comments, and a supplemental CEQA Compliance Memo addressing the consistency of the Revised Project with Alternative 2 in the EIR. 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 194 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
3 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 for the Previously Proposed Project 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), 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 of the Wave Basin would be 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, which were Aesthetics (scenic vistas) and GHG emissions.

For the Revised Project and Alternative 2, the Final EIR also identified potentially significant environmental effects related to Aesthetics (scenic vistas, scenic resources), Air Quality (construction-source and operationalsource 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), Greenhouse Gas Emissions (generation of GHG emissions), Noise (temporary construction noise and ground borne vibration, operational and traffic noise); Transportation (VMT, plan consistency, construction traffic); and Tribal Cultural Resources (known and unknown tribal cultural resources). The Final EIR determined that the potentially significant environmental impacts for Alternative 2 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, air quality impacts from operational-source emissions, GHG emissions, and VMT). As described in the CEQA Compliance Memo prepared for the Revised Project, the Revised Project’s impacts, required 195 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
4 mitigation measures and significant and unavoidable impacts are substantially the same as for Alternative 2.

For the Previously Proposed Project and for the Revised Project and Alternative 2, the Final EIR identified no impact or less than significant impacts related to Agriculture and Forest Resources, Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Public Services, Population and Housing, Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems, 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.
(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 Revised Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics (adverse effect on scenic vistas), air quality (operational source emissions), greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation (VMT) 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, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation 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 City further finds that the impacts of the Revised Project are substantially the same as the impacts of Alternative 2 analyzed and disclosed in both the Draft EIR and Final EIR. Finally, the City 196 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
5 finds that neither the Previously Proposed Project nor any of the other alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR will feasibly reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project because:
(i) the Previously Proposed Project and the alternatives with Tourist Commercial Uses (Alternatives 3 and 4) are unacceptable to the City Council on policy grounds making them infeasible,
(ii) Alternative 1 (No Project/No Build) would fail to meet any of the basic project objectives, would be inconsistent with the General Plan, and is unacceptable to the City Council and thus infeasible, and (iii) Alternative 5 (Lake Amenity) would fail to substantially reduce any of the significant and unavoidable effects of the Revised Project and is unacceptable to the City Council on policy grounds due to the increased use of water.

The significant effects (impacts) of the Revised Project and mitigation measures are stated fully in the Final EIR. The rationale for these findings 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’s 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, the supplemental CEQA Compliance Memo for the Revised Project and Alternative 2, 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 197 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
6 22, 2022, April 12, 2022, April 26, 2022, and January 23, 2024, and the City Council hearings on June 7, 2022, July 5, 2022, September 21, 2022, and March 5, 2024;
 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 – Compiled- Final (adopted December 2021), (4) Indio Subbasin Annual Report Workshop PowerPoint (March 17, 2022), and (5) Indio Subbasin Annual Report – Final (February 2022).
 All reports of the City relating to the Project, including reports submitted to the City by expert consultants, and all supporting materials referenced therein;
 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;
198 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
7  All prior environmental impact reports and studies related to the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03-067; and
 All matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to the City’s policies, guidelines and regulations.

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

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

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project area encompasses 929 acres that are currently a part of the “Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03-067”, which includes the area south of Avenue 58 and east and west of Madison Street. The area east of Madison Street encompasses the Andalusia Country Club property and is not being affected by the Revised Project. The area west of Madison Street is currently vacant and is the area to be developed by the Revised Project uses.

Amendment V of Specific Plan 03-067 affects only the areas west of Madison Street and is being processed to adjust the location and layout of the open space-recreation and low-density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of the existing land use designations; to make minor changes to the development standards and permitted uses within those land use designations; and to amend the Design Guidelines to allow a contemporary style of architecture.

The applicant is requesting approval of the following entitlements, which if approved, would allow for and govern the development of the project site:
 General Plan Amendment- A General Plan Amendment (GPA 2023-1000) will amend the current General Plan land use map to make minor adjustments to the layout of the golf course and low-density residential 199 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
8 acreages but does not make any changes to the type or density of allowed development under the existing General Plan.
 Zone Change- The proposed Zone Change (ZC 2023-1000) will revise the existing zoning map to modify the layout of the golf course and lowdensity residential acreages, consistent with General Plan Amendment described above, with no material changes to the permitted development.
 Specific Plan Amendment- The Specific Plan Amendment (SP 2023- 0003) constitutes Amendment V of Specific Plan 03-067 and is being processed to adjust the location and the layout of open space-recreation and low-density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of these existing land use designations, as well as to make changes to the permitted uses and Design Guidelines for the portion of the Specific Plan located west of Madison Street to accommodate a more contemporary architectural style. 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.
 Tentative Tract Map- The Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2023-0005) subdivides the property into seven (7) smaller parcels for financing and development phasing but does not include the creation of individual lots for development. Future TTMs may be filed with each phase of development as necessary to implement the project.
 Development Agreement- The Development Agreement (DA 2023- 1000) would establish the responsibilities of the applicant and the City, including vesting the project approvals, establishing standards authorizing vacation rentals permitted in the existing Specific Plan, and setting financial obligations of the development.

PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Project build out components include:
 Up to 750 single family attached and detached dwellings and associated recreational and golf amenities;
 Up to 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible neighborhood commercial building space; and
200 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
9  An 18-hole golf course.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
According to the Development Agreement, project construction will occur in five (5) primary residential development phases plus the neighborhood commercial center and the golf course. Each primary residential development phase is anticipated to be constructed within approximately two years from commencement and 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. Development of all project uses will require implementing approvals, including future tentative tract maps and site development permits, as described below.

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.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
The following are anticipated responsible agencies which may rely on the Final EIR for their discretionary approvals required to implement the project:
201 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
10 Imperial Irrigation District
Approval or certification related to any other applicable general order, rule, or regulation concerning utility modification, conveyance, or delivery.

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

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

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Revised Project has identified the following objectives, which include revisions to the original objectives for the Previously Proposed Project to respond to input received from the City Council when the Previously Proposed Project was rejected:
 To implement a plan that recognizes and responds to the natural and aesthetic character of the property.
 To create a private residential 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 establishing residential neighborhoods that are linked through multi-use trails that connect neighborhoods throughout the project.
 To maintain the overall density previously included for this property in the Andalusia Specific Plan and to remain substantially consistent with the permitted uses allowed under the existing General Plan land use designations.
 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.
202 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
11 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 Revised Project. Based on the analysis contained in the Final EIR, the following impacts to aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation have been determined to be significant and unavoidable, after all feasible mitigation measures have been considered and adopted. These unavoidable impacts are overridden by the project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section VII, below.

Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta finds that, for each of the following significant effects, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid these significant effects on the environment to the maximum extent feasible.

Nevertheless, the City of La Quinta further finds that for each of the significant effects, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR. However, the City finds that with respect to the significant and unavoidable impacts described below, specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section VII below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. These findings are explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.

AESTHETICS
Effects on scenic vistas.

The Revised 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 58 203 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
12 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, 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-ofway, (refer to Section IV below). However, impacts associated with scenic vistas cannot be reduced to less than significant levels and will remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures:

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

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

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

Finding
The City Council of the City of La Quinta finds direct impacts to the scenic resources of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains from development of the project site with perimeter walls, landscaping and structures, to be significant. Pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of La Quinta finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised 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 204 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
13 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 Revised 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 perimeter walls, landscaping, and structures will obstruct some views of these scenic resources from the surrounding roadways and neighborhoods. However, 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 of the Revised Project. While these impacts will be mitigated by AES-1 and AES2 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.

The Revised Project’s impacts on views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains are considered to be the same as the impacts under the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2 because all three scenarios include the same required perimeter fencing and landscaping, and all would be subject to the same enhanced setback requirements. Although the Previously Proposed Project included higher structures in the center of the project site, the previously proposed wave basin, hotel, and other proposed structures in 205 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
14 Planning Area III would not have significantly impacted views of Coral Mountain or the Santa Rosa Mountains due to the distance and intervening topography and improvements between this portion of the Previously Proposed Project and the viewing locations from the surrounding roadways and communities (see Draft EIR pp. 4.1-22 through 4.1-45).

AIR QUALITY
Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant The Previously Proposed 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. Although Table 4.2-5 of the Draft EIR was prepared for the Previously Proposed Project, the construction emissions for the Revised Project and Alternative 2 are considered to be the same as for the Previously Proposed Project because all three scenarios involve disturbing and developing the same project site and the entire site would be developed (See Draft EIR at p. 7-17 and CEQA Compliance Memo pp. 13-14). 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.

Operational-source emissions (without mitigation) for the Previously Proposed Project 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 previously 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.

Like Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR, the Revised Project would have increased VOC and NOx emissions due to the 13% increase in average daily vehicle trips . Urban Crossroads prepared a supplemental Air Quality and GHG assessment to quantify and confirm this increase, which also updated the analysis with the 2022 CalEEMod program and the updated SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds published in March of 2023. Based on this updated analysis, the Revised Project’s VOC and NOx emissions would exceed 206 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
15 the updated SCAQMD thresholds (See CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 13-15, and Appendix A).

Project Design Features.

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

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

Mitigation Measures:

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 207 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
16 legal obligation to enforce air pollution regulations. These regulations are primarily meant to ensure that the
surrounding (or ambient) air meets federal and state air quality standards. The South Coast AQMD also has broad
authority to regulate toxic and hazardous air emissions, and these regulations are enforced in the same manner as those which pertain to the ambient air quality standards.

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

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

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.
208 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
17 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 Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, implementation of the PDFs, mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, and BACM AQ-1 through BACM AQ3, 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, will reduce construction and operational priority pollutants to the maximum extent feasible.

The City of La Quinta further finds that despite implementation of all mitigation and PDF’s identified in the Draft EIR, operational emissions of VOC and NOx will remain a significant effect of the Revised Project, and 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 Revised Project’s unavoidable operational air quality emissions 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 Revised 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:

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 209 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
18 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 construction emissions from the Revised Project are below applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds, and thus do not constitute a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant.

Operational‐source emissions for the Revised Project, however, will not be reduced to less than significant levels after implementation of PDFs and MMAQ-3 because emissions of VOC and NOx will exceed the updated 2023 SCAQMD thresholds. However, Table 7 in the CEQA Compliance Memo (p. 14) also shows that the Previously Proposed Project would also exceed the revised SCAQMD thresholds for these criteria pollutants and would have greater NOx emissions than the Revised Project. Therefore, the operational air quality impacts of the Revised Project are not considered to be substantially more severe than analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and are the same as for Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR.

The following PDFs apply to the Revised Project: pedestrian connections, mixture of residential and commercial land uses, walkability and connectivity design elements, telecommuting and alternative work schedules, compliance with Title 24 standards, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445, on‐site photovoltaic electricity supply (15%), and waste diversion per AB 939. In addition, MM AQ‐3 establishes a paint VOC content limit of 50 grams per liter to perform interior and exterior re‐painting during the life of the project. The PDFs are site design elements and operations and will be enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement. While these PDF’s and mitigation will not reduce operational air quality emissions to a less than significant level, they do substantially reduce such emissions to the maximum extent feasible.

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 210 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
19 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.

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

The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of both the Revised Project and the Previously Proposed Project would exceed the applicable annual threshold of significance of 3.65 MTCO2e/service population before accounting for implementation of all feasible emission reduction measures, including both enforceable Project Design Features (PDFs) and Mitigation Measure GHG-1. Specifically, the Draft EIR disclosed that the Previously Proposed Project would generate a total of 17,270.47 MTCO2e per year, which divided by the service population of 2,672 would be 6.46 MTCO2e/service population (see Draft EIR Table 4.7-7). The Revised Project would generate a reduced total of 14,978.42 MTCO2e per year, but when divided by the reduced service population of 2,228, the Revised Project would have a slightly increased MTCO2e/service population of 6.72 (see CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 33-35 and Appendix A). While implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would offset the GHG emissions generated by the Revised 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 Revised Project’s potential impacts relating to GHG emissions remain significant and unavoidable and would be similar but slightly greater than the Previously Proposed Project on a per service population basis.

The City further finds that the impacts of the Revised Project would be the same as under Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR, and would not be substantially more severe than would occur for the Previously Proposed Project.

Project Design Features:
211 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
20 The Specific Plan incorporates the following design features for promoting energy efficiency and sustainability, which shall be enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement and Specific Plan:

 Pedestrian connections shall be provided to surrounding areas consistent with the City’s General Plan. Providing a pedestrian access network to link areas of the project site encourages people to walk instead of drive. The project would provide a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project would minimize barriers to pedestrian access and
interconnectivity.
 Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transport. For example, when residential areas are in the same neighborhood as retail and office buildings, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her trip needs. A description of diverse uses for urban and suburban areas is provided below
 The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network
characteristics within a neighborhood include street accessibility, usually measured in terms of average block size, proportion of four- way intersections, or number of intersections per square mile. Design is also measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian-oriented environments from autooriented environments.  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.
 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.
212 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
21  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.
 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:
213 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
22 GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall purchase a minimum of 72,000 MTCO2e
credits (2,400 MTCO2e per year for 30 years). The purchase of carbon credits must be made from a CARB-approved
carbon registry with independent third-party verification.

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

Finding:

The City Council of the City of La Quinta finds that impacts associated with GHG emissions generated by the Revised 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 214 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
23 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 substantially 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 Revised Project, including but not limited to generating transient occupancy and sales tax revenues to enhance the City’s economic base to ensure its long-term financial stability, outweigh the significant effects on the environment, as more fully described in Section VII below, which is hereby incorporated by this reference.

These findings are further explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The City of La Quinta relied on the SCAQMD’s project level efficiency threshold methodology for determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions.

Specifically, the City evaluated SCAQMD’s project level 2020 target of no more than 4.8 metric tons of CO2 emissions (MTCO2e) per service population (SP) per year and its 2030 target of no more than 2.88 MTCO2e/SP per year, and determined that for the project’s proposed 2026 buildout year, the appropriate threshold of significance was interpolated at 3.65 MTCO2e/SP per year (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.7-9 through 4.7-10). The project emissions were calculated for all sources of emissions, including construction emissions and operational emissions. For the Previously Proposed Project, the GHG calculations also included the maximum number of special events allowed per year. The Draft EIR disclosed that the Previously Proposed Project would generate a total of 17,270.47 MTCO2e per year, which divided by the service population of 2,672 would be 6.46 MTCO2e/service population (see Draft EIR Table 4.7-7). The Revised Project would generate a reduced total of 14,978.42 MTCO2e per year, but when divided by the reduced service population of 2,228, the Revised Project would have a slightly increased MTCO2e/service population of 6.72. While these emissions levels are substantially reduced through implementation of the PDFs identified above, emissions levels would still exceed the 3.65 MTCO2e/SP per year. Therefore, the Draft EIR identified Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requiring the purchase of 215 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
24 sufficient carbon credits sufficient to reduce the project’s total GHG emissions per SP to below the 3.65 MTCO2e/year threshold. (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 Revised 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 comments lack merit and fail to provide any substantial evidence of any new or more severe significant adverse effects relating to GHG emissions, beyond what is described above and in the Draft EIR, or of any inaccuracies in the Draft EIR or technical studies. Rather, the City Council finds Final EIR Responses 52-k, 79-h, 79-I and 79-q persuasive, and hereby adopts those responses and incorporates them into the City Council’s findings, analysis and conclusions regarding GHG emissions.

The City Council also reviewed and considered all subsequent correspondence and comments received after release of the Final EIR, including the letters submitted by Mitchell Tsai, SWAPE, and Bruce Bauer. The City Council finds that these comments lack merit and fail to provide any substantial evidence of any new or more severe significant adverse effects relating to GHG emissions, beyond what is described above and in the Draft EIR, or of any inaccuracies in the Draft EIR or technical studies. In particular, the City Council rejects the assertion in the April 12, 2022 letter from Mitchell Tsai and April 6, 2022 letter from SWAPE that the City has failed to adopt all feasible mitigation measures prior to making the findings set forth above regarding GHG emissions. Rather, the City Council accepts as accurate and persuasive the supplemental expert letter from Haseeb Qureshi at Urban Crossroads, dated May 25, 2022, which explains that all feasible GHG mitigation set forth in the comment letters referenced above, or their equivalent, have been adopted and imposed on the project, either as mitigation measures or enforceable project design features. The City Council finds that all other GHG mitigation measures identified in these comment letters, including the 216 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
25 measures set forth in the April 6, 2022 letter from SWAPE, will not substantially reduce the project’s remaining GHG emissions because all applicable and feasible measures from this list have been incorporated into the project. This conclusion is based on the supplemental expert letter from Mr. Qureshi, which is hereby incorporated into these findings by this reference.

While the above-referenced comments and responses were made with respect to the Previously Proposed Project, nothing contained therein provides any substantial evidence that the Revised Project will have any new or substantially more severe effects than disclosed and analyzed in the Draft EIR.

As shown in the supplemental GHG analysis conducted by Urban Crossroads and discussed in the CEQA Compliance Memo, the Revised Project will have the same GHG emissions as Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR and will have reduced overall GHG emissions than the Previously Proposed Project with only a marginal increase in annual emissions per service population (see CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 33-35 and Appendix A).

TRANSPORTATION
Consistency with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) [VMT].

Travel demand modeling of VMT for both the Revised Project and the Previously Proposed Project, based upon City of La Quinta guidelines, indicates a potential impact. Residential VMT for the Previously Proposed Project was calculated to be 11.64 VMT/resident, which exceeds the City’s threshold of 15% below the existing Citywide home-based VMT/resident of 12.98 (meaning the threshold is 11.03 VMT/resident). The non-residential VMT was calculated at 21.53 VMT/service population for the subregional area with the Previously Proposed Project, which was slightly less than the “without project” VMT/service population of 21.56, resulting in a less than significant impact.

The Draft EIR also evaluated the potential VMT-related impacts of Alternative 2, and determined that Alternative 2 would have greater VMT impacts than the Previously Proposed Project due to a 13% increase in vehicle trips due to the change in uses, as well as a substantial reduction in the amount of internal trip capture, resulting in a significant and unavoidable VMT impact.

A supplemental VMT analysis was completed for the Revised Project, which determined that the residential VMT would increase to 13.14 VMT/resident and the non-residential VMT would increase to 21.57 VMT/service population in the subregional area under the “with Revised Project” scenario. Both residential and non-residential VMT levels exceed the City’s applicable significance thresholds. However, the Revised Project’s VMT impacts are the 217 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
26 same as under Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR, and do not constitute a new or substantially more severe effect than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR.

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 recreational land uses, a resident does not need to travel outside of the neighborhood to meet his/her recreational and retail needs.

The Revised 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 Revised Project minimizes barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. The Revised Project includes sidewalk connections, particularly to / from the retail areas resulting in interaction with residential uses on‐site.

Together, the Revised Project’s implementation of these project design features provide a reduction in home-based VMT of 3% under CAPCOA guidance (see CEQA Compliance Memo, Appendix C, at pp. 5-6).

Findings:

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 of the Revised Project related to VMT and consistency with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3, described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR to the maximum extent feasible. Specifically, implementation of the PDFs as described above and 218 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
27 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, will reduce VMT to the maximum extent feasible.

The City of La Quinta further finds that despite implementation of all mitigation and PDF’s identified in the Final EIR, VMT and consistency with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3 will remain a significant effect of the Revised Project, and specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or other 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 Revised Project’s unavoidable VMT impacts except the no project/no development alternative and the Previously Proposed Project, which are both 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 Revised 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 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.

For the Previously Proposed Project, the project was anticipated to generate approximately 1,698 project residents and 19,773 Home-Based 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 Previously Proposed 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 Previously Proposed Project incorporates design features and attributes 219 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
28 promoting trip reduction which would 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 Previously Proposed Project design features would reduce potential impacts to below the City’s established threshold for a significant VMT impact, and therefore, the residential portion of the Previously Proposed Project would have a less than significant VMT impact. For the Previously Proposed Project, the Development Agreement and/or conditions of approval would 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 Previously Proposed Project would have consisted 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 (see 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 Previously Proposed 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 nonresidential 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). Please also see Final EIR Responses 83-k and Appendix L.3, which the City Council hereby incorporates into its findings, analysis and conclusions.

Urban Crossroads completed a supplemental VMT analysis for the Revised Project using these same methodologies and found that the Revised Project would have a slightly increased residential VMT of 13.14 and a slightly increased “with project” areawide VMT/service population of 21.57 (see CEQA Compliance Memo at pp. 49-51 and 55-57, and Appendix C). Even with implementation of the CAPCOA recommended project design features to reduce VMT, both the residential and non-residential VMT calculations exceed the City’s applicable thresholds of significance, and thus are a significant and unavoidable effect of the Revised Project. However, because these VMT increases are the same as would occur under Alternative 2 analyzed in the 220 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
29 Draft EIR, and because the increases as compared to the Previously Proposed Project are incremental and not considered substantial (less than 15%), the Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe VMTrelated effects than previously analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR.

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

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

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

CUL-1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to
preserve the information on the adobe building. Such
information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project
archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project’s Homeowners
Association. Special attention should be given to the
residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The 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, 222 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
31 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 Revised 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, AES2, and CUL-1, which have been adopted by the City and are enforceable through the Development Agreement, as well as the MMRP and project conditions of approval.

Facts in Support of Finding:

As stated above, there are no State or locally designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the Revised 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 223 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
32 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. Moreover, the impacts of the Revised Project are the same as would occur if the site was developed with the Previously Proposed Project or Alternative 2 (existing entitlements).

AIR QUALITY
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: The Draft EIR concluded that for the Previously Proposed Project, 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.

The Draft EIR concluded that the construction emissions for Alternative 2 would be similar to the Previously Proposed Project, and significant without 224 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
33 mitigation, because the same area would be disturbed and the entire site would be developed. The Revised Project would have the same impact because it develops the same project site with the same mix of uses as Alternative 2.

Operational Emissions: The Previously Proposed Project was 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 Previously Proposed Project did not include such uses, and thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, it would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The same is true for both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

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

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

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

The following standard regulatory requirements and best available control measures shall appear on all project grading plans, construction specifications and bid documents, and the City shall ensure that such language is incorporated prior to issuance of any development permits:
225 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
34 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.

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 Revised 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 day during Phase 1 of construction. As shown in Table 4.2-12 and discussed on pages 4.2-36 – 4.2-40 of the Draft EIR, the PM10 emissions during Phase 1 of construction of the Previously Proposed Project 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 226 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
35 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 Draft EIR concluded that the Previously Proposed Project would 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.

The Draft EIR further concluded that construction impacts from Alternative 2 would be similar to those analyzed under the Previously Proposed Project because the same project area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed. The Revised Project would develop the same project site with the same mix of uses as Alternative 2 and would have the same constructionrelated emissions impacts. With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2, impacts would be less than significant.

As described above and analyzed in further detail in the Draft EIR at p. 4.2- 40, the Previously 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 same is true for both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project.

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 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 227 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
36 and operational toxic air contaminant emissions, based on the expert evidence and explanation in Mr. Qureshi’s supplemental letter.

While the above-referenced comments and responses were made with respect to the Previously Proposed Project, nothing contained therein provides any substantial evidence that the Revised Project will have any new or substantially more severe effects than disclosed and analyzed in the Draft EIR.

As shown in the supplemental Air Quality analysis conducted by Urban Crossroads and discussed in the CEQA Compliance Memo, the Revised Project will have the same Air Quality emissions as Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR and will have similar Air Quality impacts to those generated by the Previously Proposed Project (see CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 12-16 and Appendix A).

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. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios have the same potential impacts and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three.

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 228 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
37 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 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 all
construction activities within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. 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.
229 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
38 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 commercial, open space, and
low-density community 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 or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised 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 230 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
39 (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 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, 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 231 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
40 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 all construction activities within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. 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.
232 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
41 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.

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 233 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
42 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 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.

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 234 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
43 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 ground-disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological 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.

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 Revised Project 235 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
44 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 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 all construction activities within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. 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. 236 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
45 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.
237 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
46 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. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios have the same potential impacts and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three.

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:

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 238 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
47 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 Revised 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 Revised 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 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 239 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
48 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. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios have the same potential impacts and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three.

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, 240 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
49 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 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 Revised 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 241 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
50 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.

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, project-specific 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:
242 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
51 To avoid or substantially reduce potential impacts concerning the discovery of human remains, the following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented consistent with the MMRP:

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

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

Finding:

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

Facts in Support of Finding:

Pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and CEQA Guidelines 15064.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no 243 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
52 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. 244 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
53 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Expose People or Structures to Effects Involving:

Seismic-Related Ground Failure, including Liquefaction: Implementation of the Revised 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. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios are subject to the same potential impacts from seismic-related ground shaking and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three.

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.
 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
245 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
54 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 overexcavated 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 moistureconditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
 Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious
substances, and shall not contain irreducible matter
greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension. All fill materials shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be of a non-expansive nature and shall
meet the following criteria:

Plastic Index Less than 12
Liquid Limit Less than 35
Percent Soil Passing #200
Sieve
Between 15% and
35%
Maximum Aggregate Size 3 Inches
The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the exposed
subgrade shall be observed by a representative of
Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials.
 Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled
compacted fill shall be anticipated. It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent.

Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and
compacted shall be between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This 246 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
55 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 Revised 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 Revised Project will incorporate the necessary structural engineering design features to address the risk of seismic-related ground shaking. This is identified as Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Through this design, the potential for 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.
247 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
56 Mitigation Measures:

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

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

GEO-2 All earthwork including excavation, backfill and preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, presented below, and
portions of the local regulatory requirements, as applicable.

All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified soil engineer. The following geotechnical engineering recommendations for the
proposed project are based on observations from the field investigation program, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analyses.
 Stripping: areas to be graded shall be cleared of the vegetation, associated root systems and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old fills and any irreducible matter. The stripping shall be removed
off-sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas.

Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction shall be properly backfilled in accordance
with the compaction recommendations of this report.
 Preparation of the Residential Building Areas: in order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, the primary foundation bearing soil shall be overexcavated 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 moisture248 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda 57 conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
 Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious
substances, and shall not contain irreducible matter
greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension. All fill materials shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be of a non-expansive nature and shall
meet the following criteria:

Plastic Index Less than 12
Liquid Limit Less than 35
Percent Soil Passing #200
Sieve
Between 15% and
35%
Maximum Aggregate Size 3 Inches
The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the exposed
subgrade shall be observed by a representative of
Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials.
 Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled
compacted fill shall be anticipated. It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent.

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

Finding:

Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that, for each of the significant effects relating to development on an unstable geologic unit or expansive soil described above and further discussed in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will 249 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
58 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 project-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. As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios have the same potential impacts and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three.

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 250 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
59 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.

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 Revised 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 251 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
60 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 long-term increases in traffic noise and operational noise. 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 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.
252 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
61 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, in order to protect the proposed onsite residential uses from off-site traffic noise. The barriers shall provide a weight of at least four pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative
cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking.

Finding:
253 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
62 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 Revised 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-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:

Construction of the Revised 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 Revised 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. Construction noise impacts from the Revised Project will be substantially the same as the construction noise from both the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2, because all three involve development of the same number of acres and the same project site, and in all cases, will be less than significant with mitigation measures NOI-1 through NOI-4.

The Noise Study analyzed operational noise generated by the Previously 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 project site. The ten locations where measurements were collected were chosen to represent noise sensitive areas, such as nearby residential properties.
254 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
63 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 would 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. As compared to the Previously Proposed Project described above, the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would have similar, less than significant roadway noise impacts.

While the Revised Project and Alternative 2 both have approximately 13% more vehicle trips than the Previously Proposed Project, this modest increase in trips would not cause a substantial increase in roadway noise nor create any significant operational noise impacts given the capacity of the roadway system and the dispersed nature of the trips.

Off-site traffic also generates traffic noise on the project site; therefore, sixfoot perimeter walls will be developed along the existing rights-of-way and adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area (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 special events from the Previously Proposed Project 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 would range from 60.5 to 73.9 dBA CNEL, and would 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, those roadway noise level increases are considered to be less than significant under the Previously Proposed Project with special events condition at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic. As the Revised Project 255 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
64 and Alternative 2 both eliminate the wave basin and its associated special events, no such increased traffic noise levels would occur and impacts would be less than significant.

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 Previously 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 previously proposed wave basin would 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 previously proposed wave basin included the following improvements that would have reduced overall noise levels: (1) the tower-mounted speakers in Lemoore were 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 would have been submerged under water, which would have further reduced noise levels. See Exhibits L and M to the James Vaughn letter dated 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, 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 256 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
65 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 noise-related comments made during the public hearings, and find that these memoranda further confirm that the Previously Proposed Project would 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.

Both the Revised Project and Alternative B would have reduced operational noise impacts than analyzed in the Final EIR and described above for the Previously Proposed Project because the wave basin, resort uses, and associated special events have been eliminated. The Revised Project will have low-density residential, golf course and neighborhood commercial uses that 257 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
66 are consistent with the existing Zoning and General Plan, as well as the surrounding communities.

Overall, the Revised Project would have the same construction and operational noise impacts as Alternative B analyzed in the Draft EIR and would have reduced noise impacts as compared with the Previously Proposed Project due to the elimination of the wave basin and resort uses. Accordingly, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe noise effects than analyzed in the Draft EIR,

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

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

Mitigation Measures:

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

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-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.
258 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
67 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 Revised Project which avoid or substantially lessen such significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, and further finds that all such effects will be mitigated to less than significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures TRA-1, TRA2, and 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 the wave basin 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) 259 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
68 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.

At project buildout, the Previously Proposed Project would be 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 Previously Proposed Project. The addition of the Previously Proposed Project would 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 volumeto-capacity ratio of 0.90 or less at buildout.

The County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) 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 Previously Proposed Project and background traffic would 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.

A supplemental LOS analysis was completed for the Revised Project to evaluate whether the proposed residential, golf and neighborhood commercial uses would result in any new or substantially more severe effects than the Previously Proposed Project or Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR. (See CEQA Compliance Memo at pp. 51-55 and Appendix B.) The supplemental LOS analysis determined that the Revised Project would cause the same ten existing intersections to fall below acceptable LOS levels without mitigation as would occur under the Previously Proposed Project. Likewise, the supplemental LOS analysis determined that with implementation of mitigation measures TRA-1 and TRA-2 and the conditions of approval set forth above, all potentially effected intersections would operate at acceptable levels with the Revised Project. Accordingly, the Revised Project would not have any new or 260 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
69 substantially more severe LOS related traffic impacts than were analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2.

Special Events: The Previously Proposed Project included the potential occurrence of multi-day special events at this location involving attendance of not-to-exceed 2,500 guests per day. Any event occurring prior to the build out of the project, and concurrent roadway improvements and traffic signal installations, could result in a significant impact on traffic operations.

Therefore, if project special events were held prior to the construction of the Previously Proposed Pproject’s 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, required 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 Previously Proposed Project entries and other facilities were determined to be adequate for special event conditions, and the impacts associated with special events would have been 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 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 were imposed on any future Temporary Use Permit to avoid any significant impacts on the surrounding community.

However, the wave basin and associated special events have been eliminated from the Revised Project, and therefore, there will be no associated potential traffic impacts and mitigation measures TRA-9 through TRA-14 are no longer applicable.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Interior to the project, Project Design Features (PDF) are incorporated that encourage the use of alternative 261 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
70 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.

Neither the Previously Proposed Project, Alternative 2 nor the Revised Project are 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 Revised 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, neither the Revised Project nor the Previously Proposed Project nor Alternative 2 would conflict with any applicable plans or policies addressing the circulation system, and would not have any projectspecific or cumulative adverse effects on the roadways and intersections surrounding the project (see Final EIR, pp. 2-32 – 2-35 and Appendices L.2 and L.3; and Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-17 – 4.13-51 and Appendices L.1, as well as the CEQA Compliance Memo at pp. 51-55 and Appendix B).

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-thansignificant, 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 262 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
71 letter attached as Exhibit 2 to Comment letter 83. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Council further finds that the issues relating to the wave basin related special events will be avoided with the Revised Project due to the elimination of the wave basin and related resort uses.

Effect of Geometric Design Features.

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

Mitigation Measures:

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

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

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

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

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

TRA-8 The project proponent shall ensure that Construction Traffic Control Plans are reviewed and approved by the City prior to project construction. These plans are to be implemented during construction activities. Construction includes onsite and offsite improvements.
263 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
72 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 Revised 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 Revised Project, like the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2 would 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 Revised 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. The Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe effects than 264 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
73 analyzed in the Draft EIR Previously Proposed Project or Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR.

Emergency Access.

As the project will be a gated, private community under all alternatives considered in the Draft EIR (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 Revised 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.
265 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
74 Facts in Support of Finding:

For gated projects, the Fire Department requires the installation of a KnoxBox Rapid Entry System or similar device to facilitate emergency access by fire fighters and other emergency first responders (Mitigation Measure TRA6). The internal circulation system would provide adequate fire department access. Final layout and site access design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer as well as the Fire Department to ensure compliance with their established standards. (Mitigation Measures TRA-5 and TRA-7).

Therefore, the Revised Project, like the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative B, 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 266 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
75 arrange cultural monitoring. The project requires the presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American
Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys).

Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt in the vicinity of the deposits, and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines), within 24 hours, to investigate and, if
necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

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

TCR-3: Before ground disturbing activities, the project’s archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action to approve the plan is taken within 30 days from submission for approval. If the ACBCI Tribal Historic
Preservation Office rejects two Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site.

TCR-4: Before ground disturbing activities, the project’s archaeologist shall prepare a Rock Art Management Plan, based on recommendations made in the report by McCarthy and Mouriquand, and shall submit the plan to the ACBCI
Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Rock Art 267 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
76 Management Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI’s
Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action is taken to approve the plan within 30 days of submission for approval.

If the ACBCI Historic Preservation Office rejects two Rock Art Management Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Rock Art
Management Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site.

TCR-5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contain the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive
Areas; the Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be
recorded on the property, and proof of recordation shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III. Nominations of these sites to the National Register of Historic Places shall be filed with the appropriate federal agency prior to the issuance of the first grading permit; and the sites shall be subject to the provisions of the Rock Art Management Plan.

TCR-6: For the portion of Site 33-001715 outside the preservation area established in TCR-5, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to any
ground disturbance in Planning Area III to recover a
representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI’s satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance.

TCR-7: Prior to ground disturbance in Planning Area III, a qualified archaeologist shall complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for sites 33-1716, 33-1717, 33- 8386, 33-9001, 33-9003, 33-28907, 33-28908, 33-28909,
33-28910, 33-28911, 33-28912. A report of findings
268 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
77 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 earthmoving machinery for each phase of development. The applicant shall provide the City with fully executed
269 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
78 monitoring agreements prior to each phase of ground
disturbing activity.

TCR-10: Should human remains be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbance, the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5 shall be followed. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further
excavation or disturbance of the site of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent
remains, until the County Coroner has examined the
remains. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission within 24-hours.

TCR-11: Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall sign a curation agreement with the ACBCI THPO. A fully executed copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City.

TCR-12: Prior to any ground disturbance, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all contractors with the staff at the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO).

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 Revised 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, 270 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
79 ACBCI indicated that the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex is especially important, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) requested that this area be avoided and preserved. Mitigation Measure TCR-5 will ensure that the sites are avoided and protected in situ during any development activity through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. To provide long term protection of these sites, Mitigation Measures TCR-5 and TCR-6 require prohibition of development and the recordation of protective easements, as well as a program of research and documentation of the sites. For the balance of one of the sites, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation is required to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project (Mitigation Measure TCR-6). In addition, the project’s archaeologist will be required to prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan and a Rock Art Management Plan prior to ground disturbing activities. Both plans are to be submitted to the ACBCI THPO for approval, and once approved provided to the City (Mitigation Measures TCR-3 and TCR-4). Mitigation Measures TCR-3 through TCR-7 will mitigate potential disturbance of the Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex less than significant level.

The project archaeologist determined that the remaining five of the eight previously identified cultural resource sites and all seven isolates, recorded within or partially within the current project area, do not constitute a unique archaeological resource or an historical resource. During Tribal consultation, however, the ACBCI disagreed. Based on their resource inventories, and the breadth and significance of resources identified in and surrounding the project site, the area is considered significant to the Tribe. The Tribe requested further surface investigation, testing, and excavation, if necessary, of these sites and isolates to assure that impacts to Tribal resources in the area are not significant. In order to assure that the impact is reduced to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure TCR-7 requires a qualified archaeologist to complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for the sites. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI’s reasonable satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance.

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 TCR-9 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. 271 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
80 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 TCR12 will require a standard curation agreement with the ACBCI and construction worker sensitivity training during all aspects and phases of project construction. Together, these mitigation measures will assure that impacts to Tribal resources unearthed during all phases of project construction will be reduced to less than significant levels. For the reasons set forth above, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-12, impacts to Tribal Resources will be reduced to less than significant levels.

As the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Previously Proposed Project are all located on exactly the same project site, all three scenarios have the same potential impacts concerning Tribal Cultural Resources and these findings and the analysis in the Draft EIR apply to all three. Accordingly, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe effects concerning Tribal Cultural Resources than analyzed in the Draft EIR.

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, including the supplemental CEQA Compliance Memo, and incorporates the same herein by this reference.
272 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
81 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 low-density residential and golf course community with neighborhood serving retail uses, consistent with allowed uses under the existing General Plan and zoning.

Finding:

The City Council finds that the project fits with the low density residential and golf course 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 and golf course, consistent with surrounding communities (Draft EIR at p. 4.1-48). The residential and recreational uses within the project will be subject to the regulations outlined within the Specific Plan and will be consistent with the prevailing desertthemed 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).
273 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
82 The previously proposed wave basin, resort hotel, and other Tourist Commercial uses have been eliminated from the Revised Project, and thus will have no effects, even though the Draft EIR determined that those previously proposed uses would 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 previously proposed wave basin lighting has also been eliminated, which eliminates a concern raised some residents in the surrounding communities. 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.

The Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2.

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.

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, the Revised Project will have less than significant effects due to the elimination of the previously proposed wave basin lighting and compliance with the City’s outdoor lighting requirements. No mitigation measures were required. The City further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2, and in fact, will have a reduced light and glare impact than the previously proposed Wave Basin Project due to the elimination of the wave basin lighting system.

Facts in Support of Finding:
274 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
83 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 Revised 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 previously proposed 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 would have been 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 would 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, previously proposed mitigation measure AES-3 would have limited the wave basin lighting to the hours of dusk to 10:00 p.m., in compliance with the City’s outdoor recreational lighting limitations (LQMC § 9.100.150).

In response to requests made by City officials, an actual demonstration of the Musco TLC for LED lights proposed to be used for the wave basin was performed on November 17, 2021, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Two poles and lighting fixtures were staged on-site, one at the exact height and location of proposed pole 8, which is the pole closest to Coral Mountain. The other was staged at the exact height of proposed pole 16 (the pole nearest adjacent residences) but was staged approximately 135’ south of the proposed location (closer to the adjacent residences) due to physical access constraints.

Although only two 600-Watt lighting fixtures are proposed for poles 8 and 16, to be conservative in disclosing impacts, four 1200-Watt fixtures were used for both poles to provide a demonstration of the proposed lighting system that exceeds the amount of lighting proposed in these two, most-sensitive locations. Light readings were taken before and after the light fixtures were turned on and these readings validated and confirmed the computer modeling described in the Draft EIR and above. At 120-feet behind and to the side of each pole, the light readings were consistently at 0.01 FC, an imperceptible 275 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
84 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 reduced the height of the light poles from 80-feet to 40-feet, and reduced 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- 276 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
85 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.

Nevertheless, the City Council determined that the wave basin, the associated lighting system, and the accompanying Tourist Commercial uses were not compatible with the surrounding low density residential and golf course communities. The City Council finds that the Revised Project addresses this concern and will have no significant adverse effects relating to light and glare.

Furthermore, the Revised Project’s lighting is 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. The Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2.
277 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
86 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
Neither the Previously Proposed Project nor any of the Alternatives include any of the land uses generally associated with odor complaints; the low density residential, open space recreational, and general commercial uses associated with the Revised 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 Revised 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.

The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2.

Facts in Support of Finding:
278 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
87 The project would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds or localized significance thresholds (LST) for construction activity after implementation of the Best Available Control Methods (BACM AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-3) listed above (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-15 – 4.1-18)1. In addition, the project’s operational emissions would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds or LST (Draft EIR at pp. 4.1.16 – 4.1-18, and Table

4.2-8 and 4.2-13). In addition, the project is consistent with the growth projections included in the 2016 AQMD. Accordingly, the project is consistent with all applicable air quality plans, including SCAQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than significant. It is expected that project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. The Revised 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 Revised Project, like the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2, involve construction activities on the same project site and 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 CEQA Compliance Memo at p. 27), and therefore, construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

For operational energy use, the Revised Project will use less electricity and natural gas than the Previously Proposed Project (due to the elimination of the wave basin and Tourist Commercial uses) and will use more petroleum due to the approximately 13% more daily vehicle trips (CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 27-29). As compared to Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR, the 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.
279 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
88 Revised Project will use the same level of these energy resources because it proposes the same uses on the same project site. As analyzed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would not include wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of these energy resources. The Revised Project proposes a complimentary mix of uses and non-vehicular connectivity that will reduce vehicle miles traveled, and thus reduces the consumption of petroleum projects for vehicle use. In addition, the Revised 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. Impacts will be less than significant, and the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2.

Consistency with a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency.

The Revised Project is subject to CALGreen Building Codes and Title 24 codes and standards for both residential and nonresidential components of the project, as well as the City of La Quinta’s GHG Reduction Plan and General Plan goals and policies for reducing energy consumption. As a result, the project is required to incorporate energy efficient design features that result in substantial reductions in energy consumption and GHG emissions, including the measures described below and in the Draft EIR.

Project Design Features:

Energy-saving and sustainable design features, as well as operational programs would be incorporated into the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-22 –

4.5-29). Because these features/attributes are integral to the project, and/or are regulatory requirements, they are not considered to be mitigation measures but will be made enforceable by the City pursuant to the Specific Plan, Development Agreement, and/or project conditions of approval. The project will require submittal to the appropriate agencies discussed in this section for review and approval of on-site design for circulation, building standards and utility installation. The following PDFs are part of the project:
· Specified use of Energy Star appliances
· Installation of water-efficient plumbing fixtures
· Installation of tankless water heaters
280 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
89 · 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 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 Revised 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. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2.

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 Revised Project is consistent with CALGreen Building Codes and Title 24 codes and standards for both residential and nonresidential components of the project, as well as the City of La Quinta’s GHG Reduction Plan and General Plan goals and policies for reducing energy consumption (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-20 – 4.5-34). The project proposes a mixed-use development that provides complementary uses with an emphasis on connectivity and alternative modes of transportation to reduce vehicle use within the project. In addition, the mandatory PDF’s identified above result in a 17.25% reduction in projected electricity, thus further avoiding any wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.5-25 – 4.5-28). Therefore, the Revised Project is consistent with General Plan Policy SC-1.5 and associated programs in the Livable Community Element in the General Plan. The City Council also 281 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
90 incorporates Responses 52-k, 59-b, and 61-h, into the City Council’s findings, analysis, and conclusions regarding the project’s energy use.

As compared to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project will use less electricity and natural gas due the elimination of the wave basin and other Tourist Commercial uses. While the Revised Project will generate approximately 13% more daily vehicle trips, and thus increased use of petroleum products, these increases are not considered substantial and will not result in the wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts will be less than significant, and the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative

2. 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 282 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
91 seismic shaking, landslides and soil erosion, and these geology and soils impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The Revised 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 projectspecific geotechnical and soils analysis, and therefore, impacts from strong seismic groundshaking are expected to be less than significant.

The project does not propose any development at the base of Coral Mountain and the closest habitable structure would be located approximately 170 feet away. Accordingly, impacts relating to landslides will be less than significant.

The project is required to implement the Coachella Valley PM10 Plan to avoid windblown sand from leaving the site. The project will also be required to implement a SWPPP to avoid stormwater from carrying soil or sand from the site. Finally, the project will require a Water Quality Management Plan for long-term operations to prevent soil or contaminants from being washed from the site. Compliance with these legal requirements will ensure that impacts relating to soil erosion are less than significant.

As with the Previously Proposed P and Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR, the Revised Project requires compliance with existing state, regional, and City regulations, plans, and programs, which will avoid significant risks from strong seismic shaking, landslides and soil erosion, and these geology and soils impacts would be less than significant. Accordingly, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative

2. 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:
283 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
92 The City Council finds that the Revised 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 Revised 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 and pages 33 - 35 of the CEQA Compliance Memo, 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.

The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials, Including Accidental Release
The Revised Project will use oils, fuels, and other potentially flammable substances and materials in connection with construction activities. While the Previously Proposed Project operations would have included 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, the chemicals specific to the wave basin will not be required in the previously analyzed quantities due to the elimination of the wave basin. The Revised Project will use cleaning agents, building 284 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
93 maintenance products, solvents, fertilizers and similar substances in quantities typical of a low-density residential and golf course community.

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. Nevertheless, the previously proposed 285 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
94 wave basin has been eliminated from the Revised Project, thus also avoiding these concerns.

Finding:

The City Council finds that compliance with existing federal, state, regional, and City regulations will ensure impacts related to the Revised Project’s construction and operations, including the maintenance of the golf course, recreational areas, 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. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2.

Facts in Support of Finding:

The Revised Project is subject to all applicable permitting and hazardous material handling requirements of Riverside County Municipal Code Chapter

8.64 and California Health & Safety Code Chapter 6.95, which 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. 286 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
95 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Compliance with Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements
During construction and operation (life of the project), implementation of the proposed development will be required to comply with CWA, NPDES, state, and local regulations to prevent violations or impacts to surface water quality standards and waste discharge requirements pertinent to surface or ground water quality. These requirements include development and implementation of a project-specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and compliance with NPDES General Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-00014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ, during all construction activities (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-16 and 4.9-17). The project is also required to develop and implement a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and to comply with the NPDES Order No. R7-2013-0011 (Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) within the Whitewater River Watershed) during longterm operations (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-18 – 4.9-19).

Effect on Groundwater Supplies or Interference with Groundwater Recharge
The Revised Project will increase demand for potable and non-potable water as a result of developing currently vacant land with residential and golf course uses. 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”), and the WSA/WSV approved by CVWD for the Revised Project (see CEQA Compliance Memo, at pp. 66- 67, and Appendix D). The Revised Project’s total water demand is projected to be 1,217.01 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total projected growth in water demand by 2045 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. Accordingly, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and 287 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
96 disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative

2. 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.

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 Revised 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. Finally, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and 288 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
97 disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative

2. 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 Revised 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).

Likewise, the Final EIR and CEQA Compliance Memo incorporates information from the subsequent WSA/WSV approved by CVWD for the Revised Project.

For this Revised 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 1217.01 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total projected growth in water demand by 2045 presented in 289 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
98 the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (See Appendix D to CEQA Compliance Memo, at p. 44).

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. ES-9 – ES-12, p. 7-89, and Figures ES-6 and ES-8).

Accordingly, this information supports the conclusions in the DEIR that the project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Indio Subbasin. Moreover, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2 because under all three scenarios, 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.

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 290 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
99 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 contribute to on-site groundwater recharge.

Existing off-site tributary runoff is also incorporated into the on-site retention system, such that the project will not impede the existing naturally occurring infiltration. Less than significant impacts are anticipated pertaining to interference with groundwater recharge (Draft EIR, at p. 4.9-22).

Potential Impacts From Alteration of Existing Drainage Patterns Erosion or Siltation. For every drainage area associated with project implementation, the retention facilities will meet the City’s requirements and will have varying amounts of surplus capacity. By conveying project runoff along engineered flow lines (pipes, surface swales, curb and gutter) instances of substantial erosion or siltation will be prevented. The on-site pervious areas of the project will be stabilized in accordance with approved landscaping plans.

All on-site impervious and pervious land cover resulting from project implementation, including the storm drain system and surface basins, will be subject to proper operation and maintenance during the life of the project, as mandated by the WQMP agreement that will be required of this project prior to issuance of a grading permit. Therefore, less than significant impacts are expected pertaining to substantial erosion or siltation, on- or off-site (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.9-22 – 4.9-24).

Substantially Increase Surface Runoff Water Causing Flooding. As a standard requirement under the City’s Engineering Bulletin #06-16, the hydrology and storm drain design must account for flood protection of structures from the 100-year storm. Off-site flows from the tributary hillside areas to the west are also handled by the project through retention facilities to be constructed on-site. 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 291 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
100
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
The project is not located in any mapped seiche zones, such as those associated with large bodies of water, the proposed development no longer includes the wave basin that would have been capable of creating mechanical waves in excess of 6 feet tall with the dissipation of that energy is calculated into the sloped edges. Accordingly, the Revised Project will not have any potentially significant effects relating to seiches.

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. All proposed onsite 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
292 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
101
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 Revised Project proposes development of a low-density residential and golf course community with neighborhood commercial uses in the northeast corner, consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations. The Revised Project includes applications for technical amendments to the Zoning Map and General Plan Land Use Map to make minor modifications to internal boundaries between allowed uses, but does not propose to change or intensify the allowed uses.

The Draft EIR evaluated the Previously Proposed Project’s consistency with the City’s 2035 General Plan Update goals and policies regarding Land Use, Circulation, Livable Communities, Economic Development, Parks, Recreation and Trails, Housing, Water Resources, Open Space and Conservation, Noise, Soils and Geology, Flooding and Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, Emergency Services, and Water, Sewer, and other Utilities. After evaluating the applicable goals and policies in each of these portions of the City’s General Plan, the Draft EIR describes the reason the Previously Proposed Project would be 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 were also 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 Previously Proposed Project would be consistent with the General Plan with respect to all chapters, and would not have any significant cumulative land use and planning impacts. 293 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
102
Like Alternative 2 analyzed in the Draft EIR, the Revised Project would implement the same residential, golf course, and commercial uses allowed under the existing Specific Plan SP-03-067 and 2035 General Plan. As compared to the Previously Proposed Project, the Revised Project would have reduced land use and planning impacts because the Revised Project does not propose to add the wave basin or other Tourist Commercial uses, which would require a substantive amendment to the General Plan and the existing zoning.

