La Quinta City Council
August 6, 2024

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
The City's Approval of the Project:

On May 22, 2017, the City issue a notice of preparation for the Project. On September 20, 2018, the City released a 600-page Draft EIR (DEIR) for the Project. (AR 4086-4087, 1321.) The City issued the Final EIR3 on April 12, 2019. (AR 4087.) The City conducted a public hearing on the EIR in May 2019. (AR 5-156, 4410-11.) Thereafter, on June 3, 2019, the City's Advisory Agency, certified the EIR, adopted the CEQA findings and a mitigation, monitoring and reporting program (MMRP}, and approved the Project.4 (AR 5-156, 4410-11.) Two entities appealed the Advisory Agency's decision on June 13, 2019.5 (AR 6715, 6869.) The appeals raised concerns about the Project's construction noise and air quality impacts. (AR 3574-77, 6869-80.} The City Planning Commission (CPC) heard and denied the appeals on August 26, 2019. The CPC certified the EIR and affirmed the Advisory Agency's Project approval. (AR 157-312, 4412-4420, 4425-4427, 4429-4531.)
On September 5, 2019, Petitioner appealed the CPC's decision. (AR 8457-8464.) On October 29, 2019, after holding another public hearing, the City's Planning and Land Use Management Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the full City Council deny the appeals and approve the Project. (AR 440-445, 4543-4547, 4548- 4602.) At a public meeting on November 12, 2019, the City Council voted unanimously to deny the appeals and approve the Project. (AR 709-710, 4603-4623.)
The writ petition ensued.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing an agency's compliance with CEQA during the course of its legislative or quasilegislative actions, the trial court's inquiry during a mandamus proceeding" 'shall extend only to whether there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion,' " which is established " 'if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.' " (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 426 [citing Pub. Resources Code§ 21168.5).) "In evaluating an EIR for CEQA compliance, ... a reviewing court must adjust its scrutiny to the nature of the alleged defect, depending on whether the claim is predominantly one of improper procedure or a dispute over the facts." (Id. at 435.)
3 The court refers to the Final EIR herein as the EIR. The court designates any specific references to the Draft EIR as DEIR herein.
4 The Advisory Agency also approved the tract map on June 3, 2019. (AR 4299.) The City issued three errata to the EIR during the administrative review process: Erratum No. 1 on July 26, 2019; Erratum No. 2 on August 7, 2019; and Erratum No. 3 on October 18, 2019. (AR 4326.) 5 American Florists Exchange, Ltd. and the Coalition for Responsible Equitable Economic Development appealed the Advisory Agency's decision.

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CEQA requires an EIR to "be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences." (Guidelines6 § 15151; Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 516.) "An EIR's designation of a particular environmental effect as 'significant' does not excuse the El R's failure to reasonably describe the nature and magnitude of the adverse effect." (Id. at 514.) "[TI here must be a disclosure of the 'analytic route the ... agency traveled from evidence to action.' " (laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.

Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404.) "[A] conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence." (Friant Ranch, supra, 6 Cal.5th at 514.) If the deficiencies in an EIR preclude "informed decisionmaking and public participation, the goals of CEQA are thwarted and a prejudicial abuse of discretion has occurred." (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 128.)
"Where the alleged defect is that the agency has failed to proceed in the r:nanner required by law, the court determines de novo whether the agency has employed the correct procedures, scrupulously enforcing all legislatively mandated requirements." ( Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 839, 845.) With respect to "alt substantial evidence challenges, an appellant challenging an EIR for insufficient evidence must lay out the evidence favorable to the other side and show why it is lacking. Failure to do so is fatal. A reviewing court will not independently review the record to make up for appellant's failure to carry his burden." (Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 cal.App.4th 1261, 1266.) Moreover, "the reviewing court 'may not set aside an agency's approval of an EIR on the ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable,' for, on factual questions, our task 'is not to weigh conflicting evidence and determine who has the better argument.' " (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova, supra, 40 Cal.4th at 435.)
"Regardless of what is alleged, an EIR approved by a governmental agency is presumed legally adequate, and the party challenging the EIR has the burden of showing otherwise." (Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th at 846.) Ill
Ill
6 The CEQA Guidelines are found at Title 14 Cal. Code Regs §§ 15000 et seq.

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

ANALYSIS
Petitioner contends the EIR analysis of the Project's environmental impacts is flawed as to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, air quality and noise. The court addresses the claims in turn.

GHG Impacts:

Petitioner claims the City's analysis under the "first significance threshold"7 does not comply with CEQA. Petitioner's arguments arise in three general categories that are all related in some way to the City's selection of a significance threshold for GHG impacts. First, Petitioner contends the EIR's GHG analysis is inaccurate, confusing and misleading. Second, Petitioner asserts the City selected an inappropriate significance threshold. Third, Petitioner argues the EIR fails as an informal document for decisionmakers and informed public participation because it omits any analysis of Senate Bill (SB) 32 codified at Health and Safety Code section 38566.

Guidelines section 15064.4, subdivision (a) provides: "A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to: (1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance based standards." Thus, under the Guidelines, the City had the option of selecting a quantitative or qualitative significance threshold for GHG emissions "based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." (Guidelines§ 15064, subd. (b).) Further, "California's CEQA Guidelines ... recognize that an agency's adoption of a threshold of significance requires an exercise of reasoned judgment." (Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 206.) A city's choice of a significance threshold "will be upheld if founded on substantial evidence." (Ibid.) First, Petitioner argues the City's "discussion of the GHG significance thresholds violates CEQA" because "it is inaccurate and confusing." (Reply 5:33 [emphasis added].) The court disagrees. A reasonable reading of the EIR and the City's selection of a significance threshold does not support Petitioner's claim.

The City explained because the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the City "have yet to adopt project-level significance thresholds for GHG emissions that would be applicable to the Project," the City obtained its primary direction for GHG emissions analysis from the Guidelines. (AR 917.) The City reported a project could have a significant environmental impact if the project generated GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment, or if the project would conflict with "an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions" of GHG. (AR 14:917.) After a straight-forward plain language discussion in plain in 7 Petitioner contends the City has relied upon two significance thresholds for GHG emissions. As discussed herein, the court disagrees. The EIR provides a single threshold of significance for GHG emissions.

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
the EIR concerning the selection of significance thresholds, the City reported "the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment if it is found to be consistent with the applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions." (AR 920.) The City thereafter set forth the applicable plans and policies for which it considered consistency in the context of GHG emissions. (AR 14:920.) The EIR methodically discusses the Project and the applicable plans and policies. Petitioner has not demonstrated the EIR's significance threshold discussion would mislead or confuse decisionmakers or public participants.

Second, without expressly so stating, much of Petitioner's argument related to GHG emissions theorizes the City abused its discretion in deciding not to use a quantitative threshold of significance for the Project. Petitioner contends the SCAQMD quantitative thresholds of significance should have been used for the Project as they are "the most appropriate ... to apply because the Project is a mixed-use project." (Opening Brief 14:17-18.) Petitioner thus contends the City engaged in "threshold shopping" for the Project. Petitioner speculates the City uses the SCAQMD's recommended thresholds of significance "to analyze projects where emissions are below the threshold." (Opening Brief 14:32-35.) Petitioner cites three such projects in the City's downtown area where the City used SCAQMD's thresholds of significance to find a project's GHG emissions had less than significant impacts. (AR 6495-6496.) The City explained it elected not to rely on SCAQMD's 2008 draft guidance (as revised in 2010) because neither the City nor SCAQMD "has adopted numeric thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions for land use development projects (e.g., residential/commercial projects) such as the Project." (AR 2820.) The City elaborated:

As further explained in the Draft EIR, in 2008, the SCAQMD convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents. In December 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted interim GHG significance thresholds for projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. That threshold uses a tiered approach to determine a project's significance, with 10,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) per year as a screening numerical threshold for stationary sources. In September 2010, the Working Group released additional revisions that recommended a screening threshold of 3,500 MTCO2e for residential projects, 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial projects, and 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed use projects. The SCAQMD has not since adopted those thresholds, nor has the SCAQMD provided a timeline for formal consideration of those thresholds.

