The URL can be used to link to this page

Draft Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 2020-06-15CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Phone: (760) 777-7125 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Project Title: Coral Mountain Specific Plan City Project No: Lead Agency City of La Quinta Name and Address: 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Phone: (760) 328-2266 Applicant: CM Wave Development, LLC c/oGarretSimon 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO80301 Representative: CM Wave Development, LLC c/oGarretSimon 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO80301 Contact Person: Nicole Sauviat Criste ConsultingPlanner CityofLaQuinta 78495 Calle Tampico LaQuinta, CA92253 Phone: (760) 341-4455 Project Location: South of Avenue 58, west of the re-aligned Madison Street General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (RL)/Open Space Recreation (OS) Zoning Designation: Low Density Residential (RL)/Open Space Recreation (OS) Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Coral Mountain Specific Plan project (“project”) proposes a mixed-use development consisting of residential, resort, commercial and recreational uses on approximately 386 acres in the City of La Quinta. The proposed project is located on the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street and is currently characterized by vacant land with scattered vegetation of various heights and densities. The site has been subject to previous development and uses including agricultural and residential land uses, which resulted in the creation of onsite dirt roads and hiking trails. The residential use has since been abandoned and the site has been cleared and graded of agricultural vegetation, resulting in the site’s current vacant condition. The project property was formerly included as part of the “Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan”. The Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan was originally approved in 1988 as a part of unincorporated Riverside County, but subsequently annexed to the City of La Quinta. Since then, the property has gone through various entitlement activities and four specific plan amendments as part of the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP 03-067). Summarized by Table I, below: Table I Specific Plan Summary 1988-2017 Specific Plan Name Year Approved Summary Supporting Documents Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 218 (County of Riverside) 1988 Original Specific Plan approved by Riverside County Board of Supervisors; included a maximum development of 4,262 dwelling units and 35 acres of commercial uses. EIR Rancho La Quinta SCH 1987071302 Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218, Amendment I (County of Riverside) 2000 Reduced development intensity by 762 dwelling units and 25.8 acres of commercial uses to up to 3,500 dwelling units and 9.2 acres of commercial uses. TTM 2002-149 TTM 2002-12 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Amendment II (City of La Quinta) 2003 Changed name to “Coral Mountain” Specific Plan; split specific plan into two specific plans: Trilogy and Andalusia; Supersedes Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218 for Andalusia area. Environmental Assessment 2003-483 approved GPA 2003-093; CZ 2003-116; Site Development Permit 2003-787; EA 2003-483 Amendment III of Coral Mountain SP 2013 Relocated golf clubhouse and provided higher density around golf course. Amendment IV of Andalusia at Coral Mountain 2017 Revised development standards in Planning Area II to allow for attached/detached residential villas of up to 2 stories. Prior to the fifth amendment (Amendment V) of SP 03-067, Amendment IV’s Specific Plan area encompassed approximately 929 acres south of Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street, north of Avenue 60, and east and west of Madison Street. Amendment IV was approved in 2017 and separated the project into two distinct communities: Andalusia East (the area east of Madison Street) and Andalusia West (the area west of Madison Street and the proposed project area). Andalusia East, under Amendment IV, is currently under development, providing low density residential units, an 18-hole golf course, a clubhouse and associated amenities. Andalusia West, under Amendment IV, is currently undeveloped, but proposed residential and golf course uses. In the past 22 years, the project property has undergone various renditions of specific plan amendments, with the most current including Amendment IV of SP 03-067. In order to achieve the land use goals of the properties east and west of Madison Street, the two areas are to be separated and discussed under two different specific plans. Amendment V of SP 03-067 removes the area west of Madison Street and covers the area east of Madison Street. The approximately 386-acre area west of Madison Street will be covered as a separate entity under the Coral Mountain Specific Plan and is the SP area discussed within this Initial Study. Amendment V of SP 03-067 is being processed concurrently with the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 3 The Coral Mountain Specific Plan (referred to throughout this Initial Study as “Specific Plan” or “SP”) project is envisioned as a boutique resort with planned residential neighborhoods and commercial and recreational uses. The development of the approximately 386-acre Specific Plan area includes up to 600 residential units, a resort hotel with up to 150 keys and complementary resort uses and amenities, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses on 7.8 acres, and 14 acres of recreational surf wave amenities, golf and golf practice facilities, and a variety of neighborhood and resort commercial uses. As previously stated, the project site is currently vacant and undeveloped with desert vegetation of varying densities. A partially collapsed adobe house, along with the concrete pads and footings left behind by demolished residential and agricultural buildings was also observed near the center of the project area during a field investigation of the site. The site is primarily surrounded by Natural Open Space land uses to the west and southwest and Low-Density Residential land uses to the north, south and east. Residential communities are found approximately 0.25 miles to the west. Avenue 58 and residential properties define the project’s northern boundary; Madison Street defines the eastern boundary; Coral Mountain defines the property’s southwestern boundary; and vacant land and residential properties define the southern and western boundaries. As stated previously, Amendment V of SP 03-067 lies east of the project site, separated by Madison Street. The existing General Plan land use for the project area includes Low Density Residential (LDR), Open Space Recreational and General Commercial. The existing zoning for the project site includes Low Density Residential RL), Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Golf Course (GC). The proposed zoning categories for Coral Mountain Specific Plan includes RL, CN, Tourist Commercial (TC) and Parks and Recreation (PR). Per the Specific Plan, the project site is envisioned as a boutique resort and master-planned community with residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, parks, open space and recreational uses, a resort hotel and an artificial surf pool. The project is divided into four planning areas, depicted in the Specific Plan as Planning Area (PA) I, II, III and IV. The Planning Areas are discussed further below. Planning Area I (PA I) – Neighborhood Commercial: Located on 7.8 acres at the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, PA I allows for the construction of 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial building space with affiliated circulation and infrastructure improvements. The retail development will consist of a mixture of neighborhood commercial and resort-related commercial development. Planning Area II (PA II) – Residential: Located on approximately 232.1 acres on the northern and eastern portions of the project, PA II allows for the construction of single-family residential neighborhoods with associated amenities, circulation and infrastructure improvements. PA II will allow for the construction of up to 496 residential units consisting of estate compounds, single family detached/attached units, and fractional interest ownership units. Planning Area III (PA III) – Resort: Located on approximately 117.7 acres, PA III will allow the construction of a resort hotel with up to 150 keys, 104 attached residential units, along with standard resort support services such as eateries/cafes, retail shops, corner grocery, golf and golf practice facilities. Wave Surf Basin – The resort is oriented around an artificial surf wave basin that will function as the focal amenity for the community. “The Wave” basin will feature state of the art proprietary technology designed to re-create ocean waves for recreational surfing by individual resort residents and hotel guests as well as hosting of private club events. Open areas south of the Wave Basin will provide gathering and staging space that will use temporary facilities such as shade structures, tenting for inclement weather, and catering equipment. Resort Hotel – The project will include a full-service resort hotel (up to 150 keys). The hotel is envisioned as a boutique facility with a relaxed surf-village feel and a mix of traditional hotel rooms, suites and casitas. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 4 Resort Village – The hotel will be embedded within a walkable, surf-themed village. Structures will consist primarily of attached residential units designed around a compact grid-like network of streets and pathways. Resort Amenities – The resort will offer a wide range of community and active lifestyle amenities such as golf and golf practice facilities, hiking, biking, spa and dining, golf training facilities, bicycle pump-track, and a swimming pool area. In addition, spa and dining facilities may be provided within the resort for resort residents and hotel guests so that upon arrival, everything is provided and there is no need to leave the resort. Temporary Events – The project anticipates that the Wave basin and resort will be used to host occasional temporary events and gatherings for hotel guests, resort residents and public visitors by reservation. These events may be held up to 4 times per year and are restricted to 4 days duration with attendance by a maximum of 2,500 guests per day. Examples of temporary events include farmers markets, festivals, pop- up food competitions or tastings, surf competitions, classic car shows, and similar activities. Planning Area IV (PA IV) – Open Space: PA IV consists of approximately 27 acres to accommodate low-impact active and passive recreation activities such as hiking trails. This Planning Area will be retained largely in natural open space to preserve the rugged beauty of Coral Mountain as a backdrop for The Wave basin. Amenities include, but are not limited to, additional water sports in the Wave basin, pump tracks, golf and golf practice facilities, biking, spa and dining, and a swimming pool area. Resort amenities include surf lifestyle retail outlets, multiple food and beverage outlets and cutting-edge sport-specific training, fitness, spa, health and wellness facilities. Additional project amenities include trails in the southwest corner of the site on Coral Mountain. These will include walking trails, bike trails, and bike paths to create a more walkable, pedestrian-friendly community. The project may have a limited number of events during the year in Planning Areas III and IV. Prior to any events taking place, the applicant will work with the City Planning Department on a case by case basis to determine the appropriate approvals and permits. Planning for the residential areas within the Coral Mountain Specific Plan centers on the resort as the activity hub for the community with open space and walking trail connections providing easy access to this central core. Density has been placed within a 1,200-foot walking radius to the resort to concentrate residential uses within the walkable core. The design of the residences shall incorporate elements such as patios, courtyards, arcades, plazas, and walk- streets, which encourage residents to take advantage of outdoor living. Varying house configurations, on corner lots are encouraged to promote variety in the street scene and preserve sightlines of drivers at intersections. A combination of side and front-entering garages and varied driveway locations are encouraged to break up repetitive curb cuts and yard patterns. Neighborhoods bordering open areas shall be, wherever feasible, sited to maximize views of the Specific Plan amenities, while discouraging through access. Recreation areas/greenbelt features shall be, wherever feasible, visible upon entry to neighborhoods to enhance neighborhood value. The circulation plan for the Coral Mountain Specific Plan area proposes a multi-modal approach by seeking to decrease automobile dependency by providing transportation facilities for a variety of user groups including motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers of electric vehicles. Convenient access and parking are planned in close proximity to retail and resort areas for visitors. The internal system of private local roadways will allow residents of the individual neighborhoods to access Planning Area III internally without exiting onto surrounding public streets. Vehicular access to the project site will utilize existing public arterial roads, including Avenue 60, Avenue 58, and Madison Street. These roads are largely improved to their ultimate lane width, needing only the addition of minor widening, a meandering multi-purpose trail, sidewalks, and parkway landscaping along the boundary of the Specific Plan. The internal circulation system will consist of a series of roads providing access to the individual residential and recreational components within the SP area. The proposed internal right of ways will vary from 32-foot private drive, to the 100-foot entry drive. The Specific Plan also proposes improvements of the surrounding roadways, which will be improved to the standards of the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Standards and Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 5 approved by the City Engineering and Public Works Department. In addition to accommodating automobiles, the Community’s Circulation Plan in the Specific Plan addresses the movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, golf carts, and other forms of alternative personal transportation. Generally, the conceptual landscape plan will incorporate landscape elements that establish a “sense of place” and create visual unity and compatibility throughout the project. The theme of the landscape architecture at the project is to create a lush desert character of visual variety and textual interest while complying with water conservation techniques based on plant selection and technical irrigation system design. Key landscape elements would include entryways, streetscapes, and common areas. The Specific Plan provides a thorough list of compatible trees, shrubs, and groundcovers to be incorporated as part of the conceptual landscape design. Final landscape design will be subject to implementing tentative tract maps or Site Development Permit review and Final Landscaping Plan permits. Walls, fences, monumentation, and all other hardscape elements at project entries will utilize materials, color, and detailing that are compatible with the various proposed uses. Electric utilities for the site are served under the jurisdiction of Imperial Irrigation District (IID). As a part of project implementation, the project will be required to install an off-site transformer bank at an existing IID substation located at 81600 Avenue 58 as part of the proposed upgrades. Construction for the conduits and line extension would occur in the existing right-of-way. The developer will work with IID on the timing and scope of the improvements. The project is designed for construction in eight (8) primary development phases with build-out over approximately 4 to 6 years. Construction Phase 1 is estimated to begin in 2021 with full buildout of the project estimated to be completed by 2026. Project phasing is subject to market conditions and 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 and the City Engineering Services Division. Entitlements for the project include a Specific Plan (SP), General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Tentative Tract Map (TTM), Site Development Permit (SDP), and Temporary Use Permit (TUP). The Coral Mountain Specific Plan, after it is adopted, will act as the master plan governing the allowable land uses, development standards and design guidelines for the project. The GPA will amend the current General Plan land use designations to General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Tourist Commercial. The ZC will change the existing zoning of the Specific Plan Area to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Parks and Recreation. General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments are proposed to establish Specific Plan consistency with the regulatory documents. The TTM is intended to implement the project and subdivide the property into smaller lots for development. The SDP is required by the City for approval of landscape design, architecture design, and site plans. Individual SDP’s may be required for each phase of development and may be processed concurrent with or subsequent to other entitlement approvals. The TUP is required by the City to accommodate special, unique, and limited duration activities that might otherwise be outside the provisions of normal zoning. The entitlements will be processed concurrently with the SP. The SP implements the City of La Quinta General Plan by bringing together detailed policies and regulations into a focused development plan for the SP area. The SP is a regulatory document which, when adopted by the City Council of La Quinta, governs all facets of project development including the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, as well as development standards and regulations for uses within the plan area. The location and alignment of the land uses, and zones depicted within the Specific Plan are diagrammatic. The precise layout within subsequent site development permit applications for individual projects will determine the actual alignment and adjacency of each land use category. Land Use and Setting North – Residential, Low Density Residential (RL) South – Open Space – Natural (OS) and Low Density Residential (RL) Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 6 East – Residential Andalusia – Low Density Residential (RL) West – Open Space – Natural (OS) and Low Density Residential (RL) N.T.S. MSA CONSULTING, INC. PLANNING > CIVILENGINEERING > LANDSURVEYING 34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.com VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT 1CORALMOUNTAIN INITIAL STUDY SITE 58TH AVENUE 60TH AVENUE AIRPORT BLVD. 54TH AVENUE MADISON STREETJEFFERSON STREET52ND AVENUE MONROE STREETJACKSON STREETCITY OF LA AVENUE 58 PROJECT SITE AVENUE 60 MADISON STREET N.T. S.MSA CONSULTING, INC.PLANNING > CIVILENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING 34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc. com AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH EXHIBIT2CORAL MOUNTAIN INITIAL AVENUE 58 AVENUE 60 MADISON STREET Neighborhood Commercial Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Surf Resort The Farm & Village)Surf Resort Resort Residential &Beach Club) Resort The Hotel) Surf Surf Resort Resort Residential)Surf Resort The Wave) Resort Private Club Hosting Area)Open Space Pop-Up Village)N.T. S.MSA CONSULTING, INC.PLANNING > CIVILENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING 34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc. com PROJECT SITE PLAN CORAL MOUNTAIN INITIAL STUDY EXHIBIT Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Signature: City of La Quinta Date: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 13 Environmental Checklist and Discussion: The following checklist evaluates the proposed project’s potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics for which a potential adverse impact may exist, a discussion of the existing site environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the project’s potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described. 1. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan (“Specific Plan” or “SP”) project (“project”) occupies approximately 386 acres of vacant land on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 in the City of La Quinta. Per the Specific Plan, the project is envisioned as a mixed- use development with resort uses and amenities, planned residential neighborhoods, commercial uses, and open space/recreational uses. The development proposes 600 residential units, a full-service resort hotel up to 150 keys) and complementary resort uses and amenities, a variety of resort commercial uses, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, a 14-acre recreational surf wave amenity, and golf and golf practice facilities. According to the La Quinta 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (LQGP EIR), the topography of the region progresses from the flat desert floor, where La Quinta is located, to the dramatic mountain ranges that surround the area. The natural features, which includes the Santa Rosa, San Jacinto and Little San Bernardino Mountains, are considered scenic vistas within the City of La Quinta due to the views and picturesque landscapes they provide when observed from the valley floor. The tallest mountain range in the area is the San Jacinto Mountains, west of the City. Mount San Jacinto is the furthest north peak of the San Jacinto Mountains with an elevation of 10,804 feet, which, according to the LQGP EIR, is only visible from the eastern portion of the City, away from the foothills at the Valley margins. The Little San Bernardino Mountains lie north of the City and are more visible in the northern areas of La Quinta. Additional mountains providing a visual resource to the City includes the San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest, and the Indio Hills to the northeast and east. From the project property, views of the San Jacinto Mountains, Little San Bernardino Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains and Indio Hills are obstructed from existing natural features, developed properties and landscaping. The Santa Rosa Mountains, however, lie adjacent to the western and southern boundaries of the La Quinta, forming a dramatic backdrop for the City. Coral Reef Mountain (otherwise referred to as “Coral Mountain”) Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 14 contributes to the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains and is located within La Quinta’s City boundary. Rising approximately 1,000 feet above sea level, Coral Mountain sits adjacent to the project’s southwestern boundary. Due to the undeveloped and vacant character that currently defines the project property, views of the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west and south and the Coral Mountains to the west are generally unobstructed from public view. Natural scenic vistas can be influenced both negatively and positively by man-made features. Although subjective depending on the individual’s perspective, features such as overhead power lines, landscaping and additional enhancements can impact the scenery of the area. The evaluation of scenic vistas takes into consideration the physical compatibility of proposed projects in relation to land uses, transportation corridors, or other vantage points, where the enjoyment of unique vistas may exist, such as residential areas or scenic roads. To avoid the negative impacts new development can potentially inflict on scenic vistas, the LQGP established policies and programs to protect the existing views. These include policies preserving open space areas, and the implementing development standards to reduce impacts from new or redeveloped projects on adjacent lands. Further, Title 9, Zoning, in the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) establishes standards and guidelines, such as limiting structure height and controlling building mass and scale, for various land uses within the City. The Title 9 Zoning Standards intends to: Provide and designate different land uses and structures in appropriate places in the General Plan, and to regulate such land uses and structures to serve the needs of residential, commercial, recreational, open space and other purposes. Establish conditions which allow the various types of land uses to exist in harmony and to promote the stability of existing land uses by protecting them from harmful intrusion. Prevent undue intensity of land development, avoid population overcrowding, maintain a suitable balance between developed land and open space, and protect the natural beauty of the City. Compliant with Title 9 of the LQMC, the Coral Mountain Specific Plan outlines the proposed zoning and development standards that encompass the project site. Per the SP, the proposed zones within the project area includes Low Density Residential (RL), Tourist Commercial (CT), Parks and Recreation (PR) and Neighborhood Commercial (CN). The City Zoning Code outlines building standards required for the various land uses. Building heights for the project will range from one-, two- and three-story buildings, depending on the specific planning area and associated zone. The building height per zone is depicted in Table I-1 below: Table I-1 Proposed Land Uses, Zones and Building Heights Proposed Land Use Associated Zone Maximum Building Height General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial 35 ft (2 stories) Low Density Residential Low-Density Residential Open space uses within RL 28 ft (2 stories) 28 ft (1 story) Tourist Commercial Tourist Commercial Non-residential Resort Residential The Wave 40 ft (3 stories) 30 ft (3 stories) 45 ft (3 stories) Open Space Recreational Parks and Recreation 28 ft The building height restrictions displayed in Table I-1 allow for cohesive development that is conscious of the natural and existing development that surrounds the area. Per Table I-1, the tallest building height permitted on the project property is located within the Tourist Commercial zone, allowing the maximum building height of 45 feet, or three-stories. The Tourist Commercial zone is proposed to be situated in the Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 15 southwest portion of the project property. This land use area is not located adjacent to existing developed properties or the existing roadways, Madison Street and Avenue 58. The proposed Tourist Commercial designation is currently surrounded by vacant and undeveloped land. The closest existing developed property is a residential estate approximately 630 feet southeast of the proposed TC zone. Development within the TC zone shall be required to abide by the building height standards within the LQ Zoning Code and Coral Mountain Specific Plan. The development standards in the LQMC and SP are also applicable to the proposed developments within the Neighborhood Commercial, Low-Density Residential and Open Space Recreational zones within the project property. As previously stated, the Coral Mountain Specific Plan establishes design features and standards for each proposed planning area, intended to provide flexibility to the future developer, while developing a community that is visually attractive and cohesive, and complemented by the natural Coral Mountain landscape. This will be achieved by creating low-density, walkable neighborhoods oriented around The Wave basin as the central amenity in the community. Chapter 3 of the SP discusses the design guidelines regarding materials used, massing and scale of buildings, architecture design, and outdoor spaces on the project site. Although the various planning areas propose different uses, the SP establishes design standards which maintain visual consistency throughout the project site. (An in-depth discussion of the design features proposed for the project is provided in discussion “c” of this Aesthetics Section.) The proposed design guidelines also ensure that the scenic vistas in the project area are not disturbed by the proposed developments, but rather are enhanced by project frontages and design. Project frontages, visible to the public (i.e. existing residents, pedestrians, motorists etc.) will be enhanced during project development with landscaping, paved pedestrian sidewalks and signed entry points. The project property and frontages will be designed to complement the natural and existing environment in a manner appealing to the existing residents, the public, future residents, and guests. Additionally, the building setbacks required by the City of La Quinta will ensure that the existing views of the mountains will remain unobstructed by the proposed project structures. The building height standards, mass and scale guidelines and setback requirements established in the LQMC and the Coral Mountain Specific Plan will ensure that new development proposed within project area will not significantly impact the valued views and scenic vistas that surround the project property. Additionally, the design features throughout the project property and along the project frontage will complement the existing natural scenic vistas. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None b) Less Than Significant Impact. The State Scenic Highway Program preserves and protects scenic state highway corridors from changes which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. State highways can be officially designated as Scenic Highways or be determined to be eligible for designation. The status of a state scenic highway changes from “eligible” to “officially designated” when a local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) approves the designation as a Scenic Highway. The proposed development site is on approximately 386 acres of vacant land primarily characterized by scattered desert vegetation. A review of the California Scenic Highway System List, operated by Caltrans, revealed that the project is not located adjacent to or near any eligible or designated state or county scenic highway. As such, the proposed site plan, architectural design, and landscaping design would not result in in adverse impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway. The Circulation Element of the La Quinta 2035 General Plan (LQGP) identifies designated image corridors, as well as street design standards for the City, which contribute to the scenic character and diverse identity of La Quinta. Per the LQGP, the typical elements that make up a complete street in the City includes sidewalks; bicycle lanes or wide, paved shoulders; shared-use paths; designated bus lanes; safe and accessible transit stops; and frequent and safe crossings for pedestrians, including median islands, Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 16 accessible pedestrian signals, and curb extensions. When complemented by uniform landscaping and thought-out design, these features allow for a streetscape that is functional, safe and enjoyable for pedestrians and motorists. According to the Specific Plan, offsite public streets surrounding the project are currently developed in accordance with La Quinta City Engineering and Public Works Department standards and will be constructed incrementally in accordance with the applicable General Plan designations. Currently accessible City-wide mass transit stops, also located along the perimeter of the project, will be complemented by perimeter landscape improvements implemented along the project frontage. City Image Corridors are considered scenic resources that can be viewed from the City’s public rights-of- way and provide beautiful views, while adding significantly to the quality of life the community has to offer. Exhibit II-4, Image Corridors in the General Plan, outlines the various City designated image corridors within La Quinta. Per Exhibit II-4 the segment of Madison Street that lies east of the project property is classified as a City Image Corridor. Additionally, Avenue 58 and Avenue 60 are also City Image Corridors. In compliance with the City Image Corridor standards implemented by the City, the Coral Mountain SP states that proposed developments that lie adjacent to these roadways shall be restricted to a height limitation of 22 feet from pad grade within a setback distance of 150 feet from the right-of-way. Rear and side yard setbacks for lots adjacent to the Image Corridors shall be expanded to a minimum of 25 feet per La Quinta Municipal Zoning Code Section 9.50.020. Additionally, Policy CIR-1.17 in the City General Plan, states that in order to preserve the aesthetic values on the City’s streets, optimum landscape setbacks shall be maintained along all designated General Plan Image Corridors and shall be identified in the Municipal Code. In its current condition, the project property’s frontages lack improvements, apart from the existing curb enhancements on Madison Street. The existing street frontages, which includes Avenue 58 (north) and Madison Street (east), will be enhanced with new landscaping and coordinated lighting outside of the perimeter walls. The entries leading into the commercial area at the project’s northeast corner, and the residential/resort area will be indicated with monument signage and coordinated landscaping design that will provide guests and residents with a welcoming entrance. The project entry points will be gated to provide security to the proposed residents and guests. The architecture of proposed structures at the project’s entry will be compatible with the style and architecture of the other proposed facilities and structures. These locations will also incorporate a common lighting concept to harmonize with the existing landscaped medians along the adjacent streets. As such, the proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan design concepts are expected to enhance these existing view corridors along these streetscapes and uphold the scenic quality valued by the City; therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. As stated in the previous discussion, Coral Mountain partially lies within the southwest corner of the project property. Coral Mountain sits over 1,000 feet above sea level and provides a scenic vista for the surrounding area. The project proposes open space recreational land uses in this area of the project. Uses include low- intensity active and passive recreational activities, such as hiking trails. Project implementation will not disrupt the natural features of Coral Mountain, therefore, no damage to rock outcroppings will occur. Since the project is not located near or adjacent to a state scenic highway, impacts will be less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None c) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the 2035 La Quinta General Plan Environmental Impact Report (LQGP EIR), the existing visual character of the City is both rural and suburban. In La Quinta, the rural visual character consists of agricultural land uses typically found in the eastern portion of the City, including the City’s Sphere of Influence. The incorporated portion of La Quinta, however, exemplifies the suburban visual character, comprised of residential neighborhoods, commercial shopping centers, office parks, golf courses, parks and community facilities built along landscaped boulevards with curb, gutter and Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 17 sidewalks. Buildings tend to be low-rise, which preserves views of the surrounding mountains from private and public lands. An interconnected street system provides accessibility throughout the City, and, for the most part, streets are developed with sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Landscaping along right-of-ways provides visual relief from the built environment and enhances the visual character of the community LQGP EIR, page III-5). Existing Visual Character The project site is located on the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, in the City of La Quinta. The land uses that currently surround the project property greatly influences the existing visual character of the area. These land uses consist primarily of private and gated, low-density residential communities. The approximately 533-acre community, Andalusia Country Club, lies east of the project property and is separated by the paved roadway, Madison Street. Additional private, gated low-density residential communities lie north of the project property, north of Avenue 58. These gated communities vary from approximately 7 acres to 20 acres in size and include low-density tract homes. The street frontage of the communities to the north and east are delineated with block walls, landscaping and meandering sidewalks. As previously stated, the paved roadways, Avenue 58 and Madison Street, delineates the project’s north and east boundaries, respectively. Avenue 58 is a three-lane street (two westbound lanes, one eastbound lane), with curb improvements on the north side. Madison Street is a divided four lane street, with bike lanes, curb improvements and a landscaped median. Dispersed estate residential dwellings