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. Finally, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative

2. Facts Supporting Findings:

The Revised Project has been designed to maintain low-density residential development along 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 previously proposed hotel, wave basin and related tourist commercial uses have been eliminated.

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 to the extent still applicable after elimination of the wave basin and other tourist commercial uses.
294 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
103
Finally, the City Council reviewed Draft EIR comments 52-f, 52-g, and the other public comments asserting that the project’s allowance of short-term vacation rentals (STVRs), pursuant to the terms of the proposed Development Agreement, is inconsistent with the General Plan and would have adverse environmental effects that have not been fully analyzed or disclosed. The City Council finds those assertions to be lacking in merit and in any substantial evidence, and further finds that the allowance of STVRs in the project pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Development Agreement will not be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan or have any undisclosed or unmitigated adverse environmental effects (other than as set forth in Section III of these Findings). The City Council also notes that STVRs are already allowed under the site’s existing entitlements. 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 certain “exempt” areas of the City have extremely low complaint rates, as compared with the City’s “non-exempt” 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. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2.

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).
295 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
104
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 from the generation of ground borne vibration and ground borne noise by project construction activities would be less than significant.

PUBLIC SERVICES
The Draft EIR analyzes the project’s potential effects relating to the provision of public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.12-9 – 4.12-15). The project will add residents, workers, and visitors to the project site, which will cause incremental increases in the demand for these public services.

Findings:

The City Council finds that the project’s impacts on public services, including police services, fire protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities will be less than significant. The City Council further finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative

2. 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 Revised Project will not have any significant project-specific or cumulative adverse effects on public services. Specifically, the Revised 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 Revised 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 Revised 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).
296 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
105
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 Revised 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 Revised Project proposes a golf course, additional 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 Revised Project will also generate 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.

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 projectspecific 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 297 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
106
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. The Revised Project will have somewhat reduced wastewater flows, as compared to the Previously Proposed Project, due to the elimination of the hotel and tourist commercial uses, under all three scenarios (including Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR), impacts are less than significant.

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 may 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 Previously Proposed Project was expected to require approximately 8,642,729 kWh of electricity per year, whereas the Revised Project is anticipated to use approximately 41% less electricity (in each case the energy use constitutes substantially less than one 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.
298 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
107
Sufficiency of Water Supplies
To determine the adequacy of available water supplies to serve the Previously Proposed 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 the Revised Project, the City requested that CVWD prepare and approve an updated WSA/WSV, which is attached to the CEQA Compliance Memo as Appendix D. 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 Revised Project’s total water demand is projected to be 1217.01 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total projected growth in water demand by 2045 presented in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (See Appendix D to CEQA Compliance Memo, at p. 44).

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. 299 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
108
The project is required to comply with the mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341 and the Cal Green requirement for a construction waste management plan that includes diversion of at least 65% of construction and demolition materials from landfills, through recycling and/or reuse (Draft EIR, at p. 4.15-33).

Findings:

The City Council finds that the Revised 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 Revised 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 Revised Project’s wastewater and solid waste demands and finds that the project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies, and guidelines. Finally, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR for the Previously Proposed Project and Alternative 2.

Facts in Support of Findings:

Require or Result in Construction of New or Expanded Facilities for Water, Wastewater, Drainage or Utilities.

Water: As noted in CVWD’s Comment 10-a and Final EIR Response 10-a, the project will require implementation of the previously planned water line extension in Avenue 60, west of Madison Street, to connect the project to CVWD’s existing water facilities, which will be located in the existing disturbed right-of way and will not have any significant adverse effects, as described on page 2-52 of the Final EIR. In addition, the project’s final engineering plans will undergo additional review by CVWD to assure compliance with all applicable requirements. Accordingly, the project will not have any projectspecific 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 300 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
109
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 may 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, IID has adequate generation 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 Water Demand Estimate
CVWD approved a WSA/WSV for the Revised 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. The Revised 301 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
110
Project’s total water demand is projected to be 1217.01 acre feet per year (AFY), which accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of the total projected growth in water demand by 2045 presented in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (See Appendix D to CEQA Compliance Memo, at p. 44).

The Revised Project’s outdoor water use is calculated pursuant to the express requirements of CVWD Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4. While this total water demand estimate for the Revised Project is greater than estimated for the Previously Proposed Project, the impacts remain less than significant because the CVWD approved WSA/WSV confirms and verifies that CVWD has adequate water supplies to serve the project and all other existing and planned future uses. Therefore, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR.

The Revised 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 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 an d consistent with
the functional and aesthetic needs of the project, while providing soil s tability to resist
erosion.

2. In the event recycled water becomes available to the project, the pote ntial use of tertiary
treated water will be reviewed to determine feasibility of its use for ons ite 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 t o increase irrigation efficiency.
302 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
111

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 replenish ment fees for the purpose of buying additional supplies of water for im portation into the basin.

Approved WSA/WSV Water Supplies and Entitlements:

The WSA/WSV approved by CVWD also includes identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply for the project and quantities of water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, contracts, and agreements. In reviewing those sources, including an examination of the current condition of the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, the WSA/WSV concluded that the water supplies available from the Indio Subbasin, the State Water Project (SWP), the Colorado River, and other sources will be adequate to supply the project and all other existing and planned uses in accordance with California Water Code Section 10910 et seq., as further described in the Draft EIR at pp, 4.15-26 – 4.15-31. Those findings by CVWD are hereby incorporated by this reference.

Conditions in the Indio Subbasin are continually being assessed and quantified in management plans developed and implemented by CVWD. In December 2021, CVWD approved the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, which provides the most current assessment of the subbasin and other water supplies, including consideration of the potential for extended extreme drought conditions. The Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update analyzes several scenarios over the 50-year period required by SGMA to address potential future water supply conditions, changes in land use, and implementation of water management projects including source substitution and new water supply projects. Climate change conditions were considered in all of these scenarios. To account for the potential effects of future climate change, the projections assume CVWD will contribute water to California’s Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan allotment for Colorado River water.

Under this plan, CVWD is obligated to contribute approximately 14,000 to 24,500 AFY, which equals about 7 percent of California’s total contribution, to prevent Lake Mead water levels reaching critically low levels (see Final EIR, at pp. 2-23 – 2-25).
303 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
112
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. ES-9 – ES-12, p. 7-89, and Figures ES-6 and ES-8).

Accordingly, this information supports the conclusions in the DEIR that (i) the project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Indio Subbasin; and (ii) CVWD will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and therefore, will not have any significant adverse effects relating to water use.

Based on both the project-specific WSA/WSV and the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, the City Council finds that CVWD has correctly calculated for, and demonstrated that it can supply the water demand generated by the proposed project, as well as all other existing and projected future demands.

In addition, the City Council has reviewed and considered the public comments questioning the accuracy of the water demand calculations in the WSA/WSV, including the alternative water demand and evaporation figures cited in Comment 65-d in the Final EIR. The City Council finds these alternative evaporation figures and calculations to lack sufficient verified information regarding the project site and the proposed wave basin to constitute substantial evidence regarding the project’s water demands or the sufficiency of available water supplies. On the other hand, the City Council finds the information in the WSA/WSV, the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update approved by CVWD, and the Topical Response on Water Resources in the Final EIR (pp. 2-17 – 2-28), to be valid and persuasive substantial evidence that the project will not have any significant adverse effects on groundwater supplies or CVWD’s recharge activities and other groundwater basin management efforts. To the extent still applicable after elimination of the wave basin from the Revised Project, 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.
304 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
113
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. To the extent still applicable after elimination of the wave basin from the Revised Project, 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 Revised Project because that location has different evaporation rates, and the wave basin has now been eliminated from the Revised Project.

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). Accordingly, the City Council finds the water demand analysis used for the DSRT SURF project to be inapplicable here, and finds the arguments and information in the Bauer letter lack substantial evidence.

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, 305 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
114
even in light of the potential future reductions in the availability of Colorado River water during drought conditions.

Wastewater Treatment System Capacity
The Revised Project will not have any significant project-specific or cumulative adverse effects concerning CVWD’s wastewater treatment system capacity because CVWD’s existing Mid-Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) has adequate capacity to serve the project (which will add approximately 3.3 percent to the existing flows to WRP-4), and because the project will connect to CVWD’s existing sewer mains adjacent to the project site, which have adequate capacity to convey the additional flows from the project (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-17 – 4.15-18, and 4.15-32).

Generate Excess Solid Waste
As described on pages 4.15-32 and 4.15-33 of the Draft EIR, the project is projected to generate 581.6 tons of solid waste per year, which equals 3,574.5 cubic yards of solid waste per year. Solid waste from the City of La Quinta is transported to the Edom Hill Transfer Station, and then sent to the Lamb Canyon Landfill (8.7 million tons of remaining capacity) or the Badlands Landfill (5.1 million tons of remaining capacity) (Draft EIR, at pp. 4.15-4 and

4.15-5).

In addition, all future development would be required to comply with mandatory commercial and residential recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines; and the project will be served by landfills (El Sobrante and Lamb Canyon) with sufficient capacity to serve the project (Draft EIR, at pp.

4.15-32 – 4.15-33). Therefore, impacts relative to solid waste are less than significant.

Comply with Statutes and Regulations Related to Solid Waste.

The Revised 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 306 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
115
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 Revised Project would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption to federally protected wetlands.

Therefore, the project will have no impacts on federally protected wetlands (Draft EIR, at p. 4.3-17).

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Effects Involving Rupture of a Known Fault.

There are no known active faults near or at the project site, and the project is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, there will be no impact associated with fault rupture on-site (Draft EIR p. 4.6- 15).

HAZARDS AND HAZADOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous Materials within ¼ mile of a school.

The project site is not located within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school.

The closest school to the project site is Westside Elementary School, located approximately 1.30 miles northeast of the project. Offsite improvements include the construction and operation of a transformer bank at an existing IID substation located at 81600 Avenue 58. The substation is located approximately one mile southwest of Westside Elementary School. Therefore, the project’s proposed onsite and offsite improvements will have no impact on schools as it relates to hazardous materials.
307 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
116
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.
308 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
117
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN THE

DEIR AND REJECTED
The State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) requires the discussion of a “a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The Guidelines states that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” (Section 15126(c)). The Final EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives are:

Alternative 1: No Project/No Build
Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Entitlements
Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative
Alternative 5: The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative
When a lead agency has determined that a proposed project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, prior to approving the project as mitigated, the agency must 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. 309 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
118
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 Revised 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 Revised Project will create a private residential and golf course community with a variety of interrelated and mutually supportive commercial and recreational land uses that will generate transient occupancy and sales tax revenues in order to enhance the City’s economic base and long‐term financial stability, which are significant public benefits that will not be realized under the No Project/No Build Alternative.

4. This alternative could result in the loss of the adobe structure and would leave the pre‐historic Coral Mountain Rock Art Complex resources at the base of Coral Mountain unprotected, which could result in a significant impact to historic and pre‐historic resources.

5. The project site remaining in its existing condition is not considered the most likely outcome if the proposed project is not approved, due to the existing entitlements associated with SP 03‐067, which would remain in effect if the project is disapproved.

The City Council therefore finds that the No Project/No Build Alternative is 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, 38,000 310 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
119
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 to ensure compliance with applicable California law, including under SB 330.

2. This Alternative retains the previously proposed wave basin and a hotel, which the City Council has determined to be incompatible with its vision for the project site, inconsistent with the best interests of the City’s residents, and unacceptable on these policy grounds.

3. This Alternative would not reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable aesthetic impact on views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains, which would still result from construction of the perimeter walls, landscaping, and single-family homes (Draft EIR, at pp. 7-30 – 7-32).

The City Council therefore finds the Reduced Density Alternative unacceptable and rejects it.

Alternative 4: The Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative
This Alternative would develop a resort hotel of 150 hotel rooms and associated recreational, restaurant and retail amenities, an 18‐hole championship golf course that would be open to the public to play on a daily fee basis, and 600 low‐density residential units, but would not include the Wave Basin and related uses.

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. This Alternative retains the previously proposed hotel use, which the City Council has determined to be incompatible with its vision for the 311 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
120
project site, inconsistent with the best interests of the City’s residents, and unacceptable on these policy grounds.

2. This alternative would also fail to substantially reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project as it proposed the same golf course uses and adds 150 hotel rooms and associated resort uses in place of 150 homes allowed under the existing entitlements. Accordingly, this alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project.

The City Council therefore finds the Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative unacceptable and rejects it.

Alternative 5: The Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative
This Alternative would develop a lake amenity, instead of the wave basin, and would include 750 low‐density residential units and 8.4 acres of commercial uses at the northeast corner of the property, consistent with the existing entitlements for the project site. The lake would be approximately 75 acres, and would be used for typical lake uses, including small electric boats, sailing, kayaking and paddle boarding (but not gas‐powered boats or recreational watercraft). This Alternative would not have the hotel or other Tourist Commercial uses and would not have the occasional special events that would be associated with the wave basin.

Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of La Quinta rejects the Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative for the following reasons:

1. This alternative would fail to substantially reduce any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project as it proposes the same number of low-density residential units.

Replacing the golf course uses proposed under the Revised Project (and allowed under the existing entitlements) with a 75-acre recreational lake will not substantially reduce or avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Revised Project.

Accordingly, this alternative is not considered environmentally superior to the proposed project.

2. The 75-acre recreational lake proposed under this Alternative is deemed by the City Council to be inconsistent with the City’s desire to allocate water resources wisely, particularly given the project site’s 312 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
121
proximity to existing Lake Cahuilla. On this basis, the City Council finds this Alternative to be inconsistent with the best interests of the City’s residents and incompatible with the City’s existing General Plan policies
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, and is updated by Table 25 on page 72 of the CEQA Compliance Memo. Of the Alternatives considered in this Draft EIR section, the No Project/No Build Alternative is environmentally superior to the other Alternatives because this Alternative would avoid any impacts identified for the project or any other alternative.

Although Alternative 1 is environmentally superior, it does not meet any of the objectives of the proposed project because it would not involve any development of the site.

The CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative to the project and “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[e][2]. In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives.

Of the remaining alternatives, Alternative 3 (reduced density project) would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in incremental reductions with respect 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, Air Quality, and VMT. 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 3 313 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
122
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.
314 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
123
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE 2 SELECTED AS

PREFERRABLE TO THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED PROJECT
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). The Revised Project is consistent with and implements this Alternative by developing approximately 8.4 acres of General Commercial, along with 750 low density residential units and a golf course. The neighborhood commercial uses would be typical of those found in other neighborhood commercial centers in the City, providing a range of retail uses. As presently allowed under the existing entitlements for the project site, STVRs would be permitted and are anticipated to generate substantial TOT revenue to the City that will help offset the public safety costs that will be generated by the Revised Project.

Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of La Quinta approves the Revised Project as consistent with the No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative, and rejects the Previously Proposed Project for the following reasons:

1. The City Council finds that the previously proposed wave basin, hotel, and related Tourist Commercial uses are incompatible with its vision for the project site, inconsistent with the best interests of the City’s residents, and unacceptable on these policy grounds.

2. The Revised Project would generate substantial transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues 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, and would do so without introducing a hotel, wave basin, or other Tourist Commercial uses to the project site.

3. While the Revised Project would have increased adverse environmental effects in the areas of Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Vehicle Miles Traveled, as described on pages 7-17, 7-20 – 7-21, and 7-26 of the Draft EIR and in the CEQA Compliance Memo, due to a reduction of complementary land uses and connectivity, and would increase the project water demands due to inclusion of the golf course uses (see Draft EIR, page 7-27 and CEQA Compliance Memo at pp. 66 – 67 and Appendix D) because the Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and VMT would be significant and unavoidable impacts, 315 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
124
and would be somewhat greater than those anticipated with the previously proposed Previously Proposed Project. However, the Revised Project would reduce the Previously Proposed Project’s aesthetic impacts due to the elimination of the wave basin and associated lighting. Impacts concerning electricity use, land use and planning, and noise would also be incrementally reduced with the Revised Project.

Overall, the City Council finds that the Revised Project will have the same environmental effects as Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR and that these environmental effects cannot be feasibly avoided or substantially reduced under the Previously Proposed Project because the wave basin and other tourist commercial uses are deemed to be unacceptable for the project site and thus infeasible on policy grounds. The City Council further funds that the Revised Project and Alternative 2 will not have any new or significantly more severe environmental effects than analyzed and disclosed in the Draft EIR.

VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, CEQA requires the decisionmaking 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 Revised Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts in the following areas:

(1)the Revised 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;
(2)under the updated CalEEMod (2022) modeling, the Revised Project will generate certain priority air quality pollutants (VOC and NOx) that exceed the updated 2023 SCAQMD significance thresholds; (3)the Revised Project will generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s established threshold of significance, and even with 316 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
125
implementation of the recommended mitigation measure requiring the purchase of carbon credits, this effect is considered significant and unavoidable because the use of carbon credits has not been established in the Coachella Valley area as effective mitigation for residential and resort communities, and because even with the purchase of such credits, the project will still generate GHG emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold; and
(4)the Revised Project will generate VMT that exceed the City’s per resident standard and the City’s non-residential VMT standard.

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 these unavoidable significant impacts to explain why the Revised 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, golf course 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 Revised 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 Revised 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 allowed STVR uses, 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.
317 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
126

2. The project provides a unique opportunity to allow TOT revenuegenerating short-term vacation rentals (STVRs), at the homeowners’ option, within a master planned, mixed-use community that is designed to successfully accommodate such STVRs with
complementary neighborhood commercial and recreational amenities onsite and centralized management of the STVRs. The project will also include CC&Rs, rules and regulations, sales disclosures, and community enforcement mechanisms designed to accommodate STVRs and avoid any adverse effects on project residents and the surrounding communities. This approach allows the City and project homeowners to receive the benefits of STVRs, while also allowing potential future residents to choose whether or not to live in a private, gated community that allows STVRs.

3. The project provides a complementary mix of interrelated and mutually supportive residential, neighborhood commercial and recreational uses that create a private resort-like 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 establishing residential neighborhoods that are linked through multiuse trails that connect neighborhoods and planning areas throughout the project.

4. The project provides neighborhood commercial uses at the corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 to serve existing and future residents in this portion of the City, which currently lacks any neighborhood serving commercial uses, thus requiring lengthy trips by residents to meet their most basic commercial needs.

5. The project maintains the overall density of planned development for the site, adding to the diversity of housing and recreational amenities within the City, while also maintaining low-density residential uses around the majority of the project perimeter that matches the surrounding residential communities.

6. The project will contribute to both temporary and permanent employment and economic growth opportunities in this portion of the City, which provides a significant public benefit to the City and its residents.

7. 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 318 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
127
the payment of TUMF and DIF fees, and fair share contributions to multiple signalization projects required as part of General Plan build out.

8. The project will benefit the unique biological resources in the City and broader Coachella Valley region by contributing substantial funding through payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee to support CVCC’s ongoing efforts to acquire and maintain essential habitat for special status species, and by constructing a sheep barrier along the base of Coral Mountain and the remaining western project boundary, which will contribute to CVCC’s ongoing efforts to protect the Peninsular bighorn sheep from communities located on the valley floor.

9. 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 residential and golf opportunities in La Quinta, consistent with its reputation 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 implementing the previously approved golf course use on the site with current responsible water use design concepts, and incorporating integrated design principles and state-of-the-art efficiency features to ensure an environmentally sustainable development;
319 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
128
(vi) supporting “a safe community” through development
standards that promote safe indoor and outdoor spaces in this gated community that will provide on-site private security and provide substantial funding for emergency services (both through payments of DIF and generation of TOT and sale tax revenue);
(vii) supporting “a full service community” that provides and maintains adequate service levels and facilities for streets, water, sewer, storm drains and other infrastructure, which here include privately owned and maintained streets within the project as well as improvements to the City’s arterial streets and funding for areawide circulation system upgrades, as well as constructing all required sewer, water, and storm drain infrastructure; and
(viii) supporting “a circulation minded community” that promotes and encourages a broad range of transportation opportunities that reduce impacts on the environment by providing a
complimentary mix of residential, commercial, and
recreational uses that are interconnected through multi-modal roads, trails and paths that reduce the length of vehicle trips and promote non-motorized travel.

10. 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.

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 Revised Project (consistent with Alternative 2 in the Draft EIR and existing Zoning and General Plan land use designations) will result in the development of a unique project that provides 320 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
129
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 Revised Project and, accordingly, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
321 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
130
IX. FINDINGS REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of La Quinta as the lead agency under CEQA is responsible for certification of the EIR and therefore makes the following findings:

1. The Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and its Guidelines;

2. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to making its decision on the Project;

3. The certification of the Final EIR and the findings set forth herein reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis in its capacity as lead agency; and

4. The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A) to reduce or avoid the significant and mitigable impacts of the Revised Project to the maximum extent feasible. The final version of the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council and set forth in these findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been revised as necessary from the versions set forth in the Draft EIR and Final EIR to account for the removal of the previously proposed and rejected wave basin, hotel and other tourist commercial uses.

5. The City Council finds that the Final EIR, including the CEQA Compliance Memo, properly evaluated the Revised 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, including responses to comments on the Draft EIR and the CEQA Compliance Memo, 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 322 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
131
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.
323 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
1 Resolution No. 2024-XXX
Environmental Assessment 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020310
Project: Club at Coral Mountain
Adopted: March 5, 2024
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Introduction
If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project as part of the CEQA process, the lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure compliance with the project’s mitigation measures. Section 15126(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a project’s mitigation measures must be enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other mechanisms. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines further provide that the MMRP must be adopted at the time of project approval. However, while the MMRP does not have to be included in the EIR, for the sake of maximizing public transparency, a copy of the proposed project’s MMRP has been included in this Final EIR below.

In light of the foregoing, this Chapter contains the proposed project’s MMRP. The MMRP was prepared to provide a program for not only monitoring and reporting on the project’s mitigation measures, but also enforcing compliance with respect to the implementation of each mitigation measure adopted for the project. The purpose of the mitigation measures is to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects of the project.

Monitoring Authority
The City may delegate duties and responsibilities for monitoring any given mitigation measure to designated environmental monitors or consultants as deemed necessary. The City may also delegate such duties and responsibilities to certain responsible agencies, affected jurisdictions, enforcement and regulatory agencies of the state or county, special districts and other agencies. The same duties and responsibilities may also be delegated to qualified private entities which accept the delegation.

The City’s Development Services (or equivalent positions of other designated agencies or entities) must ensure that the officials delegated the duties or responsibilities to monitor any given set of mitigation measures are qualified to assume such duties and responsibilities.

Any deviation from the procedures identified under the MMRP shall require prior approval or authorization by the City. Moreover, any deviations from any of the established monitoring procedures set forth in the MMRP and any remedial actions taken to correct such deviations shall be reported immediately to the City by the assigned environmental monitor or consultant.

Notwithstanding any such delegation, the City shall remain responsible for monitoring the implementation of all of the project’s mitigation measures in accordance with the project’s MMRP.

EXHIBIT B
324 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
2 Enforcement Responsibility
The mitigation measures for the proposed project will primarily apply prior to or during construction of the project in all phases of development the project. The City shall be responsible for enforcing each mitigation measure, albeit the City may assign such enforcement responsibilities to a qualified environmental monitor. The assigned environmental monitor for each construction activity shall report any problems with enforcement to the City and appropriate agencies.

The MMRP prepared for the proposed project will be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.

Mitigation Monitoring Table
Table 1, Club at Coral Mountain Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, below identifies for each mitigation measure: (1) the potential impact on the environment that the mitigation measure is focused on; (2) a description of the mitigation measure; (3) who or which entity is responsible for monitoring the mitigation measure; (4) the timing for implementing the measure; and (5) the anticipated level of significant after mitigation.
325 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
3 Table 1
Club at Coral Mountain Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Potential Impacts
on the Environment Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Timing Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Section 4.1,
Aesthetics
a. Adverse effect
on scenic vistas
c. Visual character
or scenic quality
AES-1 The perimeter walls around the low density residential planning areas shall be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way by a minimum
average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City’s
review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral
Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains.

City Council/
Planning
Commission
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
During review
of Tentative
Tract Maps
Significant and
Unavoidable
AES-2 All residential structures shall be setback by a minimum of 75 feet from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights-of-way to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains.

City Council/
Planning
Commission
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
During review
of Tentative
Tract Maps
Significant and
Unavoidable
Section 4.2, Air
Quality
a. Conflict with
implementation
of applicable air
quality plan
b. Result in a
cumulatively
considerable
net increase if
any criteria
Construction-Source Mitigation Measures
AQ-1: During Phase 1 of construction, the paving installation activity shall not overlap with the architectural coating (building painting) activity. That prohibition shall be included on all building plans.

AQ-2: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), the Construction Contractor shall ensure that off-road
diesel construction equipment that complies with
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air
Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards and
shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s
City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project
Contractor
During ground
disturbing
activities &
construction
Significant and
Unavoidable
326 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4 pollutant for
which the
project region is
non-attainment
under an
applicable
federal or state
ambient air
quality standard
c. Expose sensitive
receptors to
substantial
pollutant
concentrations
specifications.