In the meantime, the thresholds in the SCAQMD's guidance document are used as a non-binding guide. A lead agency is not required under CEQA to rely on draft regulatory standards that have not been adopted as significance thresholds. (AR 2820-2821.)

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
While the City may have chosen to use the SCAQMD's guidance as thresholds of significance (as it apparently has done with at least three other projects) in the past, the City was not required to do so. (Guidelines§ 15064.7, subd. (c). See also Guidelines§ 15064.4, subd. (b)(3).) The Guidelines do "not mandate the use of absolute numerical thresholds to measure the significance of greenhouse gas emissions." (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 221.) Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating the City's selection of the significance threshold is not supported by substantial evidence.

Third, Petitioner contends the EIR's GHG emissions analysis is inconsistent with SB 32. That is, Petitioner attacks the City's finding the Project is "consisten[t] with the policies in SB 32 and Executive Order B-30-15, which includes the GHG reduction goals codified in SB 32." (Opposition Brief 17:2-3.) Petitioner contends "[t]he EIR includes compliance with Executive Order B-30-15 on the list of measures it must comply with for the Project's GHG emissions to be considered insignificant ... and the Project does not comply with that executive order." (Reply 8:22-25.) Petitioner is correct to the extent there is no substantial evidence to support the City's position on Executive Order (EO) B-30-15.

As an initial matter, the City and Flower Growers argue Petitioner failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on the issue of "CARB's 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides strategies to achieve the 2040 GHG emission goals set in SB 32." (Opposition Brief 17:12-14.) The court disagrees. The broader issue of overall compliance with SB 32-however that might be achieved-was squarely presented to the City during the administrative proceedings.

SWAPE8 specifically raised the issue of SB 32 in its written comments to the DEIR. (AR 2900, 2922.) SWAPE wrote:

AB 32 requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

However, in September 2016, prior to the release of the IS/MND, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 32, enacting Health and Safety Code § 38566. [] This statue ("SB 32") requires California to achieve a new, more aggressive 40% reduction in GHG emissions over the 1990 levels by 2030. 'This 40 percent reduction is widely acknowledged as a necessary interim target to ensure that California meets its longer-range goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.' Therefore, by failing to demonstrate consistency with the reduction targets set forth by SB 32, the Project may conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. As a result, the Project may have a potentially significant impact that was not previously addressed in the DEIR, and as such, a revised EIR should be prepared. (AR 2922.)
8 SWAPE is an acronym for Soil Water Air Protection Enterprises. SWAPE provides technical consultation, data analysis, and litigation support for the environment. (AR 2927.)

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
SWAPE also advised the City-with expert opinion-"to reach the statewide goal of 259 MTCOie, California would have to reduce its emissions by 49 percent below the 'business-asusual' levels. This reduction target indicates that compliance with these more aggressive reduction goals, beyond what is mandated by AB 32, will be necessary." {AR 2923.) As acknowledged by the City and Flower Growers, the legislature codified EO B-30-15 at SB 32. (Opposition Brief 17:3.} Executed by Governor Brown on April 29, 2015, two years before the notice of preparation, EO B-30-15 provides in part:
"A new interim statewide greenhouse emission reduction target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is established in order to ensure California meets its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."
SB 32, codified at Health and Safety Code section 38566, effective January 1, 2017 (prior to the City's notice of preparation) provides:
"In adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions authorized by this division, the state board shall ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit no later than December 31, 2030."
The EIR reports the Project's GHG emissions are "consistent"9 with EO B-30-15. (AR 926.) The EIR's discussion of EO B-30-15 in its "Consistency Analysis" reports the order's target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. (AR 926-927.) In fact, the EIR suggests the Project is actually consistent and compliant with EO B-30-15: "As such, given the reasonably anticipated decline in Project emissions once fully constructed and operational, the Project is consistent with the Executive Order's horizon-year goal."10 (AR 926.) The issue raised by Petitioner is whether there is substantial evidence for the EIR's claim to decisionmakers and public participants the Project does not conflict with E0 B-30-15-"an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions" of GHG. (AR 14:917.) The City's position of consistency with EO B-30-15 requires substantial evidence.
9 "Consistent" means "marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity" and "marked by agreement." (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consistent.) 10The EIR's use of a singular possessive form as opposed to a plural possessive form makes the analysis where the EIR discusses two executive orders unclear. In any event, the statement implies quantitative compliance with required GHG emission reductions by 2030. The City's findings, however, make clear the City intended the statement to apply to both executive orders. (AR 235.)

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Certainly, the EIR acknowledges a 2030 GHG emissions target exists under the law; in its Consistency Analysis, however, the EIR provides no information about that target or how the Project's GHG emissions are consistent with it. The EIR's claim "the Project's post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets and Executive Order ... B-30-15" appears to be unsupported by substantial evidence. (AR 927.)
Moreover, the EIR reports "[m]any of the emission reduction strategies recommended by CARB would serve to reduce the Project's post-2020 emissions level to the extent applicable by law .... " (AR 927 [emphasis added].) The EIR, however, provides no analysis to support the claim the Project's GHG emissions comply with Health and Safety Code section 38566. That is, "applicable law."11 In fact, the only evidence on the issue suggests otherwise. (AR 2923 [49 percent reduction required for compliance versus Project's 33 percent reduction].) During argument the Flower Growers directed the court to evidence the City could have considered to find the Project is consistent with EO B-30-15. The evidence, however, is not substantial evidence supporting the claim the Project's post-2020 emissions will be reduced to the level required by EO B-30-15 as reported in the EIR.

For example, the EIR's discussion of EO B-30-15 explains "a statewide GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030." (AR 902.) Citing a "recent study," the EIR reports "the state's existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the state to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (consistent with Executive Order B-30- 15), and to 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050." (AR 903.) While the City cited the study by footnote, the study did not address the Project and its GHG emissions.12 Thus, the discussion and study are not substantial evidence of the Project's compliance with EO B-30-15.

In addition, the Project's reduction in GHG emissions related to design features (AR 924-925) does not address compliance with EO B-30-15. The order sets forth a quantitative standard. The EIR's general reference to design features and GHG does not inform on consistency with that quantitative standard.
11 The City found, "As such, the Project's post-2020 emissions trajectory is expected to follow a declining trend, consistent with the 2030 and 2050 targets and Executive Order S-3-05 and B-30-

15." (AR 235 [emphasis added].) The statement is misleading because it implies the Project meets EO 8-30-lS's emissions target when there is no substantial evidence to support the City's position.
12 The court does not have access to the study cited in the footnote. The El R's narrative suggests the study concerned "various combinations of policies" to assist emission levels to "remain very low through 2050 .•.. " (AR 903.) In the unlikely event the general study addressed the Project, the court notes "a report 'buried in an appendix,' is not a substitute for 'a good faith reasoned analysis .... '" (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 941 [citation omitted].)

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
The EIR's discussion of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) does address GHG emission reductions. (AR 911, 930-931.) The discussion, however, does not inform on the Project's consistency with EO B-30-15.

Finally, relying on Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, the City argues it had no obligation to consider EO B-30-15. In Cleveland National Forest Foundation, the petitioners argued the agency "should have evaluated the plan's impacts against an executive order signed" by the governor. (Id. at 503.) The Supreme Court disagreed. The agency in Cleveland National Forest Foundation, however, did not adopt a significance threshold of express consistency with an executive order as the City did here. (See id. at 507 [three measures of significance).) That is, the agency in Cleveland National Forest Foundation did not represent the project was consistent with a particular executive order and establish its significance threshold in p~rt on such consistency.

Based on the foregoing, the court finds the EIR's claim of consistency with EO B-30-15 and the policies therein is not supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the EIR's conclusions that GHG emissions do not exceed the City's chosen significance threshold is unsupported. The City abused its discretion in finding GHG emissions would not have a substantial environmental impact. "[A] conclusory discussion of an environmental impact that an EIR deems significant can be determined by a court to be inadequate as an informational document without reference to substantial evidence." (Friant Ranch, supra, 6 Cal.5th at 514.) Petitioner is entitled to relief based on the EIR's incomplete discussion of GHG emission impacts.13 Air Quality Impacts:

The EIR reports the Project's construction emissions would cause significant regional and local air quality impacts based on nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). (AR 843.) Thus, the Project required mitigation measures for air quality impacts. (AR 843.) Petitioner contends the EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate construction-related impacts on air quality.
13 During argument, the parties argued about the meaning of Table 4.F-5. (AR 922.) The City contended the table calculations demonstrated compliance with EO B-30-15 while Petitioner argued it did not. The narrative accompanying the table indicates the Project is consistent with the 2014 Revised AB 32 Scoping Plan because of a reduction target of 15.3 percent. There is no discussion of EO B-30-15. Whether the table's information is consistent with EO 8-3-15-and the court could not determine one way or the other even after the aid of argument-is unclear and does not inform decisionmakers or public participation.