lie south of the project site, and vacant land lies south and west of the project property. The combination of vacant and low-density residential land uses influences the visual character of the area. The existing visual character of the project property is defined as vacant and disturbed with scattered desert vegetation throughout the site. The project property has been previously disturbed with uses including both agricultural and residential. The previous agricultural vegetation has been cleared and graded, resulting in the site’s current graded condition. An abandoned adobe house was discovered onsite during a field investigation. The state of the abandoned adobe house is unkept and defaced with vandalism (see the Cultural Resources Section for further discussion). Dirt roads and hiking trails exist onsite from the previous uses and trespassing. Existing vegetation within the project area is best described as Desert Saltbrush scrub, Tamarisk scrub, and Mesquite Hummock. Land is disturbed in the southern and northeast portions of the project property and a stand of blue palo verde is present in the eastern portion of the study area. The majority of the project previously operated as agricultural land, and as a result, the Desert Saltbrush scrub is fairly disturbed throughout the project site. The topography that defines the project site is generally flat with a subtle descending grade from the west to the east, which is due to the natural grade of the region and the project’s adjacency to the Santa Rosa and Coral Mountains. Project elevation descends from approximately 30 feet below sea level, to 60 feet below sea level. The relatively flat character of the project property allows the majority of the site, as well as the Santa Rosa and Coral Mountains, to be visible from the surrounding public right-of-ways. The northern project property boundary, directly adjacent to Avenue 58, lacks landscaping or curb improvements; however, this area includes Imperial Irrigation District’s (IID) distribution power lines and a dirt right-of-way. As stated previously, the property’s eastern boundary is delineated by curb improvements and Madison Street. Proposed Visual Character The perception and uniqueness of scenic vistas and visual character can vary according to the particular location and composition of its surrounding context. The subjective value of views is generally affected by the presence and intensity of neighboring man–made improvements, such as residential structures, overhead utilities, and landscaping, often in relation to the aesthetic quality offered by a natural background that may include open space, mountain ranges, or a natural landmark feature. The proximity and massing of structures, landscaping, and other visual barriers interacts with the visibility of surrounding environments to restrict or enhance the value of local characteristic views. The evaluation of the visual character takes Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 18 into consideration the proposed project’s design features and the physical compatibility of the proposed project in relation to surrounding land uses, transportation corridors, or other vantage points. The Coral Mountain Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”, “SP”), which, when adopted by the La Quinta City Council, will act as the regulatory document that governs all facets of project development, including the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, and development standards and regulations. The Specific Plan is a comprehensive planning and development document intended to guide development of lands within the Specific Plan area boundary by establishing development plans, guidelines, and regulations for the project area and specifies development criteria for various use permit entitlements within the project area. The proposed planning areas within the Specific Plan area include Neighborhood Commercial, Low- Density Residential, Tourist Commercial and Recreational Open Space. Chapter 3 in the SP establishes design guidelines for each proposed planning area, maintaining visual consistency between each proposed land use. The design features, themes and visions for the project property will establish the visual character and scenic quality of the site as a visually attractive community adjacent to the natural Coral Mountain landscape. The design visions for the proposed planning areas are summarized below. Neighborhood Commercial (PA-1): As one of the first features many guests and visitors will encounter, the neighborhood commercial uses will provide attractive public retail frontages with convenient food and beverage services for resort guests, homeowners, and neighbors. Buildings within PA I will be one and two-stories with an eclectic variety of roof-forms and secondary mass elements such as porches, trellises, and brise-soleil, favoring pedestrian use over vehicles. Low Density Residential (PA-II): PA-II is proposed to create single-family neighborhoods that maximize privacy between individual homes, reflect contemporary desert architecture and embrace the natural desert landscape. Single-family residences are proposed to express the individuality of the homeowner, favoring custom architecture designs over highly repetitive tract-homes. Tourist Commercial (PA-III): As the social center of the community, PA-III contains a variety of amenities including: The Wave, retail shops, a boutique hotel, and dining venues. Architecture shall defer to the desert landscape with natural textures, tones, and materials native to the Coachella Valley. One- and two-story buildings with small footprints shall be used as an integral part of the site planning design to provide open view corridors to the Wave in a casual surf-village setting in PA-III. Open Space Recreation (PA-IV): PA-IV is intended to accommodate low-impact active and passive recreation activities, such as hiking trails. This Planning Area will be retained largely in natural open space to preserve the “rugged beauty” of Coral Mountain as a backdrop for the Wave basin. As stated above, Planning Area III, Tourist Commercial, is proposed to function as the social center of the community and contains a variety of uses including a boutique hotel with 150 keys, 104 attached residential units, The Wave basin, eateries/cafes, retail shops, corner grocery, golf and golf practice facilities, as well as additional active recreational amenities. The design guidelines for PA-III are established to create a casual and comfortable neighborhood scale within a walkable, pedestrian friendly environment, and encourage a variety of small boutique retailers to enhance the resort experience. Although the SP outlines design guidelines for the Planning Areas, the SP maintains flexibility to encourage creative and innovative resort concepts. The proposed Wave basin recreational feature is an artificial wave generating basin that uses state-of-the- art proprietary technology designed to re-create ocean waves to be used for professional competitions and recreational purposes for residents and guests. The Wave feature, located in PA-III, is designated as the primary focus of the project site; therefore, the surrounding buildings, pedestrian pathways and streetscapes are vital to the character of this area. The majority of the commercial buildings will be one-story with small footprints and pedestrian level interest or details. The project will avoid visual monotony and provide a variety of roof forms from flat to ramped and gabled, create visual interest reinforcing the eclectic nature of PA-III. The buildings with small footprints will create a porous or open edge condition to The Wave and Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 19 allow pedestrians to wander casually between structures. The two-story lodge shall be the dominant building mass and neighborhood landmark, according to the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. Parking (on-street and off-street) in the project area is required to be designed to minimize the visual impact of the parking areas, and therefore creating greater scenic quality. The design guidelines for the parking areas in PA-III include elements such as: The screening of off-street surface parking from view shall be accomplished through the use of plant material or low walls that are consistent with the architectural style; The use of landscape treatments at surface parking areas to provide shade and minimize the visibility of parking areas; Clearly defined pedestrian circulation in parking areas; The inclusion of golf cart and bicycle parking areas to encourage the use of alternative transportation. In addition to the Tourist Commercial land use area, the project proposes low-density residential uses on approximately 232.1 acres, neighborhood commercial uses on approximately 7.8 acres of the site, and open space recreational uses on approximately 27 acres of the site. The 232.1-acre low-density residential land use occupies the largest area of the project property and allows for the construction of up to 496 single family detached dwellings. The 7.8-acre commercial use located at the northeast property corner will allow for the construction of neighborhood commercial buildings (approximately 60,000 square feet total) with affiliated circulation and infrastructure improvements. The recreational open space area will allow for low- impact active and passive recreational activities, such as hiking. The open space recreational planning area will be retained largely in natural open space to preserve the rugged beauty of Coral Mountain as a backdrop for The Wave basin. Intricate design details for the low-density residential and neighborhood commercial land use areas are discussed in great detail in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. All proposed development within the project area are required to be cohesive and complementary to the adjacent land uses in order to ensure visual consistency throughout the project area. Additionally, permitted uses for the proposed Planning Areas includes all uses defined in the La Quinta Zoning ordinance. Shared design guidelines within Planning Areas I, II, III and IV are established in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan to maintain visual consistency and scenic quality throughout the project property. Some of the shared design guidelines are defined in the following Table I-2. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 20 Table I-2 Planning Area Design Guidelines Design Feature Guideline Materials High-performance materials with sustainable attributes. Natural stone, stucco, architectural concrete, pre-finished metal panels, cementitious panels or siding, and thermally-modified wood siding may be utilized as the finish material for vertical surfaces in a range of natural colors which complement the desert landscape. Roof Roofing products may be selected from a variety of metal profiles like corrugated or standing seam as well as a variety of membrane roofs like Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO) or Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC). The colors of the roofing materials shall conform a range of lighter tones to reduce heat gain. Massing & Scale Courtyards, porches, loggias, trellises, and brise-soleil are encouraged to provide solar control and create opportunities to express crafted details. Windows & Doors Large expanses of high-performance aluminum, wood, wood-clad, or steel windows and operable door systems scaled to the interior space as well as adjacent covered exterior space are encouraged to support a seamless indoor-outdoor experience. Clerestory windows encourage a natural stack effect for ventilation and visually allow the roof to float above the wall plane. The style of windows and doors shall be compatible with the architectural style of the building. Entries Entries shall be signified by massing, wall offsets, roof elements, columns, porches, recesses or projections, accent windows or other architectural features. Walls & Fences When visible from streets, open space, or other quasi-public or private spaces, site walls and fences shall be compatible in material, color, design with adjacent architectural features. Additional enhancements to the project property will include landscaping throughout the entire site and along the project’s frontage. Landscaping will include a mix of trees, shrubs, bushes and ground coverings that will complement the existing surrounding context and natural desert scenery. The project’s frontage along Avenue 58 and Madison Street will include pedestrian sidewalks, similar to the existing sidewalks adjacent to the residential areas north and east of the project property. Paved internal streets, perimeter block walls and gated entry-points are also proposed as part of project implementation. These features will enhance the visual characteristic and scenic quality of the proposed mixed-use project. The current visual character of the project site is defined by vacant and undeveloped desert land with scattered vegetation of various heights and densities. The project proposes a mixed-use community with residential, commercial, resort and recreational open space uses. The project will utilize a variety of natural materials, colors and design features to create a cohesive project area, with the main focus being The Wave basin in the Tourist Commercial Planning Area. The visual character and scenic quality of the entire proposed mixed-use project will be consistent with the policies and standards listed within the 2035 La Quinta General Plan. The LQGP contains elements that establishes goals to maintain La Quinta’s scenic quality. These elements include: Land Use, Circulation, Livable Community, Parks, Recreation and Trails, Housing, and Open Space and Conservation Elements. The design guidelines and features in the Specific Plan will remain consistent with the goals listed in the LQGP to ensure the scenic quality of the City is not diminished. The project’s consistency with the LQGP is displayed in Table I-3, Coral Mountain Specific Plan Consistency, below. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 21 Table I-3 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Consistency General Plan Element General Plan Goal Specific Plan Consistency Land Use High quality design that complements and enhances the City. The SP includes detailed design guidelines in Chapter 3 to guide high-quality development throughout the Specific Plan area. The high- quality design, amenities, and mix of land uses on the site will work to help create a high-quality landmark project that will complement and enhance the character of the City. A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City. The SP provides a broad range of housing types in PA-II and PA-III, designed to promote various housing options on the site. A balanced and varied economic base which provides a broad range of goods and services to the City’s residents and the region. The SP includes both neighborhood commercial and tourist commercial land uses which would increase services associated with tourism and neighborhood commercial uses. Circulation A circulation system that promotes and enhances transit, alternative vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian networks. The project proposes a private circulation system with low-speed, low-volume internal streets that will safely accommodate both vehicles and pedestrians. Livable Community A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. The SP includes elements to assist the city in developing a more united community through resource conservation, built environment enhancement, promotion of alternative forms of transportation, and improvement of community health. The SP is consistent with this goal by promoting a high-quality mix of uses that will greatly enhance the built environment, will promote walkability in the resort center of the project, and will provide ample opportunities for active recreation. Parks, Recreation and Trails A comprehensive system of parks, and recreation facilities and services that meet the active and passive needs of all residents and visitors The project designates up to 27 acres for recreational open space uses, as well as a water- based active recreational amenity that will provide recreational opportunities currently not available in the City. Additional open space will be scattered throughout PA-II. Housing Conserve and improve the quality of existing La Quinta neighborhoods and individual properties. The project will complement the surrounding residential communities. Development of the property into a boutique hotel, neighborhood commercial, recreational open space, and residential uses will add value and amenities to neighboring communities in the City. Open Space Conservation Element Preservation, conservation and management of the City’s open space lands and scenic resources for enhanced recreational, environmental and economic purposes. The project includes significant open space amenities, such as a water-based recreational amenity for use by community residents and guests. The project incorporates connections to the public sidewalk and public trail system for convenient walking, jogging, and biking activities. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 22 The Coral Mountain Specific Plan, when approved by the City of La Quinta, will act as the regulatory document that governs all facets of project development including the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, as well as development standards and regulations for uses within the area. As displayed in Table I-3, above, the Specific Plan is consistent with the goals outlined in the LQGP governing scenic quality in the City. Therefore, the proposed development throughout the entire project will contribute positively to the visual character and scenic quality of the site and will be consistent and complementary to the existing surrounding uses and natural features. The proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan will not conflict with the standards and goals set within the City of La Quinta, including those established in the 2035 LQGP. Additionally, the site has been previously disturbed with agricultural and residential land uses, as well as dirt roads and paths. The disturbed site has been cleared of agricultural uses and graded, resulting in dirt roads throughout the site. With the foregoing, it is anticipated that the proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or conflict with applicable regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None d) Less Than Significant Impact. 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 fixed or non-fixed 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. The residential home lighting typically consists of low-intensity, wall-mounted, downward-oriented fixtures in the patio, side, and front yards of homes. Additional lighting associated with the residential areas includes safety and accent illumination for the parking lot, walkways, athletic courts, landscaping, golf courses and service areas. The existing entry area for the east-lying residential property, Andalusia, includes lighting for the entry guard house and small landscaped street frontages. Street lighting (i.e. light posts) do not occur on the adjacent roadways to the project site. The closest signalized traffic intersection is located approximately one-mile north of the subject site, at the Madison Street and Airport Boulevard intersection. The proposed entries and landscape improvements to the Avenue 58 and Madison Street frontages will incorporate a uniform landscape and lighting plan outside of the perimeter walls that conforms to standards for City designated image corridors. The light fixtures will accentuate the proposed signage, trees, and other landscaping features, making them compatible with the landscaped center medians along Madison Street. The proposed landscape and lighting plan will also be integrated around the proposed resort area, commercial uses, and residential buildings. For purposes of nighttime safety, the proposed parking lots, gated entry points, common areas, event spaces, courtyards, and pedestrian paths are also expected to include the appropriate levels of illumination. Building lighting will consist of downward-oriented fixtures in strategic locations and will avoid fixtures at unnecessary locations. The City Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (Section 9.100.150) provides regulations for reducing light and glare caused by new development. In accordance with Section 9.100.150 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, all exterior lighting shall include adequate energy efficient lighting for public safety while minimizing effects of lighting, such as lighting which (1) has a detrimental effect on astronomical observations, (2) inefficiently utilizes scarce electrical energy, (3) creates a public nuisance or safety hazard. Parking lot lighting shall comply with standards stated in Section 9.100.150 and Section 9.150.080, which requires that graduated light standard heights in parking areas with lower heights in peripheral areas may be required by the Planning Commission to provide compatibility with adjoining properties and streets. In addition to complying with these standards, the proposed landscaping treatment will act as a visual screen to further attenuate the visibility of light fixtures from the existing back yards of homes and other surrounding vantage points that may be sensitive during the evening hours. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 23 Pertaining to glare, the project would not introduce facilities with large reflective surfaces that would generate substantial glare, nor would the project involve new sources of high-intensity lighting that would be deemed incompatible with the surrounding residential and open space areas. High-performance materials such as natural stone, stucco, architectural concrete, pre-finished metal panels, cementitious panels or siding, and thermally modified wood siding may be utilized as part of the design of the project buildings. Large expanses of high-performance aluminum, wood, wood-clad, or steel windows and operable door systems scaled to the interior space as well as adjacent covered exterior space are also encouraged throughout the project. The architecture shall defer to the desert landscape with natural textures, tones and materials native to the Coachella Valley. Roof colors ranging from gray, beige, white, sand, taupe and natural metals will be compatible with the desert landscape, therefore, avoiding unnatural and bright building facades and preventing daytime glare. The proposed structures are expected to have natural and light finishes (including white) combined with earth-tones that do not have highly reflective properties or other conditions that would cause substantial daytime or nighttime glare. Therefore, the impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 24 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? a) Less Than Significant Impact. Historically, agriculture has been a major economic sector in the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley. Although most of the farms within the incorporated regions of La Quinta no longer exist, agriculture is still an economic factor east of the incorporated boundary and within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), developed by the California Department of Conservation, highlights areas within the Coachella Valley that are important agricultural producing lands. They are categorized by the following: Prime Farmland: areas with both good physical and chemical attributes able to sustain long-term agricultural production. Farmland of Statewide Importance: areas that have a good combination of physical and biological characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is available for these uses. Unique Farmland: areas that produce crops of statewide importance; however, contain lower quality soils than those within Prime Farmland. Farmland of Local Importance: lands generally without irrigation, and which produce dry crops that may be important locally but are not important for statewide agriculture production. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 25 Per the most recent (2016) California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site is located in an area designated as Farmland of Local Importance. Therefore, the project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1959 topographic map, Palm Desert Quadrangle 15-minute series), the project property operated as agricultural land, likely vineyards. Historical aerial imagery dating back from 1996 indicates that the site had been cleared of all agricultural remnants prior to 1996. The project site currently lies within an urbanized area of La Quinta, with residential uses to the north, east and south. Additionally, the project area currently lies within the Low Density Residential and Open Space Recreational and General Commercial land uses, designated by the City of La Quinta. As a part of project entitlements, the project will submit a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designations to Low Density Residential, Open Space Recreational, General Commercial and Tourist Commercial. The project site is not currently designated within an agriculture land use category and the site has not operated as agricultural for over 23 years. Overall, the project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None b) No Impact. According to the LQGP EIR, lands under the Williamson Act, or California Land Conservation Act, are agricultural lands that allow special tax assessment. These lands are taxed on the basis of agricultural production rather than market value. The goal of the Williamson Act is to protect agricultural land from being sold for development. 582 acres of land with Williamson Act contracts are located in the City’s Sphere of Influence. Based on 2008 Riverside County data, approximately 218.9 acres were in renewal, and 363 acres were in non-renewal. Non-renewal indicates that the farmland reverts back to market conditions and can be sold at fair market value. Farmland in non-renewal status generally indicates agricultural land will be developed to non-agricultural land uses. The project property is not located in an area under a Williamson Act contract area. Additionally, there are no lands with a Williamson Act contract in the immediate project vicinity. The project does not lie within an area zoned for agriculture. Therefore, there are no impacts. Mitigation: None c-d) No Impact. The proposed project will occur in an existing urban desert setting zoned for Low Density Residential (RL), Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Golf Course (GC). However, as part of the entitlement process, the project proposes a Change of Zone (CZ) to RL, CN, Tourist Commercial (CT) and Parks and Recreation (PR). No forest land, timberland or timberland zoned for timberland production occurs on the project site or in the surrounding area because forest vegetation is not characteristic of the Coachella Valley desert environment. Therefore, there are no impacts. Mitigation: None e) No Impact. As previously discussed, the project site will not result in conversion of any farmland or forest land because no farmland or forest land is currently situated within or adjacent to the project. Therefore, there are no impacts. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 26 3. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a 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? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Sources: Coral Mountain Specific Plan Air Quality Impact Analysis, by Urban Crossroads, June 2020; Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), by SCAQMD, March 2017; Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan CVSIP), by SCAQMD, August 2003; Analysis of the Coachella Valley PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, by the California Air Resources Board, February 2010; California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, 2019 Edition, California Air Resources Board; Press Release No. 18-37 & 19-35, California Air Resources Board Press Release, July 2018 and August 2019. The project site and its Coachella Valley regional context are situated within the Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), under jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Existing air quality in relation to the applicable air quality standards for criteria air pollutants is measured at established air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAQMD jurisdiction. The three permanent ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Coachella Valley are located in Palm Springs (AQS ID 060655001), Indio (AQS ID 060652002), and Mecca (Saul Martinez - AQS ID 060652005). The project site is located approximately 18 miles southeast of the Palm Springs station, 6 miles southwest of the Indio station, and approximately 11 miles northwest of the Mecca (Saul Martinez) station. To comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), SCAQMD has adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), which is updated regularly with strategies to effectively reduce emissions, accommodate growth, and minimize any negative fiscal impacts of air pollution control on the economy. The most current version of the AQMP (2016 AQMP) was released in March of 2017 to continue serving as a regional blueprint for achieving the federal air quality standards. The 2016 AQMP includes the most current strategies to meet the air quality standards and ensure that public health is protected to the maximum extent feasible. It also includes a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control measures is updated with the latest data and methods. Moreover, 2016 AQMP provides guidance for the State Implementation Plans (SIP) for attainment of the applicable ambient air quality standards. Particulate Matter (PM10): As indicated in the 2016 AQMP, the Coachella Valley is currently designated as a serious nonattainment area for PM10 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less). In the Coachella Valley, the man- made sources of PM10 are attributed to direct emissions, industrial facilities, and fugitive dust resulting from unpaved roads and construction operations. High-wind natural events are also known contributors of PM10. The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires those states with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit the corresponding State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to demonstrate how these areas will attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAAQS). The implementation strategies include modeling, rules, regulations, and programs designed to provide the necessary air pollutant emissions reductions. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 27 Pertaining to PM10 attainment, the Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on December 14, 2005. It incorporated updated planning assumptions, fugitive dust source emissions estimates, mobile source emissions estimates, and attainment modeling with control strategies and measure commitments. Some of those measures are reflected in SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1, which are enacted to reduce or prevent man-made fugitive dust sources with their associated PM10 emissions. The CVSIP established the controls needed to demonstrate expeditious attainment of the standards such those listed below: Additional stabilizing or paving of unpaved surfaces, including parking lots; A prohibition on building new unpaved roads; Requiring more detailed dust control plans from builders in the valley that specify the use of more aggressive and frequent watering, soil stabilization, wind screens, and phased development (as opposed to mass grading) to minimize fugitive dust; Designating a worker to monitor dust control at construction sites; and Testing requirements for soil and road surfaces. On February 25, 2010, the ARB approved the 2010 Coachella Valley PM10 Maintenance Plan and transmitted it to the U.S. EPA for approval. With the recent data being collected at the Coachella Valley monitoring stations, consideration of high-wind exceptional events, and submittal of a PM10 Re-designation Request and Maintenance Plan, a re-designation to attainment status of the PM10 NAAQS is deemed feasible in the near future according to the 2016 AQMP. Ozone and Ozone Precursors: Furthermore, the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) is deemed to be in nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Coachella Valley is unique in its geography due to its location downwind from the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). As such, when high levels of ozone are formed in the South Coast Air Basin, they are transported to the Coachella Valley. Similarly, when ozone precursors such as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted from mobile sources and stationary sources located in the South Coast Air Basin, they are also transported to the Coachella Valley. It is worth noting that SCAQMD deems that local sources of air pollution generated in the Coachella Valley have a limited impact on ozone levels compared to the transport of ozone precursors generated in SCAB. The U.S. EPA classifies areas of ozone nonattainment (i.e., Extreme, Severe, Serious, Moderate or Marginal) based on the extent to which an area exceeds the air quality standard for that pollutant. The higher the exceedance level, the more time is allowed to demonstrate attainment in recognition of the greater challenge involved. However, nonattainment areas with the higher classifications are also subject to more stringent requirements. In the 2016 AQMP, the attainment target date for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard was listed as June 15, 2019. However, based on recent data for higher levels of ozone experienced in 2017 and 2018, it was determined that the Coachella Valley region could not practically attain the said standard by the established deadline. Given that additional time is needed to bring the Coachella Valley into attainment of the ozone standard, SCAQMD submitted a formal request to the U.S. EPA to reclassify the Coachella Valley from Severe-15 to Extreme nonattainment, with a new attainment date of June 15, 2024. The reclassification ensures that the Coachella Valley will be given the needed extension to make attainment feasible and prevent the imposition of the non-attainment fees on major stationary sources. This process would also require SCAQMD to develop or update the State Implementation Plan (SIP) documentation to demonstrate how the area will meet the standard on or before June 15, 2024. SCAQMD continues to reduce ozone and improve air quality in the Coachella Valley, in part by providing more than $50 million in grant funding towards paving dirt roads and parking lots, clean energy projects and cleaner vehicles. Future emission reductions anticipated to occur in the South Coast Air Basin associated with current and planned regulations on mobile and stationary sources are expected to contribute to improvements in ozone air quality in the Coachella Valley and lead to attainment of the standard. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 28 Regional Significance Threshold Criteria: The SCAQMD has developed regional significance thresholds for regulated pollutants, as summarized in Table III- 1. The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds (April 2019) indicate that any projects in the SSAB with daily emissions that exceed any of the indicated thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. The project-specific construction and operational emissions results are subsequently analyzed and quantified. Table III-1 SCAQMD’s Air Quality Significance Thresholds (Pounds/Day) Regional Thresholds Emission Source Construction Operations NOx 100 lbs/day 100 lbs/day VOC 75 lbs/day 75 lbs/day PM10 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day CO 500 lbs/day 500 lbs/day Pb 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day Source: SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019 Note: Lad (Pb) is listed as an ambient air pollutant, but due to the phasing out of leaded gasoline (vehicle exhaust source), emission of this pollutant is not expected from project implementation. Therefore, it is included in this list for reference purposes only in citation of the listed pollutants. Localized Significance Threshold Criteria: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has developed and published the Final Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology to help identify potential impacts that could contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). LST methodology was developed in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. The purpose of analyzing LSTs is to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts in relation to the nearest exposed sensitive receptors, such as schools, churches, residences, hospitals, day care facilities, and elderly care facilities. LST thresholds represent the maximum emissions from a project that will prevent an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), project, size, and distance to the sensitive receptor. Therefore, meeting the lowest allowable emissions thresholds translates to meeting the most stringent air quality standards for a project locality. As part of the LST methodology, SCAQMD has divided its jurisdiction into 37 source receptor areas (SRAs) which can be used to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts. The proposed development is located in SRA 30, which covers the Coachella Valley and City of Cathedral City. LSTs only apply to certain criteria pollutants: carbon dioxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx) particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter PM2.5). Methodology In April of 2020, Urban Crossroads prepared the Coral Mountain Specific Plan Air Quality Impact Analysis AQIA), the purpose of which was to evaluate the potential impacts to air quality associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, and in doing so, identify any necessary mitigation measures for complying with the thresholds established by SCAQMD. To support its findings, the AQIA relied on the most current version of Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 29 the California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod serves as an adopted platform to calculate both construction emissions and operational emissions from land use projects. The software can be used to calculate criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases using widely accepted methodologies for estimating emissions, combined with default data that can be used when site-specific information is not available. Sources of these methodologies and default data include but are not limited to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AP-42 emission factors, California Air Resources Board (CARB) vehicle emission models, studies commissioned by California agencies such as the California Energy Commission (CEC) and CalRecycle. The project scope factored into the air emissions modeling consists of a master planned themed resort comprised of a recreational pool (wave pool), a 150-key hotel, 104 attached dwelling units (DU), 496 detached DUs, 60,000 square feet (sf) of retail. The surf pool is a private facility. The Project is anticipated to be constructed in phases, with Phase 1 (2021) including resort (wave pool and hotel uses), 96 attached DUs, 38 detached DUs, and 10,000 sf of retail use. Project Phase 2 (2023) adds 25,000 sf of retail. Project Phase 3 (2026) adds 462 detached DUs and 30,000 sf of retail use. a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project-specific AQIA was prepared to evaluate if project implementation would violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. To help determine if the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, various emission calculations were performed as part of such study. CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 was utilized to estimate the short-term construction-related and long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with the project. This methodology was also used to determine the levels of localized emissions. Construction Emissions: Short-term construction-related emissions were calculated for site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating, and commuting of construction workers. Site specific construction fleet may vary due to specific project needs at the time of construction. The associated construction equipment was generally based on CalEEMod 2016.3.2 defaults. The AQIA estimated that the initial construction phase would commence in July 2020 and would last through December 2021; the second phase of construction would begin September 2022 and last through February 2023; the third phase would commence July 2023 and last through December 2026. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet. The SCAQMD Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this project include Rule 403, 403.1 (Fugitive Dust Control) and Rule 1113 (VOC Limits in Architectural Coatings). The compliance plans required under Rule 403 and 403.1 would include a dust control plan with project-specific methods to prevent sediment track-out onto public roads, prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding a 20-percent opacity, and prevent visible dust emissions from extending more than 100 feet (vertically or horizontally from the origin of a source) or crossing any property line. These requirements are consistent with Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive Dust Control) of the City’s Municipal Code. Moreover, Rule 1113 establishes the limits of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in paints or architectural coatings, with 50 grams/liter being the most pertinent limit to construction projects. As such, credit for these SCAQMD rules was factored into the model. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 30 Table III-2 OVERALL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY (WITHOUT MITIGATION) Year Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Summer Phase 1 (2021) 2020 5.623 64.37 33.32 0.08 11.43 6.63 2021 70.87 77.23 68.59 0.22 12.28 4.88 Phase 2 (2023) 2022 2.21 23.60 12.13 0.03 4.07 2.33 2023 25.24 16.43 11.13 0.03 0.84 0.67 Phase 3 (2026) 2023 3.89 41.85 18.71 0.06 10.40 5.69 2024 10.72 80.84 77.33 0.38 23.77 7.17 2025 31.88 87.68 99.56 0.43 27.93 8.52 2026 31.43 86.86 95.49 0.42 27.92 8.51 Winter Phase 1 (2021) 2020 5.63 64.25 33.36 0.08 11.43 6.63 2021 70.74 76.97 64.28 0.21 2.66 4.88 Phase 2 (2023) 2022 2.21 23.60 12.08 0.03 4.07 2.33 2023 25.23 16.42 11.04 0.03 0.84 0.67 Phase 3 (2026) 2023 3.88 41.85 18.63 0.06 10.40 5.69 2024 10.56 80.11 69.72 0.35 23.77 7.18 2025 31.71 86.96 90.76 0.40 27.93 8.52 2026 31.29 86.12 87.32 0.40 27.93 8.51 Maximum Daily Emissions 70.87 87.68 99.56 0.43 27.93 8.52 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Based on the AQIA findings, emissions resulting from construction of the project are not expected to exceed the regional thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Although mitigation is not needed to reduce estimated maximum daily construction regional emissions, mitigation measures would be required to decrease localized emissions, subsequently described. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 31 Table III-3 OVERALL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY (WITH MITIGATION) Year Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Summer Phase 1 (2021) 2020 1.91 37.46 41.32 0.08 9.67 5.10 2021 69.52 65.41 74.91 0.22 11.83 4.50 Phase 2 (2023) 2022 0.99 14.30 16.80 0.03 3.64 1.97 2023 24.99 12.57 14.18 0.03 0.67 0.54 Phase 3 (2026) 2023 1.46 27.04 30.70 0.06 9.67 5.09 2024 9.84 77.03 84.54 0.38 23.60 7.06 2025 31.17 86.57 107.11 0.43 27.86 8.50 2026 30.72 85.75 103.04 0.42 27.86 8.49 Winter Phase 1 (2021) 2020 1.91 37.33 41.36 0.08 9.67 5.10 2021 69.40 65.15 70.60 0.21 11.83 4.50 Phase 2 (2023) 2022 0.99 14.30 16.75 0.03 3.64 1.97 2023 24.98 12.56 14.12 0.03 0.67 0.54 Phase 3 (2026) 2023 1.46 27.04 30.62 0.06 9.67 5.09 2024 9.68 76.30 76.93 0.35 23.60 7.06 2025 30.99 85.85 98.31 0.02 27.86 8.50 2026 30.58 85.01 94.86 0.40 27.86 8.49 Maximum Daily Emissions 69.52 86.57 107.11 0.43 27.86 8.50 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Operational Emissions: Long-term operational emissions are attributed to various sources that include area source emissions (architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscape maintenance equipment); energy source emissions (combustion emissions associated with natural gas and electricity); mobile source emissions (vehicles and fugitive dust related to vehicular travel). Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 32 Project Design Features (PDFs) Operation of the project will incorporate various design features and operational programs aimed at promoting energy efficiency and sustainability. These are referred to as project design features (PDFs) and consist of the following measures, as identified by the AQIA: Regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated vehicular-source emissions are reduced by the following project design features/attributes: o 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. o 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: o The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood include street accessibility, usually measured in terms of average block size, proportion of four-way intersections, or number of intersections per square mile. Design is also measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian-oriented environments from auto-oriented environments. o Commute Trip Reduction Program – Voluntary, is a multi-strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures. It is presented as a means of preventing double-counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reductions that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a voluntary program. o Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project will include a ride-sharing program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. The project will promote ride-sharing programs through a multi-faceted approach such as: Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides o 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. o The project will implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies with a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include: New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options Event promotions Publications Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 33 This project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle. A vanpool will usually service employees’ commute to work while a shuttle will service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. The project will design building shells and building components, such as windows; roof systems: electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards which expects 30% less energy for non-residential buildings and 53% less energy for residential use due to lighting upgrades. The Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development 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. 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 mitigation measure 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. Based on the AQIA, project operational-source emissions are not expected to exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 34 Table III-4 SUMMARY OF PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS – WITHOUT PDFS (1 OF 2) Operational Activities Summer Scenario Emissions lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Phase 1 2021) Area Source 26.48 2.28 11.69 0.01 0.23 0.23 Energy Source 0.33 2.94 2.31 0.02 0.23 0.23 Mobile Source 12.18 31.00 77.38 0.19 15.01 4.21 Project Daily Emissions Phase 1) 38.98 36.22 91.37 0.22 15.47 4.67 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded?NO NO NO NO NO NO Phase 2 2023) Area Source 27.18 2.28 11.67 0.01 0.23 0.23 Energy Source 0.33 2.95 2.32 0.02 0.23 0.23 Mobile Source 14.04 35.06 87.37 0.23 19.15 5.26 Project Daily Emissions Phase 2) 41.55 40.29 101.33 0.26 19.61 5.72 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded?NO NO NO NO NO NO Phase 3 2026) Area Source 57.92 10.52 53.73 0.07 1.08 1.08 Energy Source 0.57 5.05 3.21 0.03 0.40 0.40 Mobile Source 26.93 76.17 176.85 0.50 46.00 12.61 Project Daily Emissions Phase 3) 85.42 91.74 233.79 0.60 47.47 14.09 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded?NO NO NO NO NO NO Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 35 Table III-4 SUMMARY OF PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS - WITHOUT PDFS (2 OF 2) Operational Activities Winter Scenario Emissions lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Phase 1 2021) Area Source 26.48 2.28 11.69 0.01 0.23 0.23 Energy Source 0.33 2.94 2.31 0.02 0.23 0.23 Mobile Source 9.06 32.48 62.32 0.17 15.01 4.21 Project Daily Emissions Phase 1) 35.86 37.70 76.32 0.20 15.47 4.67 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded?NO NO NO NO NO NO Phase 2 2023) Area Source 27.18 2.28 11.67 0.01 0.23 0.23 Energy Source 0.33 2.95 2.32 0.02 0.23 0.23 Mobile Source 10.40 36.70 71.57 0.21 19.15 5.26 Project Daily Emissions Phase 2) 37.91 41.93 85.55 0.24 19.61 5.72 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded?NO NO NO NO NO NO Phase 3 2026) Area Source 57.92 10.52 53.73 0.07 1.08 1.08 Energy Source 0.57 5.05 3.21 0.03 0.40 0.40 Mobile Source 19.98 79.74 145.28 0.45 46.00 12.61 Project Daily Emissions Phase 3) 78.47 95.31 202.22 0.55 47.47 14.09 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded?NO NO NO NO NO NO The estimated operational-source emissions with PDFs and MM AQ-2 are summarized on Table III-5. After implementation of PDFs, Project operational-source emissions will be further reduced. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 36 Table III-5 SUMMARY OF PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS – WITH PDFS (1 OF 2) Operational Activities – Summer Scenario Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Phase 1 (2021) Area Source 26.22 0.12 10.77 5.70E-04 0.06 0.06 Energy Source 0.33 2.93 2.31 0.02 0.23 0.23 Mobile Source 11.42 27.97 65.67 0.16 13.35 3.80 Project Daily Emissions Phase 1) 37.97 31.03 78.74 0.18 13.64 4.09 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Phase 2 (2023) Area Source 21.83 0.12 10.75 5.70E-04 0.06 0.06 Energy Source 0.33 2.95 2.32 0.02 0.23 0.23 Mobile Source 12.96 30.16 74.27 0.21 16.87 4.64 Project Daily Emissions Phase 2) 35.12 33.23 87.34 0.21 17.15 4.92 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Phase 3 (2026) Area Source 45.19 0.57 49.49 2.62E-03 0.27 0.27 Energy Source 0.57 5.05 3.21 0.03 0.40 0.40 Mobile Source 12.95 81.53 109.27 0.53 40.93 11.14 Project Daily Emissions Phase 3) 69.96 87.14 161.97 0.57 41.60 11.81 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 37 Table III-5 SUMMARY OF PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS - WITH PDFS (2 OF 2) Operational Activities – Winter Scenario Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Phase 1 (2021) Area Source 26.22 0.12 10.77 5.70E-04 0.06 0.06 Energy Source 0.33 2.93 2.31 0.02 0.23 0.23 Mobile Source 8.34 29.19 53.24 0.14 13.35 3.80 Project Daily Emissions Phase 1) 34.89 32.26 66.31 0.16 13.64 4.09 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Phase 2 (2023) Area Source 21.83 0.12 10.75 5.70E-04 0.06 0.06 Energy Source 0.33 2.95 2.32 0.02 0.23 0.23 Mobile Source 9.43 31.36 61.21 0.17 16.87 4.64 Project Daily Emissions Phase 2) 31.59 34.43 74.28 0.19 17.15 4.92 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Phase 3 (2026) Area Source 45.19 0.57 49.49 2.62E-03 0.27 0.27 Energy Source 0.57 5.05 3.21 0.03 0.40 0.40 Mobile Source 17.93 69.62 124.88 0.39 41.16 11.29 Project Daily Emissions Phase 3) 63.69 75.24 177.59 0.42 41.83 11.96 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO The Project Applicant anticipates the potential occurrence of special events at this location involving attendance of no-to-exceed 2,500 guests per day arriving or departing on Saturdays (up to 4 events per year). The estimated operational-source emissions from special event activities without PDFs are summarized on Table III-6. Special event operational-source emissions will exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for emissions of NOX. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 38 Table III-6 SPECIAL EVENT OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY – WITHOUT PDFS Operational Activities – Summer Scenario Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area Source 57.92 10.52 53.73 0.07 1.08 1.08 Energy Source 0.57 5.05 3.21 0.03 0.40 0.40 Mobile Source 31.23 90.70 219.02 0.64 59.04 16.18 Special Events Daily Emissions 89.72 106.27 275.96 0.73 60.51 17.66 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO YES NO NO NO NO Operational Activities – Winter Scenario Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area Source 57.92 10.52 53.73 0.07 1.08 1.08 Energy Source 0.57 5.05 3.21 0.03 0.40 0.40 Mobile Source 23.22 95.05 177.69 0.58 59.04 16.18 Special Events Daily Emissions 81.72 110.63 234.63 0.67 60.51 17.66 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO YES NO NO NO NO The estimated operational-source emissions from special event activities after implementation of PDFs are summarized on Table III-7. After implementation of PDFs, special event operational-source emissions will not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 39 Table III-7 SPECIAL EVENT OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY – WITH PDFS Operational Activities – Summer Scenario Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area Source 45.19 0.57 49.49 2.62E-03 0.27 0.27 Energy Source 0.57 5.05 3.21 0.03 0.40 0.40 Mobile Source 27.80 74.77 163.50 0.45 43.01 11.80 Special Events Daily Emissions 73.56 80.38 216.20 0.48 43.68 12.47 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Operational Activities – Winter Scenario Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Area Source 45.19 0.57 49.49 2.62E-03 0.27 0.27 Energy Source 0.57 5.05 3.21 0.03 0.40 0.40 Mobile Source 20.33 77.70 136.25 0.41 43.01 11.80 Special Events Daily Emissions 66.09 83.31 188.95 0.44 43.68 11.80 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Furthermore, the AQIA included an evaluation of the project’s emissions against the Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology and criteria to identify potential impacts that could contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards. To make these findings, the AQIA identified ten sensitive receptor locations consisting of residential uses. As such, the shortest and most conservative distance interval of 25-meters (82 feet) was used to evaluate construction and operational air quality impacts air quality impacts for emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and CO. Since the total acreage disturbed is less than five acres per day for the site preparation phase and the grading phase, the SCAQMD’s screening look-up tables are utilized in determining impacts. It should be noted that since the look-up tables identifies thresholds at only 1 acre, 2 acres, and 5 acres, linear regression has been utilized, consistent with SCAQMD guidance, in order to interpolate the threshold values for the other disturbed acreage and distances not identified in the look-up tables. Table III-8 identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the Project. This is defined as including on-site future residential uses. Without mitigation, localized emissions are expected to comply with three of the four criteria pollutant thresholds, but would exceed the PM10 pollutant threshold by 0.28 pounds per day. With mitigation incorporated, the localized project emissions would adhere with all four criteria pollutant thresholds. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 40 Table III-8 Localized Significance Summary of Construction (without Mitigation, 1 of 2) On-Site Site Preparation Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Phase 1 (2021) Maximum Daily Emissions 63.79 22.39 11.28 6.59 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 248 1,796 11 7 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO YES NO Phase 2 (2023) Maximum Daily Emissions 11.25 4.03 0.81 0.41 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 132 878 4 3 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Phase 3 (2026) Maximum Daily Emissions 41.82 18.27 10.25 5.64 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 248 1,796 11 7 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Table III-8 Localized Significance Summary of Construction (without Mitigation, 2 of 2) On-Site Grading Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Phase 1 (2021) Maximum Daily Emissions 60.88 32.40 6.47 3.74 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 266 1,961 12 7 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Phase 2 (2023) Maximum Daily Emissions 23.58 11.86 3.99 2.31 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 162 1,089 6 4 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Phase 3 (2026) Maximum Daily Emissions 38.95 27.64 5.57 2.91 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 266 1,961 12 7 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Table III-9 identifies the localized emissions after incorporating mitigation to ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP) comply with the EPA/CARB Tier 3 emissions standards. Adherence to the Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards program will result in air emissions meeting the localized significance thresholds. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 41 Table III-9 Localized Significance Summary of Construction (with Mitigation) On-Site Site Preparation Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Phase 1 (2021) Maximum Daily Emissions 27.05 30.31 9.52 5.06 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 248 1,796 11 7 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Phase 2 (2023) Maximum Daily Emissions 6.86 7.68 0.67 0.30 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 132 878 4 3 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Phase 3 (2026) Maximum Daily Emissions 27.01 30.27 9.52 5.05 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 248 1,796 11 7 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO On-Site Grading Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Phase 1 (2021) Maximum Daily Emissions 33.97 40.40 5.35 2.81 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 266 1,961 12 7 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Phase 2 (2023) Maximum Daily Emissions 14.28 16.53 3.55 1.94 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 162 1,089 6 4 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Phase 3 (2026) Maximum Daily Emissions 33.95 40.38 5.34 2.81 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 266 1,961 12 7 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO As previously introduced, the 2016 AQMP is established as the current applicable air quality plan intended to provide strategies and control measures to meet the NAAQS, as well as, explore new and innovative methods to reach its goals. Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP are defined in Chapter 12, Section 12.2 and Section 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) (29). These indicators are discussed below: Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. Construction Impacts – Consistency Criterion 1: The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the CAAQS and NAAQS. CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 42 significance thresholds were exceeded. The Project would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds or LST thresholds for construction activity after implementation of mitigation. Operational Impacts – Consistency Criterion 1: CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds were exceeded. The Project would not exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds or LST thresholds for operational activity after implementation of PDFs. On the basis of the preceding discussion, the project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion. Consistency Criterion No. 2: The Project will not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of Project build-out phase. The 2016 AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of La Quinta General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Construction Impacts – Consistency Criterion 2: Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance. Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. Operational Impacts – Consistency Criterion 2: As required, Section 6 of the SP content demonstrates consistency with the regulations, guidelines and programs set forth in the City’s General Plan 2035. As described in the SP, the site components (neighborhood commercial, low density residential, resort residential, resort hotel, resort amenities, wave basin, and recreational open space amenities) are deemed compatible with surrounding residential, open space, and neighborhood commercial uses. The SP includes both neighborhood commercial and tourist commercial land uses which will generate revenue and create employment opportunities. The development will be guided by the SP’s development plans, guidelines, and regulations for the project plan area. In doing so, operation of the SP will not exceed the General Plan development assumptions. Therefore, to result in a consistency with the applicable AQMP. On the basis of the preceding discussion, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion. The Project would not have the potential to result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations as Project- related construction and operational-source emissions would not exceed the regional or localized significance thresholds for emissions of any criteria pollutant. As such, the Project is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. After implementation of MM AQ-1, the impact will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: AQ-1: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), the Construction Contractor shall ensure that off-road diesel construction equipment complies with Environmental Protection Agency EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. AQ-2: The Project will require the use of low VOC paints for re-painting and maintenance of exterior structures (not to exceed 50 grams per liter VOCs for interior and exterior building envelope re-painting). b) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed, the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) was formerly classified as “Severe-15” nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard with an attainment deadline of June 15, 2019. Over the past 15 years, the air Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 43 quality in the Coachella Valley has steadily improved because of the implementation of emission control measures by SCAQMD and California Air Resources Board (CARB). However, in 2017 and 2018, higher ozone levels were experienced throughout the State of California due to changes in meteorology, biogenic emissions, and/or anthropogenic emissions. As a result of the higher ozone experienced in 2017 and 2018, it was determined that the Coachella Valley could not practically attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by the June 15, 2019 deadline. The inability to attain the standard is largely due to weather conditions impacting not only the Coachella Valley and the South Coast Air Basin, but the entire State of California and Western United States. As a result, SCAQMD requested a reclassification that would extend the attainment deadline to June of 2024. The reclassification has allowed South Coast AQMD up to five years to reach attainment. The U.S. EPA classifies areas of ozone nonattainment (i.e., Extreme, Severe, Serious, Moderate or Marginal) based on the extent to which an area exceeds the standard. The higher the exceedance level, the more time can be used to demonstrate attainment in recognition of the greater challenge involved. Nonattainment areas with the higher classifications are also subject to more stringent requirements. SCAQMD has prepared additional documentation and will be implementing additional measures to comply with the June 2024 deadline. Current and planned regulations on mobile and stationary sources are expected to contribute to improvements to ozone air quality in the Coachella Valley and lead to attainment of the standard. As demonstrated in the AQIA findings, project-related short-term construction and long-term operational emissions are not expected to exceed the daily thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD for ozone precursors, such as NOx and ROG/VOC. By complying with the adopted thresholds, the proposed development also complies with the overall attainment strategies reflected in the currently adopted 2016 AQMP. Furthermore, the Coachella Valley is currently designated as a serious nonattainment area for PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less). The U.S. EPA-approved Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan is in place with an attainment strategy for meeting the PM10 standard. Some of the existing measures include the requirement of detailed dust control plans from builders that specify the use of more aggressive and frequent watering, soil stabilization, wind screens, and phased development to minimize fugitive dust. Appropriate air quality measures to prevent fugitive dust are required by the City’s Fugitive Dust Control ordinance and plan implementation requirements, which are consistent with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1 that apply to the Coachella Valley strategy for reducing fugitive dust emissions. The project proponent is required to adhere to Chapter 16.16 (Fugitive Dust Control) of the La Quinta Municipal Code pertaining to the control of fugitive dust and the corresponding PM10 emissions from construction activities (on- and off-site). The Fugitive Dust Control ordinance establishes the minimum requirements for construction and demolition activities and other specified sources in order to reduce man- made fugitive dust. Under this ordinance, a Fugitive Dust Control Plan must be prepared and approved prior to any earth-moving operations. Consistent with SCAQMD Rules 403 and 403.1, implementation of the Fugitive Dust Control Plan is required to occur under the supervision of an individual with training on Dust Control in the Coachella Valley. The plan will include methods to prevent sediment track-out onto public roads, prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding a 20-percent opacity, and prevent visible dust emissions from extending more than 100 feet (vertically or horizontally from the origin of a source) or crossing any property line. It will also include protection of onsite uses during subsequent construction. The most widely used measures include proper construction phasing, proper maintenance/cleaning of construction equipment, soil stabilization, installation of track-out prevention devices, and wind fencing. Since Project-related emissions would be consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan, the Coachella Valley PM10 SIP, and all SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, long-term operational air quality impacts associated with the project should not be considered cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 44 c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible (i.e. more susceptible than the population at large) to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. Sensitive receptors and the facilities that house them are of particular concern if they are located in close proximity to localized sources of carbon monoxide, toxic air contaminants, or odors. Land uses considered by the SCAQMD to be sensitive receptors include residences, long-term health care facilities, schools, rehabilitation centers, playgrounds, convalescent centers, childcare centers, retirement homes, and athletic facilities. The project site is located as near as 154 feet existing residential structures and proposes onsite residential uses). Construction-related emissions resulting from the project are not expected to reach or exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance and therefore would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations at a regional level. Results of the LST analysis performed as part of the AQIA indicate that, by applying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards to off-road diesel construction equipment (AQ-1), the project will not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds during construction. Therefore, sensitive receptors on- and off-site would not be exposed to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations during Project construction. The proposed project does not include stationary emission sources or attract mobile sources that may spend long periods of queuing and idling at the site (e.g., transfer facilities and warehouse buildings). Thus, due to the lack of significant stationary source emissions, no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed. Further Project traffic would not create or result in a CO “hotspot.” Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations as the result of project operations. After implementation of MM AQ-1, the impact will be less than significant. Mitigation: Refer to MM AQ-1 in the prior section. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting 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. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is 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. During the life of the project, wave pool maintenance areas will accommodate water treatment materials (e.g. chlorination) in accordance with the industry practices and requirements under the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. The proposed site plan does not place any pool maintenance area closer than 200 feet from any proposed or existing home site. As such, water treatment odors are not expected to become an objectionable condition associated with the wave pool operation. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, the impact to odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 45 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Significan t Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. In October 2019, LSA Associates, Inc. (“LSA”) conducted a project-specific Biological Resources Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis (“biology report”). The biology report was designed to determine whether the proposed development would result in impacts on the biological resources of the approximately 386-acre project site. The analysis included a literature review and field survey of the property. The biology report was prepared for compliance with CEQA, Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP)and the Federal and California Endangered Species Act. The literature review was conducted to assist in determining the existence or potential occurrence of special-interest plant and animal species within the study area and in the project vicinity. An on-foot field survey was conducted on September 11, 2019, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:35 p.m. A literature review was conducted to assist in determining the existence or potential occurrence of special- interest plant and animal species within the study area and in the project vicinity. A records search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) Rarefind 5 2019), and California Native Plant Society’s Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in the project area and vicinity was conducted on August 16, 2019. A review of the CVMSHCP was also conducted in order to determine CVMSHCP consistency and conservation measures that apply to the proposed project, and to reference vegetation types within the study area. Per the biology report, seven federally/state listed species were identified as potentially present 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 Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 46 bighorn sheep. According to LSA, the project provides a marginally suitable habitat for the Coachella Valley milkvetch (CVMV), which is a covered species under the CVMSHCP. The CVMSHCP does not require avoidance and minimization measures for the CVMV. Through participation in the CVMSHCP via payment of development fees, the project would mitigate for any impacts to the CVMV. The project is considered unsuitable habitat for the other six species. The project-specific biology report also determined ten non-listed special-interest species that have a moderate to high probability to occur within the study area. These include the slender cottonheads, flat- tailed horned lizard, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, black-tailed gnatcatcher, Le Conte’s thrasher, western yellow bat, pallid San Diego pocket mouse and the Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel. The biology report determined that due to the disturbed nature of the site, surrounding development, and through compliance with the CVMSHCP, impacts from the project are anticipated to have a less than significant effect on these non-listed special-interest species. Nesting bird species, including special-interest species with potential to occur are protected by California Fish and Game Code and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Further discussion and mitigation for nesting birds is provided in discussion d), of this Biological Resources section. Although burrowing owls were not observed onsite during the field investigation, LSA recommends that a pre-construction burrowing owl survey shall be required using an accepted protocol (as determined by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission in coordination with the permittees and the wildlife agencies). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and, as feasible, up to a 500- foot buffer outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owl. This mitigation is indicated as BIO-1. In addition to the burrowing owl survey, LSA also recommends a pre-construction survey at the project property for the presence of the western yellow bats. The project site contains suitable foraging habitat for roosting bats. Native and non-native ornamental palms surrounding the study area could provide suitable roosting habitat. At least one year prior to constriction, a qualified biologist will conduct a habitat assessment and acoustic survey for roosting bats. If maternity roosts or active hibernacula are found, the biologist will coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to implement avoidance measures where possible. If avoidance is not feasible, the biologist will prepare a site-specific bat avoidance and mitigation plan in coordination with CFDW. This mitigation is indicated as BIO-2. The project will be required to make offsite site improvements for electrical power to the site. These improvements would take place within IID’s existing substation yard on Avenue 58 and in the right-of-way on Avenue 58 between Andalusia and PGA West. Avenue 58 is a fully paved secondary arterial. The IID substation yard has been heavily disturbed and impacted by development of other substation units, vehicles and maintenance materials. Both areas do not provide a suitable habitat for any sensitive or special status species. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and BIO-2 the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation: BIO-1: The project proponent shall ensure that a burrowing owl clearance survey is performed by a qualified biologist not more than 30 days prior to project site disturbance (grubbing, grading, and construction). The pre-construction survey is required to use accepted protocol (as determined by the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission in coordination with the permittees and the wildlife agencies). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and, as feasible, up to a 500- foot buffer 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 Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 47 be staked and flagged. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow. BIO-2: At least one year prior to construction, a qualified bat biologist will be required to conduct a habitat assessment and acoustic survey for roosting bats. If maternity roosts or hibernacula are found, the biologist will coordinate with CDFW to implement avoidance measures where possible. If avoidance of the roost(s) is not feasible, the biologist will prepare a site-specific bat avoidance and mitigation plan in coordination with CDFW. The avoidance and mitigation plan would include mitigation strategies to minimize and or mitigate adverse effects to bats, post-implementation monitoring and performance standards. b) No Impact. The biology report, prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., did not find potential 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 lake, rivers, or streambeds regulated pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code by the CDFW are present within the limits of the proposed project. Because of the absence of significant wash or riparian vegetation, and the absence of other sensitive natural communities. No jurisdictional waters are located within the existing and developed IID offsite improvement areas. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation: None c) No Impact. Per the project-specific biological report, 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 project would not result in the direct removal, filling or other hydrological interruption to federally protected wetlands. The proposed on-site storm drain improvements shall include facilities to prevent the direct discharge and hydro-modification impacts of runoff to any adjacent land. A Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be prepared to ensure that the project does not contribute pollutants of concern in any project storm runoff. The proposed IID offsite improvement areas are fully developed and are not in or near a protected wetland nor do they contain any blue-line stream corridors. Therefore, there are no impacts to federally protected wetlands. Mitigation: None d) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. According to the project-specific biology report, movement and habitat fragmentation occurs when a proposed action results in a single, unified habitat area being divided into two or more areas such that the division isolates the two new areas from each other. Isolation of habitat occurs when wildlife cannot move freely from one portion of the habitat to another or from one habitat type to another. The biology report did not indicate evidence of migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites on the project or adjacent properties. Since the project property does not lie within a CVMSHCP-designated wildlife corridor and the study area is adjacent to commercial 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 potential to support nesting birds which are protected by California Fish and Game Code and by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Therefore, LSA recommends that the vegetation removal activities be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31) to ensure compliance within California Fish and Game Code and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. If vegetation cannot be removed outside the bird nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist is required prior to vegetation removal. As previously discussed, the associated offsite site improvements for electrical power to the site would occur in an existing right-of-way and on a developed and a disturbed substation yard. These areas do not Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 48 provide a suitable wildlife corridor for animals. After implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the impact will be less than significant. Mitigation: BIO-3: To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, the vegetation removal activities shall be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31). If vegetation cannot be removed outside the bird nesting season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey by a qualified biologist is required not more than 30 days prior to vegetation removal. e-f) No Impact. The project site does not contain any trees that would necessitate removal. Moreover, the City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The project lies within the boundary of the CVMSHCP which outlines policies for conservation habitats and natural communities and is implemented by the City of La Quinta. The project will be required to pay the CVMSHCP mitigation fee to mitigate the loss of habitat for covered species. 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. Therefore, there are no impacts. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 49 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project is located on approximately 386 acres of undeveloped land in the City of La Quinta. The project specific Historical/Archaeological Resource Survey Report prepared by CRM Tech (October 2019) found evidence of historical resources within the project area. The research methods performed by CRM Tech included a records search of historical literature, records, maps, contacted Native American representatives and carried out an intensive field level survey of the entire project area. The project area is located on the southcentral outskirts if the City and in the eastern foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and include a portion of a rocky knoll known as Coral Mountain. The terrain in most of the project area is relatively level due to past agricultural operations, the ground surface in much of the project area has been disturbed to various degrees, except for the portion in and around Coral Mountain. The northeast portion of the site does not appear to have been farmed but it has been cleared of vegetation. Historical sources consulted yielded no evidence of any settlement or development activities within the project area prior to the 1910s. Between 1855 and 1903, the only man- made feature known to extant in the project vicinity was a road from “Indian Wells to Torres”, which was part of the historic Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail, which ran roughly 1,000 feet to the east of the project site. By the 1930s and early 40s, the segment of Cocomaricopa-Bradshaw Trail near the site had been abandoned in favor of a regular grid of new roads, including today’s Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The Trail had disappeared from the landscape as result of agricultural development in the vicinity during the early 20th century. Cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historic Interest, or Riverside County Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory. Within the one-mile scope of the records search, Eastern Information Center records show nearly 60 additional studies on various tracts of land and linear features, reflecting the rapid growth of the project vicinity over the past 40 years. Collectively, these studies covered more than 90% of the land within the scope of the records search and resulted in the recordation of 70 historical /archaeological sites and 49 isolates within the one-mile radius. 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. In 1953-1954, another residence was built on the eastern edge of the project area and located on the east side of the original alignment of Madison Street. On the Coral Reef Ranch to the west, some of the buildings present in 1941 had been removed by the 1950s but the farming operations continued well into the late 20th century before being abandoned in the 1990s. Since that time, the entire project area has remained undeveloped. The remains of the ranch complex, including the partially collapsed adobe house, have been recorded into the California Historical Resources Inventory (Site 33-008388). First recorded in 1998, Site 33-008388 represents the remains of buildings and other featured of the former Coral Reef Ranch, with a total of 6 locations and intermittent refuse scatter. The most notable feature is the partially collapsed house near the Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 50 center of the project area and designated as location 1 of the site. Historical background research suggests that the house was likely built during the 1920s or 1930s. Location 2 was a foundation and well or cistern, location 3 was a residential foundation, location 4 was a pole barn foundation and a well, location 5 was a well, cistern and two structural foundations. Location 6 was a scatter of artifacts including some that predate 1920. This site was revisited during the current survey, and the adobe building was found to be vandalized, burned, and further deteriorated. However, the walls are standing, and the adobe bricks are in overall good condition. The rest of the site is still intact apart from location 5, where only one of the two structural foundations remain, and the remaining features have been removed. The site is remnant of one of the earliest settlements and agricultural enterprises to be established in the present-day boundary of the City. The site remains eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources and has a local level of significance. The Archeological report concludes the site meets the definition of a historical resource. A comprehensive recordation program is recommended for Site 33-008388 to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The applicant has agreed to avoid disturbance of the standing remains of (locus 1) during all earth moving activities and preserve the remains in place as a community feature with an informational plaque. The feature will be maintained in perpetuity by the future Homeowners Association. The project is also required to make offsite site improvements for electrical power to the site. These improvements would take place within IID’s existing substation yard on Avenue 58 and in the right-of-way on Avenue 58 between Andalusia and PGA West. Avenue 58 is a fully paved secondary arterial. The IID substation yard has been heavily disturbed and impacted by development of other substation units, vehicles, and maintenance materials. Given the previous grading and construction disturbance in the development of these areas and their current existing uses, no new historical or archaeological resources would be present. Therefore, following Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation: CUL-1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33- 008388. The report 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 shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place with an informational plaque. The feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the developments’ Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to Location 3, which, on appearances 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. Location 6 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 well be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these elusive 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, reports, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al.1998:54). b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Archaeological resources are described as cultural resources, such as structures or objects that provide evidence to past human activity. They are important for scientific, historic, and or religious reasons to cultures, communities, groups or individuals. The vast majority of the previously recorded cultural resources, accounting for 62 sites and 48 isolates, were prehistoric – i.e., Native American origin, which attests to the rich archaeological heritage of the City from the prehistoric era. The sites mainly consisted of ceramic lithic scatters with some bedrock milling features, Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 51 ground stone artifacts, and the remnants of fire hearths. Some of the larger concentrations of artifacts have been interpreted as habitation or fish camp sites. A few of the sites also include rock art panels and human cremation remains. 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 other associated artifacts and features (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”. According to the 2003 evaluation, the images from the Rock Art Complex likely represent a style of rock art that was produced within a very narrow span of time. The kinds of information important to the prehistory of these sites have provided or are likely to contain (1) distribution and design element inventory of petroglyphs, a recognized sensitive resource to contemporary Native Americans; (2) designs that may be unique in themselves and represent a style and time period not yet fully recognized and described; (3) data about milling features unique to the Coachella Valley that reflects part of the subsistence patters of the valley post Lake Cahuilla; (4) unique opportunity to study ethnic petroglyphs; and, (5) data on the ceramic manufacturing and distribution of local vs. exotic wares through further analysis. The project-specific cultural report determined that only three sites constitute an archaeological and historical resource. The other sites were previously determined not to be eligible for listing in the California Register due to the low number of artifacts and the minimal archaeological data potential. Therefore, none of these four sites appears eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, and none of them qualifies as a “historical resource.” The isolates located within the project area consist of either prehistoric ceramic sherds or glass fragments from the historic period, with no associated archaeological features or other artifacts. By definition, isolates like these do not qualify as archaeological sites due to the lack of contextual integrity. However, given the rich archaeological discoveries in and near the project area, the possibility of encountering buried prehistoric cultural remains cannot be overlooked. Therefore, pursuant to mitigation measure CUL-2, archaeological monitoring shall be implemented during all ground disturbing activities. In order to prevent potential project impacts to the three resources, CRM Tech recommends the sites at the toe of the slope be avoided and protected in situ during the project’s construction by establishing the area as an Environmentally Sensitive Area. For the balance of Site 33-001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation should be completed to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-4, and CUL-5 impacts are less than significant. Mitigation: CUL-2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities that penetrate native soils, including clearing and grubbing. 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, and its potential eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHC). CUL-3: The project applicant shall ensure the presence of an approved Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Native American Cultural Resource Monitor during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys) for the project. CUL-4: Prior to ground disturbance, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all contractors with the staff at the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 52 CUL-5: Sites 33-00193, 33-001715, and 33-009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of an Environmentally Sensitive Area. For the balance of Site 33-001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation should be completed to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project. The excavation should feature 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, and a detailed mitigation plan shall be drafted beforehand for review and consensus among all interested parties, including the culturally affiliated Native American tribes. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not anticipated to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Pursuant to the 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, there shall be 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. 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 by telephone within 24-hours of the Native American Heritage Commission. Pursuant to the mentioned California Health and Safety Code, proper actions shall take place in the event of a discovery or recognition of any human remains during project construction activities. Therefore, the impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 53 6. ENERGY -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy of energy efficiency? Sources: La Quinta 2035 General Plan; La Quinta Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, 2012; The Wave – Coral Mountain Greenhouse Gas Analysis, Urban Crossroads, 2019. a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes a mixed-use development on approximately 386 acres on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, in the City of La Quinta. As stated throughout this document, the project will consist of residential, commercial, open space/recreational and resort uses. Low density residential uses will occupy approximately 232.1 acres of the site, commercial uses will occupy 7.8 acres, resort uses will occupy 117.7 acres, and the open space/recreational uses will occupy 27 acres of the project site. Associated improvements include pedestrian walkways and sidewalks, and paved driveways and roadways. Electricity and natural gas are the primary sources of energy in the City of La Quinta. Electricity is provided to the City and Sphere of Influence (SOI) by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), which delivers electricity throughout the City at 92 or 161 kilovolts and decreased 12 kilovolts for distribution to its customers. The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas or the Gas Company) provides natural gas to the City of La Quinta. Natural gas is the primary source of energy used in the City for space and water heating, as well as cooking. The Gas Company has major supply lines in Washington Street and Highway 111. In 2010, customers in the City consumed an estimated 1,025 million cubic feet of natural gas, according to the 2035 La Quinta General Plan (LQGP). The project is expected to consume energy in the form of electricity, natural gas and petroleum during project construction and operation. Analysis of the project-related energy consumption was provided the project-specific Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis Report completed by Urban Crossroads in June 2020. The report addresses project-related impacts to GHGs, as well as project-related energy consumption. The consumption of energy may lead to an increased amount of GHGs emitted in an area; therefore, energy was evaluated in the reports and used in the analysis of this section. The latest version of CalEEMod v2016.3.2 was utilized in the report to calculate construction-source and operational-source criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources and quantify applicable GHG reductions achieved from mitigation measures. The GHG Report analyzed the project in three phases. Phase 1 (2021) includes the development of the resort (Wave basin and hotel uses), 96 attached dwelling units (DU), 38 detached DUs, and 10,000 square feet of retail use. Project Phase 2 (2023) adds 25,000 square feet of retail, and Phase 3 (2026) adds 462 detached DUs and 30,000 square feet of retail use. At full buildout, the project will consist of a recreational pool (Wave basin), a 150-key hotel, 104 attached DUs, 496 detached DUs, 60,000 square feet of retail, and a pop-up village park. The project applicant also anticipates the potential occurrence of special events at this location involving attendance of not-to-exceed 2,500 guests per day arriving or departing on Saturdays up to 4 events per year). The GHG Report outlined energy-saving and sustainable project design features (PDFs) that would be incorporated into the design of the project. The PDFs listed in the Report are proposed to lower energy consumption and GHG emissions by implementing ride sharing programs, pedestrian connections and access, mixed land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled, use of Energy Star appliances, installation of Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 54 water-efficient plumbing fixtures, and use of electricity generated from photovoltaic (PV) systems, to name a few. Please consult the GHG Report and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section of this environmental document for an extensive list of the proposed project design features. In order to determine the project’s impacts on GHG emissions and energy demand, Urban Crossroads ran various CalEEMod models which included: Annual Construction Emissions Special Events Operational (with PDFs) Proposed Project Operational (with PDFs) The Special Events Operational includes the numbers for the occurrence of the special events of up to 2,500 guests per day, up to four events per year. The Proposed Project Operational includes the operation of the project during the three phases of development (2021, 2023 and 2026). The third phase generated cumulative values assuming total project buildout. In the analysis of the energy consumed during project operation, the “with PDFs” scenario calculations were utilized, since the project design features, outlined above and in detail in Urban Crossroad’s GHG Report, will be implemented in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan project. Project-related energy consumption, via electricity, natural gas and petroleum, is discussed further subsequently. Electricity As previously stated, electricity is provided to the City of La Quinta and the project site by IID. According to the LQGP Environmental Impact Report (EIR), IID estimated that residential development in the City of La Quinta consumes approximately 16,798 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity per year per unit. Approximately 23,489 households within the City, and 801 households in the SOI consumed approximately 408,023,420 kWh of electricity in one year. Commercial uses consume approximately 57.88 kWh per square feet per year. Based on these factors, existing residential and commercial development in the City consumed an estimated 765,590,714 kWh, while residential and commercial users in the SOI consumed 29,242,547 kWh, per the LQGP EIR. Construction Temporary electrical power for lighting and electronic equipment, such as computers inside interim construction trailers, would be provided by IID. Electricity consumed for onsite construction trailers, which are used by managerial staff during the hours of construction activities, as well as electrically-powered hand tools are expected to use a minimal amount of electricity. However, the electricity used for such activities would be temporary and negligible. Most energy used during construction would be from petroleum consumption (discussed further in the petroleum subsection). Operation The project proposes the operation of residential, resort, commercial and open space uses on approximately 386-acre of vacant land in the City of La Quinta. As previously determined, electric utilities for the site are served under the jurisdiction of the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The project will be required to install an off-site transformer bank at an existing IID substation located at 81600 Avenue 58 and extend a distribution line along Avenue 58. Conduit systems will also be installed along Avenue 58 as part of the proposed upgrades. Construction of the conduits and line extension would occur in the existing right-of- way. Timing and scope of the improvements will be coordinated between the developer and IID. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. The CalEEMod program utilized in this analysis calculated the project’s potential operational electricity usage by splitting up the land uses into appropriate categories. The categories consistent with the proposed project includes apartment low rise, hotel, other asphalt surfaces, regional shopping center, single family housing and user defined recreational. Definitions of these land uses are provided in the CalEEMod manual. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 55 According to the CalEEMod calculations, provided in the GHG Report, the project is expected to generate the demand for approximately 7,926,369 kWh of annual electricity use for the entire project at total build- out. The estimated electricity use for each proposed land use is outlined in Table VI-1. Table VI-1 Proposed Project Operational (with PDFs) Electricity Demand Electricity Use Land Use kWh/yr Apartments Low Rise 345,198 Hotel 2,584,490 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 Regional Shopping Center 456,511 Single Family Housing 3,051,720 User Defined Recreational 1,488,450 Total 7,926,369 The LQGP EIR predicts that the City of La Quinta General Plan Area will result in electrical consumption of 1,645,145,600 kWh per year at total build-out. Single family residential uses will account for 791,924,912 kWh of this amount, while multi-family uses will account for 101,224,748 kWh/year. Commercial uses will consume 716,607,636 kWh/year, and industrial development will use 35,388,304 kWh/year. As previously determined, the proposed project is anticipated to consume approximately 7,926,369 kWh/year. The project would not result in the use of excessive amounts of fuel or electricity; however, the project would incorporate several measures directed at minimizing energy use. These measures include 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 2019 Title 24 Standards which expects 30 percent less energy for non-residential buildings and 53 percent less energy for residential use due to lighting upgrades. Additional project design features include the use of: Specified 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 Installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems to generate a minimum of 15 percent of the project’s electricity. Compliance with energy efficiency codes and regulations will be required during the operation of the project (discussed in further detail in discussion b. of this Energy Section). Implementing rooftop solar and energy-efficient design features will both generate electricity onsite, and reduce electricity consumption, respectively. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant with no mitigation. Natural Gas According to the La Quinta 2035 General Plan Update, the demand for natural gas for a household in the City is approximately 29,093 cubic feet per year. This number is equivalent to approximately 30,169.4 thousand British Thermal Units (BTU), which is the unit used in the CalEEMod calculations. Therefore, Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 56 the approximately 24,290 households in the City and City’s Sphere of Influence, is approximately 706,668,970 cubic feet per year (equivalent to 732,815,721.9 kBTU). The residential component of the City is responsible for approximately 70 percent of the City’s total natural gas consumption. Construction Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the project. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed under the petroleum subsection, below. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed because of project construction would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect. Operation The consumption of natural gas typically is consumed during building heating, water heating and cooking, which will occur during project operation. The project’s expected natural gas consumption was calculated in Urban Crossroad’s GHG Report using the CalEEMod default values. Based on the CalEEMod calculations, the project is estimated to consume approximately 19,377,570 thousand British thermal units kBTU) of natural gas annually during operation of the various land uses. This is displayed in Table VI-2, Proposed Project Operational Natural Gas Demand. Table VI-2 Proposed Project Operational (with PDFs) Natural Gas Demand Natural Gas Use Land Use kBTU/yr Apartments Low Rise 1,093,660 Hotel 9,467,770 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 Regional Shopping Center 98,400 Single Family Housing 8,717,740 User Defined Recreational 0 Total 19,377,570 According to the LQGP EIR, at projected build-out, single family units will use approximately 1,371,560,392 cubic feet of natural gas per year (cf/year), and multi-family units will use approximately 175,314,418 cf/year. For commercial uses, consumption will be approximately 658,912,550 cf/year. At buildout, all development in the City’s General Plan Planning Area is expected to consume approximately 2,238,329,502 cubic feet per year, which is equivalent to 2,296,526,069.05 kBTU. According to Urban Crossroad’s GHG Analysis, the project is anticipated to consume approximately 19,377,570 kBTU/year.. Although the project would result in a long-term increase in demand for natural gas, the project would be designed to comply with Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) regarding energy consumption. As stated previously, as a part of the project design features to reduce energy consumption, the project will implement the use of: 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 expects 30 percent less energy for non-residential buildings and 53 percent less energy from residential use due to lighting upgrades. Specified use of Energy Star appliances. Using electricity generated from photovoltaic (PV) systems to generate a minimum of 15 percent of the project’s electricity. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 57 Installation of tankless water heater systems. The implementation of the project design features listed throughout this Energy Section will reduce the amount of natural gas consumed during project operation. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant without mitigation. Petroleum Petroleum is the largest U.S. energy source according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Petroleum products are used to fuel vehicles and produce electricity. U.S. Petroleum consumption in 2017 was primarily used by the transportation sector (71 percent). The industrial sector accounted for 24 percent petroleum consumption, the residential sector consumed 3 percent, commercial consumed 2 percent, and finally, electric power consumed 1 percent. Gasoline is the most consumed petroleum product in the United States. In 2017, consumption of finished motor gasoline averaged about 392 million gallons per day, which was equal to about 47 percent of total U.S. petroleum consumption, according to the U.S. EIA. Gasoline and other vehicle fuels are commercially provided commodities and would be available to the project via commercial outlets. Construction Petroleum would be consumed throughout construction of the project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primarily energy resource expended over the course of construction, while VMT associated with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes would also result in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty equipment used for project construction would rely on diesel fuel, as would haul trucks involved in off-hauling materials from excavation. Construction workers are expected to travel to and from the project site in gasoline-powered passenger vehicles. There are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive that is used for comparable activities or use of equipment that would not conform to current emission standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during each phase of construction. CalEEMod was used to estimate construction equipment usage. In the analysis of the project the mitigated construction figures were used, based on the assumption that the project will implement applicable mitigation measures. Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors shown in the tables included subsequently. Table VI-3, Phase 1, 2 and 3 Construction Worker Gasoline Demand, illustrates the demand of gasoline fuel for construction worker trips to and from the site during each construction phase, and phase of development. Construction worker gasoline demand during each phase of development equals a total of 498,138 gallons of gasoline fuel. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 58 Table VI-3 Phase 1, 2 and 3 Construction Worker Gasoline Demand Phase Const. Phase Days Trips Miles VMT KgCO2e Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons 1 Site Prep. 40 18 11 7,920 2,497.1 8.89* 281 Grading 110 20 11 24,200 7,588.2 8.89 855 Building Const. 200 823 11 1,810,600 551,758.5 8.89 62,065 Paving 75 15 11 12,375 3,771.1 8.89 424 Arch. Coating 75 165 11 136,125 41,482.5 8.89 4,666 Phase 1 Construction Total 98,291 2 Site Prep. 1 5 11 55 16.2 8.89 1.82 Grading 2 10 11 220 64.6 8.89 7.27 Building Const. 100 16 11 17,600 5,112.7 8.89 575.11 Paving 5 18 11 990 279.6 8.89 31.45 Arch. Coating 5 3 11 165 46.6 8.89 5.24 Phase 2 Construction Total 621 3 Site Prep. 180 18 11 35,640 9,957.1 8.89 1,120 Grading 200 20 11 44,000 11,964.2 8.89 1,346 Building Const. 500 2,197 11 12,083,50 0 3,107,820.9 8.89 349,586 Paving 330 15 11 54,450 13,856.3 8.89 1,559 Arch. Coating 330 439 11 1,593,570 405,526.3 8.89 45,616 Phase 3 Construction Total 399,227 Total Construction Gasoline Demand 498,139 https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Table VI-4, Phase 1, 2 and 3 Construction Vendor Diesel Demand, illustrates the demand of diesel fuel for construction vendor trips to and from the site during each construction phase, and phase of development. These trips are associated with the delivery of construction materials during the building construction phase. Construction vendor demand during each phase of development equals a total of 468,038 gallons of diesel fuel. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 59 Table VI-4 Phase 1, 2 and 3 Construction Vendor Diesel Demand Phase Const. Phase Days Trips Miles VMT KgCO2e Kg/CO2/Gallo n Gallons 1 Site Prep. 40 0 0 0 0 10.18* 0 Grading 110 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Building Const. 200 302 5.40 326,160 623,619.5 10.18 61,259 Paving 75 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Arch. Coating 75 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Phase 1 Construction Total 61,259 2 Site Prep. 1 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Grading 2 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Building Const. 100 7 5.40 3,780 7,108.2 10.18 698 Paving 5 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Arch. Coating 5 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Phase 2 Construction Total 698 3 Site Prep. 180 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Grading 200 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Building Const. 500 843 5.40 2,276,100 4,133,905.4 10.18 406,081 Paving 330 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Arch. Coating 330 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Phase 3 Construction Total 406,081 Total Construction Diesel Demand 468,038 https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Table VI-5, Phase 1 Construction Hauling Diesel Demand, illustrates the demand of diesel fuel for construction hauling trips to and from the site during Phase 1 of construction. These trips are associated with the hauling during the grading construction phase. Construction hauling demand during grading of Phase 1equals a total of 2,647 gallons of diesel fuel. Table VI-5 Phase 1 Construction Hauling Diesel Demand Phase Const. Phase Days Trips Miles VMT KgCO2e Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons 1 Site Prep. 40 0 0 0 0 10.18* 0 Grading 110 3,282 1 361,020 26,951.4 10.18 2,647 Building Const. 