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

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project
Contractor
During
Construction
Significant and
Unavoidable
Standard Regulatory Requirements/Best Available Control Measures
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
City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project
Contractor
Prior to the
approval of
grading plans
Significant and
Unavoidable
327 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
5 disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid-morning, afternoon, and after
work is done for the day.
 The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on
unpaved roads and project site areas are limited to 15
miles per hour or less.

BACM AQ-2: The following measures shall be incorporated into project plans and specifications as implementation of
SCAQMD Rule 1113 (3):
 Only “Low-Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)” paints
(no more than 50 gram/liter (g/L) of VOC) consistent
with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used.

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

Section 4.3,
Biological
Resources
a. Candidate,
sensitive or
special status
species
d. Interfere with
movement of
native resident or
migratory fish or
wildlife species or
with established
native resident or
migratory wildlife
corridors
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
Qualified
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to
ground
disturbance
Less than
Significant
328 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
6 development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow
and have left the burrow.

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

BIO-2: In June 2021, a qualified bat biologist will conduct a second round of focused nighttime surveys for roosting
bats at locations where suitable roosting habitat is
identified. The nighttime survey will include a
combination of acoustic and exit count methods, and will take place during the bat maternity season (March 15–
August 31 in the Coachella Valley) to enable 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.

Qualified Bat
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
June 2021 Less than
Significant
BIO-3: Removal of trees (including palm trees) shall occur Qualified Bat Outside bat Less than 329 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
7 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 twostep removal shall occur over two consecutive days as follows: on Day 1, branches and limbs not containing
cavities, as identified by a qualified bat biologist, will be removed. On Day 2, the remainder of the tree may be
removed without supervision by a bat biologist. The
disturbance caused by limb removal, followed by an
interval of one evening, will allow bats to safely abandon the roost.

Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
maternity
season
(March 15 –
August 31)
Significant
BIO-4: To avoid impacts to roosting bats from the installation of new light fixtures associated with the proposed
development, all lighting fixtures shall have light shields or similar devices (i.e., dark sky compliant lighting)
installed to ensure that there is no light trespass onto Coral Mountain and surrounding open space.

Qualified Bat
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to the
installation of
light poles
Less than
Significant
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
Qualified Bat
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
10 days prior
to the
demolition of
a structure
housing bats
Less than
Significant
330 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
8 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 that is pre-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 ground-disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for
raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist
using his or her best professional judgment, or as
otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or
redirected by the qualified biologist using their best
professional judgment as otherwise directed by the
Wildlife Agencies to avoid Take of nesting birds.

Qualified Bat
Biologist
City Planning
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
14 days prior
to clearing
activities
Outside the
general bird
nesting
season
Less than
Significant
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 City Manager
Project
Developer
During
construction
activities
within 150
Less than
Significant
331 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
9 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction and/or operational changes or other project modifications shall be made, as directed by the project biologist to reduce the noise levels at Coral
Mountain to below 75 dBA.
feet of Coral
Mountain
During Special
Events
Once annually
BIO-8: Existing native vegetation, particularly palo verde trees, will be retained where feasible. Landscaping shall include native desert species.

City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
During
Landscaping
Less than
Significant
BIO-9: Onsite lakes will be designed and constructed by industry professionals and will incorporate proper aeration,
circulation and filtration to maintain a balanced lake
ecosystem. Lakes will be stocked with beneficial fish and plant species. Limited chemical applications will be
utilized as necessary. Ongoing maintenance will ensure
that onsite lakes function properly to control any invasive species or other nuisance conditions.

Project Applicant During
operation
Less than
Significant
BIO-10: An education program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the commercial, open space,
and low-density community 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.

City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
During
operation
Less than
Significant
332 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
10 4.4 Cultural
Resources
a. Adverse change
to Historical
Resources
b. Adverse change
to
Archaeological
Resources
c. Disturb human
remains
CUL-1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The
program shall contain detailed drawings and
measurements to preserve the information on the adobe
building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details.

The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined
by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place.

Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational
plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project’s Homeowners Association. Special attention
should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and 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 pre1925 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).

Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning &
Engineering
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to the
occupancy of
any structure
in Planning
Area II
Less than
Significant
333 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

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

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

City Planning
Department
Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla
Indians – Native
American
Resource
Monitor
Project Applicant
During ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
CUL-4: Prior to ground disturbance during any phase of the project, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all workers, conducted by the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO).

Agua Caliente
Tribal Historic
Preservation
Office
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activity
Less than
Significant
CUL-5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contains the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project
construction through the establishment of
Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Deed restrictions shall be recorded for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance of any portion of Planning Area III. For the balance of Site 33- City Planning
Department
ABCBI
Project Applicant
During ground
disturbing and
construction
activity
Less than
Significant
334 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
12 001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface
excavation shall be completed prior to ground
disturbance to recover a representative sample of the
cultural materials prior to the commencement of the
project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard
archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe
trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey
protocols shall be approved by ACBCI and their approval provided to the City in writing prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site.

Section 4.6,
Geology and Soils
a. Expose people or
structures to
potential
substantial
adverse effects
involving:
iii. Seismicrelated
ground
failure,
including
liquefaction
c. Located on an
Unstable
Geologic Unit
d. Located on
Expansive Soil
f. Destroy a
unique
GEO-1 All designs for any water body on the site shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and comply with all
seismic codes in effect at the time they are constructed.

All designs shall be based on and incorporate the
recommendation of a qualified soils engineer in a site and water body specific report attached to the plans
submitted to the City.

Qualified Soils
Engineer
City Planning,
Engineering &
Public Works
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to site
plan approval
Less than
Significant
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.

Qualified Soils
Engineer
City Planning,
Engineering &
Public Works
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
During ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
335 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
13 paleontological
resource or site
or unique
geologic feature
 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. Overexcavation 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.
 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
336 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
14 The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90
percent relative compaction. The bottom of the
exposed subgrade shall be observed by a
representative of Sladden Engineering prior to fill
placement. Compaction testing shall be performed
on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials.
 Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of
the material that is excavated and replaced as
controlled compacted fill shall be anticipated. It is
estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent
to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are
scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3
tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the
type of equipment used, the moisture content of the
soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of
compaction attained.

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
City Planning,
Department
Qualified
Paleontological
Monitor
Project
Applicant/
Developer
During earthmoving
operations
reaching
beyond the
depth of two
feet
Less than
Significant
337 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
15 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.

Section 4.7,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
a. GHG Emissions
that may
Significantly
Impact the
Environment
GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall purchase a minimum of 72,000 MTCO2e
credits (2,400 MTCO2e per year for 30 years). The
purchase of carbon credits must be made from a 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.

City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy
permits
Significant and
Unavoidable
Section 4.11, Noise
a. Generation of
noise levels in
excess of
established
standards
b. Generation of
excessive
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
City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
Prior to the
approval of
grading plans
and/or
issuance of
building
permits
Less than
Significant
338 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
16 groundborne
vibration
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 noisesensitive 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, in
order to protect the proposed onsite residential uses
from off-site traffic noise. The barriers shall provide a weight of at least four pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line-of-sight openings
between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier
must present a solid face from top to bottom.

Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project
Applicant/
Developer
During
construction
Less than
Significant
Section 4.13,
Transportation
a. Conflict with an
applicable plan
or policy
addressing the
circulation
system
TRA-1 The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required by the City of La Quinta.

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

City Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to the
issuance of
Building
Permits.

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

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Prior to the
initiation of
landscape or
roadway
improvements
Less than
Significant
339 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
17 c. Increase
hazards due to a
geometric
design feature
d. Result in
inadequate
emergency
access
Project Applicant
TRA-4 The project proponent shall ensure that clear
unobstructed sight distances are provided at all site
access points and internal intersections. Sight distances shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
approval of landscape and street improvement plans.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to the
approval of
landscape or
roadway
improvements
Less than
Significant
TRA-5 The project proponent shall ensure that final layout and site access design are subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to final project approval.

City Traffic
Engineer
Project Applicant
Prior to final
project
approval
Less than
Significant
TRA-6 The project proponent shall ensure that emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access are provided
for the project prior to final project approval.

Fire Department
City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to final
project
approval
Less than
Significant
TRA-7 The project proponent shall ensure that traffic signing and striping plans shall be developed in conjunction with street improvement plans and submitted to the City of
La Quinta for review and approval during the project
approval process.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
During the
project
approval
process
Less than
Significant
TRA-8 The project proponent shall ensure that Construction Traffic Control Plans are reviewed and approved by the
City prior to project construction. These plans are to be implemented during construction activities.

Construction includes onsite and offsite improvements.

City Planning &
Public Works
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to
project
construction
Less than
Significant
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 City Planning
Department
Desert
Recreation
District
Prior to
project
approval
Less than
Significant
340 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
18 southwestern edge of the property. Project Applicant Section 4.14, Tribal
Cultural Resources
a. Cause
substantial
adverse change
in significance of
tribal cultural
resource that is
i. A site listed in
the CRHR or
Local Register,
Tribal Cultural
Resources
ii. A resource
determined to
be significant
to a California
Native
American
tribe.

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.

Qualified
Archaeologist
Agua Caliente
Native American
Cultural
Resource
Monitor
ACBCI Tribal
Historic
Preservation
Office
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
TCR-2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing
activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and
provided to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and
activities. If potentially significant archaeological
materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the
archaeologist can assess the significance of the find.

Qualified
Archaeologist
ACBCI
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
During all
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
341 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
19 TCR-3: Before ground disturbing activities, the project’s archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be
deemed rejected by ACBCI’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action to approve the plan is taken within 30 days from submission for approval. If the ACBCI Tribal
Historic Preservation Office rejects two Treatment,
Disposition and Monitoring Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La
Quinta City Council for a final determination. The
approved Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan
shall be provided to the City prior to any ground
disturbance on the site.

TCR-4: Before ground disturbing activities, the project’s archaeologist shall prepare a Rock Art Management Plan, based on recommendations made in the report by
McCarthy and Mouriquand, and shall submit the plan to
the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval.

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

Qualified
Archaeologist
ACBCI Tribal
Historic
Preservation
Office
City Planning
Department
City Council
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
TCR-5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contain the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project
construction through the establishment of
Qualified
Archaeologist
City Planning
Department
During project
construction
& Prior to
ground
disturbance in
Less than
Significant
342 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
20 Environmentally Sensitive Areas; the Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be recorded on the property, and
proof of recordation shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III. Nominations of these sites to the National Register of Historic Places shall be filed with the appropriate federal agency prior to the issuance of the first grading permit; and the sites shall be subject to the provisions of the Rock Art Management Plan.

Project Applicant Planning Area
III
TCR-6: For the portion of Site 33-001715 outside the
preservation area established in TCR-5, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a
condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI. A report of findings, including written
confirmation of completion to ACBCI’s satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance.

TCR-7: Prior to ground disturbance in Planning Area III, a qualified archaeologist shall complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for sites 33-1716, 33- 1717, 33-8386, 33-9001, 33-9003, 33-28907, 33-28908,
33-28909, 33-28910, 33-28911, 33-28912. A report of
findings including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI’s satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance.

Qualified
Archaeologist
ACBCI
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbance in
Planning Area
III
Less than
Significant
TCR-8: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33-008388. The
Qualified
Archaeologist Prior to the
occupancy of
Less than
Significant
343 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
21 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 pre1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun-colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near
this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk
trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible
of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued,
analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al. 1998:54).

City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
any structure
in Planning
Area II
TCR-9: The applicant shall coordinate with ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to ensure there are a sufficient
ACBCI THPO Prior to each
phase of
Less than
Significant
344 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
22 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.

City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
ground
disturbing
activity
TCR-10: Should human remains be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbance, the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 shall be followed. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to
overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has
examined the remains. If the coroner determines the
remains to be Native American or has reason to believe
that they are those of Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within
24-hours.

County Coroner
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
During ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
TCR-11: Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall sign a curation agreement with the ACBCI THPO. A fully
executed copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City.

ACBCI THPO
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
TCR-12: Prior to any ground disturbance, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all contractors with the staff at the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO).

ACBCI THPO
City Planning
Department
Project Applicant
Prior to
ground
disturbing
activities
Less than
Significant
345 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Coral Mountain Resort, La Quinta CA
CEQA Compliance Memo
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR   1  January 2024
Club at Coral Mountain – CEQA Compliance Memo for DEIR
Alternative 2

1.0   Introduction
The  Coral  Mountain  Resort  project,  processed  by  the  City  in  2021  and  2022,  proposed  the development of a boutique resort and master‐planned community on 386 acres, consisting of 600 dwelling units, a surf basin facility on 16.62 acres, 150 hotel rooms and 57,000 square feet of private resort‐serving commercial uses, up to 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses available to the general public, and open space recreational uses at the southwest corner of the project property. To allow these uses, the project proposed an amendment to the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03‐067 to remove the 386‐acre site  from the existing Specific Plan; a new specific plan (Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan) to establish a new master plan and development standards for the master  planned  community;  a  General  Plan  Amendment  to  amend  the  Low  Density  Residential, General  Commercial,  and  Open  Space  Recreation  land  use  designations  to  Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential,  Tourist Commercial, and Open Space Recreation; and a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Golf Course to Neighborhood Commercial,  Low  Density  Residential,  Parks  and  Recreation,  and  Tourist  Commercial.  Additional entitlements included a Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Permit, and Development Agreement (see pages 3‐9 through 3‐12 of the DEIR for the project description).  A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared concurrently to analyze the project under CEQA. The project as proposed at that time, and as analyzed in the DEIR is referred to as the “Preferred Alternative” within this CEQA Compliance Memo.

The  DEIR  also  analyzed  a  reasonable  range  of  alternatives  to  the  Preferred  Alternative,  including Alternative 2,  the No Project/Existing Entitlement Alternative, which analyzed development of  the same  project  site  according  to  the  existing  zoning  and  General  Plan  land  use  designations  and approved Andalusia Specific Plan (SP 03‐067).  Alternative 2 would develop the project site with up to 750 single family residential homes, a golf course, and an 8.4‐acre commercial center. Table 1‐1 shows the existing land use and zoning summary of the project site as analyzed under Alternative 2.

Table 1 Existing Land Use and Zoning Summary
Existing Land Use   Existing Zoning  Acres Square
Feet
Max.

Units
General Commercial  Neighborhood Commercial (CN)  8.4  60,000  ‐‐ Low Density Residential   Low Density Residential (RL)  204.2 ‐‐  750 Open Space (Recreation)  Golf Course (GC)  171.9 ‐‐  ‐‐ Total   384.5  60,000  750
Resolution No. 2024-XXX
Environmental Assessment No. 2019-0010
Environmental Impact Report SCH #2021020210
Project: Club at Coral Mountain
Adopted: March 5, 2024

EXHIBIT C
346 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     2    January 2024
On September 21, 2022 the La Quinta City Council denied the project, and determined that the project was  statutorily  exempt  from  CEQA  because  the  project  was  disapproved,  consistent  with  Public Resources  Code  Section  21080(b)(5).  As  a  result,  the  DEIR  was  not  certified  by  the  City  Council.

Following  the City Council hearing,  the project applicant  redesigned  the proposed project  to align with the existing entitlements for the site, including the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03‐ 067 and the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations, as analyzed in Alternative 2 in the DEIR.

The Club at Coral Mountain project addressed in this CEQA Compliance Memo (referred to as “Revised Project” herein) proposes a commercial corner on 7.7 acres allowing up to 60,000 square feet of retail, an 18‐hole golf course on 187.5 acres, and up to 750 residential units on 191.8 acres. The Revised Project is consistent with the existing Low Density Residential, General Commercial, and Open Space (Recreation) land use designations that currently exist on the project site. See Section 1.1, below for a full description of the Revised Project.  While the Revised Project requires technical amendments to the General Plan land use map and zoning map to modify the layout of the golf course and low density  residential  acreages,  the  Revised  Project  contains  the  same  allowed  uses  on  the  same property as Alternative 2 and the existing General Plan land use and zoning map with substantially the same permitted development. Please see Exhibit 1 for the existing and proposal distribution of land use and zoning designations.

This Memo identifies and describes the Revised Project and analyzes how it compares to Alternative 2  in  the  DEIR,  and  also  compares  the  Revised  Project  with  the  previously  proposed  Preferred Alternative  studied in  the DEIR. This Memo augments  the analysis and comparison of  the original Coral Mountain project and  the alternatives analysis provided in Chapter 7.0, Alternatives, of  the DEIR.

347 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     3    January 2024
Exhibit 1 General Plan Map Amendment
348 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     4    January 2024
The Revised Project – Club at Coral Mountain
The Revised Project proposes the same low‐density residential, golf, and neighborhood commercial uses allowed under the existing entitlements for the site and analyzed as Alternative 2 in the DEIR (SCH #2021020310). General Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments are proposed to make minor modifications  to  acreages  and  distribution  of  land  uses,  which  are  contained  in  the  Specific  Plan Amendment. The Specific Plan Amendment  (SPA) is proposed  to adjust  the location and layout of open space–recreation and low‐density residential areas with minor adjustments to the respective acreages of existing land use designations. The Revised Project consists of a commercial corner on 7.7 acres allowing  60,000  square  feet  of  retail, an  18‐hole golf  course  on  187.5 acres, and  up  to  750 residential units on 191.8 acres. The tables below indicate a more detailed breakdown of the land use summary and the zoning of the Revised Project.

Table 2 Revised Project Land Use and Zoning Summary
Land Use   Zoning  Acres  Square
Feet
Dwelling
Units
General Commercial  Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 7.7  60,000  ‐‐ Low Density Residential   Low Density Residential (RL)  191.8  46,100  750 Open Space (Recreation)  Golf Course (GC)  187.5  ‐‐  ‐‐ Total  387.0*  106,100  750
*Gross acreage per WSA. Net acreage 384.5 acres.

As shown when comparing Tables 1 and 2, above, General Commercial lands would be reduced by

8.5%,  Low  Density  Residential  lands  would  be  reduced  by  6.1%,  and Open  Space  lands  would  be increased by 9.1%. Given  the limited changes in acreage, and  the overall maintenance of  the land uses allowed  in  Planning  Areas  (PA) III,  V and  VI,  the  Revised Project is  substantially  the  same as Alternative 2 analyzed in the EIR, with minor refinements to the layout of golf and residential uses on the  same  project  site  as  identified  in  the  proposed  SPA.  The  SPA  proposes minor  changes  to  the development standards and permitted uses on the west side of Madison Street, and would result in a mix of land uses as shown in Table 3.

349 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     5    January 2024
Table 3 Revised Project Land Use Summary
Planning
Area  Land Use   Land Area (Acres)
Square
Feet
Dwelling
Units
PA III
Single Family1  167.90  ‐‐  730
Sports Club  5.90  24,500  10
Golf Club  4.00  8,600  10
Golf Maintenance  2.00  10,000  ‐‐
Restaurants5 0.0  3,000  ‐‐
Recreational Lake  12.0  ‐‐  ‐‐
PA V  Neighborhood Commercial2  7.70  60,000  ‐‐
PA VI
Golf Course Area3  181.9  ‐‐  ‐‐
Golf Course Lake  3.0  ‐‐  ‐‐
Public Right of Way  2.60  ‐‐  ‐‐
Total  387.04 106,100  750

1. Includes residential homes, entries, streets/circ, amenity areas, landscaped common areas, community OS, Golf Club and Sports Club, each with attached/stacked flats or townhome product and golf course maintenance facility.

2. Commercial/Retail

3. Includes Golf Course and ancillary uses.

4.Gross acreage per WSA 387. Net acreage 864.4

5. Restaurants in PA III are only allowed as part of the clubhouse.

The SPA also proposes changes to the Design Guidelines section of the document, to accommodate a more contemporary architectural style.

Analysis
The following analysis has been prepared to provide a comparative evaluation of the environmental effects of the Revised Project with both Alternative 2 (the No Project/Existing Entitlement Alternative) and the Preferred Alternative (the previously proposed Coral Mountain Resort project) in the DEIR.

This  analysis  utilizes  the  technical  analysis  provided  in  the  DEIR  regarding  air  quality,  energy resources,  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  transportation,  and  water  consumption  as  well  as  updates related  to  specific  modelling  including  Air  Quality,  Transportation,  Water  and  Sewer  to  current standards.    For  example,  at  the  time  the  DEIR  was  written,  the  10th  Edition  of  the  Institute  of Transportation  Engineers  (ITE)  trip  generation  rates,  and  CalEEMod  Version  2016.3.2  were  the resources utilized to analyze transportation and air quality related impacts, respectively. Since  the publication of the DEIR in 2021, ITE trip generation rates and CalEEMod were updated. ITE 11th Edition updated the trip generation rates, resulting in an increase in trips per land use, while the updates to the  CalEEMod  software  from  2016  version  to  the  2022  version  updated  the internal algorithm  to produce more accurate outputs regarding air quality, GHG emissions, and energy use.

Each CEQA subject is addressed individually below. First, a summary of the analysis of the Preferred Alternative for that issue is provided, followed by a summary of the analysis of Alternative 2. Finally, 350 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     6    January 2024
each  section  provides  a  comparison  of  the  Revised  Project  to  the  Preferred  Alternative  and Alternative 2 in terms of the level of impact and the need for mitigation, if required.

Aesthetics
Preferred Alternative
The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to scenic quality and visual character, less than significant impacts to scenic resources and light and glare with the implementation of mitigation measures, and significant and unavoidable impacts to scenic vistas.

To evaluate  the Preferred Alternative’s impact  to scenic vistas, line of sight and visual simulations were generated for analysis in the DEIR. The residential developments associated with the Preferred Alternative  would  be  visible  (i.e.,  rooflines,  landscaping)  from  public  viewsheds.  Although  the rooflines and  landscaping  proposed  for  the  Preferred  Alternative would  be  similar  to  the existing residential developments in the surrounding area, the Preferred Alternative’s development of these features would impact views of Coral Mountain and  the base views of  the Santa Rosa Mountains.

Therefore,  the  DEIR  established  mitigation  measures  restricting  building  heights  and  increasing setbacks  along  the  public  rights‐of‐way  (Mitigation  Measures  AES‐1  and  AES‐2).  However,  the mitigation measures cannot reduce impacts to scenic vistas to less than significant levels, so impacts of the Preferred Alternative were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

According to the DEIR, scenic resources at the project include Coral Mountain to the southwest and an adobe structure located onsite. The DEIR concluded that because the Preferred Alternative does not propose construction on or immediately adjacent to Coral Mountain, no impacts would occur.

The  adobe  structure,  although  vandalized,  burned,  and  deteriorated,  is  considered  a  historical resource. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL‐1 was established  for  the site. CUL‐1  requires  that a comprehensive recordation program be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for the site, requiring an appropriate buffer around the adobe and preservation in perpetuity of the adobe by the project homeowners association. This mitigation measure reduced potential impacts to less than significant levels.

The DEIR provided an in‐depth analysis of the Preferred Alternative’s impact to the scenic quality and visual character of the area. The analysis concluded that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to the scenic quality and visual character because the project is surrounded by similar uses in  the area, particularly  the existing  residential communities east and north of  the project.  Project  design  and  building  materials  also  contributed  to  the  Preferred  Alternative  not significantly impacting the scenic quality and visual character in the area.

The  DEIR  determined  that  outdoor  lighting  associated  with  landscaping,  parking  lots,  residential, commercial, and resort buildings associated with the Preferred Alternative would comply with the lighting  standards  outlined  in  Section  9.100.150  and  9.150.080  of  the  La  Quinta  Municipal  Code 351 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     7    January 2024
(LQMC), and therefore, would result in less than significant impacts. The lighting analysis completed for the proposed 80‐foot light poles around the Wave Basin, determined that they would not impact onsite or offsite areas. Per Section 9.100.150 of the LQMC, the illumination of outdoor recreational facilities  is  exempt  from  outdoor  lighting  standards  established  in  the  LQMC,  however,  they  are required  to  (1) meet  shielding  requirements and  (2) not operate after  10 p.m. To assure  that  the operation of the Wave Basin would conclude at 10 p.m.,  the DEIR established Mitigation Measure AES‐3, which would limit the operation of the Wave Basin to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. With implementation of this measure, impacts would be less than significant. The DEIR also concluded that the Preferred Alternative  building  materials  would  not  result  in  glare,  therefore,  impacts  would  be  less  than significant.

Alternative 2
Alternative  2  proposes  a  low  density  residential  and  golf  community  consistent  with  the  existing General  Plan  land  uses,  zoning  and  Specific  Plan,  which  is  also  consistent  with  the  uses  in  the surrounding  area.  Therefore,  Alternative  2  would  result  in  less  than  significant  impacts  to  visual character due to Alternative 2’s consistency with the surrounding context and existing Specific Plan (SP 03‐067). Homes built under Alternative 2 would comply with the height limits established in the Specific  Plan and in Section  9.50.020  of  the  LQMC. However,  similar  to  the  Preferred Alternative, development of Alternative 2 would obstruct views of Coral Mountain. Therefore, impacts associated with  scenic  vistas  were  found  to  be  significant  and  avoidable,  even  with  the  implementation  of Mitigation Measures AES‐1 and AES‐2.

Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to the scenic resources that are Coral Mountain and the adobe structure, because the Alternative does not propose development on Coral Mountain, and the Alternative would be required to implement Mitigation Measure CUL‐1 to avoid impacts to the  adobe  structure.  With  the  implementation  of  Mitigation  Measure  CUL‐1,  impacts  to  scenic resources would be less than significant.

Alternative 2 would also result in less than significant impacts to light and glare since the Alternative would comply with the outdoor lighting standards established in the LQMC, and would not propose 80‐foot light poles. Thus, Mitigation Measure AES‐3 was not applicable to Alternative 2. Additionally, Alternative  2 would  not  use  building materials  that would  result in glare,  similar  to  the  Preferred Alternative.

Revised Project
The  Revised  Project’s  impacts  to  the  surrounding  scenic  vistas  and  visual  character  would  be consistent with  those uses previously analyzed in  the EIR  for Alternative 2. Like Alternative 2,  the Revised Project proposes low density residential homes along the northern and eastern boundaries.

Adjustments  to  the golf  course and  residential land  use  configurations within  the  project  site are proposed as a part of the Revised Project, but these refinements will not alter the appearance of the 352 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     8    January 2024
project from the surrounding roadways.  The Revised Project would follow the building development standards  currently  approved  in  the  Specific  Plan.  Tables  4  and  5  below  show  the  development standards proposed for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. The Revised Project does not propose changes to development standards, and therefore would comply with the development standards in the approved Specific Plan, and as a result are the same and shown in the same column in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Development Standards Planning Area V – Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial   Preferred Alt.

Max/Min
Alt.2 & Revised
Project Max/Min
Max. Structure Height  35 ft1,2 35 ft.2
Max. No. of Stories 2  2
Min. Front Setback 10 ft 10 ft
Min. Rear Setback 10 ft 10 ft
Min. Parking 1/250 ft GFA. 1/250 ft GLA
Max. Building Floor Area in PA I  60,000 SF 60,000 SF6
Min. Building Setback to Avenue 58 25 ft 25 ft
Min. Building Setback to Madison Street 25 ft 25 ft
Min. Setback from Interior Property Line3 0 ft 5/10 ft
Min. Building/Landscape Setback from Residential PA4 40 ft/20 ft  ‐‐ Max. Wall Height  6 ft 10 ft
Notes:

1.   Height is limited to 22’ within 150’ of the Madison & Avenue 58 R.O.W.

2.   Architectural and roof projections, such as chimneys, spires, finials and similar features not providing habitable or otherwise unusable space shall be permitted to extend up to fifteen feet above the maximum structure height.

3.  Mechanical equipment to have a minimum 3‐foot setback from interior property lines.

4.   Landscape setback occurs within the building setback.

6.   The Specific Plan as previously adopted represents 25% FAR, but what is proposed is 60,000 square feet, which is less than the 25% FAR.

7. Five bicycle parking spaces for each tenant having over twenty thousand square feet of gross floor area.

As indicated in  the  table above, the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project’s development standards for structure height, number of stories, setbacks, and parking are the same.

The  building  floor  area,  setback  from  interior  property  line,  and  wall  height  for  the  Preferred Alternative and the Revised Project vary slightly, but not enough to change the impact to scenic vistas.

The building floor area proposed for the Preferred Alternative is approximately 22,000 square feet (or 0.5 acres) smaller than the building area for Alternative 2 and the Revised Project; the setback from interior property line varies by 5‐10 feet; and wall height varies by 4 feet.

353 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     9    January 2024
Table 5 Development Standards Planning Area III – Low Density Residential Low Density Residential
Preferred Alt  Alt 2 & Revised Project
Detached
Product
Attached
Product
Accessory
Building1
Detached/
Attached
Product
Ancillary
Building
Min. Lot Size  3,600 sf 3,600 sf  ‐‐7
Max. Structure Height 32 ft 2,3  32 ft 2,3  28 ft 2,3  28/35 ft 2,3,8  28 ft 2,3 Max. No. Of Stories 2  2  2  2  1
Min. Area Per Unit  1,400 sf  1,000 sf  250 sf  1,500 sf  ‐‐ Min. Front Setback  10 ft  10 ft
Garage – 10 ft
Other
Structures 3 ft.
10 ft street
5 ft
pedestrian
2 ft
Min. Rear Setback  5 ft  5 ft  2 ft  ‐‐  ‐‐
Min.  Front/Side  Facing
Attached  Garage  (Carport)
Setback
15 ft / 3 ft 5  15 ft / 3 ft 5  ‐‐  5 ft  ‐‐
Min.  Interior/Corner  Side
Yard Setback4 5 ft / 5 ft  5 ft 6
/ 5 ft  5 ft 6 / 5 ft  10 ft  10 ft
Min.  Building  To  Building
Setback 6 0 ft  0 ft  0 ft  ‐‐  ‐‐
Max. Wall Height 6 ft  6 ft  6 ft  8 ft  10 ft
Max. Parking Required
2 garage
spaces plus

0.5 guest
space
2 garage
spaces plus

0.5 guest
space
‐‐  Per current
code  ‐‐
Notes:

1. Detached garages/carports, casitas, carriage house units

2. Height is limited to 22' within 150' of the Madison & Avenue 58 R.O.W.

3. Excluding chimneys, porticos other incidental architectural features etc. may exceed max. structure height by up to 5 feet.

4. AC units, trellis elements, pools, and spas are allowed to encroach into side and rear setback areas within 3’ of property line.

5. 0’ setback allowed for products, such as duplexes or zero lot line units, that share a common wall.

6. Subject to applicable building code requirements

7. ‐‐ = Not Applicable

8. Residence/Clubhouse
As indicated in the table above, the development standards for structure height and number of stories are  similar  between  the  Preferred  Alternative  and  Alternative  2/Revised  Project.  Front,  side,  and interior setbacks vary between 2 and 10 feet. Finally, maximum wall heights for the Revised Project are 2 to 4 feet higher than those allowed within the Preferred Alternative. However, these differences are subtle and will not change the impacts associated with scenic vistas or visual character.

In  addition  to  the  commercial  and  residential  land  uses,  the  Preferred  Alternative  included development of a resort area, recreational open space, and a Wave Basin. Development standards 354 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     10    January 2024
for these uses were analyzed in the DEIR. Alternative 2 and the Revised Project do not propose the resort, recreational open space, or Wave Basin facility. Instead, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would develop a golf course. Golf courses provide large areas for greenspace, providing unobstructed views of scenic vistas. The golf course would provide similar views within golf course and residential communities that currently exist within the City of La Quinta, including the property east of Madison Street.

Design  features  of  the  Revised  Project,  including  architecture,  landscaping,  and  development standards are all required to adhere to the design guidelines in the Specific Plan. The Revised Project’s architectural style will be different than the style currently described in SP 03‐067, which proposed traditional Spanish‐style homes. The Revised Project proposes a Desert Modern architectural style more consistent with current architectural trends. Although the architectural style will be different, the mass and scale and land use proposed for the Revised Project will be similar to the surrounding residential communities, which also include single family residential homes. Additionally, the Revised Project  is  surrounded  by  perimeter  block  wall  and  landscaping, similar  to  the  existing  residential communities in the local area, and will not create inconsistencies with the existing development in the surrounding area, including the existing Andalusia project on the east side of Madison Street.

Development of  the perimeter block wall and  residential homes, as well as perimeter landscaping which would be expected to occur under Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would result in partially obstructed views of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and complete obstruction of Coral Mountain  from some  locations,  since  the  blockage  occurs  as  a  result  of  the  construction  of  perimeter  walls  and houses. The impacts of the Revised Project would be equivalent to  those analyzed in  the DEIR  for Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. However, homes built under both the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would comply with Section 9.50.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, which limits building  heights  to  22  feet,  if  located  within  150  feet  of  an  image  corridor  (i.e.,  Avenue  58  and Madison Street). The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would also be required to adhere to design standards  as  shown  in  Table  1‐4  and  1‐5  above. The  development  of  the  Revised  Project  and Alternative 2 would result in equivalent impacts to scenic vistas because they would both include the construction of perimeter walls, landscaping, and homes along the perimeter roadways. Therefore, similar  to  the  Preferred  Alternative  and  Alternative  2,  the  Revised  project  would  implement Mitigation Measure AES‐1, which requires the perimeter walls to 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  would  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.

As Alternative 2 and the Revised Project would allow development that would affect views of Coral Mountain from certain viewpoints on Avenue 58 and Madison Street, impacts to scenic vistas of Coral 355 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     11    January 2024
Mountain would be significant and unavoidable under both scenarios. In addition, views of the Santa Rosas would be partially obstructed by the residential structures and perimeter improvements, but the mid‐range and ridgelines of the Santa Rosas would generally remain visible.

Similar to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 analyses in the DEIR, the Revised Project would result in less  than  significant impacts  to  scenic quality and visual character because  the project is surrounded  by  similar  uses  in  the area,  particularly  the existing  residential  communities east and north of the project. Building materials proposed for the Revised Project include high‐performance materials,  natural  stone,  stucco,  architectural  concrete,  pre‐finished  metal  panels,  cementitious panels or siding, and thermally‐modified wood siding.  Additionally, the single family residential and golf course uses will be surrounded by block walls and landscaping, similar to the existing residential and golf communities in the area. The block walls and landscaping will conceal the property from the view of motorists and pedestrians along the public rights‐of‐way  (Madison Street and Avenue 58).

Therefore, the Revised Project would not significantly impact the scenic quality and visual character in the area.

The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would both include lighting, consistent with the requirements of  the  Specific  Plan  and  the  Municipal  Code,  including  commercial  lighting  at  the  neighborhood shopping center at the northeast corner, and residential and safety lighting at the homes and golf course. The lighting would be expected to conform to Municipal Code standards, be shielded and low intensity, and not emit light beyond the property line. Compliance with Specific Plan and Municipal Code  requirements would, under both  the Revised  Project and Alternative  2, ensure  that impacts would be less than significant.

In summary, the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of the same low‐density residential, neighborhood commercial, and golf course uses on the same project site, and accordingly, would result in the same aesthetic impacts.

As compared to the Preferred Alternative studied in the DEIR, the Revised Project would have reduced aesthetic impacts because the Revised Project does not include the Wave Basin or surrounding resort area and would not include the Wave Basin lighting.  The impacts of the Revised Project are the same as Alternative 2 and no more significant impacts, or impacts not previously analyzed, would result from implementation of the Revised Project. The Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project would be required to implement the following mitigation measures:

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.
356 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     12    January 2024
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.

Air Quality
Preferred Alternative
The  DEIR  determined  that  the  Preferred  Alternative  would  result  in  less  than  significant  impacts involving  a  conflict  with  or  obstruction  to  implementation  of  the  applicable  air  quality  plan(s); exposure  of  sensitive  receptors  to  substantial  pollutant  concentrations;  or  resulting  in  other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. With respect to any cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region  is  non‐attainment  under  an  applicable  federal  or  state  ambient  air  quality  standard,  the Preferred Alternative would result in potentially significant impacts due to the potential exceedance of  the  SCAQMD  threshold  for  VOC  from  construction  and  operational  activities.  As  a  result,  two construction‐source mitigation measures (AQ‐1 and AQ‐2) were provided to prevent the overlap of paving and architectural coating phases during construction (AQ‐1) and requiring equipment greater than 150 horsepower to comply with the EPA/CARB Tier 3 emission standards (AQ‐2).

With  implementation  of  Mitigation  Measures  AQ‐1  and  AQ‐2,  construction  activities  would  not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure AQ‐ 3 requires the use of low VOC paints for re‐painting and maintenance of exterior structures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113. The DEIR found that, with implementation of the Project Design Features and  mitigation  measures  AQ‐1  through  AQ‐3,  the  Preferred  Alternative  would  have  less  than significant impacts to air quality.

Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation under the existing entitlements, consisting of a  low  density  residential and  golf  community.  Construction  impacts associated with  Alternative  2 would be similar to those analyzed under the Preferred Alternative, because the same area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed.

Based  on  the  California  Air  Resources  Board  (CARB)’s  Draft  2020 Mobile  Source  Strategy,  traffic‐ related mobile sources contribute a majority of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

Alternative 2 is expected to generate 13% more trips compared to the Preferred Alternative due to the number of single‐family residential dwelling units and the lack of internal relationships to services and activities associated with the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 would have reduced emissions associated with the production of electricity and water, because it would not include a Wave Basin, and the need for electricity associated with that feature. Although air quality emission increases or decreases are not linear in  the CalEEMod model, Alternative 2 would  result in elevated emissions associated with vehicle trips. Given that under the Preferred Alternative, the emissions associated 357 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     13    January 2024
with NOx, which are directly influenced by vehicle emissions, would be below but close to significance thresholds,  Alternative  2  would  be  expected  to  have  significant  NOx  emissions,  and  to  require mitigation.  As  with  the  proposed  project,  VOC  emissions  would  also  be  expected  to  exceed significance thresholds, and mitigation would be required. For  the Preferred Alternative, PDFs and mitigation  resulted  in  an  average  reduction  of  12%  to  15%  in  criteria  air  pollutant  emissions.  By comparison,  Alternative  2  is  expected  to  achieve  a  less  of  a    reduction  in  criteria  air  pollutant emissions from PDF implementation because Alternative 2 cannot be assumed to include the same level  of  vehicle  trip  reductions  from  commute  trip  reduction  programs,  telecommuting  and alternative work schedules, employer‐sponsored shuttles, on‐site photovoltaic electricity supply as PDFs because of the substantially reduced employment levels under Alternative 2  (the other PDFs were  assumed  to  be  included  in  Alternative  2  with  equal  efficacy).  Overall,  however,  impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be greater  than  the Preferred Alternative  for operations, and equivalent during construction, as further described in the DEIR.

Revised Project
The Revised Project would involve General Plan Map and Zoning Map amendments to allow for minor modifications to acreages and distribution of land uses, but the proposed low‐density residential, golf, and neighborhood commercial uses would be equivalent to the existing entitlements for the site, as it was analyzed for Alternative 2 in the DEIR. The Revised Project would be consistent with the growth projections  from  the  City  of  La Quinta General  Plan as  they  have  been  factored into  the  regional AQMP.  As  concluded  for  Alternative  2  and  for  the  Preferred  Alternative  in  the  DEIR,  the  Revised Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable AQMP.

Implementation  of  the Revised  Project would entail  construction and operations  substantially  the same as what is analyzed in Alternative 2 in the EIR. Therefore, construction and operational impacts associated with the Revised Project would be the same as those projected for Alternative 2, because the same area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed with the same proposed uses.  Like Alternative 2, the Revised Project would require Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 to prevent the overlap  of  construction  paving  and  architectural  coating  phases,  as  well  as  AQ‐2  to  comply  with EPA/CARB Tier 3 emission standards on equipment greater than 150 horsepower. Mitigation Measure AQ‐1 would help the Revised Project achieve a reduction of construction‐related VOC emission levels, while  Mitigation  Measure  AQ‐2  would  help  achieve  a  reduction  of  construction‐related  PM10 emissions  below  the  applicable  numeric  thresholds  to  prevent  a  cumulatively  considerable  net increase of the criteria pollutants for which the project region is non‐attainment.

The DEIR Air Quality analysis for the Preferred Alternative utilized CalEEMod 2016 as the most current software version available at the time of DEIR NOP, to calculate the project emissions and compare them against the SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds published in April of 2019. In March of 2023,  SCAQMD  published  updated  operational  thresholds  for  VOC  and  NOx  applicable  to  the Coachella Valley which are lower  relative  to  the 2019  thresholds. The comparison of SCAQMD Air 358 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     14    January 2024
Quality Significance Thresholds is provided in Table 6. Since  the  time of DEIR preparation, a more current version of CalEEMod (2022) has also been made available for air emissions calculations.

In  connection  with  the  CEQA  analysis  for  the  Revised  Project,  Urban  Crossroads  prepared  a supplemental Air Quality & GHG Assessment to provide updated operational emissions calculations for the Revised Project (see Appendix A) using CalEEMod 2022.  The updated emissions calculations and  a  comparison  of  those  calculations  and  the  operational  emissions  for  the  Revised  Project, Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the EIR, are provided in Table 7 below.  For all criteria air pollutants (NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5) except VOC, Alternative 2, the Revised Project and  the  Preferred  Alternative  would  generate  emission  levels  below  the  applicable  SCAQMD thresholds.  The  DEIR  determined  that  Alternative  2  would  result  in  increased  emissions  of  VOCs compared  to  the  Preferred  Alternative,  and  the  Revised  project  would  have  the  same  level  of increased  VOC  emissions.    In  addition,  these  emissions  calculations  for  the  Revised  Project  are considered  conservative  because  they  do  not  include  incorporation  of  Mitigation  Measure  AQ‐3, which will require the use of low VOC paints and will reduce the Revised Project’s VOC emissions. It should  be  noted  that  the  table  below  shows  the  Preferred Alternative’s emissions  summary after taking into account Mitigation Measure AQ‐3 and the project design features identified in the EIR.

Table 6 Comparison of SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Operational Thresholds SCAQMD Air Quality Significance
Operational Thresholds (in Pounds per Day)
Publication Date VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
April 2019 75 100 550 150 150 55
March 2023 55 55 550 150 150 55
Table 7 Air Quality Comparison Table
Comparison of Operational Emissions
(in Pounds per Day) – Unmitigated
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Preferred Alternative 87.49 96.08 242.25 0.64 54.51 16.06 April 2019 SCAQMD
Air Quality Significance
Thresholds
75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No No No
Alternative 2 and
Revised Project* 94.64 67.81 501.84 1.13 34.62 7.88
March 2023 SCAQMD
Air Quality Significance
Thresholds
55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes No No No No
*The operational emissions for Alternative 2 and the Revised Project are equivalent.

Overall, the operational air quality emissions from the Revised Project are considered to be equivalent to and consistent with Alternative 2.  The emission levels of Alternative 2 in relation to the SCAQMD 359 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     15    January 2024
Thresholds  are  assumed  to  be  comparable  to  the  emission  quantities  calculated  for  the  Revised Project in Table  7  because  of  the  shared  project  dimensions and land  uses. Although  the level  of operational VOC emissions under the Revised Project and Alternative 2 are greater than under the Preferred  Alternative,  this  increased  impact  was  fully  disclosed  in  the  DEIR  and  identified  as  a potentially significant impact under Alternative 2.  However, the Revised Project will not have any increased  emissions  over  what  was  analyzed  and  disclosed  in  the  DEIR  for  Alternative  2,  and therefore, the Revised Project will not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than previously disclosed in the DEIR for any criteria air pollutant.  In addition, the Revised Project (and Alternative  2)  would  have  reduced  emissions  for  NOx,  PM10,  and  PM2.5,  as  compared  to  the Preferred Alternative.  Moreover, the supplemental Air Quality/GHG assessment by Urban Crossroads demonstrates that the Revised Project will not have a significant impact relating to NOx emissions, as was  stated  could  occur  under  Alternative  2  in  the  DEIR.  The  analysis  of  Alternative  2  in  the DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 would have potentially significant air quality impacts concerning NOx and VOC, and that these impacts would be greater than under the Preferred Alternative.

The  DEIR  concluded  that  Alternative  2  would  result  in  an  increase  in  daily  vehicle  trips  of approximately 13% as compared to the Preferred Alternative.  Although the Revised Project would result in the same increase in daily vehicle trips as Alternative 2 because both scenarios involve exactly the same number of homes, commercial square footage, and golf course development, the increase in land use trip generation rates associated with the updated ITE 11th Edition result in an increase in projected total daily vehicle trips from 7,923 to 8,762, but this approximately 10.5% increase in total trips will not  result in any new or substantially more severe air quality impacts because  the same increase would apply to Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative if the updated ITE 11th Edition trip generation rates were applied to those scenarios.  In addition, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would not require as much energy as the Preferred Alternative for treatment of water and for other Wave Basin operations (see pages 7‐17 and 7‐18 of the DEIR for a more detailed comparison of the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2).  Overall, the Revised Project will have the same Air Quality impacts as Alternative 2, and as discussed in the DEIR, these impacts will be greater than the Preferred Alternative  with  respect  to  operational  emissions  due  to  the  increased  VOC  and  NOx  emissions.

Accordingly, the Revised Project would not have any new or substantially more severe impacts than analyzed in the DEIR.

The same mitigation measures as those proposed in the DEIR for the Preferred Alternative would be implemented for the Revised Project, consisting of AQ‐1 through AQ‐3.

Given that the Revised Project would involve the same land use categories, with minor acreage and configuration changes, as  those analyzed  for Alternative  2 in  the DEIR,  this development  scenario would not include facilities or activities known to generate other emissions, such as those leading to objectionable  odors  capable  of  adversely  affecting  a  localized  or  substantial  number  of  people.

Construction of the Revised Project would result in temporary equipment exhaust and the application 360 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     16    January 2024
of asphalt and architectural coatings that would emit short‐term and intermittent odors detectable at close proximity, consistent with the DEIR findings for Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative, but the localized and regional emission levels would be mitigated specifically for VOC and PM10 to below the applicable thresholds to prevent a cumulative considerable increase or condition adversely affecting a substantial number of people. During the life of the project, the Revised Project would involve the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) in covered containers and removed at regular  intervals  as  a  standard  function  of  operational  waste  management,  consistent  with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative. Operation of the Revised Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge, from any source whatsoever, of air contaminants,  odors,  or  other  material  at  quantities  resulting  in  injury,  detriment,  nuisance,  or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public.  Pertaining to other construction or operational emissions, including those associated with objectionable odors, the Revised Project would result in less than significant impacts.

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

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

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

Biological Resources
Preferred Alternative
The DEIR identified seven federally/State listed species as having the potential to occur in the project vicinity. These include the Coachella Valley milkvetch, triple‐ribbed milkvetch, Casey’s June beetle, desert  pupfish,  desert  slender  salamander,  Coachella  Valley  fringe‐toed  lizard  and  the  Peninsular 361 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     17    January 2024
bighorn sheep (PBS). However, it was determined that the project site contains suitable habitat for only one species, the Coachella Valley milkvetch (CVMV), which is covered under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan  (CVMSHCP). Therefore, payment of a development  fee would mitigate any impacts  to  the CVMV. The Preferred Alternative would  not affect any  species identified  as  candidate,  sensitive,  or  special  status.  Additionally,  Peninsular  bighorn  sheep  (PBS), which  are  Federally  listed  as  Endangered,  State‐listed  as  Threatened,  a  California  Fully  Protected Species, and CVMSHCP covered species, have been identified in elevated terrain in La Quinta, and PBS habitat occurs in the vicinity of the project site with known PBS visits to the adjacent Coral Mountain.

Potential impacts to PBS were determined to be less than significant because the project includes construction of a new sheep barrier along the western boundary of the project site, consistent with the sheep fence being installed in other areas in La Quinta adjacent to PBS habitat.

There are no jurisdictional waters regulated pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and no lakes, rivers, or streambeds regulated pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code by the CDFW are present within the limits of the project site. Therefore, development of the Preferred Alternative would  result  in  less  than  significant  impacts  to  any  riparian  habitat  or  other  sensitive  natural community identified in local or regional plans.

The site does not contain, nor is 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 Preferred Alternative would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption to federally protected wetlands.

The  DEIR  (and  supporting  technical  reports)  found  no  evidence  of  migratory  wildlife  corridors  or native wildlife nursery sites on the project site or adjacent properties, and the Preferred Alternative is not anticipated to have significant impacts related to habitat fragmentation and regional wildlife movement. Although burrowing owls were not observed onsite during the field investigation, the site provides suitable habitat for the species and the owls can take up residence on the site at any time.

Therefore, a pre‐construction burrowing owl survey (Mitigation Measure BIO‐1) was required using accepted protocol (as determined by CDFW) to reduce the impact to less than significant levels. The project site also contains suitable roosting and foraging habitat for multiple bat species. Therefore, to avoid impacts to all potential bat species which may occur on the site, maternity‐season surveys and follow‐up actions were provided in Mitigation Measure BIO‐2 through BIO‐5, reducing impacts to roosting bats to less than significant levels. Finally, to reduce the impact to potential nesting birds that could occur onsite to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure BIO‐6 requires vegetation removal to be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31) to ensure  compliance with  California Fish and Game  Code and  to avoid  potential impacts  to  nesting birds. Any vegetation removal and/or construction activities that occur during the nesting season will 362 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     18    January 2024
require  that all  suitable habitat be  thoroughly  surveyed  for  the presence of nesting birds by a qu Finally,  the DEIR addressed  the City’s participation in  the CVMSHCP, and  required  the payment of mandated fees to mitigate impacts to species covered by the Plan in Mitigation Measure BIO‐6.alified biologist before commencement of clearing. 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.

Moreover, development of the Preferred Alternative would not conflict with any local policy relating to these species, because the City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance that protects any of the tree species that occur onsite.

Alternative 2
The  Alternatives  analysis  in  the  DEIR  determined  that  impacts  to  biological  resources  would  be consistent with the Preferred Alternative because the same physical area would be developed, and any development that would occur onsite would be subject to Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐6, listed above. The mitigation measures would also be imposed for development of Alternative 2 to reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels. The DEIR concluded that Alternative  2  would  result  in  similar  impacts  to  biological  resources  since  both  the  Preferred Alternative  and  Alternative  2  would  result  in  development  of  the  384.5‐acre  property.  However, impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels under both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2.