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

1. Mitigation Measure (MM) C-1
MM C-1 requires "(a]II off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower" satisfy United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "Tier 4 emissions standards to reduce NOx and PM2.5 emissions at the Project Site." (AR 849.) The EIR states "[a]ny emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations." (AR 849.)
"For projects for which an EIR has been prepared, where substantial evidence supports the approving agency's conclusion that mitigation measures will be effective, courts will uphold such measures against attacks based on their alleged inadequacy." (Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1027.) A reviewing court, however, will not defer to the agency if there is no substantial evidence in the record showing the mitigation measure is feasible and effective, or if the feasibility or effectiveness of the mitigation measure "def[ies] common sense." (Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1116-1117.) Petitioner contends MM C-1 is both ineffective and infeasible.

The parties' argument here centers on the meaning of Tier 4 standards for the construction equipment to be used for the Project. Petitioner contends there are two Tier 4 standards-an interim standard and a final standard.14 Petitioner reports the CalEEMod calculations are based on a Tier 4 final standard-an assumption all construction equipment used for the Project with a horsepower greater than 50 comply Tier 4 final standards. (AR 2908 [citing Appendix E-1]; see also AR 1475-1478, 1507-1510, 1544-1547.) Therefore, to the extent MM C-1 permits the Flower Growers to use equipment with a Tier 4 interim standard, the required mitigation will not be achieved. That is, the CalEEMod calculation on which the effectiveness of MM C-1 is based assumes a Tier 4 final standard for all construction equipment exceeding 50 horsepower.

MM C-1, however, does not require all equipment to be Tier 4 final compliant.

The City dismisses Petitioner's claim as nothing more than a "red herring." (Opposition 21:18.) The City reasons Tier 4 "interim" standards were only in effect for a short period of time for certain manufacturers. The interim period ended in 2018 well before the City issued the EIR in 2019. (AR 2803, 4303-4304.) The EIR explains:
"Tier 4 engines have been phased in nationwide since 2008 for all engine types. While some manufacturers were given limited flexibilitY. to phase in compliant engines under the Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers (TPEM), this provided up 14 There seems to be no dispute Tier 4 final standards are more stringent (allow less emissions) than Tier 4 interim standards. (AR 2909, 2803.)

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
to seven years of additional time to offer such equipment. For engines less than 56 horsepower (hp), this TPEM period ended at the end of 2014. Engines between 56- 130 hp had until the end of 2018, while larger engines of 130 hp or more ended at the end of 2017. As a result, Tier 4 equipment is commercially available from all manufacturers, especially for common types of equipment to be used during the construction phases for this Project." (AR 2803 [emphasis added].) The City sidesteps and avoids the issue. (See AR 6621-6622.) MM C-1 relies on Tier 4 equipment. CalEEMod calculations-demonstrating effective mitigation-are based on Tier 4 final standards for construction equipment exceeding 50 horsepower. The City does not require, however, that all equipment exceeding SO horsepower used for construction have been manufactured in 2019 and later-that is, when Tier 4 final standards were required. Thus, MM C-1 permits, for example, construction equipment with 130 horsepower manufactured in 2018 under the Tier 4 interim standard to be used on the Project. To the extent the City permits such equipment to be used, it would be inconsistent with CalEEMod calculations and undermine the mitigation.

During argument, the City suggested its interpretation of MM C-1 requires equipment for the Project to use Tier 4 final standards. The City contends its CalEEMod calculations support its intent. That is, if the City did not intend for all equipment to meet such standards it would not have used such a setting in its CalEEMod calculations. 15 The City also noted the Flower Growers concede MM C-1 requires Tier 4 final standard engines and so advised the City: "It should be noted that the measure refers to the use of Tier 4-certified engines, not the less effective Tier 4-interim certified engines." (AR 10136.)
The MMRP will require compliance with Tier 4 final standards for MM C-1. Whether the Project is complying with MM C-1 will not turn on the good faith of an "on-the-hood-of-a-truck" analysis of the mitigation measure by a contractor, as suggested by Petitioner during argument.

Instead, the MMRP requires:
"[S]pecifically during the construction phase and prior to the issuance of building permits, the [Flower Growers] shall retain an independent Construction Monitor (either via the City or through a third-party consultant), approved by the City of 15 Additionally, the City differentiated between Tier 4 standards (which the City considers final standards) and Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers (TPEM) standards in the EIR.

Thus, the City's language in MM C-1 would not support two Tier 4 standards, final and interim.

Under the City's view, there is a Tier 4 standard and a TPEM standard. If the City had intended to include an "interim" Tier 4 standard in the MM, it would have used TPEM. In any event, this distinction provides additional support to the City's intent and the enforceable performance standard used for the MM.

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Los Angeles Department of City Planning, who shall be responsible for monitoring implementation of Project design features and mitigation measures during construction activities consistent with the monitoring phase and frequency set forth in this [MMRP)." (AR 143.)
Thus, while MM C-1 could have been more precise, the City's intent is clear, and the MM contains a specific performance standard. Moreover, the Flower Growers have acknowledged MM C-1 requires construction equipment with Tier 4 final standards (or its equivalent) be used for the Project. The MMRP will "ensure compliance during project implementation." (Pub.

Resources Code § 21081.6, subd. (a).)
While Petitioner contends the City uses a performance standard addressing only particulate but not NOx emissions (Opening Brief 18:14-19}, the court is unpersuaded. MM C-1 requires any construction equipment meet both standards-Tier 4 final and a Level 3 diesel emission control strategy. (AR 849 ["In addition"].)
Based on the foregoing, the court finds the City's determination MM C-1 will be effective at mitigating air quality impacts to a less-than-significant level during construction is supported by substantial evidence.
a. Feasibility and Enforceability of MM C-1
According to Petitioner, MM C-1 "does not provide either feasible or enforceable means to ensure significant air quality impacts will be avoided." (Opening Brief 19:5-6.) Petitioner argues MM C-1 is inadequate to ensure avoidance of significant impacts to the air quality "because of practical obstacles in obtaining the required technology." (Opening Brief 19:10-11.) Petitioner reports while Tier 4 standards have been phased in for construction equipment manufactured since 2008 (Tier 4 interim) and 2014 (Tier 4 Final), "a large portion of the construction equipment currently in use was manufactured to lower standards." (Opening Brief 19:16-17 [citing AR 2910-2911).)16 Petitioner contends the City's claim Tier 4 standards construction equipment is readily available is unsupported by substantial evidence. Thus, Petitioner claims the EIR's conclusion supporting feasibility-the availability of equipmentfails.

Petitioner's argument alleging a lack of appropriate construction equipment is based on speculation. Petitioner's reliance on a seven-year-old report from 2014-just after Tier 4 final 16 "In 2014, 25% of all offroad equipment in the state of California were equipped with Tier 2 engines, approximately 12% were equipped with Tier 3 engines, approximately 18% were equipped with Tier 4 Interim engines, and only 4% were equipped with Tier 4 Final engines."

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
standards phased in-does not meet Petitioner's burden on the issue. The City's position "it is reasonable to conclude that the market has produced many more Tier 4-compliant engines" since 2014 is reasonable and appropriate given Petitioner's speculation. (Opposition 23:2-3.} This is especially true given the passage of time and such equipment being available from all manufacturers. (AR 2806.)
More importantly, if Flower Growers cannot secure specific Tier 4 equipment as required by MM C-1, Flower Growers will be required to "work with the City's Building and Safety Department on equivalent alternatives that minimize tailpipe emissions from off-road equipment." (AR 2803.) The term "equivalent" means the Flower Growers must demonstrate the proffered alternative "meets or exceeds" Tier 4 standards thereby meeting necessary emission reductions in NOx and PM2.5. (AR 4303-4304.)
.Based on the speculative nature of Petitioner's claim concerning feasibility, the court finds Petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating the City abused its discretion when it found MM C-1 is feasible.17

2. Air Quality Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Petitioner takes issue with the City's selection and identification of sensitive receptors and their proximity to the Project. The flaw, according to Petitioner, undermines the El R's air quality analysis.