200 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Paving 75 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Arch. Coating 75 0 0 0 0 10.18 0 Total Construction Hauling Diesel Demand 2,647 Table VI-6, Construction Equipment Diesel Fuel Demand, displays the demand of diesel fuel for construction vehicles on-site during the various construction phases. Construction equipment diesel demands for each phase of project development equals a total of 338,079 gallons of diesel fuel. Table VI-6 Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 60 Phase 1, 2 and 3 Construction Equipment Diesel Fuel Demand Phase Const. Phase Days Equipment Units KgCO2e Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons 1 Site Prep. 40 7 101,028.4 10.18* 9,924 Grading 110 8 348,329.7 10.18 34,217 Building Const. 200 9 375,796.5 10.18 36,915 Paving 75 6 75,695.1 10.18 7,436 Arch. Coating 75 1 12,788.2 10.18 1,256 Phase 1 Construction Total 89,748 2 Site Prep. 1 2 639.3 10.18 63 Grading 2 4 2,679.2 10.18 263 Building Const. 100 5 108,292.4 10.18 10,638 Paving 5 7 3,810.0 10.18 374 Arch. Coating 5 1 852.4 10.18 84 Phase 2 Construction Total 11,422 3 Site Prep. 180 7 453,186.8 10.18 44,517 Grading 200 8 632,781.3 10.18 62,159 Building Const. 500 9 936,536.7 10.18 91,998 Paving 330 6 332,988.1 10.18 32,710 Arch. Coating 330 1 56,248.1 10.18 5,525 Phase 3 Construction Total 236,909 Total Construction Equipment Diesel Demand 338,079 https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator Overall, the project is estimated to consume approximately 498,139 gallons of gasoline and 808,764 gallons of diesel fuel during the project’s construction phases. In total, the project will consume approximately 1,306,903 gallons of petroleum between years 2020 to 2026, assuming project build out. Petroleum use is necessary to operate construction equipment. The US EPA applied a Tier 3 program in order to reduce the impacts of motor vehicles on air quality and public health. The vehicle emissions standards will reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. The construction equipment will utilize Tier 3 engines or higher, therefore would be newer off-road equipment units. The energy used during the construction of the project would be limited to the development of the project and would not require long-term petroleum use. Additionally, there are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive that is used for comparable activities or use of equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards and related fuel efficiencies). Thus, project construction would not consume petroleum in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Operation The GHG Analysis calculated the project’s estimated annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using CalEEMod. Per the GHG Analysis, the project’s operational emissions were calculated between two main scenarios, including “Proposed Project Operational (with PDFs)”, and “Special Events Operational (with PDFs)”. The scenarios are analyzed and discussed as followed: Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 61 Proposed Project Operational (with PDFs) Scenario The Proposed Project Operational model calculated the annual project VMT between the three phases of project development used in the CalEEMod modeling. Project operational VMTs in this scenario is depicted in the table below. Table VI-7 Proposed Project Operational (with PDFs) VMT Annual VMT Land Use Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Apartments Low Rise 542,886 1,641,593 1,700,026 Hotel 573,768 1,986,567 1,873,502 Other Asphalt Surfaces -- -- -- Regional Shopping Center 1,096,902 2,059,448 3,044,169 Single Family Housing 3,137,236 549,543 10,734,584 User Defined Recreational 341,735 684,570 344,359 Total Annual VMT 5,692,527 6,921,721 17,696,639 Note: Phase 3 is the cumulative annual VMT value assuming total project buildout. Per the CalEEMod calculations for the Proposed Project Operational scenario, the average daily trip rate will total to 9,488.99 VMTs on the weekdays, 10,174.10 VMTs on Saturday, and 7,652.42 VMTs on Sunday. By Phase 3 the total mobile source CO2e is 6,321.3319 MT per year, or 6,321,331.9 kg per year. CalEEMod assumes 92.5 percent of VMT burns gasoline, while the remaining 7.5 percent burn diesel. Thus, of the 6,321,331.9 kg of mobile emissions, approximately 45,847,232 kg is generated by gasoline combustion and approximately 474,099.9 kg is generated by diesel combustion. Project operation would have an annual gasoline demand of 657,731 gallons and an annual diesel demand of 46,572 gallons, as displayed in Table VI-8. Table VI-8 Proposed Project Operational (with PDFs) Annual Petroleum Annual VMT KgCO2e Kg/CO2/Gallon Annual Gallons Gasoline 16,369,391.075 5,847,232 8.89 657,731 Diesel 1,327,247.925 474,099.9 10.18 46,572 Total Annual Petroleum 704,303 17,696,639 x 0.925 = 16,369,391.075; 17,696,639 x 0.075 = 1,327,247.925 Special Events Operational (with PDFs) Scenario As stated previously, the project applicant anticipates the potential occurrence of special events at the project site involving attendance of not-to-exceed 2,500 guests per day arriving or departing on Saturdays up to 4 events per year). The Special Events Operational model calculated the annual project VMTs for the occurrence of these special events. Per the CalEEMod calculations, special events at the project site are anticipated to generate 5,692,527 VMTs annually. The average daily trip rate being 11,658.98 VMTs on Saturday, and 11,658.98 VMTs on Sunday. Total mobile source CO2e is 2,048.6696 MT per year, or 2,048,669.6 kg per year. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 62 Table VI-9 Special Events Operational (with PDFs) VMT Land Use Annual VMT Apartments Low Rise 542,886 Hotel 573,768 Other Asphalt Surfaces -- Regional Shopping Center 1,096,902 Single Family Housing 3,137,236 User Defined Recreational 341,735 Total 5,692,527 As previously determined, CalEEMod assumes 92.5 percent of VMT burns gasoline, while the remaining 7.5 percent burn diesel. Thus, of the 2,048,669.6 kg of mobile emissions, approximately 1,895,019 kg is generated by gasoline combustion and approximately 153,650 kg is generated by diesel combustion. Special events operation would have an annual gasoline demand of 213,163 gallons and an annual diesel demand of 15,093 gallons, as displayed in Table VI-10. Table VI-10 Special Events Operational (with PDFs) Annual Petroleum Annual VMT KgCO2e Kg/CO2/Gallon Annual Gallons Gasoline 5,265,587. 5 1,895,019 8.89 213,163 Diesel 426,939.5 153,650 10.18 15,093 Total Annual Petroleum 228,256 5,692,527 x 0.925 = 5,265,587.475; 5,692,527 x 0.075 = 426,939.525 Over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of vehicles in use is expected to increase, as older vehicles are replaced with newer more efficient models. Therefore, it is expected that the amount of petroleum consumed due to the vehicle trips to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time. Additional advancement of technology includes the use of plug-in hybrid and zero emission vehicles in California, which will also decrease the amount of future petroleum consumed in the state. With the foregoing, operation of the project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time, due to advances in fuel economy. The GHG Analysis, completed by Urban Crossroads, recommends programs and project design features PDFs) that promote energy efficiency and sustainability which will reduce VMTs and energy consumption. Because the features/attributes are integral to the project, and/or are regulatory requirements, they are not considered to be mitigation measures. According to Urban Crossroads, the regional VMTs and associated vehicular-source emissions are reduced by the following project design features/attributes: 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. Having different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter any may be accommodated by non-auto modes of transport. The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Commute Trip Reduction Program (Voluntary) is a multi-strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures. Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cards driving the same trip, reducing VMTs. Encouraging telecommuting and alternative work schedules, reducing the number of commute trips. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 63 Although the project would result in an increase in petroleum use during construction and operation compared to the existing conditions, the project would implement measures required under the LQGP Policy CIR-1.12 and Policy CIR-2.2, City Municipal Code Chapter 9.180.010, and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (section addressing “Transportation Reductions”, page V-3) as well as implementation program CG-6 (page V-19) regarding VMT reduction. Given these considerations, petroleum consumption associated with the project operation would not be considered excessive. Moreover, the project will also design building shells and building components, such as windows, roof systems and electrical and lighting systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards which expects 30 percent less energy for non-residential buildings and 53 percent less energy for residential use due to lighting upgrades. The project will implement a Water Conservation Strategy, such as the installation of water-efficient plumbing fixtures, tankless water heater systems, and water-efficient irrigation systems with smart sensor controls to reduce water demands and associated energy use. The use of Energy Star appliances, water- efficient plumbing fixtures, light-emitting diode (LED) technology, and photovoltaic (PV) systems is also recommended by Urban Crossroads. These measures will lower project-related operational energy usage. The project would increase demand for energy in the project area and in the service areas of IID and SoCal Gas Company. However, based on the findings described above, project construction and operation are not anticipated to result in potentially significant impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. The standard conditions listed in the GHG Report and previously ensures that project impacts will be less than significant. Impacts will be less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes a mixed-use development consisting of low density residential, commercial, open space/recreational and resort uses on approximately 386 acres of vacant land. As stated in the previous discussion, project development and operation are not anticipated to use an unnecessary amount of energy resources. To ensure the conservation of energy, the state of California and the City of La Quinta implements various regulations in order to be more energy efficient and reduce the amount of GHG emissions. Some of the State-wide and local regulations are listed below. State Regulations Assembly Bill 32 Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) was signed in 2006 to establish and reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases being emitted on a state-wide level. Specifically, AB 32 requires a reduction of emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It plans to do this by establishing an annual reporting program for significant sources. Energy efficiency goals listed in AB 32 includes maximizing energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursuing additional efficiency efforts including new technologies, and new policy and implementation mechanisms. Executive Order S-3-05 Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, passed in 2005, established reduction targets of an 80 percent of 1990 levels reduction by 2050, and created agencies to achieve these targets. The passage of this regulation requires the use of more energy efficient practices regarding building development and operation in order to reduce the amount of GHGs produced. Title 20: Appliance Efficiency Standards The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 20: Division 2, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1601-1608 Appliance Efficiency Regulations) regulates the sale of appliances in California. The Appliance Efficiency Regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. 23 categories of appliances are included in the scope of these regulations. The standards within Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 64 these regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California, except those sold wholesale in California for final retail sale outside the state and those designed and sold exclusively for use in recreational vehicles or other mobile equipment. Title 24: Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen Building Standards Code In addition to Title 20 (Sections 1601-1608) of the CCR, Title 24, parts 6 and 11, also outlines energy efficient building designs for new development. The CCR’s 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6), and the CALGreen Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11), establish mandatory guidelines and standards requiring more energy efficient new and existing developments. The California Energy Commission adopted the Building Energy Efficient Standards for all new residential and nonresidential construction to reduce greenhouse gases, as a part of the California Building Code, Title 24. This requires new homes to include at least 50 percent of kitchen lighting to be LED, compact fluorescent or similar high efficiency fixtures, double pane windows, cool roofs, and other design techniques to reduce heat loss. Title 24, Part 11, establishes design and development methods that include environmentally responsible site selection, building design, building siting and development to protect, restore and enhance the environmental quality of the site and respect the integrity of adjacent properties. The proposed project will be required to comply with the state implemented standards for energy efficient new developments. City Regulations La Quinta GHG Reduction Plan State-wide regulations, including previously mentioned AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, act as policy guides for the City of La Quinta to reduce the City’s energy demand. The La Quinta GHG Reduction Plan, published in 2012, was established in compliance with AB 32 and EO S-3-05, in order to reduce the amount of GHG emissions produced in the City. Using AB 32 and EO S-3-05 as a guide, the GHG Reduction Plan established a baseline year of 2005 to lower City GHG emissions to, by creating policies and programs in order for the City to achieve the reduction expectations. According to the GHG Reduction Plan, new development is required to adhere to the latest building code standards, which assure energy efficiency and incorporate passive and active design features intended to benefit the overall operating efficiency of new buildings. Transportation is the largest emitter of GHGs; therefore, the City recognizes that fuel efficiency standards, land use efficiencies, and reducing overall VMTs will result in the reduction of GHGs. The City established specific goals, policies, and programs to reduce emissions from the transportation sector at a local level. The policies and programs are intended to reduce dependence on personal motor vehicles and encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit, cycling and walking. For example, implementation measure New Development (ND) 6, regarding transportation, requires that all new development in the City accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists by (1) including facilities for safe and convenient bicycle parking from non-resident and multi-family development, and (2) considering access routes for pedestrians and bicycles. The project is anticipated to conform to this implementation measure in the GHG Reduction Plan. 2035 La Quinta General Plan The City of La Quinta is committed to reducing energy demand and consumption within their City. According to the Livable Community Element in the 2035 La Quinta General Plan, the conservation of energy resources is vital in the lifestyle of their residents. Since the production of electricity and natural gases requires the burning of fossil fuels, the increased demand for electricity in the City also increases air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions created in the City. Therefore, reducing energy consumption will contribute to reducing the amount of air pollutants and greenhouse gases generated by the production of electricity and natural gas. Working in congruence with the GHG Reduction Plan, the 2035 LQGP also strives to reduce energy consumption in the City by requiring energy efficient and building design measures. The LQGP outlines Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 65 various goals, policies and programs for energy efficient buildings within their City. Energy efficiency is emphasized in the Circulation, Sustainable Community, Air Quality and Energy Elements in the GP. The overall goal is to reduce energy consumption in the City to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, to increase the quality of life for the City’s residents. La Quinta Municipal Code Similar to the GHG Reduction Plan and the 2035 LQGP, the City’s Municipal Code also includes provisions that encourage the use of alternative transportation means that reduce the use of non-renewable energy and the use of energy efficient appliances and building design standards. The following list includes some of these provisions: 8.14.010, Adoption of the California Energy Code of the La Quinta Municipal Code requires that new development implement energy efficiency building practices. 9.180, Transportation Demand Management, which is intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare by reducing air pollution, traffic congestion and energy consumption attributable to vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. The proposed mixed-use project will comply with state-implemented building standards such as those outlined in Title 20 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Energy efficient appliances will be utilized during project operation. As stated in the previous discussion, project-related energy consumption and VMTs created by the project are not anticipated to be substantial. Construction activities would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive that is used for comparable activities. However, construction equipment will comply with the Tier 3 program engines or higher, therefore would be newer off-road equipment units. The project property will comply with all applicable State and local guidelines and regulations regarding energy efficient building design and standards. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to conflict or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 66 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code 1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Source: La Quinta 2035 General Plan; La Quinta General Plan EIR 2005 and 2017 Addendum; La Quinta Municipal Code; Riverside County General Plan, 2015; Riverside County General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 2014. a) i. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta, similar to most of Southern California, is susceptible to earthquakes due to the various active faults that traverse the area. The 2035 La Quinta General Plan (LQGP) highlights four faults with the potential to have a severe impact in the City. These faults include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, Burnt Mountain and Elsinore Faults. Hazards such as landslide, structural damage or destruction, liquefaction, and settlement are a potential result of rupture and strong seismic ground shaking in the City of La Quinta. To reduce losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act was passed in 1972, after the destructive San Fernando earthquake occurred a year prior. The Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act is intended to ensure public safety by prohibiting the siting of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface fault or fault creep (California Department of Conservation). After consulting the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist, it was determined that the closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone to the project site is the San Andreas Fault, approximately 7.75 miles Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 67 northeast of the subject property. Conclusively, the project site is not located on an active fault or within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition to the corroborated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, Sladden Engineering completed a Geotechnical Investigation of the project site in order to evaluate the engineering properties of the subsurface materials and provide engineering recommendations and design criteria for the site preparation, foundation design, and the design of various site improvements. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, surface rupture is expected to occur along preexisting, known active fault traces. However, surface rupture could potentially splay or step from known active faults or rupture along unidentified traces. As a part of the geotechnical analysis, Sladden Engineering reviewed non-stereo digitized photographs of the site and site vicinity which did not indicate signs of active surface faulting. Additionally, no signs of active surface fault rupture or secondary seismic effects (lateral spreading, lurching, etc.) were identified on-site during the field investigation. Therefore, risks associated with primary surface ground rupture should be considered low. With the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, the 2035 LQGP, and project-specific Geotechnical Investigation, it can be concluded that although seismically induced ground shaking is expected in the City, rupture from an earthquake fault is not anticipated on the project site. 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, impacts less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None ii. Less Than Significant Impact. Seismically induced ground shaking is the most potentially significant geotechnical hazard, according to La Quinta’s 2035 General Plan. Regional faults, including the San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones, have the potential to generate moderate to severe ground shaking in the planning area. Factors that determine the effect of ground motion and the degree of structural damage that may occur includes: intensity of the earthquake, distance between epicenter and site, soil and bedrock composition, depth to groundwater, presence of ridge tops, and building design and other criteria (2035 LQGP). As stated in the previous discussion, the project site is located approximately 7.75 miles southwest of the closest active fault zone, the San Andreas Fault. The Geotechnical Investigation, provided by Sladden Engineering in February 2019, 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. With the foregoing, the proposed development will be constructed in a manner that reduces the risk of seismic hazards (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). The City’s 2035 General Plan states that the California Building Code (CBC) and Unreinforced Masonry Law are tools that assure seismic safety in structures. Sladden Engineering reviewed the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and summarized the current seismic design parameters for the proposed structures. According to Geotechnical Investigation and the 2016 CBC, Site Class D may be used to estimate design seismic loading for the proposed structure. The project shall be conditioned to comply with the most current seismic design coefficients and ground motion parameters and all applicable provisions of the CBC and City Municipal Code. Site work will be conducted in accordance with the recommendations within the La Quinta 2035 General Plan. Remedial grading and construction will work to reduce exposure of people or structures to adverse effects to the greatest extent possible against seismic hazards. All grading and construction plans will be reviewed and approved by the City. With the implementation of appropriate building codes, impacts related to strong seismic shaking at the project are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 68 iii. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Soils and Geology Element of the 2035 La Quinta General Plan indicates that liquefaction occurs when ground shaking of relatively long duration and intensity over 0.2 g occurs in areas of loose, unconsolidated soils with relatively shallow groundwater depths (50 feet or less). The sudden increase in water pressure in pores between soil grains may substantially decrease soil shear strength, and the soil takes on the qualities of a liquid or a semi-viscous substance. This loss of soil strength can result in ground settlement, ground undulation, lateral spreading or displacement, and flow failures. Structures may sink or tilt as bearing capacity decreases, causing substantial damage. Other effects of liquefied soils include a loss of bearing strength, ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and ground lurching and slumping (2035 LQGP). The Seismic Hazards Map (Exhibit IV-3), in the La Quinta General Plan, indicates that the southeastern portion of the City are highly and moderately susceptible to liquefaction. This is due to the shallow groundwater (between 30 to 50 feet below the ground surface) and the youthful, unconsolidated sediments found in that area. In order to assess the subsurface conditions, Sladden Engineering conducted a field investigation by drilling ten exploratory boreholes onsite. During the field investigation, a thin mantle of disturbed soil was encountered to a depth of approximately one to two feet below existing grade in the area of the bores. Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 47 feet below existing grade for BH-2 and BH- 6 during Sladden Engineering’s filed investigation on February 6, 2019. Although it was not encountered during the bore tests, Sladden Engineering anticipates a high groundwater depth of 20 feet or more below the existing grade. Therefore, there is potential for liquefaction to occur at the project site. Since the project is susceptible to liquefaction, the project site shall adhere to the most recent standard design requirements stated in the California Building Code (CBC) and the City’s building standards to ensure the safety of the project against seismically induced hazards. The project shall also comply with the preparation and foundation recommendations listed in the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation in order to ensure project safety. The recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Investigation is established as mitigation measure GEO-1. With the implementation of GEO-1 and State building standards, project impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation: GEO-1: All earthwork including excavation, backfill and preparation of the subgrade soil, should 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 should 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 should be removed off-sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. Undocumented fill soil or loose soil should be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction should 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 should be over-excavated and recompacted. Over- excavation should 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 should be scarified, the moisture-conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 69 Preparation of the Hotel Building: In order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, over-excavation and re-compaction through the building and foundation area is recommended. All artificial fill soil and low density near surface native soil should be removed to a depth of at least 4 feet below existing grade or 4 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is greater. Remedial grading should extend laterally, a minimum of five feet beyond the building perimeter. The exposed surface should then be scarified, the moisture conditioned to within two percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious substances, and should not contain irreducible matter greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension. All fill materials should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material should be of a non-expansive nature and should 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 should be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the exposed subgrade should be observed by a representative of Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing should 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 should be anticipated. It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted should 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. iv. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the City of La Quinta, like most of Southern California, is susceptible to seismic ground shaking due to the multiple faults in the region. As a result of seismic ground shaking, secondary effects such as slope failures, rockfalls and landslides may occur in the City, especially throughout elevated areas. According to the 2035 LQGP, landslides and rockfall can occur when unstable slope conditions are worsened by strong ground motion caused by seismic events. Typically, landslides have been recorded after periods of heavy rainfall, and rockfalls are associated with slope failure during drier periods. Conditions that lead to landslide vulnerability include high seismic potential, and rockfall and rockslides are common on very steep slopes. Therefore, areas where development is located below hillside, mountain slopes and steep canyon walls are considered most susceptible to rockfalls. The project site is located on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58. Coral Mountain, an elevated topographic feature defines the project property’s southwest boundary. Due to the project’s proximity to Coral Mountain the Seismic Hazard Map (Exhibit IV-3), in the 2035 LQGP, the project lies immediately adjacent to an area with a very high and high possibility for earthquake induced slope instability and potential for soil block slides, soil slumps and rock falls. In addition to the information collected within the City of La Quinta’s 2035 General Plan, Sladden Engineering also concluded that the site is situated on relatively flat ground except for the ascending slope located on the west side of the subject site (Coral Mountain). The project does not propose development near the foot of the mountain. Therefore, the Geotechnical Investigation concluded that risks associated with slope instability should not be a controlling factor in project design. The areas adjacent to Coral Mountain will be preserved for open space and tourist commercial land uses. The closest proposed building to Coral Mountain lies approximately 170 feet from the toe of slope. The open space recreation area near Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 70 Coral Mountain will accommodate low-impact active and passive recreation activities such as hiking trails. The tourist commercial use adjacent to Coral Mountain will include the Wave basin, as well as open areas that will be used as gathering spaces and staging spaces using temporary facilities such as shade structures, tenting for inclement weather, and catering equipment. These uses are temporary and permanent structures are not proposed. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None b) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the La Quinta General Plan, erosion is influenced by factors such as climate, topography, soil and rock types, and vegetation. The Coachella Valley is subject to infrequent but often powerful storms that generate high rates of erosion, especially in areas where the soil is not stabilized by vegetation due to natural causes (i.e. wildfire), or man-made causes (i.e. site clearing and grading). Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter, classified as PM10, typically includes suspended particles of dust, sand, metallic and mineral substances, road-surfacing materials, pollen, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. Erosion, especially in the form of PM10, is a concern in the Coachella Valley because it leads to sediment transport and re-deposition as well as health issues and property damage. Windborne, waterborne, and human erosion are all attributes of PM10 emissions in the region, and if not mitigated, it can potentially result in serious health problems. As stated previously, the project property is located on approximately 386 acres of vacant land, on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 in the City of La Quinta. The project proposes a mixed- use development community composed of low-density residential units, commercial uses, a hotel/resort component and recreational and open space uses. Development of the project will also include associated improvements such as paved roadways, landscaped features and pedestrian walkways. The Wind Erosion Susceptibility Map (Exhibit IV-5) in the 2035 La Quinta General Plan specifies that the project site is located in an area with a high and very high Wind Erodibility Rating, likely contributed to the combination of the orientation of hill and mountains, the nature of the bedrock, slope and orientation of the valley floor, and the hot, arid climate and sparse vegetation. The project site is currently vacant with scattered, low-lying vegetation, comprised of Sonoran creosote brush. The construction of this project will involve ground disturbing activities, such as the clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation, and grading of the property. These activities may increase the potential of soil erosion at the time of development. Therefore, in order to mitigate the effect of erosion at the project site, the project shall implement the Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (PM10 Plan), otherwise identified by the City of La Quinta as the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. The purpose of this plan is to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan requires the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) such as the use of perimeter fencing, applying adhesive dust suppressant, or watering the project site. The project property shall implement the BMPs for on- and off-site improvements outlined within their project-specific PM10 Plan during construction of the project site. Additionally, each phase of construction will develop BMPs to protect previous phase occupants. Refer to the Air Quality section of this environmental document for further information on the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. In addition to windborne erosion, the project property may be subject to waterborne erosion during project construction and operation. Waterborne erosion can be caused by both human activities, such as over- watering a site, and natural conditions, such as stormwater runoff from a rain event. Manmade drainage facilities do not currently exist on the project property. Onsite stormwater runoff typically follows existing natural flows (west to east) and percolates the soil. The project site is protected from mountain flows from the west by the existing levees. Project development may affect onsite waterborne erosion; therefore, the project is required to comply with the most current Construction General Permit (CGP) (Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ). Compliance with the CGP involves the development and implementation of a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 71 which is designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality during the period of construction. The required plan will identify the locations and types of construction activities requiring BMPs and other necessary compliance measures to prevent soil erosion and stormwater runoff pollution. The plan will also identify the limits of allowable construction-related disturbance to prevent any exceedances or violations. Waterborne erosion and the City’s Standard Conditions associated with the topic are thoroughly discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the document. As stated above, project implementation will include landscaping, buildings, and paved areas throughout the property. These features will establish stabilized surfaces at the project site, therefore, decreasing the likelihood of onsite windborne, waterborne and human caused erosion. The implementation of the Fugitive Dust Control Plan, and the SWPPP (outlined above, and further discussed in the Air Quality and Hydrology Sections of this document) will ensure that impacts from erosion created from the project site will be less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. According to the project specific Geotechnical Investigation, the subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling ten exploratory boreholes on-site. During the field investigation, a thin mantle of disturbed soil was encountered to a depth of approximately one to two feet below existing grade in the area of the bores. The disturbed soil consisted of silty sand (SM) and sandy silt (ML). Underlying the fill soil and extending to the maximum depth explored, native alluvium was encountered. Native materials consisted primarily of silty sand (SM) and sandy silt ML) with minor portions of clay (CL/CH). As discussed previously, in section a) iii., liquefaction occurs when ground shaking of relatively long duration and intensity causes loose, unconsolidated soils to act like a liquid and lose strength. For liquefaction to occur in an area, the groundwater would have to be within 50 feet of the