Revised Project
The  Revised  Project  would  result  in  similar  impacts  to  biological  resources,  compared  to  both Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative analyzed in the DEIR, because the same area of land would be disturbed.

Development of the site could impact the CVMV, which is covered under the CVMSHCP. Therefore, the Revised Project would be required to pay the development  fee to mitigate any impacts to the CVMV. Impact to any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Consistent with all Alternatives in the DEIR, the site does not contain, nor is adjacent to, jurisdictional waters,  lakes,  rivers,  or  streambeds,  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 Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, or the Revised Project would not result in the  direct  removal,  filling  or  other  hydrological  interruption  to  federally  protected  wetlands,  or impacts to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans.
363 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     19    January 2024
As discussed above, development of the site could impact burrowing owls, nesting birds, or bats if they were to occur onsite. Therefore, under the Revised Project, as with Alternative 2, the actions required by Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐6 would be applied, reducing impacts to these species to less than significant levels.

Moreover, development of  the Revised Project would not conflict with any local policy  relating  to these species, because the City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance that protects any  of  the  tree  species  that  occur  onsite.  Finally,  the  Revised  Project  would  be  required  to  pay mandated fees to mitigate impacts to species covered by the CVMSHCP in Mitigation Measure BIO‐6.

As  established  in  Section  4.3,  Biological  Resources  of  the  DEIR,  development  of  the  384.5‐acre property would impact onsite biological resources, therefore, mitigation is recommended to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. The mitigation measures were:

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 Wildlife Agency protocols. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on  the  specific  site  conditions  (e.g.,  distance  to  nearest  suitable  habitat  and  presence  of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed  within  the  Project  site  during  construction  activities,  CDFW  shall  be  notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP.

BIO‐2: In June 2021, a qualified bat biologist will conduct a second round of focused nighttime surveys for  roosting  bats  at  locations  where  suitable  roosting  habitat  is  identified.  The  nighttime 364 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     20    January 2024
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 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.

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 365 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     21    January 2024
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 ground‐disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around  the  nest adjacent  to  construction will  be  delineated,  flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue  biological  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.

In response to CDFW comments, the following mitigation measures were added to the EIR to address construction  and  operational  noise  on  wildlife  using  Coral  Mountain,  project  landscaping,  lake maintenance, and Peninsular bighorn sheep:

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.

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 commercial, open  space, and low‐density community  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.
366 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     22    January 2024
With  the  implementation  of Mitigation Measures  BIO‐7  through  BIO‐10,  impacts  to  wildlife  using Coral  Mountain,  native  desert  species,  lake  ecosystems,  and  Peninsular  bighorn  sheep  would  be reduced to less than significant levels.

All mitigation measures identified in the DEIR (with the exception of the Wave Basin lighting measure which  is  no  longer  applicable)  would  also  be  imposed  for  development  of  the  Revised  Project  to reduce  impacts  to  biological  resources  to  less  than  significant  levels.  The  Revised  Project,  like Alternative 2, proposes a golf course, thus providing suitable grazing habitat for the sheep. Therefore, as a part of project design, the Revised Project would include a sheep protection plan to ensure that PBS are restricted from entering the project. The sheep protection plan includes implementation of fencing/walls along the entire project perimeter as a physical barrier to prevent PBS from accessing the site, as well as an approved native species plant palette to avoid specimens listed as “prohibited invasive  ornamental  plants”  in  certain  open  space  areas  and  on  lots  adjoining  any  sheep  barrier, consistent with the sheep protection plan included with the Preferred Alternative.

Accordingly, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) will not have any new or substantially more severe impacts to biological resources than previously analyzed in the DEIR for either Alternative 2 or the Preferred Alternative.

Cultural Resources
Preferred Alternative
As discussed in the DEIR, the project site previously operated as an agricultural business until the late 20th century before being abandoned in the 1990s. Remains of the agricultural operations include a partially collapsed adobe, which has been recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory.

Although the survey completed for the DEIR determined that the adobe has been vandalized, burned, and  further  deteriorated,  it  still  remains  eligible  for  listing  in  the  California  Register  of  Historic Resources. Therefore, to avoid impacts to this site, no earth moving activities shall occur until the site 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.  CUL‐1  also  requires  the preservation  of  the  site  in  perpetuity  by  the  Homeowners’  Association  for  the  project.  The implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL‐1 would reduce impacts to the adobe site to less than significant levels.

As stated in the DEIR, the vast majority of the previously recorded cultural resources within a one‐ mile radius of the project site (62 sites and 48 isolates) were prehistoric. The sites mainly consisted of ceramic lithic scatters with some bedrock milling features, ground stone artifacts, and the remnants of fire hearths. 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.  Three  of  the  sites  contain  panels  of  rock  art  as  well  as  milling  features  and  ceramics 367 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     23    January 2024
contributory  to  the  rock art panel areas. The  technical analysis determined  that  the  sites are also eligible for listing in the California Register. Therefore, 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, were required as Mitigation Measure CUL‐5 to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

Additionally, Mitigation Measure CUL‐2 and CUL‐3 require monitoring on the site for all earth moving activities by both an archaeological and Tribal monitor. Finally, all construction workers were required to receive sensitivity training during all aspects and phases of project construction (CUL‐4).  In addition to the findings of the archaeologist, the City conducted Tribal consultation in conformance with SB 18 and AB 52. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians requested consultation, and informed the City that this area is of high sensitivity to the Cahuilla people. A number of mitigation measures were recommended by the Tribe.

To avoid the disturbance of any human remains, the project  was required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, no further excavation or disturbance of  the  site, or any nearby area  reasonably  suspected  to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. In addition, CUL‐2 and CUL‐3, which require on‐site monitoring, will ensure that ground disturbing activities are observed by experts who can recognize such resources if unearthed.

The mitigation measures which were applied to the Preferred Alternative were:

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 368 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     24    January 2024
of an early structure near  this point, hidden amidst  the broad stand of  tamarisk  trees, an original  windbreak.  Search  of  these  remains  is  required  to  ensure  the  most  complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts  shall  be  catalogued,  analyzed,  reported,  and  curated  at  the  Coachella  Valley Museum (Love et al.1998:54).

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

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 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.

Alternative 2
Since Alternative 2 would develop the same acreage as the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would also  be  required  to  implement  Mitigation  Measures  CUL‐1  through  CUL‐5;  therefore,  reducing 369 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     25    January 2024
impacts to existing cultural resources onsite, potential onsite cultural resources, and human remains to less than significant levels.

Revised Project
Since the Revised Project, like Alternative 2, would disturb the same physical area as the Preferred Alternative,  the  impacts  will  be  consistent  with  the  Preferred  Alternative.  Therefore,  all  of  the mitigation measures applied to the Preferred Alternative would be applied to both Alternative 2 and the  Revised  Project,  and  impacts  to  cultural  resources  would  be  less  than  significant  with implementation of mitigation.

Energy
Preferred Alternative
Construction:

During construction, the Preferred Alternative would consume 57,987.3 kWh of electricity, 813,083 gallons of diesel, and 498,139 gallons of gasoline, as determined in the DEIR. Consumption of natural gas  would  not  occur  during  construction.  The estimated  construction electricity  usage  represents approximately  0.67  percent  of  the  Preferred  Alternative’s  estimated  annual  operational  demand, which, as discussed below, would be within the supply and infrastructure service capabilities of IID.

Additionally,  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 activities, or use of equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel  efficiencies).  Mitigation  Measure  AQ‐2  requires  that  off‐road  diesel  construction  equipment (greater  than  150  horsepower)  complies  with  EPA/CARB  Tier  3  emissions  standards.  The implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐2 would assist in reducing construction‐related gasoline consumption at the project site, and project construction would not consume petroleum in a wasteful or inefficient manner.

Operation:

The  Preferred  Alternative  would  consume  approximately  8,642,729  kWh  of  electricity  annually, 21,855,400 kBTU of natural gas annually, and 749,717 gallons of petroleum annually, per the DEIR.

The  Preferred  Alternative  would  implement  the  use  of  photovoltaic  (PV)  systems  to  generate  15 percent of the power demand, high efficiency lighting, and applying energy efficient design building shells  and  building  components,  such  as  windows,  roof  systems,  electrical  lighting  systems,  and heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs. The project would also be required to install water efficient plumbing fixtures and irrigation systems, light‐emitting diode (LED) technology within homes, use recycled water (non‐ potable)  for  common  area  landscape  irrigation,  use  drought‐tolerant  plants  in  landscape  design, install Energy Star appliances, and install tankless water heater systems. These are required by State 370 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     26    January 2024
Tile 24 and CalGreen standards. The Preferred Alternative would also reduce vehicle miles traveled and thus petroleum fuel consumption by providing a mix of various land uses onsite, and pedestrian and multi‐modal connections between the land uses. With the implementation of the standards and requirements above,  the DEIR determined  that  the Preferred Alternative would  result in less  than significant impacts to energy resources. The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative’s energy consumption would not exceed the City’s, IID’s, or SoCal Gas’s capacity for their respective service area (with implementation of the infrastructure improvements described in the project description and the Utilities and Service Systems discussion).

The  DEIR also  analyzed  the  Preferred  Alternative’s  consistency with  State  and  local energy  plans, including EPA/CARB Tier 3 Emissions Standards, Title 24, La Quinta’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, and  the  City’s  General  Plan.  Due  to  the  mixed‐use  nature  of  the  Preferred  Alternative,  and  the project’s implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐2 during construction, and  the  standards and requirements imposed by State and local agencies, the DEIR concluded that the Preferred Alternative was consistent with the State and local energy plans.

Alternative 2
Construction:

Short‐term  energy  consumption  related  to  construction  activities  would  be  similar  during development of both Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative, since they both would develop the same project area. Both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 would consume 57,987.3 kWh of electricity,  813,083  gallons  of diesel,  and  498,139  gallons  of  gasoline,  as  determined  in  the  DEIR.

Therefore, like the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would not result in excessive or unnecessary energy consumption.

Operation:

As analyzed in the DEIR, Alternative 2 would not result in the development of the tourist commercial portion of the site, which includes the Wave Basin, associated light fixtures, hotel uses, and ancillary resort  commercial  uses.  Based  on  calculations  using  CalEEMod  (Version  2016.3.2),  the  DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would require 5,071,006 kWh in electric power, and 13,182,066.5 kBTU in natural gas annually.

Table 8 Alternative 2 Energy Use
Land Use  Electricity
KWh
Natural Gas
kBTU
750 Residential (Low Density)  4,614,495*  13,182,066.5 60,000 sf Commercial   456,511  98,400
Golf   0  0
Total   5,071,006  13,280,466.5
371 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     27    January 2024
*This number was determined by using the project’s kWh value, dividing it by 496 (the project’s proposed low density residential number) to receive the  amount  of  electricity  per  residential  unit  (6,152.66  kWhr).  Then 6,152.66 kWhr was multiplied by 750 to determine how much electricity 750 dwelling units would consume. The same was completed for natural gas.

The DEIR compared electricity and natural gas consumed by Alternative 2 to the Preferred Alternative and  determined  that electricity and  natural gas would  be  reduced  by  41  percent and  40  percent, respectively (see table below). This is a result of replacing the resort uses included in the Preferred Alternative with more single‐family homes and a golf course.

Table 9 Energy Consumption Comparison
Source   Units   Alternative 2
Energy Consumption
Preferred Alternative
Energy Consumption
Percent
Difference
Electricity Total  kWh/yr   5,071,006  8,642,729  41% less Natural Gas Total  kBTU/yr  13,280,466.5  21,855,400  40% less However,  updates  to  the  CalEEMod  modeling  system  to  generate  more  accurate  outputs  have occurred since  the DEIR was written. These updates  result in increased operational electricity and natural gas consumption totals (compared to CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 model) and are provided in the  Supplemental  Air  Quality  and  Greenhouse  Gas  Assessment  included  in  Appendix  A.  The Assessment concluded that the operation of 750 residential homes, a golf course, and commercial uses would consume 7,891,477 kWh per year of electricity, and 27,076,002 kBTU per year of natural gas.  It is important to note that the increase in energy use between Alternative 2 and the Revised Project is solely the result of the CalEEMod update, as the proposed uses remain the same.

Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would be required to implement State and local standards for energy efficiency as described above to meet Building Code standards in effect at the time development occurs.

Alternative 2 is anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it generates more daily trips because it lacks the complimentary mix of uses on‐site and enhanced connectivity between those uses which  reduce per capita VMT. Alternative 2 was expected  to generate 13% more  trips compared  to  the  Preferred  Alternative  due  to  the  increased  number  of  single‐family  residential dwelling units and reduction in internal trip capture. The proposed 60,000 square feet of commercial uses at the corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street would continue to result in a reduction in trips due to trip capture in Alternative 2. Therefore, due to the increased vehicle trips associated with the 750  residential  units,  Alternative  2  would  result  in  an  approximately  13%  increased  petroleum consumption compared to the Preferred Alternative, which equates to 831,228 gallons of petroleum consumed annually.
372 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     28    January 2024
Table 10 Petroleum Consumption Comparison
Preferred Alternative
Annual Fuel Consumption
Alternative 2 Annual
Fuel Consumption
Percent
Difference
Gallons Petroleum   749,717  847,180  13% more
Additionally, under either alternative, fuel efficiencies are anticipated to increase during the lifetime of  the  project, as  older vehicles are  replaced with  newer more efficient models  (including  plug‐in hybrid, and zero emission vehicles). Thus, petroleum use is anticipated to decrease over time.

Overall, development and operation of the Preferred Alternative or Alternative 2 would not result in excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption or cause any significant impacts regarding energy resources due to the compliance with State and local energy‐efficiency standards.

Revised Project
Due to the undeveloped and vacant nature of the site, the 384.5‐acre site does not currently consume energy resources and electricity and natural gas facilities are not currently provided to the site. As would be the case with the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, development and operation of the Revised Project would result in an increase of energy consumption at the site.

Construction
Short‐term energy consumption related to construction activities during development of the Revised Project will be the same as under Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative because they would use similar amounts of electricity for tools and construction trailers, and petroleum fuels for the operation of machinery, large equipment, and employee vehicle trips. Natural gas would not be required during construction activities under any alternative, including the Revised Project. The table below illustrates construction‐related energy use for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, and the Revised Project, since all scenarios would develop the exact same acreage.

Table 11 Summary of Energy Use During Construction
Fuel Type  Units  Total Construction
Energy Use
Electricity  kWh  57,987.3
Diesel   Gallons  813,086
Gasoline  Gallons  498,139
Notes: Electricity  for  the  project  is  total  construction  usage. Mobile gasoline and diesel usage were calculated using the figures provided in the CalEEMod model.

Because construction activities associated with the Revised Project would be the same as Alternative 2, impacts would be similar and less than significant.

Operation
373 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     29    January 2024
As  stated  above,  the  electricity  and  natural  gas  consumption  values  utilized  in  the  DEIR  were generated using the most recent version of CalEEMod at the time the DEIR was prepared (Version 2016.3.2).  CalEEMod  has  since  updated  its  model.  These  updates result  in  increased  operational electricity and natural gas consumption totals (compared to CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 model) as shown  in  the  Supplemental  Air  Quality  and  Greenhouse  Gas  Assessment.  The  Supplemental  Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment concluded that the operation of 750 residential homes, a golf  course,  and  commercial  uses  would  consume  7,891,477  kWh  per  year  of  electricity,  and 27,076,002 kBTU per year of natural gas.  The  revised emissions between  the  two versions of  the model are shown in Table 12. A comparison of the differences between the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 as analyzed in  the EIR, and  the Revised Project analyzed under the current model, is provided in Table 13.

Table 12 Alternative 2/Revised Project Energy Consumption Comparison V2016.3.2 Versus V2022.1.1.13
Source   Units   Energy Consumption
2016.3.2
Energy Consumption
2022.1.1.13  Delta (%)
Electricity Total  kWh/yr   5,071,006  7,891,477  55%
Natural Gas Total  kBTU/yr  13,280,466.5  27,076,002  104% Table 13 Operational Energy Consumption Comparison
Source   Units   Preferred Alternative
CalEEMod 2016.3.2
Alternative 2
CalEEMod 2016.3.2
Revised Project
CalEEMod 2022.1.1.13
Electricity Total  kWh/yr   8,642,729  5,071,006  7,891,477 Natural Gas Total  kBTU/yr  21,855,400  13,280,466.5  27,076,002 Similar  to  the  Preferred  Alternative  and  Alternative  2,  the  Revised  Project  would  be  required incorporate  energy  efficient  features  to  meet  Building  Code  standards  in  effect  at  the  time development  occurs.  The  project  would  be  required  to  comply  with  Title  24  and  CalGreen requirements related to energy efficiency.

As compared to the Preferred Alternative (indicated in Table 13 above), the Revised Project will use 751,252 kWh/year (8.7%) less electricity due to the elimination of the Wave Basin and resort uses.

While the Revised Project is calculated to use 5,220,602 kBTU/year (24%) more natural gas than the Preferred Alternative, this is solely due to the changes in CalEEMod modeling. In reality, the Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would use substantially less natural gas than the Preferred Alternative (as shown in Table 13 above).  As determined in  the DEIR,  the Wave Basin would  result in  the use of 1,528,430 kWh of electricity per year, and the resort uses would consume 3,260,870 kWh per year of electricity and 523,643 kBTU of natural gas per year.
374 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     30    January 2024
Energy use was not considered excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary under the Preferred Alternative or Alternative 2, and thus not a significant effect. Accordingly, the reduced energy consumption of the Revised Project would also not be considered excessive, wasteful, or unnecessary.

The Revised Project  (like Alternative 2) will generate approximately 13% more daily  trips  than  the Preferred Alternative, and thus result in approximately 97,463 more gallons of petroleum consumed compared to the Preferred Alternative (see Table 10, above) However, this is the same increase in daily trips analyzed in the DEIR for Alternative 2, and accordingly, does not constitute a substantial increase beyond what was analyzed in the DEIR.

Additionally, as is the case for all alternatives, fuel efficiencies are anticipated to increase during the lifetime of the project, as older vehicles are replaced with newer more efficient models  (including plug‐in hybrid, and zero emission vehicles). Thus, petroleum use is anticipated to decrease over time.

Overall, development and operation under all three scenarios (the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2,  and  the  Revised  Project)  would  not  result  in  excessive,  wasteful,  or  unnecessary  energy consumption or significant impacts regarding energy resources due to the compliance with State and local energy‐efficiency standards.

Geology and Soils
Preferred Alternative
The DEIR, in the analysis of geology and soils, determined that development proposed in the Preferred Alternative is not located near an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or near areas impacted by landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Development would also be required to comply with State seismic standards for construction to lessen impacts of seismic shaking.

The DEIR also determined that impacts associated with erosion (waterborne and or airborne) would be less than significant with compliance to existing regulatory requirements, such as the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan  (SWPPP). Soil conditions  (i.e., the identification  of  liquefaction,  collapsible  soils, expansive  soils  onsite) were  studied  in  the  project‐ specific Geotechnical Report, which determined that impacts of unstable soil conditions would be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. Development of the property would be  required  to  comply  with  the  recommendations  provided  in  the  site‐specific  Geotechnical Investigation  (Appendix  G  of  the  DEIR)  to  ensure  the  onsite  soils  can  support  the  proposed foundations and structures (Mitigation Measures GEO‐1 and GEO‐2).

In  order  to  avoid  impacts  to  potential  paleontological  resources  onsite,  the  DEIR  required  the implementation of mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The property would be required  to  retain a qualified paleontological monitor during all earth‐moving operations  reaching beyond  the  depth  of  two  feet  (GEO‐3).  With  implementation  of  this  measure,  impacts  were determined to be less than significant.
375 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     31    January 2024
Mitigation measures specifically state:

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

GEO‐2  All earthwork including excavation, backfill and preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, presented below, and portions  of  the  local  regulatory  requirements,  as  applicable.  All  earthwork  should  be performed under  the observation and  testing  of a  qualified  soil engineer. The  following geotechnical  engineering  recommendations  for  the  proposed  project  are  based  on observations  from  the  field  investigation  program,  laboratory  testing  and  geotechnical engineering analyses.
 Stripping:  areas  to  be  graded  shall  be  cleared  of  the  vegetation,  associated  root systems and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old fills and any irreducible matter. The stripping shall be removed off‐sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction shall be properly backfilled in accordance with the compaction recommendations of this report.  Preparation  of  the Residential Building Areas: in  order  to provide  firm and  uniform foundation  bearing  conditions,  the  primary  foundation  bearing  soil  shall  be  over‐ excavated and recompacted. Over‐excavation shall extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet  below  existing  grade  or  3  feet  blow  the  bottom  of  the  footings,  whichever  is deeper. Once adequate removals have been verified, the exposed native soil shall be scarified,  the  moisture‐conditioned  and  compacted  to  a  minimum  of  90  percent relative compaction.
 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 376 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     32    January 2024
subgrade  shall  be  observed  by  a  representative  of  Sladden  Engineering  prior  to  fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials.
 Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill shall be anticipated. It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3  tenths of a  foot. This will vary depending upon  the  type  of  equipment  used,  the  moisture  content  of  the  soil  at  the  time  of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained.

GEO‐3   All earth‐moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become necessary if undisturbed,  potentially  fossiliferous  lakebed  sediments  are  encountered.  The  monitor shall be empowered  to stop earth moving activities if  fossils are identified. The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert  construction  equipment  to  allow  for  removal  of  abundant  or  large  specimens.  A monitoring plan  shall be provided  to  the City prior  to  the issuance of any earth moving permit, or the disturbance of any soils on the site, which will include:
 Samples of sediments shall be collected and processed to recover small fossil remains.  Recovered specimens shall be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future.

A  report  of  findings,  including  an  itemized  inventory  of  recovered  specimens  and  a discussion of their 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.

Alternative 2
As was the case for the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would not result in development in a fault zone,  or  next  to  a  slope,  since  the  land  to  be  developed  is  the  same.  Similar  to  the  Preferred Alternative,  development  of  Alternative  2  would  also  be  required  to  comply  with  State  seismic standards for construction to lessen impacts of seismic shaking.

Mitigation Measures GEO‐1 through GEO‐3, provided for the Preferred Alternative, also would apply to  Alternative  2  to  address  impacts  associated  with  seismic‐related  ground  failure,  ground subsidence, collapsible soils, corrosive soils, and paleontological resources, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant levels.

Revised Project
377 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     33    January 2024
As was the case for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, the Revised Project would not result in  development  in  a  fault  zone,  or  next  to  a  slope,  since  the  land  to  be  developed  is  the  same.

Development would be required to comply with State seismic standards for construction to lessen impacts of seismic shaking.

As  identified  in  the  DEIR  impacts  concerning  erosion  (waterborne  and  soil)  would  be  less  than significant  with  compliance  to  existing  regulatory  requirements,  such  as  the  development  and implementation  of  a  SWPPP.  The  Revised  Project  would  be  required  to  implement  these  same requirements during construction.

The Revised Project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measures GEO‐1 and GEO‐2 to reduce impacts of onsite soils to from liquefaction, expansion, and soil collapse. The Revised Project would introduce lakes throughout the golf course area for retention and aesthetic purposes, similar to those proposed in Alternative 2. These features are typical for golf courses and would be required to comply with seismic standards for construction.

Finally, as would occur under any alternative, paleontological resources could occur onsite due to the undisturbed  subsurface  lakebed  sediments  from Holocene  Lake  Cahuilla, which are  considered  to have  high  paleontological  sensitivity.  Therefore,  Mitigation  Measure  GEO‐3  requires  that  all earthmoving  operations  reaching  beyond  the  depth  of  two  feet  be  monitored  by  a  qualified paleontological monitor. Under any of the alternatives or the Revised Project, this mitigation measure reduces impacts to less than significant levels.

As  would  be  the  case  for  Alternative  2,  the  mitigation  measures  identified  in  the  DEIR  would  be applied  to  the  Revised  Project  to address impacts associated with  strong  seismic ground  shaking, seismic‐related  ground  failure,  ground  subsidence,  collapsible  soils,  corrosive  soils,  and paleontological resources, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant levels.

As analyzed in the EIR, Alternative 2 would result in similar, less than significant effects relating to geology and soils, and the same analysis and conclusions apply equally to the Revised Project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Preferred Alternative
The DEIR  found that the Preferred Alternative would not conflict with regulations adopted  for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, specifically based on consistency with the applicable 2017 Scoping Plan Update aimed to achieve a statewide reduction in GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, resulting in less than significant impacts on plan conformance.

The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in potentially significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The DEIR found that the amortized annual construction emissions, events emissions,  and  operational  project  emissions  from  the  Preferred  Alternative  would  total approximately 17,270.47 MTCO2e per year, without PDFs and mitigation (See Table 14 below). When 378 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     34    January 2024
adjusted  for  the service population of 2,672,  the unmitigated GHG emissions  resulted in a service population efficiency of 6.46 MTCO2e per SP per year, exceeding the threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year and warranting the use of carbon credits to off‐set the totals to the extent of meeting the service population efficiency target.