Petitioner notes the EIR identifies the "nearest" sensitive receptors at distances of 220 (school}, 240 (apartment building), 440 (apartment building) and 700 (apartment building) feet from the Project. (AR 836.) Petitioner reports there is an apartment building within 55 feet of the Project and another closer than 240 feet. (AR 778, 3173, 6874-6875.) Petitioner argues that these omissions are misleading by creating the impression for decisionmakers and the participating public there are few sensitive uses in close proximity to the Project.18 To the extent selection of a group of sensitive receptors is a methodology issue, the City is entitled to deference on its methodology.19 Thus, the decision is subject to substantial evidence review. (City of long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 898.) 17 The court's finding MM C-1 is effective sufficiently responds to Petitioner's claim concerning enforceability.
18 Additionally, Petitioner argues the El R's air quality impacts on sensitive receptors is inadequate because it relies on the MM C-1 to render the impact less than significant. Of course, the court's earlier analysis of MM C-1 would be equally applicable here. 19 That said, the court is not persuaded the issue is, in fact, a methodology issue.

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
The City's use of SCAQMD guidance on the issue does not actually support selection issues. That is, nothing in the SCAQMD guidance instructs on selection of sensitive receptors over others. (AR 832-848, 845.) Thus, the SCAQMD guidance is not substantial evidence.

In the EIR, the City "disclose[d] the location of a number of representative sensitive receptors near the Project Site" including residential and non-residential uses. (AR 7232.) The City's response to public comment is instructive:
"Almost all of the other residential uses identified by the commentor are at the same distance from the Project site as the Santee Court Apartments (i.e., the Santee Village Apartments) or even a further distance away from the Project site (i.e., the Garment Lofts are 40 feet further away than the Santee Court Apartments and the Santee Village Lofts are 60 feet further away than the Santee Court Apartments). Moreover, compliance with SCAQMD's thresholds of significance will avoid any significant impact to any of these sensitive receptors and the EIR demonstrates that mitigated construction emissions would be less than all the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. (Refer to Draft EIR, pages 4.C-19 through 23.) This conclusion would apply regardless of the location of any receptor pursuant to SCAQMD guidance." (AR 7232; see also AR 3570-3571.) The court finds Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a prejudicial abuse of discretion even assuming the City abused its discretion in its selection of sensitive receptors.

Petitioner has not suggested any legal requirement that every sensitive receptor within close proximity of a Project must be identified. "CEQA requires only that the agency 'use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can' (Guidelines, § 15144), and that the EIR display 'adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure' (Guidelines, § 15151)." (Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 253.)
Further, Petitioner fails to demonstrate the City sampling is misleading-other than to the extent the City did not include every single sensitive receptor in close proximity to the Project.

The City's expert concluded the Project would avoid significant impacts to all receptors in the vicinity because the Project's mitigated construction emissions will fall below SCAQMD's thresholds measured at the source of the emissions. (AR 3570-3571, 4068, 7232.) Petitioner does not suggest with evidence the El R's analysis and conclusions would be different with respect to the omitted sensitive receptors as opposed to the receptors the City considered and analyzed. Accordingly, Petitioner shows no prejudicial abuse of discretion.

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

3. Disclosure of Health Risks Associated with Air Quality Impacts Petitioner argues the Project fails to adequately discuss the connections between potential pollutant emissions and resulting human health impacts. Such analysis, Petitioner contends, is required by Guidelines section 15126.2, subdivision (a).

Petitioner asserts the EIR failed to discuss the health risks related to the estimated level of construction and operational emissions. (AR 827-850.) The EIR therefore does not comply with the Supreme Court's direction in Friant Ranch that a "[p]roject's health effects must be "clearly identified" and the discussion must include "relevant specifics" about the environmental changes attributable to the Project and their associated health outcomes." (Friant Ranch, supra, 6 Cal.5th at 518.)
Further, Petitioner argues the City's 2019 Health Risk Assessment (HRA) does not "fill the gap in the EIR's analysis." (Opening Brief 23:28.) The HRA contains no analysis of operational emissions and merely addresses construction-related emissions of diesel particulate matter. (AR 846.)
Under SCAQMD guidance, an HRA is recommended for "substantial sources of diesel particulate emissions (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities) ... . 11 (AR 846.) The City
determined-and there is no challenge to the City's finding-the "Project would not result in any substantial emissions of toxic air contaminants (TAC) during the construction or operations phase." (AR 846.)
The EIR explains:
"The Project would not result in any substantial emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) during the construction or operations phase. During the construction phase, the primary air quality impacts would be associated with the combustion of diesel fuels, which produce exhaust-related particulate matter that is considered a toxic air contaminant by CARB based on chronic exposure to these emissions. However, construction activities would not produce chronic, long-term exposure to diesel particulate matter. During long-term project operations, the Project does not include typical sources of acutely and chronically hazardous TACs such as industrial manufacturing processes and automotive repair facilities. As a result, the Project would not create substantial concentrations of TACs. In addition, the SCAQMD recommends that health risk assessments be conducted for substantial sources of diesel particulate emissions (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities) and has provided guidance for analyzing mobile source diesel emissions. The Project would not generate a substantial number of truck trips. Based on the limited activity of TAC sources, the Project would not

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
warrant the need for a health risk assessment associated with on-site activities.

Therefore, Project impacts related to TACs would be less than significant." (AR 846; see also AR 2964-66.)
Contrary to Petitioner's position, Friant Ranch, does not require more from the City. The Project does not exceed any SCAQMD significance threshold for air quality impacts or trigger any criteria requiring an HRA.

Petitioner has not met its burden of demonstrating a prejudicial abuse of discretion based on a failure to adequately discuss the connections between potential pollutant emissions and resulting human health impacts.20
Noise Impacts:

Petitioner contends the EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate construction-related environmental impacts as to noise.

1. Disclosure of Impacts to Sensitive Receptors
Petitioner takes issue with the El R's purported failure to analyze the construction-noise impacts at the Textile Building Lofts, a location merely 55 feet from the Project. The EIR does not contain any noise analysis to any sensitive receptors at this location. In fact, the first discussion by the City about the noise impacts to the Textile Building Lofts is contained in Erratum No. 3. (AR 3173, 3342-3343.)
Petitioner contends the City's analysis is flawed. Petitioner believes the daytime ambient noise level of 64.8 dBA, based on measurements on Maple Avenue, is overstated for the Textile Building Lofts. (AR 3343.} The City's inaccurate 64.8 dBA daytime noise level assumption, according to Petitioner, led to a conclusion of only a 1.3 dBA daytime noise level increase such that the Project's construction-noise impacts did not exceed the 5 dBA level noise increase significance threshold. (AR 3343.)
Based on expert opinion, however, Petitioner reports the City's ambient noise level determination failed to take into account the 12-story height of the Textile Building Lofts.

Higher stories have lower ambient noise levels. (AR 10085-10086 [identifying ambient noise is as low as 58.5 for the twelfth floor].) The daytime ambient noise levels are not the same "for all floors of the Textile Building [Lofts] because the higher floors are farther from the road traffic than lower floors." (AR 10085.) Thus, the City's conclusion construction-noise related impacts 20 Petitioner appears to have abandoned the argument in reply.