surface. Effects of liquefaction include a loss of bearing strength, ground oscillations, and lateral spreading or displacement. The 2035 La Quinta General Plan declares that the project site is located in an area with moderate susceptibility to liquefaction due to the historically shallow groundwater. In addition to the findings in the LQGP, Sladden Engineering encountered groundwater at depths of approximately 47 feet below existing grade for bore hole 2 (BH-2) and BH-6 during the filed investigation on February 6, 2019. Although it was not encountered during the bore tests, Sladden Engineering anticipates a high groundwater depth of 20 feet or more below the existing grade. With this, the potential for liquefaction, and subsequent effects (i.e. lateral spread), is likely to occur at the project site. Therefore, development within the project site will be conditioned to comply with the current California Building Code (CBC) standards, City requirements, and mitigation measures outlined in discussion iii) in this Geology and Soils Section to ensure effects of liquefaction and lateral spread are less than significant. As discussed in portion a) iv. of this Geotechnical Section, the project site’s western boundary is located directly east of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Therefore, the City of La Quinta, in Exhibit IV-3 of the LQGP, designates the project site to be located adjacent to an area susceptible rockfalls, soil block slides and soil slumps. Recreational and open space uses are proposed in the adjacent area near the slopes of Coral Mountain. The proposed residential and resort components will not be located immediately adjacent to the mountain; therefore, these uses are not anticipated to be impacted by landslides and rockfalls are not anticipated. Ground subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement. It is caused by both human activities (i.e. groundwater extraction) and natural activities (i.e. earthquakes) and can cause regional damage. According to the 2035 La Quinta General Plan, the only recorded subsidence induced fissures in the Coachella Valley occurred in La Quinta in 1948, near the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains, at the south end of the City. The Safety Element in the Riverside County Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 72 General Plan indicates that the project site is situated in an area both susceptible to ground subsidence and an area with documented subsidence. As a part of the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering reviewed previous studies conducted for the existing Andalusia development, located west of the project site. The previous studies evaluated existing distress to structures, roadways and improvements within the existing development in order to evaluate the potential for areal subsidence to affect current and future development. The previous studies, as stated in the Geotechnical Investigation, did not find conclusive evidence of observed distress that could be directly attributed to areal subsidence. However, the lineament evaluation performed as a part of the Geotechnical Investigation indicated that the previously identified surface lineaments do not appear to be the result of subsidence. The potential for area ground subsidence is a regional issue that could possibly impact the City of La Quinta; however, monitoring conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), CVWD and others shows that subsidence rates in the Coachella Valley have been increasing rapidly over the past several decades. CVWD has implemented a variety of measures, such as groundwater recharge, imported water, and water conservation techniques and programs to minimize the extraction of groundwater. (See Chapter 10 (b), below.) Grading plans and structural engineering plans will be reviewed and approved by the City. The project will be conditioned to comply with the current California Building Code (CBC) standards, City requirements, and recommendations stated within the project specific Geotechnical Report to reduce the impacts of potentially unstable soils. The recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report is established as mitigation measure GEO-1 (see discussion iii) in this Geology and Soils Section). Therefore, with the implementation of GEO-1, impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation: See GEO-1 d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Expansive soils, as defined by the Riverside County General Plan, have a significant amount of clay particles which can give up water (shrink) or take on water swell). The change in volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils, making them potentially hazardous. These soils can also be widely dispersed, occurring in both hillside areas and low- lying alluvial basins. Sladden Engineering performed an Expansion Index test of select samples on the project site to evaluate expansive potential of the materials underlying the property. Based on the laboratory testing, they discovered that the materials underlying the site are considered to have “very low” to “medium” expansion potential for the sandy and silty soil layers, respectively. However, since significant grading is expected at the project site, Sladden Engineering concluded that the expansion potential should be re-evaluated after grading. Per the geotechnical analysis, recommendations regarding foundation design, such as the removal and re-compaction of any loose subsurface soil, should be carried out through construction. If imported fill is required, the material should be of a non-expansive nature and should meet the criteria outlined within the Geotechnical Investigation. The project shall comply with the recommendations established within the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation to ensure the foundational safety of the project site. The recommendations established in the Geotechnical Investigation is outlined as mitigation measure GEO-1. New developments, such as the proposed project, can avoid future issues through proper site investigation, soils testing, foundation design and quality assurance during grading operations as required by the Riverside County Building Code. Expansive soils are not expected to impact the project site. After the implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1, the impact will be less than significant. Mitigation: See GEO-1 Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 73 e) Less Than Significant Impact. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides the City of La Quinta with sanitary sewer collection and treatment, and according to the 2035 La Quinta General Plan, most of the City is served by sewer. CVWD has two wastewater treatment plants serving the City. Wastewater generated south of Miles Avenue is treated at the Mid-Valley Reclamation Plant, which has the capacity of 9.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The Mid-Valley Reclamation Plant (WRP-4) is located in Thermal, southeast of the City and City’s Sphere of Influence. CVWD owns and operates the sewer conveyance system anchored by a system of trunk lines ranging in size from 4 to 24 inches, including 18- inch force mains in Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Madison Street, and Avenues 50, 58 and 60. The project site is located at the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58, therefore, will be provided with sewer infrastructure. CVWD will assess the new development per each equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to provide comprehensive wastewater collection and treatment. The Mid-Valley Water Reclamation Plant processes approximately 5 MGD. The project will not use septic systems. The project proposes to connect with the existing sewer infrastructure to provide sewer to the residents and guests of the proposed project. For further discussion, consult the Utilities Section of this document. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None f) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. According to the 2035 La Quinta General Plan, paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals. They occur in older soils which have been deposited in the Valley over millions of years. Exhibit III-5, Paleontological Sensitivity Map in the 2035 LQGP, designates that the project site is located in Lake Cahuilla Beds and has a “high” amount of paleontological sensitivity. Lake Cahuilla Beds occur in areas where ancient Lake Cahuilla covered the Valley floor. Lakebed sediments have yielded freshwater diatoms, plants, sponges, mollusks, and fish as well as small animals. Although the lakebed soils are less than 10,000 years old, according to the 2035 LQGP, they hold potentially significant information on the area’s early ecological history and have a high potential for paleontological resources. CRM Tech provided a project-specific Paleontological Resources Assessment Report (paleontological report) on October 29, 2019 on the currently vacant property. The paleontological report was designed to identify any significant, non-renewable paleontological resources that may exist within or adjacent to the project area, and to assess the possibility for such resources to be encountered in future excavation and construction activities. In order to identify any paleontological resource localities that may exist in or near the project area and to assess the probability for such resources to be encountered during the project, CRM Tech initiated records searches at the appropriate repositories, conducted a literature review and carried out a systematic field survey of the project area. Findings from the research procedures indicate that the project’s potential to impact significant paleontological resources appears to be low in the igneous rock formation in the southwestern corner of the project area, namely on the slopes of Coral Mountain, and in the previously disturbed surface soils in the rest of the project area. However, the undisturbed subsurface lakebed sediments from Holocene Lake Cahuilla are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity. On July 3, 2019, CRM Tech sent written requests for records searches to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC) in Los Angeles and the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) in Redlands. These institutions maintain files of regional paleontological localities as well as supporting maps and documents. The purpose of the records searches is to identify previously completed paleontological localities within a one-mile radius of the project area. The NHMLAC records search identified no previously discovered paleontological localities within the project area but did identify nearby localities from sediment lithologies similar to those present both on the surface and at depth in the project area. However, the NHMLAC’s final conclusion regarding the paleontological sensitivity of the project area is that excavations in the igneous rocks will not encounter fossil remains, but that substantial excavations in Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 74 the sedimentary deposits in the project area “should be monitored closely to quickly and professionally recover any fossil remains discovered.” Past records searches from the SBCM reported similar findings, stating that the geological units within the project area had produced fossil localities in the surrounding region. In addition, the Riverside County Land Information System was also consulted for information on the County’s overall paleontological sensitivity assessment of the project location. The Riverside County paleontological sensitivity map classifies the project location as High Potential (High Sensitivity A) in the northeastern half, Undetermined Potential in much of the southwestern half, and Low Potential in the exposed igneous outcrops in the southwestern corner. The sensitivity potentials are defined subsequently. High Sensitivity A is defined as sedimentary rock units with high potential for containing significant non-renewable paleontological resources based on geologic formations or mapped rock units that are known to contain or have the correct age and depositional conditions to contain significant paleontological resources. Undetermined Potential is defined as areas underlain by sedimentary units for which insufficient literature is available to make a determination of paleontological sensitivity. Low Potential is defined as lands for which previous field surveys and documentation demonstrate as having a low potential for containing significant paleontological resources subject to adverse impacts. In addition to the records searches and literature reviews, CRM Tech also completed a field survey on August 6, 2019 to August 9, 2019 of the project area. The survey was completed on foot by walking a series of parallel transects oriented north-south or east-west and spaced 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) apart. In this manner, the entire project area was systematically examined for any indications of paleontological remains and to verify the geological formations and the soil types. Ground visibility ranged from poor (5- 10 percent) in areas of dense vegetation, such as in the northeast corner of the property, to excellent (90 percent) in most of the other areas. According to CRM Tech, the field survey of the project area encountered no surface manifestation of any vertebrate fossil remains. As mentioned above, the surface soils contained freshwater shells, especially in the former agricultural fields. The presence of these molluscan remains provides additional evidence that the sediments of the project area can be attributed to the Lake Cahuilla lakebed sequence. Fine-grained clay was observed in some areas, especially near the former lakeshore. Much of the surface soils have been impacted by past agricultural and construction activities, with dirt roads, earthen levees, residential debris, discarded refuse, and other evidence of human activities observed over most of the property. Based on these findings, CRM Tech recommends that a mitigation program be developed and implemented for the proposed project to prevent potential impact on paleontological resources or reduce such impact to a level less than significant. The mitigation program should be developed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA as well as the proposed guidelines of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology and should include but not be limited to the mitigation provided as GEO-2, below. Mitigation: GEO-2: All earth-moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet should be monitored periodically by a qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become necessary if undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered. The monitor should be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, if they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. The applicant shall insure that the following procedures are followed. Samples of sediments should be collected and processed to recover small fossil remains. Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 75 A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance when appropriate, should be prepared upon completion of the research procedures outlined above. The approval of the report and the inventory by the City of La Quinta would signify completion of the mitigation program. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 76 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Sources: Coral Mountain Specific Plan Air Quality Impact Analysis, by Urban Crossroads, June 2020; Coral Mountain Specific Plan Greenhouse Gas Analysis, by Urban Crossroads, June 2020; Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), by SCAQMD, March 2017; Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (CVSIP), by SCAQMD, August 2003; Analysis of the Coachella Valley PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan, by the California Air Resources Board, February 2010; California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017, Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, 2019 Edition, California Air Resources Board; Press Release No. 18-37 & 19-35, California Air Resources Board Press Release, July 2018 and August 2019. Global climate change (GCC) refers to a change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. The majority of scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the Industrial Revolution is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. The majority of scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of GHGs resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years. Global temperatures are regulated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases such as water vapor, CO2, N2O, CH4, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These particular gases are important due to their residence time (duration they stay) in the atmosphere, which ranges from 10 years to more than 100 years. These gases allow solar radiation into the earth’s atmosphere, but prevent radioactive heat from escaping, thus warming the earth’s atmosphere. GCC can occur naturally, as it has in the past with the previous ice ages. To address the long-term adverse impacts associated with global climate change, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) requires California Air Resource Board (CARB) to reduce statewide emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 32 (SB32) that requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. With the passage of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) in California, environmental documents for projects pursuant to CEQA are required to analyze greenhouse gases and assess the potential significance and impacts of GHG emissions. On July 11, 2018, CARB announced in a press release (No. 18-37) that greenhouse gas pollution in California fell below 1990 levels for the first time since emissions peaked in 2004, an achievement roughly equal to taking 12 million cars off the road or saving 6 billion gallons of gasoline a year. Moreover, according to the CARB report on California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017 (published in 2019), which tracks the trends of GHG emissions, California’s GHG emissions have followed a declining trend between 2007 and 2017. In 2017, emissions from GHG emitting activities statewide were 424 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e), 5 MMTCO2e lower than 2016 levels and 7 MMTCO2e below the 2020 GHG Limit of 431 MMTCO2e. The largest reductions are attributed to the electricity sector, which continues to see decreases as a result of the State’s climate policies. The transportation sector remains the largest source of GHG emissions in the state, but saw a 1 percent increase in emissions in 2017, the lowest growth rate over the past 4 years. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 77 On August 12, 2019, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced in a press release (No. 19-35) that GHG emissions in California continued to fall ahead of schedule in 2017 as the state’s economy grew ahead of the national average, according to the California Air Resources Board’s latest state inventory of climate-changing emissions. The data also shows that for the first time since California started to track GHG emissions, the state power grid used more energy from zero-GHG sources like solar and wind power than from electrical generation powered by fossil fuels. In addition, the data demonstrates that emissions from the transportation sector did not rise as fast as in previous years. 2017 was also the second year in a row in which GHG emissions fell below the 2020 reduction target of 431 million metric tons established by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32). GHG emissions came in at 424 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2017, a decrease of five million metric tons from 2016. The press release also included the following highlights: Electricity: Emissions from electricity generation made up about 15 percent of 2017 statewide greenhouse gas emissions. In 2017, those emissions fell nine percent from 2016, the largest decline of any economic sector. A large increase in zero-emission energy resources drove the reduction. Those clean sources powered 52 percent of all California’s electricity consumed in 2017. Transportation: Vehicle tailpipe emissions accounted for 37 percent of California’s 2017 GHG emissions. Those emissions rose, but showed signs of leveling off. The 2017 increase was 0.7 percent, down from two percent the preceding year. Most of the greenhouse gas emissions increase came from passenger vehicles. Industry: Industrial emissions over multiple sectors showed a slight reduction or remained flat. California’s industrial sectors generated 21 percent of state GHGs in 2017. Oil & gas refineries and hydrogen production were responsible for one-third of those emissions. The rest came mostly from oil & gas extraction, cement plants, glass manufacturers and large food processors. a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation: This analysis relies on the Coral Mountain Specific Plan Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHGA), prepared by Urban Crossroads in June of 2020 with the purpose of evaluating project-related construction and operational emissions and determining the level of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts as a result of constructing and operating the proposed project. The GHGA methodology relied on CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 to quantify GHG emissions associated with the project. As previously mentioned in the Air Quality Section, CalEEMod utilizes widely accepted methodologies for estimating emissions. Sources of these methodologies and default data include but are not limited to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) AP-42 emission factors, California Air Resources Board (CARB) vehicle emission models, studies commissioned by California agencies such as the California Energy Commission (CEC) and CalRecycle. On August 19, 2019, the EPA approved the 2017 version of the EMissions FACtor model (EMFAC) web database for use in State Implementation Plan and transportation conformity analyses. EMFAC2017 is a mathematical model that was developed to calculate emission rates, fuel consumption, VMT from motor vehicles that operate on highways, freeways, and local roads in California and is commonly used by CARB to project changes in future emissions from on-road mobile sources. This GHGA utilizes annual EMFAC2017 emission factors in order to derive vehicle emissions associated with Project operational activities. Because the EMFAC2017 emission rates are associated with vehicle fuel types while CalEEMod vehicle emission factors are aggregated to include all fuel types for each individual vehicle class, the EMFAC2017 emission rates for different fuel types of a vehicle class are averaged by activity or by population and activity to derive CalEEMod emission factors. Construction Emissions: The GHGA found that the project would result in GHG emissions during the site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating activities of construction. The GHGA estimated that the initial construction phase would commence in July 2020 and would last through December 2021; the second phase of construction would begin September 2022 and last through February 2023; the third phase would commence July 2023 and last through December 2026. The construction schedule utilized in the analysis represents a “worst-case” analysis scenario. Should construction occur any Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 78 time after the respective dates, the emission factors for constructions are expected to decrease due to emissions regulations becoming more stringent. The duration of construction activity and associated equipment represents a reasonable approximation of the expected construction fleet as required per CEQA Guidelines. The duration of construction activity was generally based on CalEEMod defaults and the opening year of each respective phase. Site specific construction fleet may vary due to specific project needs at the time of construction. The associated construction equipment was generally based on CalEEMod defaults. Construction emissions were amortized over a 30-year period and added to the annual operational phase GHG emissions. Table VIII-1 Amortized Annual Construction Emissions Year Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2E Phase 1 (2020) 420.55 0.13 0.00 423.81 Phase 1 (2021) 1,742.12 0.21 0.00 1,747.49 Phase 2 (2022) 89.60 0.03 0.00 90.26 Phase 2 (2023) 38.36 0.01 0.00 38.64 Phase 3 (2023) 319.15 0.10 0.00 321.68 Phase 3 (2024) 897.47 0.23 0.00 903.87 Phase 3 (2025) 4,512.84 0.33 0.00 4,521.04 Phase 3 (2026) 4,339.61 0.34 0.00 4,348.20 Total Annual Construction Emissions 12,359.71 1.41 0.00 12,395.00 Amortized Construction Emissions (MTCO2e) 411.09 0.05 0.00 413.17 Source:GHGA,CalEEMod model output Operational Emissions: Moreover, the GHGA found that operation of the project would result in GHG emissions from area source, energy source, mobile source, water supply, treatment, and distribution, and solid waste sources. Area source emissions include the operation of fuel-powered landscape maintenance equipment. Energy source emissions include the combustion emissions associated with natural gas and electricity. California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings are also a factor in energy source emissions. As a conservative measure, the GHGA assumes compliance with the 2016 Title 24 Standards. Mobile Source Emissions: Project mobile source GHG emissions are primarily dependent on overall daily vehicle trip generation. Trip characteristics available from Coral Mountain Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) were utilized in this analysis. A vehicle fleet mix consistent with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol was used in this analysis. It should be noted that this fleet mix is more appropriate than the CalEEMod default fleet mix, which includes classes of vehicles that are unlikely to access the Project site, furthermore, the type of vehicles accessing the Project site are anticipated to be primarily passenger cars, consistent with the Caltrans recommendations. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 79 Water Supply, Treatment and Distribution: Indirect GHG emissions result from the production of electricity used to convey, treat and distribute water and wastewater. The amount of electricity required to convey, treat and distribute water depends on the volume of water, as well as the sources of the water. Project water use is based on information provided in the Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification for the Proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan. Solid Waste: Residential land uses will result in the generation and disposal of solid waste. A large percentage of this waste will be diverted from landfills by a variety of means, such as reducing the amount of waste generated, recycling, and/or composting. The remainder of the waste not diverted will be disposed of at a landfill. GHG emissions from landfills are associated with the anaerobic breakdown of material. GHG emissions associated with the disposal of solid waste associated with the proposed Project were calculated by CalEEMod using default parameters. Energy-saving and sustainable design features and operational programs would be incorporated. The project also incorporates and expresses the following design features and attributes promoting energy efficiency and sustainability. Because these features/attributes are integral to the project, and/or are regulatory requirements, they are not considered to be mitigation measures. The following standard conditions, compliance programs, and GHG reduction measures are recommended and promote energy efficiency and sustainability. Regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated vehicular-source emissions are reduced by the following project design features/attributes: o 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. o 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: o The project will include improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Improved street network characteristics within a neighborhood include street accessibility, usually measured in terms of average block size, proportion of four-way intersections, or number of intersections per square mile. Design is also measured in terms of sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian-oriented environments from auto-oriented environments. o Commute Trip Reduction Program – Voluntary, is a multi-strategy program that encompasses a combination of individual measures. It is presented as a means of preventing double-counting of reductions for individual measures that are included in this strategy. It does so by setting a maximum level of reductions that should be permitted for a combined set of strategies within a voluntary program. o Increasing the vehicle occupancy by ride sharing will result in fewer cars driving the same trip, and thus a decrease in VMT. The project will include a ride-sharing program as well as a permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement. The project will promote ride-sharing programs through a multi-faceted approach such as: Designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 80 Providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides o 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. o The project will implement marketing strategies to reduce commute trips. Information sharing and marketing are important components to successful commute trip reduction strategies. Implementing commute trip reduction strategies with a complementary marketing strategy will result in lower VMT reductions. Marketing strategies may include: New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options Event promotions Publications This project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool or shuttle. A vanpool will usually service employees’ commute to work while a shuttle will service nearby transit stations and surrounding commercial centers. Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and often subsidizing the cost of at least program administration, if not more. The driver usually receives personal use of the van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. The project will design building shells and building components, such as windows; roof systems: electrical and lighting systems: and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards which expects 30% less energy for non-residential buildings and 53% less energy for residential use due to lighting upgrades. The Project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development 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. 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 mitigation measure 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. The Project would be required to implement a 65% waste diversion as required by AB 939, in order to reduce the amount of waste disposed at landfills. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 81 Special Events: Based on TIA, approximately 2,181 residents and 674 employees (including 434 employees associated with the hotel and recreational wave pool, and 240 employees associated with the retail uses) are anticipated for buildout of the Project. This amounts to a service population of 2,855 persons. As shown on table VIII-2, with the implementation of the above standard conditions, compliance programs, and PDFs, special events would result in 72.43 MTCO2e per year. Table VIII-2 Special Events GHG Emissions Year Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2E Area Source 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 Energy Source 40.69 0.00 0.00 40.85 Mobile Source 22.43 0.00 0.00 22.45 Waste 0.60 0.04 0.00 1.49 Water Usage 7.03 0.02 0.00 7.55 Total Project CO2E 72.43 Source:GHGA,CalEEMod model output Table VIII-3 Proposed Project GHG Emissions Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e Annual construction-related emissions amortized over 30 years 411.09 0.05 0.00 413.17 Area Source 7.28 0.01 0.00 7.45 Energy Source 3,712.59 0.12 0.04 3,727.77 Mobile Source 6,316.46 0.19 0.00 6,321.33 Waste 55.04 3.25 0.00 136.37 Water Usage 641.54 1.43 0.04 688.70 Total Project CO2e (All Sources) 11,294.8 Source:CalEEMod model output,See Appendices 3.2 and 3.3 for detailed model outputs. Table VIII-4 displays the GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project, including special events. The findings rely on implementing mitigation involving the purchase of carbon credits in the amount of 1,000 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 1,000 MTCO2e per year (30,000 MTCO2e over a 30 year period), prior to the issuance of building occupancy. 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. This form of mitigation is presented in MM GHG-1. Following the implementation of GHG reduction through the purchase of Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 82 carbon credits, project related GHG emissions will be 3.63 MTCO2e per service population per year which is less than the applicable threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e per service population per year, and therefore less than significant. Table VIII-4 Proposed Project and Special Events GHG Emissions Emission Source Emissions (MT/yr) Total CO2e Special Events 72.43 Proposed Project 11,294.8 Total Project CO2e (All Sources) 11,367.23 Annual GHG Reduction (GHG 1) -1,000 Total Project CO2e (with GHG 1) 10,367.23 Service Population 2,855 Total CO2e/Service Population 3.63 Threshold 3.65 Threshold Exceeded? NO Source:CalEEMod model output,See Appendices 3.2 and 3.3 for detailed model outputs. Mitigation: GHG-1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Project Applicant shall purchase a minimum of 30,000 MTCO2e credits (1,000 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 1,000 MTCO2e per year (30,000 MTCO2e over a 30 year period), prior to the issuance of building occupancy. 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. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The GHGA prepared for this project evaluated ways in which the project would comply with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The summary of the findings as follows: 2008 Scoping Plan Consistency: ARB’s Scoping Plan identifies strategies to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions in support of AB32, which requires the State to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Many of the strategies identified in the Scoping Plan are not applicable at the project level, such as long-term technological improvements to reduce emissions from vehicles. Some measures are applicable and supported by the project, such as energy efficiency. Finally, while some measures are not directly applicable, the project would not conflict with their implementation. The project will support seven of the action categories through energy efficiency, water conservation, recycling, and landscaping, as listed below per the GHGA 2008 Scoping Plan Consistency Summary Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 83 Energy Efficiency: The Project will include a variety of building, water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with the most current CALGreen requirements. Million Solar Roofs (MSR) Program: The MSR program sets a goal for use of solar systems throughout the state as a whole. While the Project currently does not include solar energy generation, the building roof structure will be designed to support solar panels in the future, consistent with Title 24 requirements. Green Building Strategy: The Project will include a variety of building, water, and solid waste efficiencies consistent with the current CALGreen requirements. Recycling and Waste: The Project will be required recycle a minimum of 65% from construction activities and Project operations per State and City requirements. Sustainable Forests: The Project will increase carbon sequestration by increasing on-site trees per the project landscaping plan. Water: The Project will include use of low-flow fixtures and efficient landscaping per State requirements. SB 32/2017 Scoping Plan Consistency: The 2017 Scoping Plan Update reflects the 2030 target of a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. As indicated in the GHGA, the project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the project. Further, recent studies show that 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. La Quinta GHG Reduction Plan: State-wide regulations, including previously mentioned AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, act as policy guides for the City of La Quinta to reduce the City’s energy demand. The La Quinta GHG Reduction Plan, published in 2012, was established in compliance with AB 32 and EO S-3-05, in order to reduce the amount of GHG emissions produced in the City. Using AB 32 and EO S- 3-05 as a guide, the GHG Reduction Plan established a baseline year of 2005 to lower City GHG emissions to, by creating policies and programs in order for the City to achieve the reduction expectations. According to the GHG Reduction Plan, new development, like the proposed project is required to adhere to the latest building code standards, which assure energy efficiency and incorporate passive and active design features intended to benefit the overall operating efficiency of new buildings. As such, pertaining to conflicts with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 84 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Sources: Enforcement and Compliance History Online, 2019; Preliminary Hydrology Report, prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc., February 2019; Public Swimming Pools and Spas, California Association of Environmental Health Administrators, 2018; State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, 2019; Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Locally Responsible Areas, CALFIRE, 2018. a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR Title 40, Part 261) defines hazardous materials based on ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and/or toxicity properties. The State of California defines hazardous materials as substances that are toxic, ignitable or flammable, reactive and/or corrosive, which have the capacity of causing harm or a health hazard during normal exposure or an accidental release. As a result, the use and management of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances is regulated under existing federal, state and local laws. Hazardous wastes require special handling and disposal methods to reduce their potential to damage public health and the environment. Manufacturer’s specifications dictate the proper use, handling, and disposal methods for the specific substances. In most cases, it is a violation of Federal or State law to improperly store, apply, transport, or dispose of hazardous materials and waste. Construction Construction of the proposed project is expected to involve the temporary management and use of oils, fuels and other potentially flammable substances. The nature and quantities of these products would be limited to what is necessary to carry out construction of the project. Some of these materials would be transported to the site periodically by vehicle and would be stored in designated controlled areas on a short- term basis. When handled properly by trained individuals and consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions and industry standards, the risk involved with handling these materials is considerably reduced. The contractor will be required to identify a controlled staging area within the project limits for storing Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 85 materials and equipment. The contractor will also be required to implement best management practices to assure that impacts are minimized and that any minor spills are immediately and properly remediated. Furthermore, to prevent a threat to the environment during construction, the management of potentially hazardous materials and other potential pollutant sources will be regulated, in part, through the implementation of measures required in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP requires a list of potential pollutant sources and the identification of construction areas where additional control measures are necessary to prevent pollutants from being released on-site or into the surroundings. Best management practices (BMPs) are necessary for proper material delivery and storage; material use; and spill prevention and control. These temporary measures outline the required physical improvements and procedures to prevent impacts of pollutants and hazardous materials to workers and the environment during construction. For example, all construction materials, including paints, solvents, and petroleum products, must be stored in controlled areas and according to the manufacturer’s specifications. In addition, perimeter controls (fencing with wind screen), linear sediment barriers (gravel bags, fiber rolls, or silt fencing), and access restrictions (gates) would help prevent temporary impacts. With such standard measures in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated during construction. Operation The proposed mixed-use project includes a hotel/resort, commercial, residential, and recreational and open space uses on approximately 386 acres of vacant land. The nature of these uses is not expected to involve, as a primary activity, 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 conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The regular operation of the proposed project does not intend to use copious amounts of hazardous materials. The handling, application, and storage of cleaning agents, building maintenance products, paints, solvents and other related substances is expected to occur within the project in order to carry out the necessary operations in each facility or use. However, these materials would not be present in sufficient quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety, or the environment. The California Department of Public Health is authorized to establish standards for public swimming facilities. According to Section 65529, Public Pool Disinfection, of title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), it is required that public pools, when open or in use, be disinfected continuously by a chemical that imparts a disinfectant consistent with minimum and maximum concentrations, also determined in Section 65529. If halogens other than chlorine are used, residuals of equivalent strength shall be maintained. Records of the routine maintenance and repairs are also required per the CCR. Additionally, the pool operator shall maintain a test kit for measuring the disinfectant residual, pH and, if used, cyanuric acid concentration in the public pool. The project shall adhere to all applicable standards and regulations within the California Health and Safety Code, the CCR, the California Building Code and the California Electrical Code regarding public swimming pools. The enforcing agency that would evaluate the plans for the Wave basin prior to construction would be the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and the City of La Quinta. Adherence to federal, State, and regional regulatory standards will ensure impacts related to the release of hazardous materials associated with the Wave basin are anticipated to be less than significant. According to Riverside County Municipal Code Chapter 8.64, Disclosure of Hazardous Materials and Formulation of Business Emergency Plans, the County established a system for permitting businesses that handle hazardous materials in order to enforce minimum standards respecting such materials. According to Chapter 8.64, chlorine and muriatic acid stored in combined aggregate quantities greater than or equal to fifty-five (55) gallons, and/or greater than or equal to five hundred (500) pounds for pools are considered hazardous materials. 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), any business handling and/or storing a hazardous material shall obtain a permit from the DEH and electronically submit a business plan in the Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 86 Statewide Informational Management System. Should any component of the proposed project require the storage or handling of hazardous materials, as defined in Chapter 8.64 of the Riverside County Municipal Code including pool disinfecting and cleaning supplies, it shall be required to follow the procedures established in the Municipal Code and Chapter 6.95 of the HSC. Compliance of these procedures will ensure that impacts due to the use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant during project operation. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None c) No Impact. 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. Therefore, there are no impacts. Mitigation: None d) No Impact. As previously discussed, the approximately 386-acre project site proposes to develop a mixed- use community on vacant land on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 in the City of La Quinta. Pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 and its subsections, record searches on the project property were performed within multiple database platforms. The resources consulted included GeoTracker, EnviroStor and the EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). GeoTracker is a database maintained by the State of California Water Resources Control Board that provides online access to environmental data. It serves as the management system for tracking regulatory data on sites that can potentially impact groundwater, particularly those requiring groundwater cleanup and permitted facilities, such as operating underground storage tanks and land disposal sites. EnviroStor is a database maintained by the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control DTSC). The EnviroStor database identifies sites with known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. It includes the identification of formerly contaminated properties that have been released for reuse; properties where environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses; and risk characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the environment at contaminated sites. Moreover, the ECHO database focuses on inspection, violation, and enforcement data for the Clean Air Act CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and also includes Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data. In July 2019, a search was performed on all three database platforms. Two of the three databases, GeoTracker and ECHO, listed sites within one mile of the project. The results are described below: The GeoTracker database listed one registered Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Site within a one-mile radius of the project site. The registered LUST Site is listed as “KSL PGA West Weiskoff/Nicklaus,” registered at 80202 Avenue 58, approximately 0.25 miles west of the project property. The potential contaminant of concern at this site was identified as gasoline; however, the site retained a status of “Completed-Case Closed” as of October 1999. Therefore, the facility will not affect the project. Similar to the GeoTracker database, the ECHO database highlighted one facility within a mile radius of the proposed project. This site is registered as Capistrano and located west of Monroe Street and north of Avenue 58, approximately 0.75 miles northeast of the project site. This site is registered in Clean Water Act (CWA) as a minor general permit covered facility. The permit expired in 2014, however, the property has remained in compliance for three consecutive years with no identified violations. Due to Capistrano’s Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 87 distance from the proposed project, and its status as “no violations”, the registered site is not anticipated to affect the project site. The search results in the EnviroStor database did not identify any records of site within a mile of the project property, unlike the GeoTracker and ECHO databases. The EnviroStor database did not identify any Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Sites, Land Disposal Sites, Military Sites, DTSC Hazardous Waste Permits, DTSC Cleanup Sites, or Permitted Underground Storage Tanks on or around the project property. As stated previously, both registered sites maintain statuses of “Completed – Case Closed” and “no violation”. The project will not exacerbate risks or impacts associated with the registered sites, due to the project’s nature and the sites’ location from the proposed project. Therefore, there are no impacts. Mitigation: None e) No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or private airstrip. The Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport is located approximately 4.25 miles to the east of the proposed project. As a result, the project is located outside of the airport’s influence and planning area. Flights approaching and departing the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport may fly over the City and the project site with an intermittent frequency. Therefore, there are no impacts. Mitigation: None f) Less Than Significant Impact. The Emergency Services Element of the 2035 La Quinta General Plan addresses multiple components of the City’s public safety services, including police and fire service, emergency medical response and emergency preparedness. The City of La Quinta is contracted for police services from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. According to the La Quinta Police Department website, there are two police departments contracted with the City. These include the La Quinta Police Department at 78495 Calle Tampico, and the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department at 86625 Airport Boulevard in Thermal. The La Quinta Police Department is approximately six driving miles northwest of the proposed site and covers an area of over 33 square miles and a population of over 38,075 residents. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department is approximately 6.5 driving miles northeast of the project site and provides police services to the cities of La Quinta, Coachella and southern Coachella Valley community services. Fire services in the City of La Quinta are provided by three fire stations in the City including: Fire Station 32 located at 78111 Avenue 52, Station #70 at 54001 Madison Street, and Station #93 at 44555 Adams Street. Station #70 is the closest station to the project property, lying approximately 2 miles north of the project site. Response times for fire services in the City are five minutes or less 90 percent of the time. Paramedic service is provided to the City of La Quinta and the project area by Springs Ambulance Service. Paramedic staff is located at Station #70. The Police and Fire Departments within the City relies on mutual aid agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to provide additional services when necessary. According to the City of La Quinta General Plan, the City’s primary tool in preparing for emergencies is its adopted Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). The EOP establishes procedures and responsibilities for City personnel and acts as a guide for the City’s response to emergencies. The EOP is managed by the Emergency Services Division Manager who is responsible for both planning and implementation of emergency response efforts and preparedness in the City. The Division coordinates with other local jurisdictions and the County of Riverside in emergency response training. The City also participates in the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, and FEMA’s National Incident Management System (NIMS). Volunteer groups such as the Community Emergency Response Team CERT), the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) and the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) all participate in emergency response during disasters or emergency situations. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 88 Project implementation is not expected to interfere with the critical facilities, emergency transportation and circulation, emergency preparedness coordination. The project will be reviewed by City and Fire officials to ensure adequate fire service and safety as a result of project implementation. Moreover, as a standard condition, the project will implement its own emergency evacuation plan for each applicable area of the project. Regional emergency evacuation routes for the Coachella Valley include the Interstate 10 freeway and Highway 111, which lies approximately 7.60 miles north and 5.75 miles northeast of the project, respectively. With the foregoing, impacts of project development to critical facilities, emergency transportation and circulation and emergency preparedness will be less than significant impacts without mitigation. Mitigation: None g) Less Than Significant Impact. 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 includes 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). This map indicates that the project is located in an incorporated Local Responsibility Area, while the area west of the project property is located within a Federal Responsibility Area. Additionally, CALFIRE’s Very 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 are expected to be less than significant. Consult the Wildfires Section of this environmental document for further discussion. Therefore, the impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 89 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect flood flows? d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Sources: Flood Insurance Rate Map 06065C2244H and 06065C2900H by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Effective April 19, 2017; Flood Insurance Rate Map 06065C2925H by FEMA, Effective March 6, 2018; Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region, January 2019; Coachella Valley Water District, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, Final Report, July 2016; Eastern Coachella Valley Stormwater Master Plan (Public Review Copy), April 2015; The Wave at Coral Mountain Project-Specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan, MSA Consulting, Inc., April 2020; The Wave at Coral Mountain Preliminary Hydrology Report, MSA Consulting, Inc., March 2020. Regulatory Framework Summary and Existing Setting: The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters by regulating the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U.S. from point sources. As part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) program, subsequent amendments to the CWA established a framework for regulating non-point source discharges from urban land runoff and other diffuse sources that were also found to contribute to runoff pollution. Under CWA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authorized the NPDES permit program to various state, tribal, and territorial governments, enabling them to perform many of the permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the program. California is a delegated NPDES state and has authority to administer the NPDES program within its limits. The Porter-Cologne Act is the principal law governing water quality regulation for surface waters in California. It established a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. Presently in the state of California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) regulate and protect water quality pursuant to NPDES. Their regulations encompass storm water discharges from construction site, municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), and major industrial facilities. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 90 The approved Colorado River Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) identifies the beneficial water uses, describes the water quality which must be maintained to support such uses, and describes the programs, projects, and other actions necessary to achieve the standards and protect surface water quality. The proposed project is located within the Whitewater River Watershed in the Colorado River Region (Region 7). As a component of Region 7, the Whitewater River Watershed Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) established a compliance program that covers approximately 1,645 square miles, including the Coachella Valley and City of La Quinta. Based on the project’s location and setting, the nearest receiving water to the project is the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (CVSC), located approximately 7 miles east of the project site. CVSC is the primary regional flood control facility in the eastern Coachella Valley. As an unlined, engineered extension of the Whitewater River, CVSC accepts agricultural irrigation return water and conveys treated wastewater, urban runoff, and stormwater runoff to the Salton Sea. The CWA section 303(d) requires states to identify waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards. In California, this listing is best summarized in the California Integrate Report – Clean Water Act 303(d) List of Impaired Waters, which combines the State Water Board’s biennial reporting requirements for U.S. EPA review and approval. The most current 2014 and 2016 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report) indicates that portions of the CVSC are impaired by DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichoroethane), Dieldrin, Indicator Bacteria, Nitrogen, ammonia (Total Ammonia), PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls), Toxaphene, and Toxicity. These water quality impairments are not known to be associated with new development and therefore are not expected to be attributed to the proposed project. As presently observed, the project site is defined by a relatively level terrain with scattered vegetation coverage. This setting occurs on the east side of Coral Mountain and two engineered flood control dikes (No. 2 and No. 4). The dikes form part of the regional flood control system and the planned Eastern Coachella Valley Stormwater Master Plan Project (Master Plan) subsequently discussed. The on-site conditions have been modified by prior agricultural operations and clearing activities that occurred over multiple decades. The site has also been altered the formation of dirt roads, hiking paths, and various underground irrigation lines. As such, current on-site drainage appears to be controlled via sheet flow generally trending from west to east. In addition to the on-site drainage conditions, a portion of vacant land and Coral Mountain west of the project are tributary to the project area. The off-site hillside portion of Coral Mountain primarily consists of rock outcrop, while the vacant land is relatively flat with conditions similar to those that occur on-site. The proposed project incorporates facilities to handle both the off-site and on-site drainage conditions, as subsequently discussed. a) Less Than Significant Impact. During the period of construction, compliance with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements will be achieved by the project proponent through the required permit enrollment with the State’s most current Construction General Permit (CGP), Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ. This permit program is part of the NPDES and CWA framework. Compliance with the CGP involves the development and implementation of a project- specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), designed to prevent potential adverse impacts to surface water quality during the period of construction. The required plan will identify the permitted limits of disturbance during construction, indicating specific locations where activities will require implementation of storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs). Storm water BMPs refer to a schedule of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent, eliminate, or reduce the pollution of water of the receiving waters. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks. Consistent with Section XIV of the CGP, the required SWPPP will also specify the necessary recordkeeping, relevant good site housekeeping requirements, proper waste management, proper handling, and storage within the allowed construction limits. Based on the project location and setting, the compliant SWPPP is expected to identify temporary sediment track-out prevention BMPs at each construction entrance/exit point that eventually exits to a public street. This type of BMP will provide temporary stabilization to prevent sediment track-out and fugitive dust emissions from exiting the site. Linear sediment barriers may be warranted along portions of the Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 91 construction perimeter to prevent soil erosion impacts and sediment impacts. Off-site IID improvements would also be fully covered by the permit registration documents and BMPs. As construction progresses, any on-site catch basin inlets that become operational will require temporary protection to prevent sediment or pollutants from entering the on-site storm drain system. As a standard condition, any ground surface area disturbed by construction activities must be entirely covered by the SWPPP and must be properly re- stabilized to satisfy the City and NPDES requirements. Compliance with the State’s CGP during construction will be regulated and enforced as part of the local agency site inspection protocols. During construction, the project will also be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 403 and 403.1 and the City’s Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance. Implementation of Fugitive Dust Control Plan primarily pertains to air quality, but also supports water quality protection through the requirement of soil stabilization practices aimed at preventing sediment erosion and track-out. The concurrent implementation of the required SWPPP and Dust Control Plan plans will establish measures to prevent the potential construction-related impacts to surface water quality, including instances of erosion and siltation, at the site and its surroundings. During the life of the project, water quality standards and waste discharge requirements will be met through the compliance of the NPDES permit program for post-construction conditions. The project proponent must develop and implement a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to comply with the most current standards of the Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff and the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit, all of which are programs under the NPDES and CWA framework. The project-specific WQMP will identify a strategy of site design, source controls, and treatment controls with a required operation and maintenance program to address post-construction runoff quality and quantity. This document will be subject to City review and approval. Based on the project-specific Preliminary WQMP and Preliminary Hydrology Report, the hydrologic area associated with the proposed development includes on-site and off-site tributary conditions, which, as a standard requirement, must be managed to satisfy the City’s hydrologic requirements. To achieve this, multiple retention facilities will be integrated with the storm drain design, such that all sub-drainage areas of the project are adequately covered. The estimated off-site area tributary to the project is approximately 75 acres, consisting of rock out-cropping and open brush conditions immediately west of the site. This off- site drainage area will not be modified by the project, but two shallow retention basins will be constructed on the west portion of the project property (on-site) to accept the naturally occurring flows produced by precipitation events (10-year storm). For the on-site conditions, stormwater will be accepted in retention facilities that may include traditional surface retention basins, underground retention facilities, the wave and lake system for storage. These improvements must be sized sufficiently to contain the stormwater volume resulting from the controlling 100-year storm event. The pool facility will be subject to adequate water treatment and filtration measures to meet or exceed the local public health requirements. Occasional water pool drainage for maintenance operations will be conveyed to one of the on-site retention basins, therefore preventing off-site discharge. Under Section C of the Whitewater River MS4 Permit, treated pool water is included in the list of allowable non-stormwater discharge, as it is not deemed to be a source of runoff pollution and therefore not expected to impair the receiving on-site retention basin. In summary, during construction and operation, project implementation 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. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 92 b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is the primary groundwater source for the project region, with Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) being the domestic water purveyor serving the project site. The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin has an estimated storage capacity of 40 million acre-feet (AF) of water within the upper 1,000 feet and is divided into four subbbasins: Indio, Mission Creek, Desert Hot Springs, and San Gorgonio. The project site is specifically underlain by the Indio Subbasin, which is also known as the Whitewater River Subbasin. CVWD works with other local water agencies and Coachella Valley stakeholders to implement water conservation, water reuse, and groundwater recharge strategy to ensure water availability and system capacity to meet the growing needs of the Coachella Valley. CVWD collaborates with the operation and maintenance of three replenishment facilities serving the Indio Subbasin: Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility, the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility, and the Palm Desert Groundwater Replenishment Facility. In 2014, the California Legislature signed a three-bill legislative package into law, collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). SGMA allows local agencies to manage groundwater resources in a sustainable manner, with management efforts tailored to the resources and needs of their specific communities. Groundwater management is described as the planned and coordinated monitoring, operation, and administration of a groundwater basin sustainability. The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is designated by DWR as a medium priority basin. CVWD is the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the majority of the eastern portion of the Indio Subbasin, including the area that underlies the project area. Since groundwater management has been a historic effort in the Coachella Valley, local agencies have been able to adapt their current measures as part of their sustainability plan. Local groundwater resources are managed under the 2015 CVWD Urban Water Management Plan (2015 UWMP). The 2015 UWMP serves as a planning tool that documents actions in support of long-term water resources planning and ensures adequate water supplies are available to meet the existing and future urban water demands. The 2015 UWMP indicates that the Coachella Valley groundwater basin historically has been in a state of overdraft. An overdraft condition occurs when the outflows (demands) exceed the inflows supplies) to the groundwater basin over a period of time. The previously described groundwater recharge facilities are part of the replenishment effort to stabilize the groundwater levels and eliminate the overdraft condition. Artificial replenishment, or recharge, is recognized by the water districts as one of the most effective methods available for preserving local groundwater supplies, reversing aquifer overdraft and meeting demand by domestic consumers. According to the CVWD web site on Ground Replenishment and Imported Water, local agencies have percolated over 650 billion gallons of water back into the aquifer to date. In the eastern Coachella Valley, Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility is the primary site for groundwater recharge. This facility operates by recharging water obtained from the Coachella Canal at a capacity of 40,000 acre feet per year (AFY). Combined with water conservation and efficiency requirements, individual development projects can contribute to groundwater sustainability by implementing the required stormwater runoff retention and infiltration facilities. The project’s location and setting will not impede any existing or planned groundwater recharge facility. The proposed project aligns with the local and regional groundwater recharge strategies by implementing on-site retention, infiltration and low impact development improvements as part of the site design. The project’s stormwater management design includes a system of on-site retention facilities, the main function of which will be to collect and infiltrate stormwater runoff on-site, therefore contributing to groundwater recharge instead of allowing it to be discharged off-site as runoff. The Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) for Coral Mountain Specific Plan was prepared for and approved by CVWD on April 14, 2020. The findings from CVWD on the Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 93 WSA/WSV determined that sufficient water supplies exist, or will exist on current water planning assumptions, to meet the projected demands of the project, in addition to current and future projected demands within CVWD’s service area in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years over a 20-year projection. Along with the WSA/WSV approval, the project is required to comply with all applicable existing and future state, county, city and local ordinances or regulations including, but not limited to, the City of La Quinta and CVWD landscape ordinances, and indoor water use performance standards provided in the California Water Code. As such, less than significant impacts are anticipated with respect to potential substantial decreases in groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge efforts relevant to groundwater management of the basin. Mitigation: None c) i) Less than Significant Impact. A majority of the site has previously been physically modified by agricultural uses, which have involved a certain amount of clearing and grading to establish the former operations. The site has also been altered by dirt roads, hiking paths, and various underground irrigation lines. Current on-site drainage is therefore determined by this previously modified site condition that generally allows for stormwater sheet flow from west to east. The project site also accepts runoff from an off-site tributary area of approximately 75 acres, located immediately to the west and consisting of rock out-crop and open brush ground cover. To meet City’s hydrologic requirements, the stormwater flows generated from such off-site tributary areas must be handled properly on-site. To achieve this, the proposed improvements include two on-site surface retention basins engineered to capture and infiltrate off-site stormwater volumes. These improvements will not involve physical disturbance or modification in the existing drainage pattern in the off-site tributary areas. Runoff generated on-site will be conveyed to a system of retention facilities, which will consist of surface basins, the wave and lake system, and potential underground structures, all sized to adhere to the City’s hydrologic requirements for handling runoff from the controlling 100-year storm event. The improvement plans associated with retention and drainage management would be subject to City review and approval prior to implementation. The engineered stormwater conveyance systems and flow lines will prevent a significant increase in erosion and siltation compared to an undeveloped condition. Therefore, pertaining to substantial erosion or siltation, on- or off-site, the impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None ii) Less Than Significant Impact. The project’s on-site stormwater retention system has been adequately sized to protect the proposed buildings and facilities from flooding conditions up to the controlling 100- year storm event. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps FIRMs) serve as the basis for identifying potential hazards and determining the need for and availability of federal flood insurance. The project site is covered by three FEMA FIRM panels: 06065C2244H and 06065C2900H effective April 19, 2017, and 06065C2925H, effective March 6, 2018. Based on these sources, the project area is covered by Zone X, an “area with reduced flood risk due to levee”. The levee system being referenced includes Dike No. 2 and Dike No. 4 located west and upgradient of the project site. As such, flood insurance purchase is not required in this zone. The project incorporates a storm drain system with facilities to adequately handle on-site flows. 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 are not expected to substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, the impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 94 iii) Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta is a Permittee of the Whitewater River Watershed Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit area. Within the City limits, MS4 facilities include a system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains) designed for collecting and conveying stormwater. Storm drain facilities can be public or private. The undeveloped project area is absent of any permanent storm drain facilities; however, the site is protected from flooding by a combination of Coral Mountain, Dike No. 2 and Dike No. 4 situated to the west. 