Implementation  of  MM  GHG‐1  would  require  the  purchase  of  carbon  credits  to  offset  the  GHG emissions generated by the project that are in excess of the applicable threshold. However, as the credits would not change the actual GHG emissions levels of the project itself and the use of carbon credits as mitigation for GHG emissions has not been widely adopted in the Coachella Valley area for residential and  resort community projects,  the DEIR conservatively considered impacts associated with GHG emissions generated by the proposed project to be significant and unavoidable because the City cannot determine with certainty that the project’s GHG emissions will be reduced to a less than significant level.

Alternative 2
The  Alternatives  analysis  in  the  DEIR  determined  that  Alternative  2  would  result  in  construction related GHG emission levels similar to those of the Preferred Alternative, in part because the same area would be disturbed, and the entire site would be developed.

Based  on  the  California  Air  Resources  Board  (CARB)’s  Draft  2020 Mobile  Source  Strategy,  traffic‐ related mobile sources contribute a majority of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

Alternative 2 was expected to generate approximately 13% more trips compared to the previously proposed project due to the increased number of single‐family residential dwelling units and the lack of  internal  relationships  to  services  and  activities  associated  with  the  Preferred  Alternative.

Alternative  2  would  have  reduced  criteria  air  pollutant  and  GHG  emissions  associated  with  the production  of electricity and water,  because it would  not include a wave  basin, and  the  need  for electricity associated with that feature. Although emission increases or decreases are not linear in the CalEEMod model,  Alternative  2  was  determined  in  the  DEIR  to  result  in  elevated  GHG  emissions associated with vehicle trips, as shown in Table 14. For the proposed project, PDFs resulted in a GHG emissions  reduction  of approximately  30%.  Compared  to  the  Preferred  Project,  Alternative  2 was expected  to  achieve  a  lower  reduction  in  GHG  emissions  from  PDF  implementation  because Alternative 2 could not be assumed to include commute trip reduction programs, telecommuting and alternative  work  schedules,  and  employer‐sponsored  shuttles  with  the  same  efficacy  due  to  the substantially reduced number of workers (the other PDFs were assumed to be included in Alternative 2). Overall, therefore, GHG impacts associated with Alternative 2 were determined in the DEIR to be greater than the Preferred Alternative for operations and equivalent for construction activities, and would be significant and unavoidable.

Revised Project
379 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     35    January 2024
The Revised Project would be subject to the more current and increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards  for  design,  construction,  and  operation,  which,  combined  with  CARB  Mobile  Source Strategy aimed at reducing emissions of precursors to criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases (GHG), and  toxic  air  contaminants  from  mobile  sources,  would  allow  this  development  scenario  to  be consistent with the current statewide Scoping Plan Update, resulting in less than significant impacts on plan conformance.

Construction impacts associated with the Revised Project would be substantially the same as those analyzed for Alternative 2 in the EIR, because the same project site acreage would be disturbed and developed over a similar period of time with the same uses.  Once amortized over the 30‐year project life, these construction emissions did not constitute a material portion of total project GHG emissions (approximately 414 MTCO2e per year or 2.5%).

A Supplemental Air Quality and GHG Assessment was prepared for the Revised Project. As displayed in Table 14, the revised project would result in unmitigated GHG emissions totaling approximately 14,978.42 MTCO2e per year after accounting for amortized annual construction emissions assumed to  be  equivalent  to  the  preferred  alternative.  Such  emission  totals  would  be  lower  than  those calculated  for  the  Preferred  Alternative.  However,  when  adjusted  for  the  respective  service population  (population  and  employment)  of  2,228,  the  unmitigated  service  population  efficiency would be approximately 6.72 MTCO2e per SP per year, which is relatively higher than the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, by comparison, the Revised Project would result in relatively lower total GHG emissions,  but  slightly  higher  emissions  when  adjusted  for  the  respective  service  population.

Regardless, the Revised Project, like both the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, would result in significant  and  unavoidable GHG  impacts.  Both  the  Preferred  Alternative  and  the  Revised  Project would  require  the purchase of carbon credits to  reduce  the annual emission levels and  respective service population efficiency levels below 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year.

Table 14 Comparison of GHG Emissions
Unmitigated GHG Emissions (in MTCO2e/yr)
Amortized Annual
Construction Emissions
Operational
Event
Emissions
Operational
Emissions (Area,
Energy, Mobile,
Waste, Water Usage)
Total
Project
Emissions
per year
Service
Population
(Population and
Employment)
Preferred
Alternative 414.62 546.89 16,310.41 17,270.47 2,672
Alternative 2 and
Revised Project*
414.62
(Assumed Equivalent to
Preferred Alternative)
Not
Applicable 14,563.80 14,978.42 2,228
*The operational emissions for Alternative 2 and the Revised Project are equivalent.

Overall, the Revised Project will have the same GHG impacts as Alternative 2, and as discussed in the DEIR,  these  impacts  will  be  greater  than  the  Preferred  Alternative  with  respect  to  operational 380 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     36    January 2024
emissions. Accordingly,  the Revised  Project would not have any  new or  substantially more  severe impacts than analyzed in the DEIR on the basis of plan conformance and quantitative emissions.  The same mitigation measure proposed in the DEIR for the Preferred Alternative would be implemented for the Revised Project, consisting of carbon credits in quantities that would help the project achieve a compliant population efficiency. Consistent with the DEIR findings for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, because the use of carbon credits has not been broadly adopted in the Coachella Valley to mitigate GHG emissions impacts of residential and resort communities, and because even with the purchase  of  carbon  credits  will  not  lower  the  project’s  actual  GHG  emissions,  this  analysis conservatively considers the Revised Project to have a significant and unavoidable impact concerning GHG emissions, consistent with Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Preferred Alternative
Construction:

The Preferred Alternative would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or release hazardous materials into the  environment  during  construction  with  the  project’s  compliance  with  State  law  and  standard measures (i.e., Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) which regulate safety procedures when using, handling, and storing hazardous materials during construction.

Operation:

Operation  of  the  Preferred  Alternative  included  a  hotel/resort,  commercial,  residential,  and recreational and open space uses on approximately 384.5 acres of vacant land. The nature of these uses was  not expected  to involve, as a  primary activity,  the  routine  transport,  use,  or  disposal  of hazardous materials  in  quantities  or  in  a manner  that  would  pose  a  threat  to  the  project  and  its surroundings or create a significant hazard  through a  foreseeable accident condition involving  the release  of  hazardous  materials  into  the  environment.  However,  operation  of  the  Wave  Basin, proposed in the Preferred Alternative, would involve the on‐site storage of chemicals in quantities greater  than or equal  to  fifty‐five  (55) gallons, and/or greater  than or equal  to  five hundred  (500) pounds for pools, which are considered hazardous materials. Therefore, under the administration of the  County  of  Riverside  Department  of  Environmental  Health  (DEH),  and  in  compliance  with  the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and  Safety  Code  (HSC),  the Wave basin  would  be  required  to  secure  a  permit  from  the  DEH  and electronically  submit  a  business  plan  in  the  Statewide  Informational  Management  System.

Compliance would result in less than significant impacts.

The DEIR concluded that the Preferred Alternative is not located within one‐quarter mile of an existing or  proposed  school  or  included  on  a  list  of  hazardous  materials  sites  compiled  pursuant  to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, since the project site is surrounded by developed 381 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     37    January 2024
streets, and proposes multiple access points to the proposed land uses, the DEIR determined that implementation of  the Preferred Alternative would not interfere with critical  facilities, emergency transportation and circulation, or emergency preparedness coordination. A Traffic Control Plan would be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities. This plan will reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic. Project access points would be reviewed by the Fire Department, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Finally, the DEIR found that the site is not located in an area affected by wildfires.

Overall,  impacts  associated  with  hazards  and  hazardous  materials  were  found  to  be  less  than significant, and no mitigation measures were required.

Alternative 2
Construction
Construction of Alternative 2 was expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels and other potentially flammable substances in a manner similar to the Preferred Alternative.

Thus, as a regulatory requirement, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with the requirements of  law,  and  implement  a  SWPPP  during  construction  to  regulate  safety  procedures  when  using, handling, and storing hazardous materials during construction. Impacts would be comparable to the Preferred Alternative and less than significant.

Operation
Under  Alternative  2,  the  property would  develop  low  density  residential  units, a golf  course, and commercial  retail uses. The nature of  the uses proposed under Alternative 2 was not expected  to involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in quantities or a manner that would  pose  a  threat  to  the  project  and  its  surroundings  or  create  a  significant  hazard  through  a foreseeable accident condition. This is because residential and commercial uses typically use cleaning or maintenance materials (paints, cleaning supplies, etc.), stored in small quantities during operation.

However,  if  the  golf  course  component  of  Alternative  2  were  to  store  hazardous  materials  in quantities greater than 55 gallons of liquid, 500 pounds of solid, and 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, the same requirement to submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to the Riverside County Fire Department would apply.

Construction and  operation  of  the  384.5‐acre  site,  under Alternative  2 will increase vehicular and multi‐modal  transportation along  the local major  roadways in  the  City.  Primary access  to  the  site would be expected to occur along Madison Street, with access to the commercial portion of the site from  both Madison  Street  and  Avenue  58.  These  roadways  would  provide  public  and emergency access into and out of the project property. As with the Preferred Alternative, no alteration to existing emergency evacuation routes would be proposed.
382 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     38    January 2024
As with the Preferred Alternative, a Traffic Control Plan would be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities. This plan will reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic. Project access points would be reviewed by the Fire Department, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles.

As determined in the DEIR, the site is not located within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, or in an area impacted by wildfires, therefore, neither alternative would result in significant impacts to a school facility or wildfire.

Alternative 2 was determined to also result in less than significant impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials.

Revised Project
Construction
Construction activities associated with the Revised Project are the same as with Alternative 2, because they involve constructing the same homes, commercial square footage and golf course on the same site.  Construction of the Revised Project is expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels, and other potentially flammable substances. Hazardous materials would be delivered, stored, and handled to manufacturer instructions and industry standards. Additionally, the contractor would be required to identify a controlled staging area within the project limits for storing materials and equipment, as required by a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan  (SWPPP). The handling of potentially  hazardous materials  on‐site  would  occur.  Similar  to  Alternative  2,  the  Revised  Project would  implement  safety  procedures  when  using,  handling,  or  storing  hazardous  materials  and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
As the uses are the same under the Revised Project and Alternative 2, the operational effects relating to the use of hazardous materials would also be the same.  As with Alternative 2, common hazardous materials utilized during the operation of residential, commercial, and golf uses can include everyday commercial products,  such as pesticides, cleaning  fluids, and household products. The golf course would  result  in  the  use  and  storage  of  larger  amounts  of  pesticides  and  fertilizers  as  well  as  the maintenance of golf carts and other equipment used onsite than the Preferred Alternative, but these amounts would not be expected to be any greater than currently used and stored throughout the City’s  golf  courses,  nor  are  they  expected  to  create  any  significant  hazard  because  hazardous materials during operation of the Revised Project, as with Alternative 2, would be delivered, stored, and handled to manufacturer instructions and industry standards. Consistent with Alternative 2, there would  be  no  uses  onsite  that would  potentially  create a  risk  to  the  public  or environment  or any activities  that  would  inhibit  any  established  hazard  evacuation  plan  because  the  Revised  Project 383 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     39    January 2024
would  implement  safety  procedures  when  using,  handling,  and  storing  hazardous  materials  and impacts would be less than significant.

As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would have similar effects relating to hazards and hazardous materials, which would be less than significant. If the Revised Project were to store  hazardous  materials  in  substantial  quantities,  the  operator  would  be  required  to  submit  a Hazardous Materials Business Plan to the Riverside County Fire Department.

The project site is not located within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, therefore, no Alternative would impact a school facility.

Construction  and  operation  of  the  Revised  Project  would  increase  vehicular  and  multi‐modal transportation along local roadways in the City, similar to Alternative 2. Primary access to the site would be expected to occur along Madison Street, with access to the commercial portion of the site from both Madison Street and Avenue 58. These roadways will provide public and emergency access into and out of  the property. As with  the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, no alteration  to existing emergency evacuation routes would be proposed.

A Traffic Control Plan will be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction  activities  for  all  the  alternatives  and  for  the  Revised  Project.  This  plan  will  reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic. Project access points would be reviewed by the Fire Department, to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles.

Finally,  the  property  is  not  located  in  a  Moderate,  High,  or  Very  High  Fire  Hazard  Severity  Zone (VHFHSZ) according  to CALFIRE’s High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsible Areas Map.

Therefore, impacts of exposing people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires are expected to be less than significant for the Revised Project, as they were for all Alternatives.

The Revised Project (like Alternative 2) would result in similar, less than significant impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Preferred Alternative
The DEIR determined that the Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to all hydrology  and  water  quality  thresholds,  including  any  water  quality  standards,  waste  discharge requirements,  surface water quality, and ground water quality, groundwater  supplies,  sustainable groundwater management, erosion, siltation, flooding, urban runoff, and implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan as explained below.

The DEIR found, during construction and life of the project, that the Preferred Alternative would be required to implement the various compliance plans under the Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), state, and local regulations to prevent violations or impacts 384 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     40    January 2024
to  surface  water  quality  standards  and  waste  discharge  requirements.  A  Stormwater  Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be implemented during the period of construction to comply with the  NPDES  General  Permit  for  Storm  Water  Discharges  Associated  with  Construction  and  Land Disturbance Activities. During  the life of  the project, water quality  standards and waste discharge requirements would be met and demonstrated through a project‐specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP is also a requirement under the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Section

8.70.070.  The  Preferred  Alternative  relied  on  proposed  on‐site  facilities  to  intercept  and  retain stormwater runoff on‐site, sized according to the stormwater volume resulting from the controlling 100‐year  storm  event  for  the  conditions  of  each  project  drainage  area,  as  mandated  by  Section

13.21.120 (A) of the La Quinta Municipal Code and outlined in the La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐

16. On the matter of groundwater supplies, the DEIR found that the Preferred Alternative would demand approximately  958.63‐acre  feet  per year  (AFY) based  on  the analysis  performed  for  the approved Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification  (WSA/WSV). CVWD  found that there was sufficient water supply to accommodate the land uses under the Preferred Alternative. Moreover, the  Preferred  Alternative  would  be  subject  to  the  locally  adopted  water‐efficient  landscape ordinance.

On  the  matter  of  groundwater  quality,  the  DEIR  found  that  the  Preferred  Alternative  would implement the required non‐structural and structural pollution source control measures that work toward the protection of groundwater quality. Non‐structural source control measures consist of site operations,  activities,  and/or  programs  described  in  the WQMP  and  implemented  by  the  project operator to educate site managers, employees, and residents to prevent potential pollutants from being  produced,  coming  into  contact  with  the  storm  drain  system,  and  impacting  groundwater.

Structural  source  control  measures  consist  of  facility  design  standards  to  prevent  direct  contact between potential pollutants and stormwater runoff. These measures would be privately maintained during the life of the project.

The  Preferred Alternative was  found in  the DIER  to  not  result in any  physical modifications  to an existing CVWD recharge facility or result in any stormwater runoff condition capable of interfering with  the  facility’s  operation.  On‐site  retention  facilities  would  contribute  to  infiltration  and groundwater recharge.

On the matter of erosion, siltation, flooding, and urban runoff conditions, the Preferred Alternative was found to result in an increase in impervious land cover through the introduction of structures, hardscape and streets. However, the proposed storm drainage system with required on‐site retention facilities  and  stabilized  surfaces  would  control  the  volume  and  conveyance  of  runoff  to  prevent erosion and siltation. Flooding would be prevented through compliance with the City’s engineering standards  for  land  subdivision  and  development.  Since  the  Preferred  Alternative  was  required  to 385 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     41    January 2024
retain  urban  runoff  on‐site,  it  would  not  result  in  discharge  affecting  public  storm  drainage infrastructure.

Moreover, all water quality pollution source control measures and stormwater management would be  implemented  consistent  with  the  approved  WQMP  during  the  life  of  the  project.  Less  than significant  impacts  were  found  for  all  hydrology  and  water  quality  thresholds. No  mitigation  was necessary.

Alternative 2
The Alternatives analysis in the DEIR determined that Alternative 2 would result in site disturbance to an equivalent extent as the Preferred Alternative. Standard engineering design for Alternative 2 would be required to comply with City standards for the on‐site retention of storm flows during the 100‐year  storm,  and  would  be expected  to  design  retention  basins,  and  similar  facilities  to  those proposed  for  the  Preferred  Alternative.  Alternative  2  would  be  subject  to  the  same  regulatory requirements,  permit  coverages,  and  engineering  design  approvals  as  the  Preferred  Alternative.

These  would  include  the  most  current  National  Pollution  Discharge  Elimination  System  (NPDES) programs associated with construction and post‐construction stormwater management and surface water quality standards; a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to obtain coverage under the State’s NPDES Construction General Permit; and the development, approval, and implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). No aspect of Alternative 2 would require deviation from these regulatory requirements and the associated stormwater controls. As discussed In the DIER Alternatives discussion under Utilities and Service Systems, Alternative 2 would require more water to irrigate the 18‐hole golf course than would be required for the Preferred Alternative; however, this increase in water demands was determined not to substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere  with  groundwater  recharge.  Therefore,  after  following  the  regulatory  program requirements  designed  specifically  to  prevent  hydrologic,  stormwater  and  surface  water impairments, the impacts resulting from Alternative 2 would be similar to the Preferred Alternative and less than significant.

Revised Project
The  disturbed  area  associated  with  the  Revised  Project  would  be  the  same  as  the  384.5‐acres disturbed by Alternative 2. Standard engineering design for the Revised Project would be required to comply with City standards for the on‐site retention of storm flows during the 100‐year storm, and would require retention basins and similar facilities. The Revised Project would be subject to the same regulatory requirements, permit coverages, and engineering design approvals as Alternative 2. These would include the most current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs associated  with  construction  and  post‐construction  stormwater  management  and  surface  water quality standards; a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to obtain coverage under the State’s NPDES Construction General Permit; and the development, approval, and implementation of 386 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     42    January 2024
a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). As was the case under Alternative 2, the Revised Project would  have  no  need  for  a  deviation  from  regulatory  requirements  and  associated  stormwater controls.

As  discussed  below  under  the  Utilities  and  Service  Systems  heading,  the  Revised  Project,  like Alternative 2, would  require  similar water quantities  to irrigate  the  18‐hole golf course and other recreational amenities;  however,  this  increase  in water  demand  is  not expected  to  interfere with groundwater recharge or substantially decrease groundwater supplies based on the findings in the WSA for the Revised Project, which determined that there are adequate water supplies available for the Revised Project and all other existing and planned future growth.  Refer to Appendix D for a copy of the WSA for the Revised Project.  Therefore, the Revised Project would not have a significant effect on water supplies or groundwater management efforts. With compliance with regulatory program requirements  designed  specifically  to  prevent  hydrologic,  stormwater  and  surface  water impairments, the impacts resulting from the Revised Project would be the same as Alternative 2 and would be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning
Preferred Alternative
The project site is currently located within the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP 03‐067) area. Under SP‐03‐067, the land use designations for the property includes Low Density Residential, Open Space Recreational, and General Commercial land uses, and the zoning designations  for  the project include Low Density Residential (RL), Golf Course (GC), and Neighborhood Commercial (CN).

The  Preferred  Alternative  proposed  changes  to  the  General  Plan  and  Zoning  Map  consisting  of General Commercial, Low Density Residential, Open Space – Recreation, and Tourist Commercial land use designations, and Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Parks and Recreation, and Tourist Commercial zoning designations.

The DEIR analyzed  the Preferred Alternative’s consistency with the various chapters within  the La Quinta  General  Plan,  Zoning  Code,  and  the  surrounding  area.  Based  on  the  consistency  analysis provided in the DEIR, it was determined that the Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the goals  and  polices  within  the  General  Plan,  and  that  the  Specific  Plan  proposed  for  the  Preferred Alternative would result in changes in development standards, however, those changes would not be substantial. Therefore, impacts to land use and planning were determined to be less than significant.

Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would implement the land uses currently allowed under SP 03‐067, would not require a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, and would not result in impacts to land use or planning since  the  site  is  currently  designated  for  residential,  commercial,  and  golf  uses.  Therefore,  under Alternative 2, there would be no changes in existing land use conditions, or conflicts with any land 387 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     43    January 2024
use plan, policy, or regulation.  Alternative 2 was determined to have reduced land use and planning impacts as compared to the Preferred Alternative.

Revised Project
Similar to Alternative 2, the Revised Project would implement the same residential, commercial and golf  course  land  uses  allowed  under  SP‐03‐067.  Although  the  Revised  Project  includes  minor adjustments to the General Plan land use and zoning maps to coincide with the revised configuration of the residential and golf course layout, these minor map amendments will not amend the land use and zoning designations for the property or introduce any new allowed land uses. Additionally, since the site is currently designated for the same residential, commercial, and golf uses and the Revised Project is not proposing any increases in the densities or intensities of development, it is considered consistent with the existing land use designations and would not result in conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation.

As compared  to  the Preferred Alternative, both  the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would have reduced land use and planning  related impacts because neither  substantially amends  the General Plan  or  zoning  to  allow  Tourist  Commercial  uses,  or  modifies  the  Land  Use  and  Zoning  Maps  to accommodate  a  substantially  different  land  use  pattern.    Impacts  associated  with  land  use  and planning for the Revised Project is considered to be substantially the same as with Alternative 2, and would be less than significant.

Noise
Preferred Alternative
The  DEIR  determined  that  the  Preferred  Alternative  would  result  in  noise  during  short‐term construction activities, and long‐term operational activities.

Construction
Based on the stages of construction, the noise impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative were expected to create temporarily high noise levels at the nearby receiver locations and onsite locations.

However,  the  DEIR  determined  that  construction  noise  would  not  exceed  the  85  dBA  threshold established  by NIOSH  (see Table  4.11‐15 in DEIR). Therefore, with  compliance with  the  City  of  La Quinta’s established hours of construction set forth in Municipal Code, Section 6.08.050, construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

Although the impacts were determined to be less than significant, to lessen construction noise, the Preferred Alternative would be required to implement Mitigation Mesasures NOI‐1 through NOI‐4.

These  mitigation  measures  require:  the  project’s  compliance  with  the  City’s  Municipal  Code requirements  regarding  construction  activities;  construction  contractors  to  equip  all  construction equipment  (fixed  or  mobile)  with  properly  operating  and  maintained  mufflers,  consistent  with industry  standards;  equipment  staging  areas  to  be  located  in  areas  that  will  create  the  greatest 388 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     44    January 2024
distance between construction‐related noise sources and noise‐sensitive receivers; and contractors to design delivery routes to minimize exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck‐related noise.

These mitigation measures are reproduced below:

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.

The  DEIR  also  analyzed  the  Preferred  Alternative‐related  vibration  during  construction.  The  DEIR determined that vibrational impacts to the closest sensitive receiver to the project would be less than significant because the worst‐case construction vibration levels would not exceed the threshold of significance,  as  shown  in  Table  4.11‐27  of  the  DEIR.  Additionally,  onsite  construction  was  not anticipated to significantly impact onsite residents and residential structures since building standards for seismic activity in the area exceed impacts created by vibration of construction activity.  Therefore, impacts of construction‐related vibration would be less than significant.

Operation
The analysis of the Preferred Alternative operation in the DEIR concluded that exterior noise levels perceived  from  the proposed low density residential homes, and the operation of the Wave Basin would  experience  exterior  noise  levels  exceeding  the  City’s  65  dBA  CNEL  exterior  noise  level standards. Thus, Mitigation Measure NOI‐5 requires a minimum block wall of 6 feet in height to be developed along the northern and eastern project boundaries to provide an effective noise barrier, as follows:

NOI‐5:  A  six‐foot  perimeter  wall  will  be  developed  along  the  northern  and  eastern  property boundaries, adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area (PA II), in order to protect the proposed onsite residential uses from off‐site traffic noise. The barriers shall provide  a  weight  of  at  least  four  pounds  per  square  foot  of  face  area  with  no  decorative cutouts or line‐of‐sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier must 389 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     45    January 2024
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.

The  DEIR’s analysis  of  the  operation  of  the  Preferred  Alternative evaluated  the  operational  noise impacts of the Wave Basin/wave machine activity, outdoor pool/spa activity, outdoor activity, and neighborhood commercial land use activity. These noise level impacts would likely vary throughout the day and will be limited to the daytime and evening hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., established in the DEIR as Mitigation Measure NOI‐6, and compliant with the recreational operational hours established by the City of La Quinta:

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.

Overall,  the  DEIR  determined  that  operational  noise  would  be  less  than  significant  with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI‐5 and NOI‐6.

Alternative 2
The Alternatives analysis in  the DEIR determined  that Alternative 2 would  result in an increase of construction‐ and operations‐related noise onsite and in the surrounding area as compared to existing conditions.

Construction
Alternative 2 would result in similar levels of development as the Preferred Alternative, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. However, similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would be required to implement Mitigation Measures NOI‐1 through NOI‐4 (outlined above) to lessen construction noise.