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
to the Textile Building Lofts is flawed-it is based on an "unsupported assumption about existing ambient noise levels." (Opening Brief 25:15-16.) The City's expert does not address the ambient daytime noise level for the higher floors of the Textile Building Lofts. The City's expert did consider the building, however, using the same methodology used in the DEIR. (AR 4305.) The City's expert determined the Textile Building Lofts would experience an increase in noise based on construction of 1.3 dBA (or less). (AR 3173-74, 7229.)
Further, Project construction-related noise impacts are expected to remain below the City's 5 dBA significance threshold. (AR 3343, 7229.) In a June 19, 2019 memorandum, the City's noise expert explained:
"[T]his [Maple Street for the Textile Building Lofts] baseline noise level is far greater than the 50.8 dBA leq noise level used to represent baseline conditions at the Santee Court Apartments receptor. Utilizing the same construction source and mitigation assumptions that were used for the Santee Court Apartments analysis, as Textile Building Lofts would benefit from the same mitigation measures intended to reduce construction noise impacts at Santee Court Apartments, Textile Building Lofts would be projected to experience a construction-related noise increase of just 1.3 dBA leq, similar to but less than the 1.6 dBA leq impact that would occur at Santee Court Apartments. The noise impact at Textile Building Lofts would not exceed the 5 dBA noise increase threshold; in fact, it would not exceed the 3 dBA leq threshold of perceptibility that represents when noise conditions may be noticeably louder." (AR 7229.)
While Petitioner relies expert opinion to dispute and contradict the City's expert technical report, Petitioner has not demonstrated the City's expert studies are so "clearly inadequate or unsupported" as to be "entitled to no judicial deference." (See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 cal.3d 376, 409 fn. 12. ["A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference."]) "When an agency is faced with conflicting evidence on an issue, it is permitted to give more weight to some of the evidence and to favor the opinions of some experts over others. (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1397.) Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet its burden of demonstrating a prejudicial abuse of discretion related to the City's analysis of construction-related noise impacts. (See State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 795. [''The party challenging the EIR, however, bears the burden of demonstrating that the studies on which the EIR is based 'are clearly inadequate or unsupported.'"])

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

2. Feasibility and Effectiveness of MM l-1 and 1-2
Petitioner argues MM 1-1 and 1-2 are vague, ineffective and unenforceable. a. MM 1-1
''To ensure that the Project's construction-related noise levels do not exceed 75 dBA and that construction-related noise increases at Santee Court Apartments do not exceed 5 dBA," the City adopted MM 1-1. MM 1-1 provides "(a]II capable diesel-powered construction vehicles shall be equipped with exhaust mufflers or other suitable noise reduction devices." (AR 1011.) Petitioner contends MM 1-1 does not establish a performance standard because nothing in the mitigation measure sets a required noise level reduction. Petitioner argues muffler use alone does not ensure MM 1-1 will achieve any particular level of mitigation. Petitioner asserts "the fact that exhaust mufflers should or could reduce equipment noise by 3 dBA or more doesn't address the fact that the measure, as written, does not require mitigation at that level and therefore does not ensure that level of mitigation will be achieved, as is necessary to support the finding of no significant impacts from construction noise." (Opening Brief 28:18-22.) As noted earlier, "For projects for which an EIR has been prepared, where substantial evidence supports the approving agency's conclusion that mitigation measures will be effective, courts will uphold such measures against attacks based on their alleged inadequacy." (Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d at 1027.) The City contends MM 1-1 as written will be effective. The use of mufflers to abate noise impacts is considered "best practices" and recommended under the City's CEQA threshold guide. (AR 2773, 2786-2787, 7299, 10131-10132 [EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control Study], 10139.)21 In addition, the City's noise expert confirmed the use of mufflers as required by MM 1-1 would achieve a 3 dBA noise reduction. (AR 3085-3086, 10139-10140.) The expert explained "aftermarket mufflers reduce noise by over 3 dBA. (AR 10139.) In addition, the Project's MMRP requires the Flower Growers to retain an independent Construction Monitor, approved by the City, responsible for: (a) ensuring that "capable" mufflers are used during construction; and (b) documenting compliance. (AR 2848-2849.) While the court agrees MM 1-1 does not contain a specific performance standard, it does mandate the use of certain equipment that does have performance standards. Substantial evidence supports the City's conclusion the use of mufflers will be effective at reducing noise levels by at least 3 dBA. The City's noise expert reviewed aftermarket muffler manufacturer 21 The EPA study, upon which the City's CEQA Threshold Guide relies, shows that "equipment mufflers should reduce excavation and grading phase noise levels by 3 dBA. (AR 10131.)

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 From: Cathy Morton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 5, 2024 4:00 PM
To: City Clerk Mail
Subject: Written Comments - Travertine Project - August 6, 2024 agenda Hello,
I am writing with my comments with respect to the proposed Travertine project (item 2 under "Public Hearings" on the August 6, 2024 meeting agenda).

I am a resident of the neighboring Trilogy development, and am opposed to the creation of an elevated roadway on Avenue 62 to access the Travertine development (the elevation being necessary because of a high berm that the road would need to cross). I understand that the road would have to rise to 36 feet in order to clear the 30-foot berm without touching it. To do this, the rise would have to start 600 feet before the berm. I also understand that over 6000 cars are expected to cross the berm daily.

An elevated roadway would have a significant impact on Trilogy residents in terms of noise, air pollution, light and aesthetics.

I think the better and more logical solution is to extend the south end of Jefferson Street to provide access to Travertine. This would be more convenient for the eventual residents of Travertine as well as having minimal, if any, impact on the residents of Trilogy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cathy Morton
81435 Joshua Tree Court
La Quinta, CA 92253
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 6, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CATHY MORTON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE - OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 From: John Perry <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2024 3:11 PM
To: John K. Miller
Cc: Kathleen Fitzpatrick; City Clerk Mail; Deborah McGarrey; John Pena; Linda Evans; Steve Sanchez
Subject: Re: Written Comments - John Miller, La Quinta, Travertine Development Bravo!
On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 10:03 AM John K. Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members,
I am John Miller, and I own 81455 Golden Poppy Way in Trilogy La Quinta. I have lived in La Quinta for over 24 years and am happy to call it my home. As a Realtor, I have represented over 1,300 clients over the past 21 years, most of whom chose Trilogy La Quinta for its remote, peaceful, and tranquil location backing up to the Santa Rosa Mountains.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 1200-home Travertine development, particularly the planned primary arterial access routed through Avenue 62. As a resident and community advocate, I have several significant concerns about this development's adverse impacts on our area.

Firstly, the proposed bridge over the existing dike on Avenue 62 to facilitate access to Travertine will dramatically increase noise and traffic throughout our community. This surge in traffic will result in higher emissions and greenhouse gases, which is counterproductive to our collective efforts to reduce our environmental footprint and combat climate change. The influx of vehicles will contribute to air pollution, negatively impacting the health and well-being of current residents.

Moreover, the noise generated by the increased traffic, mainly from vehicles crossing the newly constructed bridge, will disrupt the tranquility of our neighborhood. The residents of Trilogy La Quinta chose this community for its peaceful environment, and introducing this development will undermine the quality of life we currently enjoy. The constant noise pollution will be a source of stress and discomfort for many residents, especially those closest to Avenue 62.

Another critical concern is the potential impact on the local wildlife, specifically the Bighorn sheep that inhabit this region. The construction and increased human activity will likely disturb their natural habitat, threatening survival. Protecting our local wildlife is essential, and the proposed development poses a significant risk to these animals.

Additionally, the infrastructure in our area may need to be equipped to handle the substantial increase in traffic and population density. The strain on local roads, public services, and amenities could lead to congestion and reduced service quality, further diminishing the living standards for CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 6, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT JOHN PERRY PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE - OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
2 current and future residents.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the city council to reconsider the access plan for the Travertine development. Routing the main arterial through Avenue 62 is not sustainable or community-friendly. I recommend exploring alternative access points that will minimize the environmental impact, preserve the peace of existing neighborhoods, and protect our local wildlife.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I trust that the city council will take these concerns seriously and decide to prioritize the well-being of current residents and the environment.

Sincerely,
John K Miller
John K. Miller | President
Trilogy Onsite Sales Office, 60750 Trilogy Parkway, La Quinta, CA 92253 BD Luxe Office, 47350 Washington Street, Suite 101, La Quinta, CA 92253 To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Cell: 760.285.3642 | Fax: 877.251.4775 | Office: 760.564.3161 Email: [email protected] | CalDRE: 01371356
Website: www.JohnKevinMiller.com
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
1 From: Julie Bloom <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2024 9:13 AM
To: Planning WebMail <[email protected]>
Cc: Cheri Flores <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter of Support for Travertine
Please see the aƩached leƩer of support for TraverƟne.

Thank you.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 6, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RANDALL BONE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SUNRISE COMPANY - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE - LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
300 Eagle Dance Circle | Palm Desert, California 92211 | www.sunriseco.com | 760‐772‐7227 August 6, 2024
Dear City of La Quinta Planning Commission and Staff,
Sunrise Company supports the Travertine development in La Quinta. Sunrise Company has been developing master‐planned communities in the Desert for over 60 years. We are currently developing Andalusia Country Club in La Quinta and Toscana Country Club in Indian Wells.

We are not speaking on behalf of individual Andalusia Country Club residents but on behalf of Sunrise Company. Our main priority is ensuring the long‐term success of Andalusia, both the Club and the residential community.

Afterstudying the new plan, we support the new plan and believe Travertine will enhance the surrounding communities and the overall La Quinta community. The Travertine community will also bring economic vitality to La Quinta for decades to come.

Thank you for your due diligence on this and all other developments.

Sincerely,
Randall Bone
Chief Executive Officer
Sunrise Company
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

HAND OUTS

CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
AUGUST 6, 2024
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
TranscripƟon from 6/25/24 Planning Commission MeeƟng
Dale Tyerman: The Jefferson Extension, on may 28th when we briefly talked about this there was some work yet to be done in order to be able to assure that the Jefferson ext could be completed I spencifically remembered some things about right away agreements that would have to be…let me just ask the quesƟon, are there any obstacles to compleƟng Jeferson ext from a legal perspecƟve with coral canyon dev regulatory issues, I already heard that it’s been well researched as part of the EIR, so it doesn’t sound like there are any ceqa issues related to any…are there any obstacles that if tomorrow you wanted to build the Jefferson ext, you could build it.

Mark Rogers: There are no obstacles, we simply put, and I think I failed to really illuminate this in the last meeƟng. We have both our sewer and water coming over Ave 62. There are points of connecƟons at Monroe and Ave 62, so that’s our sewer and water connecƟon. We have a loop condiƟon where Madison will bring another water line over for fire purposes we have to have two sources a loop condiƟon for water. All of our UƟliƟes come from the east at Monroe and Ave 62 over the dike to the project. We also have to build two big water tanks up the hill on the south side of the project in order to drop lumber to build the homes. All of our infrastructure happens at the southerly part of this project and then Jefferson is really just a road bed probably some dry uƟliƟes that will go north and meet up with a realigned Ave 58, we’ll have to put a bend in the road and there’s nothing that prevents us from doing that except sound logic and development and we don’t want to build all that by ourselves right now and we really have to build everything from the south coming from Madison and Ave 62 to get this project to have sewer and have water, which are essenƟal. Sop all of our uƟliƟes come from that direcƟon and the project is really born from the south side moving north. When we get to 600 units, I am hopeful that coral canyon be in the game and be able to help us with the construcƟon of Ave 62/Jefferson based on the General Plan alignment that were going to adopt with this project, which is a dedicated alignment that was offered up to the city and accepted by the coral canyon project and that will be built and there’s nothing that will get in the way of doing that.

Dale Tyerman: Okay, so the only barriers to doing the extension of Jefferson are economic? Mark Rogers: Infrastructure
Dale Tyerman: And saƟsfying the build out plan internal Mark Rogers: Infrastructure, you goƩa have sewer and water or you can’t have a project.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 6, 2024 - HANDOUT BY MARK ROGERS PRINCIPAL WITH TRG LAND AND APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Dale Tyerman: Right
Mark Rogers: And that’s all coming from the other direcƟon.

Dale Tyerman: Do the sewer and water require the roadway to cross the berm/extension of Ave 62? Mark Rogers: Yes
Dale Tyerman: You can’t get sewer and water there without building the roadway over the dam…over the dike?
Mark Rogers: That’s what’s precipitaƟng the 6’ of cover, so from the surface of the road to the top of the exisƟng dike, we need 6’ to put those uƟliƟes beneath the road bed.

Dale Tyerman: So you are using that and it makes perfect sense, you’re uƟlizing that 6’ gap to run your necessary water and power to the development.

Mark Rogers: Sewer, sewer is a big one.

Dale Tyerman: Sewer, excuse me. If Jefferson Extension were completed, is there a need for Ave 62 or does an entrance/exit of Jefferson along with the Emergency Vehicle Access on Madison saƟsfy the regulatory Fire, Etc., requirements for access into the property.

Mark Rogers: No, Ave 62 and Jefferson are both necessary, distribuƟon of traffic throughout the city going to be dependent on that, it’s all built on the model. Madison as an EVA will not go away. We’re not going to build a road and then eliminate it. So it will remain as an emergency vehicular access that provides greater access for fire and police should they need it, or exiƟng the project by residents should they need it. So all of these have been well thought out and orchestrated with the city and the city staff with our team in a sequence of events that lead to a successful project in phases, and that’s how we plan to build it.

Dale Tyerman: Thank you. Thank you, Mark. And just one quick quesƟon on Short Term VacaƟon Rentals….

CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
.. .

La Quinta Village Apartments
Versus Avenue 62 Elevated
Roadway
Carolyn Winnor
La Quinta
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 6, 2024 - HANDOUT BY RESIDENT CAROLYN WINNOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE PROJECT
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
What should be your direction for this?
• You can't drop the berm from 30 feet to 20 feet
• You can ask for Utilities only to cross Avenue 62
• You can ask for the main entrance to Travertine to be the Jefferson Street Extension
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 6, 2024 - HANDOUT BY MARK ROGERS PRINCIPAL WITH TRG LAND AND APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
5/28/24
Splitting the Utilities and the
Roadway
Bobbie Fleury
La Quinta CA 92253
1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 6, 2024 - HANDOUT BY RESIDENT BOBBIE FLEURY PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE PROJECT
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Travertine Noise Impact over
Elevated Roadway
Sheila Warren
La Quinta
1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 6, 2024 - HANDOUT BY RESIDENT SHEILA WARREN PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE PROJECT
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
What about Elevated Roadway
lighting and headlights?
Judy Viera
La Quinta
1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 6, 2024 - HANDOUT BY RESIDENT JUDY VIERA PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE PROJECT
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
Honorable Mayor Evans, Mayor Pro Tern Pena, City Council members and staff. My name is Laura DuMaurier and I am
a Trilogy Resident.

In this presentation I will be discussing the issue of Air Quality on the folks in Trilogy and potentially other
surrounding residences. But first I want to address the elephant in the room.

When the applicant talks about the "Travertine Project" or just "Project", they are talking about what is happening on the inside of Dike 4. So let me contrast that by saying Trilogy and the rest of La Quinta is on the outside of Dike 4.

This same distinction is in the EIR.

You have seen this reflected many times by the reference that Trilogy will not see the project. The pictures in the EIR have this big red line a few feet below the top of dike 4 with the comments that the 30 foot dike blocks any view of
Travertine.

This is absolutely correct and we all agree. We will NOT see the Travertine project from Trilogy because of the 30 foot high dike 4, which the Bureau of Reclamation states was constructed in the 1967-1968 timeframe for purposes of
flood control and it remains today for that purpose. The dike protects the area from floodwaters from the upstream canyons and provides a detention reservoir to store the floodwaters.

But let us look at Air Quality. Section 4.3, in the EIR, analyzed Air Quality. The Project-specific Air Quality
Impact Analysis analyzed the Project's potential short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) air quality
impacts on public health. Sensitive receptors are defined to include the elderly. That is us in Trilogy. The conclusion CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 6, 2024 - HANDOUT BY RESIDENT LAURA DuMAURIER PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE PROJECT
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
La Quinta City Council
La Quinta City Hall
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
August 6, 2024
Re: Specific Objection to the planned Elevated Roadway Ave 62 entrance to the proposed Travertine Development.

Hello Honorable Mayor Evans, City Council members, and Staff.

My Name is Robert Lasser, and I live in La Quinta.

I am writing today not to oppose the Travertine project in general, but instead to oppose a specific component of the development.

I specifically object to the proposed 36 foot high, 60-foot-wide elevated roadway to be built on Avenue 62 that is to serve as the main entrance to the Travertine development.

This elevated freeway like ramp roadway hovering 36 feet in the air, will be built in close proximity to the existing Trilogy residential development.