Similar to the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 would result in periodic vibration from the use of heavy equipment during construction. However, these impacts are considered less than significant because  vibrational  impacts  to  the  closest  sensitive  receiver  to  the  project  do  not  exceed  the threshold of significance under the Preferred Alternative, as shown in Table 4.11‐27 of the DEIR, and Alternative 2 will involve very similar construction equipment. Additionally, onsite construction is not anticipated to significantly impact onsite residents and residential structures since building standards for seismic activity in the area exceed impacts created by vibration of construction activity.

Operation
The DEIR concluded that operational noise impacts from Alternative 2 would be less than significant since it proposes uses similar to those in the surrounding area, which consist of residential and golf communities. Alternative 2 would not include the operation of a hotel, resort commercial, or Wave Basin. Because these uses would not be present onsite noise levels would be lower under Alternative

2. Additionally, the operation of Alternative 2 could include special events held on the golf course, 390 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     46    January 2024
but these events are not expected to cause significant noise impacts due to the limited nature of the events  and  the  distance  from  any  off‐site  sensitive  receptors.  Under  Alternative  2,  Mitigation Measure NOI‐6 would not be required.

Alternative 2 would result in a higher number of vehicle trips on City roadways than the Preferred Alternative, which would marginally increase the levels of noise on these roadways. However, given the capacity and the dispersed nature of the trips, noise levels from these trips would not increase ambient  noise  levels  significantly, and  impacts would  not  be  significant.  The  DEIR  concluded  that Alternative  2  would  result  in  reduced  operational  noise  impacts  as  compared  to  the  Preferred Alternative, and neither would result in significant and unavoidable operational noise impacts.

Revised Project
The Revised Project would result in the development and operation of the site with same uses and densities/intensities as Alternative  2, and  therefore, would  result in a  comparable increase in  the noise environment at the project site.

Construction
Construction of the Revised Project would increase the ambient noise level at and surrounding the site in substantially the same manner as under Alternative 2, since the entire site would be developed.

As with Alternative 2, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours by Section 6.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Construction would not occur outside of these hours. The impacts of construction noise, as was determined in the DEIR, would be less than significant, however, the implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI‐1 through NOI‐4 would further lessen such construction noise. The  same mitigation measures as  those proposed in  the DEIR  for  the  Preferred Alternative would be implemented for either Alternative 2 or the Revised Project.

With implementation of these mitigation measures implementation of any Alternative would result in less than significant noise impacts during construction at the site.

Similar  to  the  Preferred  Alternative and  Alternative  2,  development  of  the  Revised  Project would result in periodic vibration during the use of heavy equipment during construction. However, these impacts  are  considered  to  be  less  than  significant  because  the  worst‐case  construction‐related vibration levels do not exceed the threshold of significance under the Preferred Alternative, as shown in Table 4.11‐27 of the DEIR, and the Revised Project will involve very similar construction equipment.

Additionally,  onsite  construction  is  not  anticipated  to  significantly  impact  onsite  residents  and residential structures since building standards for seismic activity in the area exceed impacts created by vibration of construction activity.

Operation
Operational noise  from the Revised Project would be the same as Alternative 2 and would not be considered significant since the proposed low‐density residential, neighborhood commercial and golf 391 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     47    January 2024
uses are similar to those in the surrounding area, which consist of residential and golf communities, and would not involve operation of the Wave Basin, hotel or other tourist/commercial uses.

Similar to Alternative 2, the operation of the Revised Project could include special events on the golf course typical of private country clubs, but these events are not expected to cause significant noise impacts, because they would be restricted to allowable hours established by the City of La Quinta.

Under the Revised Project, Mitigation Measure NOI‐6 would not be required.

Overall, the noise generated by the Revised Project and Alternative 2 would be substantially the same and would be less than significant.

As compared to the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would have reduced operational noise levels due to the removal of the Wave Basin and other resort uses. Although the Revised Project could generate slightly greater roadway noise due to the increase in overall daily trips, these noise levels would be less than significant, like Alternative 2, because of the existing capacity of the roadways and the dispersed nature of the trips.  The Revised Project would result in reduced on‐site noise levels as compared to the Preferred Project, and impacts would be less than significant.

Public Services
Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to fire, and police services with the payment of Development Impact Fees (DIF) in place at the time of construction, which is adequate to mitigate any significant impacts  from new development. Additionally,  the Preferred Alternative would be required to implement all applicable fire safety requirements, to include installation of fire hydrants, and sprinkler systems.

The Preferred Alternative would also be required to pay developer fees to the Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) and a Park and Recreation Fee. The Preferred Alternative would not directly or indirectly induce substantial growth. As such,  the Preferred Alternative would not  result in any substantial adverse physical impacts to existing schools, parks, or other public facilities. Additionally, the  Preferred  Alternative  would  not  generate  an  increase  in  demand  that  would  warrant  the expansion or construction of new public facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Alternative 2
Alternative  2  would  introduce  residents  and  uses  that  would  increase  demand  on  the  City  of  La Quinta’s  public  services.  There  would  be  an  increased  demand  for  police,  fire,  and  emergency services, as well as schools, public facilities, and parks as a result of the development of the proposed 750 low density residential units. However, Alternative 2 would be required to comply with applicable laws and codes imposed by the City and Riverside County Fire Department, and would pay applicable Development  Impact  Fees.  As  a  result,  the  DEIR  determined  that  impacts  would  be  less  than significant.
392 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     48    January 2024
Revised Project
The Revised Project would introduce residents and uses that would increase demand on the City of La Quinta’s public services consistent with Alternative 2. There would be an increased demand for police, fire, and emergency services, as well as schools, public facilities, and parks as a result of the development  of  up  to  750  residential  units.  However,  the  Revised  Project  would  be  required  to comply with applicable laws and codes imposed by the City and Riverside County Fire Department and pay applicable Development Impact Fees. These requirements and fees are designed to offset the demands of new development, apply to all new development, and would apply to the Revised Project just as they would to Alternative 2. As with Alternative 2, impacts will be less than significant.

As compared with the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would result in similar impacts to public services because the Revised Project would develop the 384.5‐acre site and be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to support fire and police infrastructure, a developer fee to CVUSD to support construction and reconstruction of schools, and a Parks and Recreation fee to support parks within La Quinta.  These impacts, however, would be less than significant under either Alternative.

Transportation
Preferred Alternative
The  DEIR  determined  that  the  Preferred  Alternative  would  result  in  a  total  of  10  impacted intersections under build out (Phase 3) conditions.

For  the intersection of Madison Street at Avenue 58, addition of project  traffic would  require  the installation of the traffic signal, and therefore, the required signal would be installed by the project as a  condition  of approval. The  project would  then  be  reimbursed all  costs  beyond  the  fair  share calculation for this improvement.  In addition, the Preferred Alternative would also be responsible for the  installation  of  the  main  access  traffic  signal  at  Madison  Street,  improvements  to  adjacent roadways,  and  fair  share  contributions  to  offsite  improvements  pursuant  to  the  transportation component  of  the  City’s  DIF.  Additionally,  the  project  would  participate  in  the  Traffic  Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program prior to issuance of building permits.

For the remaining deficient study intersections, improvements were determined to be needed under both with or without project conditions. The Preferred Alternative was required to contribute to these CIP‐programmed improvements on a fair share basis, as shown in Table 1.13‐29 of the DEIR, through payment of the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIF).

With the implementation of the Mitigation Measures described in the DEIR, and the imposition of conditions  of  approval,  impacts  associated  with  compliance  with  the  General  Plan  transportation policies would be reduced to less than significant levels. These mitigation measures are:

TRA‐1  The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required by the City of La Quinta. 393 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     49    January 2024
TRA‐2  The  project  proponent  shall  contribute  TUMF  traffic  impact  mitigation  fees  prior  to  the issuance of Building Permits.

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‐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.

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.

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‐11Traffic 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. 394 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     50    January 2024
TRA‐12 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the project proponent shall include the  use  of  Portable  changeable  message  signs  (CMS)  or  moveable mechanical  electronic message boards. CMS will be located at critical locations identified by the La Quinta Police Department (LQPD) and in place 5 days ahead of the event and 2 days after.

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

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

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.

Likewise, build out of the Preferred Alternative, in conjunction with General Plan (2040) cumulative build out conditions would  result in potential impacts, without improvements. However, with  the implementation of project and CIP‐programmed improvements, cumulative transportation impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Project VMT was determined in the DEIR to be potentially significant, but would be reduced by PDFs, which are enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Development Agreement, and would be  anticipated  to  collectively  reduce  project  home‐based  VMT  by  approximately  6%  (from  11.64 VMT/resident to 10.94 VMT/resident).  With this reduction, the home‐based VMT was determined to be less than the City’s VMT residential threshold of 12.98 VMT/resident. In addition, implementation of  the project was anticipated  to  result in a  reduction in Citywide VMT  for service population and would  not  increase  VMT  at  the  regional  level.    Accordingly,  the  DEIR  found  that  the  Preferred Alternative’s VMT impacts were less than significant.

To  ensure  special  events  at  the  Wave  Basin  would  not  result  in  any  significant  hazards  due  to geometric design features or incompatible uses, a queuing analysis was performed for the Preferred Alternative to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the project entries. The results are found in Table 4.13‐28b of the DEIR. Turn bays on surrounding streets were anticipated  to  accommodate  the  estimated  95th  Percentile  queue  length  during Weekend  Special Events. Accordingly, impacts for the Preferred Alternative were determined to be less than significant, 395 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     51    January 2024
following implementation of mitigation measures TRA‐5  through TRA‐7, as well as  the  review and approval process at the City of La Quinta.

In addition, prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department would review the project  site  plan,  and  individual  sub‐area  plans  as  they  are  brought  forward,  to  ensure  safety measures are addressed, including emergency access, consistent with Fire Department and  Police Department  standards.  The  Preferred  Alternative  was  determined  to  have  less  than  significant impacts concerning emergency access.

Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would have the same short‐term construction‐related traffic impacts as the Preferred Alternative because the same project site would be developed over a comparable period of time.  As with the Preferred Alternative, such impacts would be less than significant because a traffic control plan would be required throughout all construction activities.

Alternative 2 was determined in the DEIR to result in an approximately 13% increase in total daily vehicle trips as compared with the Preferred Alternatives, as well as increases in AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 7‐2 of the DEIR.  As a result, the DEIR concluded that Alternative 2 could potentially result in increased impacts at intersections and necessitate additional improvements at area intersections to mitigate these impacts. These impacts are addressed in TRA‐1 and TRA‐2, which call for the payment of DIF and TUMF to fund the project’s fair share of the necessary area roadway improvements.

As is the case with the Preferred Alternative, however, mitigation through the payment of DIF fees and fair share contributions to planned improvements would be expected to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures TRA‐9 through TRA‐14 do not apply to Alternative 2 as they specifically addressed the special events of the Preferred Alternative.

TRA‐15 ensure that the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by the Desert Recreation District Master Plan (DRDMP) and associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into  project  plans. This mitigates  potential impacts  to area  trails.  Both  the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2 would be required to implement this mitigation. Impacts to area trail plans and the DRDMP will be less than significant.

Alternative 2 was also anticipated to have a higher daily VMT and per capita VMT because it would generate more daily trips and lacked the Preferred Alternative’s complementary mix of uses on‐site and enhanced connectivity between those uses. Alternative 2 was expected to generate 13% more trips compared to the Preferred Alternative. This would result in an overall higher VMT for Alternative

2.  Impacts associated with VMT were anticipated to be significant and unavoidable.

Overall, Alternative 2 would generate more daily trips on area roadways, resulting in increased VMT impacts and potentially greater LOS impacts, compared to the proposed project. 396 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     52    January 2024
TRA‐3  through  TRA‐7  provide  mitigation  that  addresses  appropriate  project  roadway,  adjacent roadway,  and  access  point  design,  including  approved  unobstructed  sight  distances,  adequate emergency access, and approved signing and striping plans. These Mitigation Measures would be applied to both Alternative 2 and the Revised Project. Following implementation, impacts will be less than significant.

Revised Project
The Revised Project and Alternative 2 would have substantially the same construction and operational impacts regarding transportation because they both involve construction of the same mix of uses on the same project site at the same density and intensity of development.

Short‐term construction vehicle trip impacts would result  from the development of the residential homes, neighborhood commercial center and golf course. However, these impacts would be limited to permitted construction activity hours per the La Quinta Municipal Code and a Traffic Control Plan would  be  required  as  a  condition  of  approval  to  be  implemented  throughout  all  construction activities. Compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that the Revised Project would not have  any  significant  transportation  impacts  during  construction,  similar  to  both  the  Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2.

As was proposed for the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 2, primary access to the site will occur at Madison  Street,  with  secondary  access  from  Avenues  58  and  60.  These  roadways  will  provide adequate public and emergency access into and out of the project for residents, golf club members, as well as employees, vendors, service providers and public safety equipment and personnel.

The  Revised  Project  would  have  the  same  operational  impacts  as Alternative  2  because  it  would develop the same uses on the same property with the same density and intensity of development.  A Supplemental  LOS  Assessment,  which  included  an  update  to  the  trip  generation  and  distribution anticipated for the Revised Project has been completed (see Appendix B). This analysis is based on recent updates to the ITE trip generation tables which occurred with publication of the 11th Edition of  the ITE Manual in 2021  (the 10th Edition of  the Manual was in effect at  the  time  the DEIR was prepared). As a result of this update, an increase in the total peak hour and daily trips shown in the DEIR  for Alternative 2 is  forecast, as shown in Table 15 below. It is important  to note  that should Alternative 2 be studied today, it would show the same increase of 839 trips as the Revised Project because the project components are the same. Notably, Table 15 shows that the increase from the ITE update occurs primarily in the daily trip totals and has little effect on peak hour totals.

397 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     53    January 2024
Table 15 Revised Project and Alternative 2 Trip Generation Comparison Land Use  AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
In Out Total In  Out  Total
Trip Generation Comparison
Revised Project
‐750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course (ITE 11th Edition) 189 402 591 505  329  834 8,762 Alternative 2
‐750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course (ITE 10th Edition)  175 414 589 505  324  829 7,923 Alternative 2 Delta (Revised Project – Alt 2)  14 ‐12 2 0  5  5 839 Source: ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition and ITE Trip Generation 11th Edition.

Table 16 illustrates that the Revised Project would have a higher trip generation than the Preferred Alternative. The increase would amount to 1,768 ADT. Comparatively, if the Preferred Alternative was analyzed today, the numbers would also increase due to revisions in ITE modelling standards.

Table 16 Revised Project and Coral Mountain Trip Generation Comparison Land Use  AM Peak Hour  PM Peak Hour  Daily
In  Out  Total  In  Out  Total
Trip Generation Comparison
Revised Project
‐750 DU SFDR, 60 TSF Retail, 18 Hole Golf Course (ITE 11th Edition) 189  402  591  505  329  834  8,762 Preferred Alternative
‐750 DU Res, 60 TSF Retail, 150 RM Hotel, 12 AC Wave Basin, 15 TSF Village, 16 TSF Farm (ITE 10th Edition)
143  304  447  383  255  638  6,994
Delta (Revised Project – Coral Mountain Resort)  46  98  144  122  74  196  1,768

Source: ITE Trip Generation 10th Edition and ITE Trip Generation 11th Edition Operation of the Revised Project is shown to have an approximately 11 percent increase in total daily trips as compared to Alternative 2, but this increase is solely due to the revisions to the ITE modelling standards  that  were  refined  between  2020  (10th  Edition)  and  2023  (11th  Edition).    However,  the increase in peak hour totals, which is what drives level of service and intersection/roadway impacts increase by less than 1%.

The Supplemental LOS Assessment also analyzed whether the Revised Project would have any new or substantially more severe effects on area roadways and intersections.  Ten existing intersections will fall below acceptable LOS levels with implementation of the Revised Project.  These are the same existing intersections  that would  fall below acceptable LOS levels under  the Preferred Alternative.

The same improvements to these intersections (as well as a traffic signal at the main project entrance and Madison Street) are required to maintain acceptable levels of service for both the Revised Project, Alternative 2 and the Preferred Alternative.

Impacts associated with study roadway segments were slightly higher for the Revised Project when compared  with  the  Preferred  Alternative,  however  the  proposed  roadway  improvements  were 398 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     54    January 2024
identical, including additional access and turning lanes. With roadway improvements, impacts will be less than significant.

Table  17  compares  the  calculated  delay  and  LOS  for  the  Revised  Project  with  the  Preferred Alternative.  Impacts associated with the Revised Project would increase slightly at most intersections with  some  intersections  showing  reductions  in  impacts,  including  the  #19  Project  Main Access/Madison Street AM Peak Hour.  With the same intersection improvements identified in the DEIR, the Revised Project would not result in a significant impact to any intersections.

399 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     55    January 2024
Table 17 Intersection Comparison of Preferred Alternative and Revised Project (2026) Preferred Alternative  Revised Project
#  Intersection  Traffic
Contro
l
3 Delay (Secs)2 Level of Service2 Delay (Secs)2  Level of Service2 AM PM AM PM AM  PM  AM PM
1  Madison St/Avenue 58
‐Without Improvements  AWS  41.6  37.8 E E 19.9 >80 C F ‐With Improvements  TS  29.9  30.9  C  C  27.0 32.1 C C 2  Madison St/Airport Blvd.  TS  10.5  10.8  B  B  9.5 10.7 A B 3  Madison St./ Avenue 54
‐Without Improvements  AWS  45.9 39.3 E E >80 >80 F F
‐With Improvements  TS  42.6  41.4  D  D  42.3 52.8 D D 4  Madison St./ Avenue 52  TS 32.3 32.0 C C 32.4 33.4 C C 5  Madison St./ Avenue 50  TS 32.5 32.5 C C 32.3 33.7 C C 6  Jefferson St./ Avenue 54
‐Without Improvements  AWS  >80  >80 F F 57.6 >80 F F
‐With Improvements  TS  21.9  21.8  C  C  22.6 22.7 C C 7  Jefferson St./ Avenue 52
‐Without Improvements  RDB  >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐With Improvements  RDB  13.5  13.4  B  B  17.5 34.8 C D 8  Jefferson St./ Pomelo  TS 29.0  28.9  C  C  19.5 35.9 B D 9  Jefferson St./ Avenue 50
‐Without Improvements  TS  48.1  48.1  D  D  53.2 60.3 D E ‐With Improvements  TS  47.3 47.3 D D 52.0 51.7 D D
10  Madison St./ Avenue 60  AWS  12.7 13.9 B B 10.5 15.4 B C 11  Monroe St./Avenue 60
‐Without Improvements  AWS  47.0 45.2 E E 32.7 >80 D F
‐With Improvements  TS 35.3  35.4  D  D  34.8 38.3 C D
12  Monroe St./Avenue 58
‐Without Improvements  AWS  >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐With Improvements  TS 30.2 30.4  C C  26.6 41.1 C D
13  Monroe St./Airport Blvd
‐Without Improvements  AWS  66.3 66.4 F F >80 >80 F F
‐With Improvements  TS  22.9  22.8  C  C 24.5 26.3 C C
14  Monroe St./ Avenue 54
‐Without Improvements  AWS  >80 >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐With Improvements  TS  32.6 32.6 CC 35.2 38.0 D D
15  Monroe St./ Avenue 52
‐Without Improvements  AWS  >80  >80 F F >80 >80 F F
‐With Improvements  TS  34.3 34.3 C  C  34.2 45.3 C D
16  Monroe St./ 50th Avenue  TS  20.7  20.7  C  C  17.9 26.0 B C 17  Jackson St./ 58th Avenue  AWS  14.6  14.6  B  B  10.1 23.4 B C 18  S. Access/ Avenue 60  CSS 8.9  8.9  A  A  9.0 9.1 A A 19  Madison St/Main Access  CSS 30.9  32.2  D  D  13.2 12.3 B B 20  Project Access 1/Ave. 58  CSS 12.6  12.1  B  B  10.1 11.1 B B 21  Project Access 2/Ave. 58  CSS 9.9  10.3  A  B  9.4 10.0 A A 22  Madison St /Project Access 3  CSS 11.0 11.1 B B 9.7 11.8 A B 23  Madison  St/Golf  Course  S.

Access
‐  ‐ ‐‐‐ 10.3 11.3 B B
The applicable Mitigation Measures  for  both Alternative  2 and  the  Revised  Project are Mitigation Measures TRA‐1 through TRA‐8 and TRA‐15. Following implementation of these Mitigation Measures, regulatory  requirements,  and  conditions  of  approval,  impacts  are  anticipated  to  be  less  than 400 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     56    January 2024
significant. The following improvements are necessary with the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2 and the Revised Project.

Full Improvements:
 Madison Street at Project Main Access entrance
Traffic Signals:
 Madison Street at Avenue 58
 Madison Street at Project Main Access
 Madison Street at Avenue 54
 Jefferson Street at Avenue 54
 Monroe Street at Avenue 60
 Monroe Street at Avenue 58
 Monroe Street at Airport Boulevard
 Monroe Street at Avenue 54
 Monroe Street at Avenue 52
Lane Improvements:
 Jefferson Street at Avenue 50  Project South Access at Avenue 60  Project Access 1 at Avenue 58  Project Access 2 at Avenue 58  Madison Street at Project Access 3 Roundabout:
 Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 – (reconstruction of the current roundabout design) As  described  in  the  DEIR,  these  improvements  would  be  required under  all  Alternatives,  and  the appropriate fair share contribution towards these improvements would be calculated based on trip generation impacts to study intersections as illustrated in Table 18.

Finally, the Supplemental LOS Assessment identifies the Revised Project’s fair share contribution to the need  for  future intersection improvements  throughout  the project  study area, which are very similar  to  the  Preferred Alternative, with  slight increases at most intersections  due  to  the  slightly increased peak hour trip generation rate of the Revised Project. The Revised Project will be required to  provide  fair  share  mitigation  payments  toward  planned  improvements  at  two  additional intersections (#16 and #17). The Revised Project would also construct an additional access point at #23 Madison Street and Golf Course South Access.

401 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     57    January 2024
Table 18 Project Fair Share Contributions Comparison (2026) Intersection #  Intersection  Preferred Alternative  Revised Project 1  Madison Street/Avenue 58  23%  29%
3  Madison Street/Avenue 54  9%  11%
6  Jefferson Street/Avenue 54  4%  5%
7  Jefferson Street/Avenue 52  2%  3%
9  Jefferson Street/Avenue 50  2%  3%
11  Monroe Street/Avenue 60  6%  8%
12  Monroe Street/Avenue 58  11%  14%
13  Monroe Street/Airport Blvd  6%  8%
14  Monroe Street/Avenue 54  5%  6%
15  Monroe Street/Avenue 52  4%  5%
16  Monroe Street/50th Avenue  ‐  4%
17  Jackson Street/58th Avenue  ‐  12%
Based on the foregoing comparison, the Revised Project will not have any new or substantially more severe effects on intersections and roadways than the Preferred Alternative project, and such impacts associated with compliance with General Plan transportation policies, would be less than significant following  the  implementation  of Mitigation Measures,  regulatory  requirements  and  conditions  of approval.

The  Revised  Project  is  anticipated  to  have  slightly  higher  daily  VMT  and  per  capita  VMT  than Alternative 2 analyzed in the DEIR, due solely to the increased trip generation rates adopted by ITE with its most recent update.  It is noted that if Alternative 2 were analyzed today the trip generation data would be identical to the Revised Project because the model inputs (number of homes, square footage of commercial, etc.) would be identical. A Supplemental VMT Assessment was prepared for the Revised Project, which is attached as Appendix C.  As compared with the Preferred Alternative, the Revised Project would have slightly higher daily and per capita VMT because the mix of uses in the Revised Project (and Alternative 2) generate more daily trips. As shown in Table 19, residential home‐based VMT would be 13.14 per resident which very slightly exceeds the Citywide home‐based VMT of  12.98 per  resident which is  shown in Table  21.  Also as  shown in Table  19,  the  Preferred Alternative would result in a home‐based VMT of 11.64, which is slightly below the Citywide home‐ based VMT, with implementation of on‐site Project Design Features that would increase trip capture in the Preferred Alternative.

Table 19 Preferred Alternative Baseline and Cumulative Project Residential Home‐Based VMT Category  Project 2012  Project 2040  Project 2020
(interpolated)
Residents  1,698 1,698  1,698
VMT  19,437  20,642  19,773
VMT / Resident  11.45  12.14  11.64
402 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA COMPLIANCE MEMO
Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR     58    January 2024
Table 20 Revised Project Baseline and Cumulative Project Residential Home‐Based VMT Category  Project 2012  Project 2040  Project 2020
(interpolated)
Residents  1,875 1,875  1,875
VMT  23,993  26,232  24,632
VMT / Resident  12.80  13.99  13.14
Table 21 Base Year Citywide Home‐Based VMT
Category  City of La Quinta
VMT  544,993
Population  42,000
VMT / Resident  12.98
The non‐residential VMT also increases slightly with the Revised Project over the previously proposed project.  As shown in Table 22, the sub‐regional link‐level VMT per service population with the Revised Project would be 21.57, as compared to 21.53 VMT per service population attributed to the Preferred Alternative.