The Developer claims there will be no significant impact to Trilogy residents ... but that simply, is NOT a true statement!
Initially during the first phase With over 6,000 cars, trucks, motorcycles, and construction vehicles traveling over the roadway daily, the impact to Trilogy residents in terms of noise, air pollution, lights and aesthetics will be severe, and will only get worse, as future phases are built out! By comparison, currently, Avenue 62 south of the Trilogy development serves as a "dead-end" road with a single destination point of the Trilogy maintenance yard at the end of the road that closes daily at 4:45 p.m.

Based on an actual traffic count study completed this past Friday August 2 nd
, there were only 150
vehicles that drove down the road and back to Monroe all day long. There is zero noise and traffic at nighttime.
1 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 6, 2024 - HANDOUT BY RESIDENT ROBERT LASSER PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE PROJECT
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

TRAVERTINE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MEETING PRESENTATION
Mark Reider - TLQMA
August 6, 2024
Mayor Evans, Council Members. Good afternoon. My name is Mark Reider, and I live at 81530 Monarch Court in Trilogy.

I am speaking today in my role as President of the Board of the Trilogy at La Quinta homeowners association, and I would like to thank my fellow Board member for donating his time to me.

My comments reflect the consensus of the Board of Directors, and we believe, the vast majority of Trilogy homeowners, many of whom are here tonight to protest the current plan for accessing the Travertine development.

Our Board of Directors has traditionally not addressed proposed developments that only affect areas outside our community. However, as currently proposed, the Travertine Project does impact The Trilogy at La Quinta community consisting of 1238 homes and over 2,000 of the City's constituents.

With guidance from our legal counsel, we are here to voice our strong opposition to the current development plan for extending Avenue 62 over the berm as the primary access and entry road into Travertine.

In our view, our community would be severely impacted by the noise and visual pollution of the proposed roadway- conditions we believe are not adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Review.

The current plan calls for TWO bridges to be built directly adjacent to our community:
• One as the main entrance to Travertine from Avenue 62, which borders the south end of our community,
• And a second as an emergency access road at Madison at our west border.

The bridge and ramped roadway on Avenue 62 would be massive in scale. As a comparison, consider the bridge being built over the stormwater channel at Dunes Palm Road.

That bridge is 480-feet long and 86 feet wide. The bridge and elevated roadway on Avenue 62 behind our community would be 600 feet long- and that's just on our side of the berm - and 60 feet wide.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 6, 2024 - HANDOUT BY RESIDENT MARK REIDER &

PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD AT TRILOGY AT LA QUINTA
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 - TRAVERTINE PROJECT
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda

POWER POINTS

CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
AUGUST 6, 2024
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
1 City Council Regular Meeting
August 6, 2024
City Council Regular Meeting
August 6, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENT – MATTERS

NOT ON THE AGENDA
8/8/2024
1 2
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
2 City Council Regular Meeting
August 6, 2024

CLOSED SESSION IN PROGRESS
City Council Regular Meeting
August 6, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENT – MATTERS

NOT ON THE AGENDA
8/8/2024
3 4
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
3 City Council Meeting
August 6, 2024
P1 – Proclamation Recognizing
Katherine Vogts
5 6
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
4 City Council Meeting
August 6, 2024
B1 – 2022/23 Annual Comprehensive Financial
Report (ACFR)
 Conducted virtually by Eide Bailly LLP, Certified Public Accountants from October 2023 – June 2024
 Reviewed nearly 1,000 documents & conducted interviews  Issued a clean audit opinion – most favorable conclusion  All new financial regulatory requirements have been
implemented
 ACFR meets the GFOA’s Certificate of Achievement
Program’s requirements and has been submitted for another certification
 Auditor comments regarding the City shall be provided tonight Audit Summary
7 8
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
5 ACFR Content
Major
Events
• Transmittal letter
• Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A)
Financial
Statements
• Balance sheets, statement of net position & cash flows • Budgetary comparison schedules
Summaries
& Charts
• 19 Notes
• Statistical section, 10-year comparison
Statement of Net Position
Category Amount
Capital Assets 574,870,283
Restricted 62,283,620
Unrestricted 221,443,417
TOTAL $858,597,320
Indicators of a City’s fiscal health include:
 Balanced General Fund budget
 Strong General Fund reserve fund
 Making required pension contributions on time
 Public service levels meet or exceed standards of the community
9 10
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
6 Governmental Fund Balances
Governmental Fund Balances
11 12
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
7 Long-Term Debt
Major Infrastructure Investments
Dune Palms Bridge
Improvements
$4,050,000
La Quinta
Landscape
Renovation
$2,923,000
Avenue 53 &
Jefferson
Roundabout
$2,758,000
Citywide Striping
Refresh
$295,000
Highway 111
Corridor Area Plan
Design
$285,000
13 14
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
8 Fiscal Sustainability
Adopted a balanced 2023/24 budget
Continue to address long-term liabilities
Mixture of housing and commercial
developments are under construction
Long-term vision and planning are a priority
Eide Bailly
Auditor Comments
15 16
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
9 CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Independent Auditor’s Communication to those Charged with Governance (AU-C 260) for the fiscal year June 30, 2023
August 6, 2024
AUDITOR’S REQUIRED COMMUNICATION (AU-C 260)
Scope of Work
• Comprehensive Annual Financial Report • Federal Awards Report in Accordance with the Uniform Guidance (Single Audit
Report)
Results (June 30, 2023) • Unmodified opinion
17 18
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
10 OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
• Form and express an opinion about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with U.S. GAAP. • Our responsibility is to plan and perform our audit to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. • We considered internal control over financial reporting. Such considerations were solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control. • Our responsibility, as it relates to the audit of the City’s major federal program compliance, is to express an opinion on compliance of the City’s major federal program based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements as described in the OMB Compliance Supplement. 19
AUDITOR’S REQUIRED COMMUNICATION (AU-C 260)
Significant Accounting Policies • The City’s significant accounting policies are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. As described in Note 1, the City changed accounting policies related to accounting for the provisions of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Agreements (SBITAs). Significant Accounting Estimates
• Amounts related to the net pension liability, deferred inflows and outflows of resources and disclosures were based on actuarial valuations and a proportionate share of the CalPERS collective net pension liability.

Financial Statement Disclosures
• The disclosure of the City’s defined benefit pension plans, net pension liability and related deferred inflows of resources and deferred outflows of resources in Note 9 to the financial statements. As disclosed in Note 9, a 1% increase or decrease in the discount rate has a significant effect on the City’s net pension liability. • The disclosure of the City’s net OPEB liability and related deferred inflows of resources and deferred outflow of resources in Note 11 to the financial statements. As disclosed in Note 11, a 1% increase or decrease in the discount rate or healthcare cost trend rate has a significant effect on the City’s net OPEB liability.
19 20
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
11 AUDITOR’S REQUIRED COMMUNICATION (AU-C 260)
Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit • None noted Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements
• There were no uncorrected misstatements identified as a result of our audit procedures. • In our letter to those charged with governance, date July 19, 2024, we have identified misstatements that were brought to the attention of management and corrected.

Disagreements with Management • None noted
Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants • None noted
AUDITOR’S REQUIRED COMMUNICATION (AU-C 260)
Other Significant Matters, Findings or Issues
• Financial Statement Audit • Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards • Financial Statement Finding No. 2023-001 – Reporting and ClosingMaterial Weakness • Financial Statement Finding No. 2023-002 – Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) Preparation – Material Weakness
21 22
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
12 QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU
Lauryn Stapleton
Senior Manager
[email protected]
909-466-4410
23 24
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
13 City Council Meeting
August 6, 2024
PH1 – Public Nuisance Abatement on Tax Roll
25 26
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
14 Background
• Code Compliance pursues public nuisance cases to
maintain public safety and quality of life.
• Reasons for Lot Abatements:
– Fire hazard conditions (dense dry bush).
– Unsightly conditions (abandoned appliances, furniture, construction debris, etc.)
– Violation of LQMC 11.72.030 – Public nuisances declared.

Steps
• Public nuisance is declared: notification is posted at the site and sent to the owner via regular and certified mail. • If owner fails to abate property within a reasonable time, then the City bids the job, and hires a contractor to abate the property.
• City may recover cost associated with the abatement by placing an abatement assessment on Property Tax Roll
27 28
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
15 Abated Properties
Approve placement of public nuisance abatement assessments on 2024/25 Property Tax Roll
Total
Administrative
Fee (25%)
Cost of
Abatement
Assessor Parcel
Name Number
BARTON LAND LA QUINTA 764-240-021 $2,500.00 $625.00 $3,125.00 STAMKO DEV CO 600-340-029 $4,243.00 $1,060.75 $5,303.75 DEBRA KASPAROFF 604-251-020 $300.00 $75.00 $375.00
29 30
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
16 City Council Meeting
August 6, 2024
PH2 – Travertine Development
GPA20217-0002, ZC2017-0002, SP2017-0004, TTM2017-0008,
DA2021-0001, EA2017-0008
Location
31 32
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
17 Background
• Travertine Specific Plan adopted 1995
– 909 acres
– 2,300 residential units
– 10 acres of commercial uses
– 500-room resort hotel
– 36-hole golf course, tennis club, private
recreation
– 378 acres of open space
Proposal
• Modify project master plan
– 855 acres
– 1,200 residential units ranging in size from large lot estates to small lot attached
– 38-acre spa/hotel with 100 villas and associated
amenities
– 46-acre resort area with golf academy, clubhouse,
and banquet restaurant
– Recreational open space with parks and public trails
– Natural open space for conservation
33 34
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
18 Entitlements
• General Plan Amendment
• Zone Change
• Specific Plan
• Tentative Tract Map
• Development Agreement
• Environmental Impact Report
General Plan Amendment
• Land Use Map:
– Modify land uses per proposed specific plan
• Circulation Plan:
– Realign Jefferson Street alignment
• Within and north of Travertine site
– Remove Madison Street alignment
• For use as Emergency Vehicle Access only
35 36
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
19 Existing
General
Plan
Proposed
General
Plan
Roadway Modifications
Ave 62 Ave 62
37 38
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
20 Roadways
• Avenue 62 and Jefferson St
– Both proposed as access to the project
– Modified Secondary arterials
– Planned for since 1995
• Madison St
– Downgrades from Modified Secondary Arterial
to Emergency Access
General Plan Build Out
• General Plan estimates build out for
community
– Based on land uses set in General Plan
• Traffic models based on that estimate
39 40
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
21 Zone Change
• Modify zoning designations to be
consistent with proposed general plan
designations
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
41 42
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
22 Specific Plan
• Reorganize current land uses
• Reduce intensity of the project
• Prescribe permitted uses including short term
vacation rentals
• Incorporate design guidelines and standards
• Proposed Specific Plan would repeal and
replace the current Specific Plan
Tentative Tract Map
• 38 lots for residential and commercial uses
• 73 open space lots
• Subsequent tract maps required
• Easements required to access NAP parcel
and parcels west of the project in Section
5 43
44 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
23 Not a Part
(NAP)
Section 5
Parcels
Section 5
Parcels
Development Agreement
• 50-year term
• Vests the project approvals
• Requires the applicant to develop pursuant to those
approvals for the duration of the term
• Allows STVR permits for the residential units as
authorized and allowable per the City’s STVR
Regulations
• Requires compliance with project design features and
mitigation measures in the EIR and conditions of
approval
45 46
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
24 Development Agreement
• Identifies public facilities and improvements tied to the development of the project
• Provides for the establishment of Community Facilities District(s)
• Includes provisions relating to
– Transfers and assignments to subsequent developers and property owners
– Defaults and remedies
– Mortgage/private financing ability by secured real property interests
• Includes Schedule of Performance based on Phasing
Plan
State Housing Law Compliance
• Senate Bill 330 contains regulations
regarding housing development projects
– Cities generally are not allowed to downzone
– Also requires compliance with CEQA
• Proposed project implements mitigation
measures necessary to comply with CEQA
47 48
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
25 Environmental Analysis
• Draft EIR prepared
• Most environmental impacts reduced to less than
significant levels with mitigation incorporated
• Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases and Transportation
(Vehicle Miles Traveled) remain significant
• Statement of Overriding Considerations required
– Provided in EIR Resolution
Environmental Analysis
• Draft EIR public review
– October 27 through December 11, 2023
– Comments received from various public
agencies and residents regarding air quality,
noise, aesthetics, geology, land use, housing,
and traffic impacts
49 50
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
26 Environmental Analysis
• Final EIR prepared
– Incorporates responses to comments
received, errata/revisions section and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
– Distributed July 26
Planning Commission
• Meetings on May 28 and June 25
• Concerns with noise, aesthetics and traffic
associated with Ave 62 extension over
Dike 4
• Draft EIR found that noise and aesthetic
impacts are less than significant
51 52
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
27 Planning Commission
• Avenue 62 and Jefferson St
– Both proposed as access to the project
• Required for project build out
– Modified Secondary arterials in existing General Plan – Planned for since 1995
• Applicant has added a patterned masonry wall along
the sides of the Ave 62 crossing instead of guardrails
– Extends up to 42 inches in height
– Help block the views of automobiles traveling along the roadway
53 54
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
28 K e n n e t h H . H o f m a n n
• A visionary and philanthropist devoted to youth education and conservation • In 1948, he began his career in contracting and development as a plastering contractor. He began building homes in 1951. In 1957, he formed The Hofmann Company and since that time has built over 30,000 homes and apartments, and over $150 million in commercial and industrial properties. • Two-time President and member of the Board of Directors of the Building Industry Association. He is also a member of the National Association of Home Builders.
• An active fund raiser for several local causes including Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl Association, the Regional Theater for the Arts in Walnut Creek, and the Mount Diablo Medical Center. • An avid sportsman who enjoys flying, golf, hunting and fishing. He was married for 60 years to the former Jean England and they have two daughters. The Hofmann’s own homes in northern California and La Quinta.

The Hofmann Family Legacy
55 56
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
29 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS, 1988
TRAVERTINE & GREEN, 1995
58 57
58 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
30 APPROVED PLAN, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, 2006
59 60
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
31 MADISON ST. APPROVED CONST. DWGS
62 MADISON STREET – COMPUTER MODEL
61 62
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
32 2017
HOW BIG IS TOO BIG?
HOW SMALL IS TOO SMALL?
63 64
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
33 REDUCED IMPACTS
Existing – Master Plan
 Madison, Jefferson and Avenue 62
Modified Secondary Highway
Proposed
 Removal of Madison south of Avenue 60
 Realignment of Jefferson Street

MODIFIED ROADS
65 66
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
34 ZONING PLAN

EXISTING AMENDMENT
LAND USE 1997 SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED SP AMENDMENT % CHANGE PROJECT ACREAGE 900 ACRES 855 ACRES ---- DWELLING UNITS 2,300 D.U. 1,200 D.U. 48 % LESS COMMERCIAL 10 ACRES - 100 % LESS
RESORT/HOTEL 500 KEYS 100 KEYS 80 % LESS
91 % LESS GOLF TRAINING FACILITY
46 ACRES
(2) - 18 HOLE REGULATION GOLF

COURSES
400 ACRES
GOLF
NATURAL OPEN SPACE ----- 301 ACRES 100 % MORE
TRAFFIC GENERATED 28,000 ADT 11,000 ADT 60 % LESS

COMPARISON TABLE
67 68
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
35 SITE PLAN, 2024
ACCESS
69 70
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
36 CIRCULATION

PHASING
PHASE 1 PHASE 2
71 72
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
37 Ave 62 – Our Project Begins
Sewer Water Storm Drain
74 2040 ROADWAY CAPACITIES
73 74
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
38 2040 Roadway Capacities
RESORT
100 KEYS
75 76
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
39 GOLF TRAINING

TOURIST SERVING COMMERCIAL WITH

SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL

RECREATION CENTERS
77 78
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
40 79
TRAILS

TRAIL RENDERING
79 80
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
41 POSITIVES
82 PROJECT BENEFITS
81 82
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
42 PROJECT BENEFITS DIAGRAM

GENERAL PLAN & SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
83 84
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
43 Travertine

A SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE PROJECT
86 85
86 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
44 87
88 87
88 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
45 89
89 90
CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda
August 6, 2024
46 AESTHETICS
1 91
92 CLICK HERE to Return to Agenda