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. Similarly, off-site flows will be intercepted in their existing drainage condition and percolated on-site via two engineered basins. Therefore, the project will not result in stormwater runoff conditions which would burden the City’s existing MS4 capacity in terms of quantity and quality (runoff pollution). The project site is located within the coverage area of the planned Eastern Coachella Valley Stormwater Master Plan Project (Stormwater Master Plan), which is designed as a long-term, comprehensive plan identifying the conceptual locations, alignments, and sizes for primary stormwater facilities within a study area of 167 square miles. Specifically, the project is located within the Oasis Valley Floor area of the Stormwater Master Plan, primarily due to the hydrologic barrier that is established by the existing dike system west of the project. Although the project is located within the CVWD Stormwater Master Plan coverage, there are no planned facilities identified for the project vicinity or any portion of the City of La Quinta. As, such project implementation is not expected to interfere with the City or regional stormwater drainage system. Therefore, the impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None iv) Less Than Significant Impact. Flood Hazard: As previously described, the project site has a FEMA designation of Zone X, for an “area with reduced flood risk due to levee”. This is due to the Coral Mountain and dike system located west of the project, which serve as a physical flood control barrier. As such, off- site flows naturally draining toward the project are limited to an eastern portion of the Coral Mountain rock out-crop and a portion of vacant land. The proposed stormwater management plan is to accept these off- site tributary flows (in their existing condition) on two retention basins located on the west side of the project. The two basins have an approximate capacity of 188,998 cubic feet of storage and percolation. Similarly, on-site drainage in the developed condition will be conveyed to properly sized retention facilities. As a result, no on- or off-site runoff will be impeded or redirected in a manner which would be detrimental to any local drainage course or structures, or in a manner which would result in flooding conditions. All improvement plans, including the project-specific hydrology report, grading design, and storm drain design will be prepared to satisfy the City’s review and approval process. Therefore, the impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None d) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the previously cited FEMA FIRM panels, the entire project site is located in a Zone X designation, which applies to areas with “reduced flood risk due to levee”. The mentioned levees include Dike No. 2 and Dike No. 4 located west and upgradient of the project site. These flood control facilities are maintained by CVWD as part of their 590-square mile flood protection coverage area. As such, the proposed development will not occur in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), where the risk of inundation is considered to be higher. The proposed storm drain system will meet the local MS4 and City requirements by including the properly sized conveyance systems and meeting the design criteria of existing retention facilities, such that it meets the local hydrologic requirements. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 95 Tsunami: The project is not located near any coastal areas and therefore is not prone to tsunami hazards. No impacts are associated with this aspect. Seiche Zone: A seiche is primarily defined by free or standing wave oscillations on the surface of water, the causes of which may be wind, atmospheric changes, or seismic activity. Although the project is not located in any mapped seiche zones, such as those associated with large bodies of water, the proposed development will include a recreational wave lagoon feature with 73-acre feet of storage. The lagoon design will incorporate the necessary structural concrete design features to handle the pressure and drainage associated with the wave generation. Through this design, water oscillations generated artificially and by seismic events will be properly handled and contained to prevent releases of water. Less than significant impacts are anticipated with this aspect. Risk Release of Pollutants: 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. The proposed wave pool will include adequate levels of chemical treatment and filtration to meet public health requirements. Moreover, the wave pool and all proposed on-site retention basins are designed with sufficient capacity and freeboard to adequately contain the controlling 100-year storm event, thus preventing ponding and other uncontrolled drainage conditions that could allow for pollutant releases. Therefore, the impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None e) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the project proponent is required to implement a project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (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 will include 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 the hierarchy water quality objectives. Moreover, the project’s storm water retention facilities will ensure that urban runoff is recharged into the ground via infiltration. Combined with the required water conservation practices identified in the project-specific Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification, implementation of the proposed development is expected to contribute to the groundwater sustainability efforts established for the Coachella Valley region. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 96 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Source: Coral Mountain Specific Plan; 2020; 2035 La Quinta General Plan a) No Impact. As stated throughout this environmental document, the proposed project property encompasses approximately 386 acres on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58. The project was previously a part of Amendment IV of Specific Plan 03-067 (SP 03-067), approved in 2017. Amendment IV included the project area, as well as the area east of Madison Street, and proposed approximately 929 acres of residential, golf courses, commercial areas, and associated amenities and improvements. As a part of project entitlements, the project is submitting the Coral Mountain Specific Plan concurrently with this Initial Study. The Coral Mountain Specific Plan (“Specific Plan” or “SP”) separates the area west of Madison Street (the proposed project property) from the SP 03-067 area. The Coral Mountain Specific Plan proposes a master planned community that will include residential, commercial, open space, recreational, and resort uses, as well as associated improvements on approximately 386 acres of vacant land. The project site is surrounded by developed residential communities to the north, east, and south, vacant land to the west and south, and Coral Mountain to the southwest. The surrounding developments are gated and operate separately from each other. With the foregoing, development of the proposed project will not divide an established community. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation: None b) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, the project proposes the development of a mixed-use property including low-density residential, commercial, open space/recreational and resort uses on a currently vacant site. The existing land use designations includes Low Density Residential, General Commercial and Open Space Recreational. The current zoning designations for the project site includes Low Density Residential, Neighborhood Commercial and Golf Course. As a part of project entitlements, a Zone Change (ZC) and General Plan Amendment (GPA) will be processed concurrently with the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is a regulatory document which, if adopted by the City Council of La Quinta, governs all facets of project development including the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, as well as development standards and regulations for uses within the plan area. The proposed entitlements will bring the Specific Plan area in conformity with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Map. Table XI-1 and XI-2 below) displays the existing and proposed land use designations and zoning, respectively. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 97 Table XI-1 Existing and Proposed Land Use Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Open Space – Recreational Open Space –Recreational General Commercial General Commercial Tourist Commercial Table XI-2: Existing and Proposed Zoning Existing Zoning Proposed Land Use Low Density Residential (RL) Low Density Residential (RL) Neighborhood Commercial (CN)Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Golf Course (GC) Tourist Commercial (CT) Parks and Recreation (PR) The GPA and ZC are reflected in Specific Plan and will require City approval. The precise layout within subsequent site development permit applications for individual projects will determine the actual alignment and adjacency of each land use category. In addition to the Specific Plan, GPA and ZC, the project will also submit a Tentative Tract Map (TTM), Site Development Permit (SDP), and Temporary Use Permit (TUP) as part of the entitlement process. The site components (neighborhood commercial, low density residential, resort hotel, resort amenities, wave basin, and recreational open space amenities) are compatible with surrounding residential, open space, and neighborhood commercial uses. The project is separated from adjacent uses by surrounding arterial streets and physical topographic barriers, such as Coral Mountain. Off-site development impacts are anticipated to be minimal. With the submittal and approval of the listed entitlements, the project will not conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation and less than significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 98 12. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Source: 2035 La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta General Plan Environmental Impact Report; Mineral Resources Land Classification Map, California Department of Conservation. a,b) No Impact. The mineral resources that form the Coachella Valley’s desert floor primarily consists of sand, gravel (aggregate) and other important mineral deposits that have eroded from the surrounding mountains and hills. To ensure the protection of important mineral resources, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) developed mineral land classification maps and reports to identify the presence or absence of suitable sources of aggregate (sand, gravel or stone deposits), and organize them into Mineral Resource Zones. According to the Mineral Land Classification Map, the approximately 386-acre project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1) and Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). The northeast portion of the project is located with the MRZ-1 zone, which specifies areas where geologic information indicates no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present. The southwest portion of the project property is located within the MRZ-3 zone which indicates areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences where the significance cannot be evaluated from available data. The Mineral Resource Zone Map (Exhibit III-1), within the 2035 La Quinta General Plan, also classifies the project property to be located within zones MRZ-1 and MRZ-3. In the City of La Quinta, MRZ-3 zones include the Santa Rosa Mountains, foothills, and the Cove. The La Quinta General Plan Environmental Impact Report (LQGP EIR) states that undeveloped sites located in MRZ-3 zones in the City are surrounded by urban development and mineral extraction activities are incompatible and unlikely on the remaining vacant parcels. The project site, located at the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, currently lies within the land use categories of Low Density Residential and Open Space Recreational, which do not provide land use designations conducive for mineral extraction. Therefore, the LQGP EIR concludes that development of areas within these land use categories will not result in the loss of availability of locally important mineral resource considered valuable to the region and state and does not result in the loss of availability of mineral resource recovery sites. Conclusively, the project site is not recognized as a mineral resource recovery site delineated in the City of LQGP, City EIR or resource maps prepared pursuant to SMARA. Therefore, there are no impacts to mineral resources. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 99 13. NOISE -- Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Source: La Quinta General Plan, 2013; La Quinta Municipal Code; Riverside County Municipal Code; Coral Mountain Specific Plan Noise Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc. April 2020. a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Coral Mountain Specific Plan project proposes a master planned community comprised of residential, resort (150-keys), commercial, and open space recreational uses. The project property occupies approximately 386 acres of vacant land at the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 62 in the City of La Quinta. Construction and operation of the proposed project may lead to increased noise levels in the area. Therefore, in order to determine the noise exposure and necessary mitigation measures for the proposed project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. prepared a project-specific Noise Impact Analysis (“noise study”) in April 2020. The noise study was prepared consistent with applicable City of La Quinta noise standards and significance criteria based on guidance provided in the CEQA Guidelines. The noise study analyzed four main noise components anticipated to be produced by the project. These include off-site traffic noise, on-site traffic noise, operational noise and construction noise. Table XIII-1 outlines the significance criteria for the four main noise components. Table XIII-1 Significance Criteria Summary Analysis Receiving Land Use Condition(s) Significance Criteria Daytime Nighttime Off Site Traffic Noise1 Noise Sensitive If ambient is 60 dBA CNEL 5 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is 60 65 dBA CNEL 3 dBA CNEL Project increase If ambient is 65 dBA CNEL 1.5 dBA CNEL Project increase On Site Traffic Noise Exterior Noise Level Criteria 65 dBA CNEL Interior Noise Level Standard 45 dBA CNEL Operational Noise3 Exterior Noise Level Standards See Table 3 1 in noise study if ambient is 60 dBA L 5 dBA L50 Project increase if ambient is 60 65 dBA L50 3 dBA L50 Project increase if ambient is 65 dBA L50 1.5 dBA L50 Project increase Construction4 Noise Level Threshold 85 dBA Leq n/a Vibration Level Threshold 0.01 in/sec RMS n/a Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 100 1 Source:FICON,1992. 2 Sources:City of La Quinta General Plan Noise Element California Building Code. 3 Sources:City of La Quinta Municipal Code,Section 6.08.050 Appendix 3.1)and FICON guidance. 4 Sources:NIOSH,Criteria for Recommended Standard:Occupational Noise Exposure and County of Riverside General Plan Noise Element,Policy 16.3. Daytime"7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.;Nighttime"10:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m.;n/a"No nighttime construction activity is permitted,so no nighttime construction noise level limits are identified;RMS"root mean square According to the noise study, noise is simply defined as “unwanted sound.” Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A- weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in dBA. The Leq represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment. Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level CNEL) is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of La Quinta relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources. Noise transmission is affected by a variety of factors such as temperature, wind speed, wind direction, and the type of ground surface. Sound intensity is reduced by surfaces, walls, vegetation or other material is called attenuation. Soft ground surfaces tend to reduce sound levels better than hard surfaces. A drop-off rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling distance is typical across soft ground. In comparison, hard ground, such as concrete, stone, and hard packed earth reduced sound by 3.0 dBA per doubling distance. Effective noise barriers, such as walls or berms, can help reduce noise levels by 10-15 decibels. These types of barriers can provide relief from traffic noise. Vegetation, on the other hand, is less effective for reducing noise levels. In general, walls need to be high enough and long enough to block the view of a road to function as a noise barrier. To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging and intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, county governments, and most municipalities in California have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas. Federal, state and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise, where federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies. In order to analyze project noise impacts, Urban Crossroads measured the existing noise conditions surrounding the project property on October 16, 2019. To assess the existing noise level environment, 24- Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 101 hour noise level measurements were taken at ten sensitive receiver locations in the study area. The existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24- hour period in order to describe the daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hourly noise levels and calculate the 24-hour CNEL. The measurements were taken per Caltrans and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) standards. The existing noise measurement locations are provided in Figure XIII-1. Figure XIII-1 Existing Noise Measurement Locations The results of Urban Crossroad’s existing noise measurements concluded that the background ambient noise levels in the study area are dominated by the transportation-related noise associated with the arterial roadway network. The 24-hour existing ambient noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads is further described in Table XIII-2, 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 102 Table XIII-2 24-Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements Location1 Description Energy Average Noise Level dBA Leq)2 CNEL Daytime Nighttime L1 Located on 58th Ave. in front of entrance to Coral Mountain and west of Salida del Sol.54.2 51.5 58.5 L2 Located on 58th Ave. south of home at 57925 Barristo Cir. 62.5 60.7 67.6 L3 Located northeast of Madison St. and 58th Ave. adjacent to wall enclosing golf course. 61.2 55.6 63.6 L4 Located on the southeast corner of 58th Ave, and Madison St. 54.5 53.2 60.1 L5 Located south of 58th Ave. outside northwest corner of the Andalusia Country Club. 59.7 56.1 63.3 L6 Located on CaIIe Conchita southeast of home at 80900 CaIIe Conchita. 58.7 55.8 63.0 L7 Located on 60th Ave. north of gated entrance to single family homes.57.9 56.1 63.1 L8 Located towards the western end of 60th Ave. south of home at 80800 60th Ave. 43.8 39.9 47.3 L9 Located on Jefferson St. north of Quarry Ln. 51.7 48.9 56.0 L10 Located on 58th Ave. slightly east of 58th Ave. and Stone Creek Way intersection. 61.9 54.2 63.3 1 See Exhibit 5-A in noise study for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2 in noise study. Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The estimated roadway noise impacts from vehicular traffic was calculated using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model and predicts noise levels. An in-depth discussion of the project-related noise methods and procedures is provided in Chapter 6 of the noise study. Off-Site Traffic Noise Traffic generated by the operation of the proposed project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off-site areas. To quantify the traffic noise increases on the surrounding off-site areas, Urban Crossroads calculated the changes in traffic noise levels on 29 roadway segments surrounding the project site based on the change in the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, which was provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis. As outlined in Table XIII-1, off-site traffic noise will be significant when the noise levels at existing and future noise-sensitive land uses: Are less than 60 dBA CNEL and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater project-related noise levels increase; or Range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL and the project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA CNEL or greater project-related noise level increase; or Already exceed 65 dBA CNEL, and the project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA CNEL. Without the project, the noise study expects that the exterior noise levels range from 46.9 to 71.8 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. The existing conditions with project conditions is estimated to range from 58.0 to 71.9 dBA CNEL, and it is calculated that the project will generate a noise level increase of up to 11.1 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Therefore, Urban Crossroads concluded that project-related noise level increases are Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 103 considered potentially significant under existing conditions with project conditions at the following two roadway segments: Madison Street north of Avenue 58 (Segment 8) Avenue 60 west of Madison Street (Segment 27) All other roadway segments are shown to experience less than significant noise level impacts under existing conditions plus project conditions. However, Urban Crossroads discloses that this scenario is solely for analytical purposes, and will not occur, since project development, which will occur in multiple phases over years, and therefore, not occupied under existing 2020 conditions. No mitigation measures are considered to reduce the existing with project condition traffic noise level increases, and impacts are considered less than significant. The applicant anticipates the potential occurrence of special events at the project site involving the attendance of (not-to-exceed) 2,500 guests per day arriving or departing on Saturdays (up to 4 events per year). The noise study anticipates that the special event conditions will range from 60.5 to 73.9 dBA CNEL and will generate a noise level increase of up to 3.2 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the significance criteria (outlined in Table XIII-1), the project-related noise level increases are considered to be less than significant under the project with special events condition at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic. See Chapter 7, pages 37-64 (tables 7-1 to 7-21), in the noise study for tables and further discussion. Onsite residential uses will be protected from off-site traffic noise by implementing improvements that diminish noise levels. Such improvements include constructing noise barriers (i.e. masonry block, ¼-inch-thick glass, etc), as well as implementing construction materials that diminish noise (i.e. sound transmission class rated windows and doors), discussed further in this noise section. On-Site Traffic Noise Urban Crossroads completed an onsite exterior noise impact analysis to determine the traffic noise exposure and to identify potential necessary noise abatement measures for the project. According to noise study, project-related noise levels are considered significant if the on-site exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL at the outdoor living areas of residential homes, or 70 dBA CNEL at hotel uses. Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA CNEL for residential homes and the hotel building (City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Ordinance 550, Section 9.100.210 (B) & General Plan Noise Element Policy N-1.2). It is expected that the primary source of noise impacts to the project site will be traffic from Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The project will also experience some background traffic noise impacts from its internal streets and parking lots. However, due to the low traffic volume and low speeds of vehicles travelling on these roadways, traffic noise will not make a significant contribution to the noise environment beyond of the right-of-way of each road. Exterior Noise Level Analysis Using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model the expected future exterior noise levels for the on-site building were calculated. Table XIII-3 presents a summary of future exterior noise levels for the future low- density residential developments within Planning Area II. The on-site traffic noise level impacts indicate that the single family residential development adjacent to Avenue 58 and Madison Street will experience unmitigated exterior noise levels ranging from 66.7 to 68.8 dBA CNEL. Since the unmitigated on-site traffic noise levels exceed the City of La Quinta’s 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards, the on-site traffic noise impacts are considered potentially significant. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 104 Table XIII-3 Unmitigated Exterior Traffic Noise Levels Receiver Location Roadway Unmitigated Noise Level dBA CNEL)1 Exterior Noise Level Threshold dBA CNEL)2 Threshold Exceeded? Planning Area II- LDR Avenue 58 66.7 65 Yes Madison Street 68.8 65 Yes 1 On-site traffic noise calculations included in Appendix 8.1 of the noise study. 2 City of La Quinta exterior noise criteria (See Section 4 in the noise study). To satisfy the City of La Quinta’s 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use, Urban Crossroads in their analysis, recommends the construction of 6-foot high noise barriers for the outdoor living areas (backyards) of single-family residential uses adjacent to Avenue 58 and Madison Street in Planning Area II. The noise barriers, shown in Exhibit XIII-6, Summary of On-Site Recommendations, the mitigated future exterior noise levels at the outdoor living areas (backyards) of single family residential uses in Planning Area II will be reduced to levels ranging from 57.4 to 59.4 dBA CNEL, as shown in Table XIII-4. The noise barriers will be required as mitigation measure NOI-1. Table XIII-4 Mitigated Exterior Traffic Noise Levels Receiver Location Roadway Mitigated Noise Level dBA CNEL)1 Exterior Noise Level Threshold dBA CNEL)2 Threshold Exceeded? Barrier Height Feet) Planning Area II- LDR Avenue 58 57.4 65 No 6.0 Madison Street 59.4 65 No 6.0 1 On-site traffic noise calculations included in Appendix 8.1 of the noise study. 2 City of La Quinta exterior noise criteria (See Section 4 in the noise study). The effective noise barrier height represents the minimum wall and/or berm combination height to satisfy the City of La Quinta exterior noise level standards. Therefore, the recommended noise barriers will ensure that future exterior noise levels will have a less than significant impact. Interior Noise Level Analysis To ensure that the interior noise levels comply with the City of La Quinta interior noise level standards, future noise levels were calculated at the estimated building façade locations. The interior noise levels are the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building façade and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction will provide a Noise Reduction (NR) of approximately 12 dBA with “windows open” and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with “windows closed”. Sound leaks, crack and openings, which can diminish its effectiveness in reducing noise, can be avoided by (1) weather- stripped solid core exterior doors, (2) upgraded dual glazed windows, (3) mechanical ventilation/air conditioning, and (4) exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut outs or openings. According to the noise study, the interior noise level analysis shows that the City of La Quinta 45 dBA CNEL residential interior noise standards can be satisfied using standard STC ratings of 27 for all lots/units. Future onsite interior noise will be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, which includes the following: Windows: All residential lots require first and second floor windows and sliding glass doors that have well-fitted, well-weather-stripped assemblies. Doors (Non-Glass): All exterior doors shall be weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 25. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 105 Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the attic space. Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system e.g. air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g. fresh air supply) shall be provided which satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Table XIII-5 displays the interior noise levels with the implementation of the mitigation defined above. Table XIII-5 Interior Noise Levels (CNEL) Building Façade) Floor Noise Level at Façade1 Required Interior NR2 Minimum Estimated Interior NR3 Upgraded Windows4 Interior Noise Level5 Threshold Threshold Exceeded? Avenue 58 1 56.3 11.3 25 No 31.3 45 No 2 65.5 20.5 25 No 40.5 45 No Madison St. 1 58.3 13.3 25 No 33.3 45 No 2 67.5 22.5 25 No 42.5 45 No 1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for residential uses. 3 Estimated minimum interior noise reduction with the recommended windows and standard building construction. 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. NR" = Noise Reduction To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, sensitive receiver locations were identified as representative locations for focused analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Receiver locations are located in outdoor living areas (e.g. backyards) at 10 feet from any existing or proposed barriers or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the project site, based on FHWA guidance and consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA. Ten receivers were measured during Urban Crossroad’s noise study. The receiver locations and noise source locations used to assess the project-related operational noise levels are displayed in the Figure XIII-2. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 106 Figure XIII-2 Noise Source and Receiver Locations Operational Noise Impacts The La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC), Ordinance 550, Sections 9.100.210 (B) and (C) establish the noise level standards for stationary noise sources. For residential properties, the exterior noise level shall not exceed 65 dBA L during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA L during the nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The exterior noise level standards shall apply for a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any hour, as well as plus 5 dBA cannot be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour, or the standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour, or the standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour, or the standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time. The City of La Quinta operational noise level standards are shown on Table XIII-6, below. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 107 Table XIII-6 Operational Noise Standards City Land Use Time Period Exterior Noise Level Standards1 L50 30 mins) L25 15 mins) L8 5 mins) L2 1 min) Lmax 1 min) La Quinta2 Residential, Schools, Hospitals & Churches 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 65 70 75 80 85 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50 55 60 65 70 1 The noise level exceeded "n" percent of the time during the measurement period. L is the noise level exceeded 25% of the time. 2 Source: City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Ordinance 550, Section 9.100.210 (B) & (C) (Appendix 3.1 in the noise study). Urban Crossroads analyzed the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearby receiver locations resulting from operation of the proposed project. Figure XIII-3 identifies the representative receiver locations and noise source locations used to assess the operational noise levels. Figure XIII-3 Operational Noise Source Locations Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 108 Reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed project. Worst-case noise environments were assumed with the surf lagoon/wave machine activity, outdoor pool/spa activity, outdoor activities, and neighborhood commercial land use activity all operating simultaneously. However, these noise level impacts will likely vary throughout the day and will be limited to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Table XIII-7 displays the reference noise level measurements used for this analysis. Table XIII-7 Reference Noise Level Measurements Noise Source Duration hh:mm:ss) Ref. Distance Feet) Noise Source Height Feet) Min./Hour5 Reference Noise Level (dBA Leq) Sound Power Level dBA)6DayNight@Ref. Dist. @ 50 Feet Surf Lagoon/Wave Machine1 00:10:00 12' 5' 60 0 75.7 63.3 112.0 Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity2 00:10:00 5' 5' 60 0 77.8 57.8 103.3 Outdoor Activity3 00:15:00 5' 5' 60 0 63.4 43.4 84.3 Neighborhood Commercial4 00:01:00 20' 5' 60 0 62.8 54.8 99.6 1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 4/13/2020 at the Kelly Slater Surf Ranch in the City of Lemoore, CA. 2 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 3/16/2005 at the Westin Hotel in the City of Rancho Mirage. 3 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/8/2014 by Urban Crossroads, Inc. at the Founder's Park in the County of Orange. 4 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 4/18/2018 by Urban Crossroads, Inc. at Destination Ramon Commercial Center 5 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 6 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. Numbers may vary due to size differences between point and area noise sources. The reference noise levels are described further below. Each activity will be limited to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with no planned nighttime activities. Surf Lagoon/Wave Machine To measure the noise levels associated with the wave machine, Urban Crossroads, Inc. collected reference noise level measurements at eight different locations around the Kelly Slater Surf Ranch in the City of Lemoore, CA. The noise level measurement locations were selected to identify the unique noise characteristics associated with different stages of each wave. Prior to each wave, the control tower announces the event over the public address system. This is followed by the noise generated from the movement of the sled and an increase in noise levels from the mechanical equipment buildings. As the sled moves through the lagoon, noise from the cable and metal rollers is clearly audible. However, throughout each wave event, the primary noise source is simply the movement of water from each wave in the lagoon. Over a period of 53 minutes, ten wave events were measured at eight different locations on April 13, 2020. The reference noise levels suggest that during peak wave events, the Wave basin generates noise levels ranging from 62.6 dBA Leq at end of the lagoon, 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 is used. This reference noise level likely overstates the expected noise levels from the wave basin/wave machine activity at the Coral Mountain Specific Plan since it only describes the actual wave event. In addition, improved designs plan for the Project have placed the cable roller system under the water surface to eliminate this noise source. Outdoor Pool/Spa Activity Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 109 To determine the noise levels associated with outdoor hotel pool and spa activity, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement on March 16, 2005 at the Westin Hotel in the City of Rancho Mirage. The measured reference noise level at 50 feet is 57.8 dBA Leq. The outdoor pool/spa activity noise levels include a waterfall, people talking, and children and adults swimming and playing in a pool. Outdoor Activities To represent the potential noise level impacts associated with the Project’s outdoor or beach club activities, a reference noise level measurement was collected on Wednesday, October 8, 2014 at the Founders Park in the unincorporated community of Ladera Ranch in the County of Orange. The reference noise levels collected at the Founders Park are expected to overestimate the noise level activities within the outdoor fields and game areas at the Project site, since the reference noise level measurement includes parents speaking on cell phones, kids playing, and background youth soccer games, with coaches shouting instructions and people cheering and clapping. Using the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference playground activity noise level is 43.4 dBA Leq. Neighborhood Commercial To describe the potential noise level impacts associated the proposed neighborhood commercial center a reference noise level measurement was collected at the Destination Ramon Commercial Center in Cathedral City on April 18, 2018. The noise level measurements collected show a peak hourly noise level of 54.8 dBA Leq when measured at 50 feet. As stated previously, operational noise impacts are considered significant if project-related operational stationary-source) noise levels: Exceed the exterior 65 dBA L50 nighttime noise level standards for residential land uses. These standards shall not be exceeded for a cumulative period of 30 minutes (L50), or plus 5 dBA cannot be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes (L25) in any hour, or the standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes (L8) in any hour, or the standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute (L2) in any hour, or the standard plus 20 dBA at any time Lmax) (LQMC Ordinance 550, Section 9.100.210 (B) & (C)); Operational noise impacts are also considered significant if the existing ambient noise levels at the nearby noise sensitive receivers near the project site: Are less than 60 dBA L50 and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA L50 or greater project- related noise level increase; or Already exceed 65 dBA L50, and the project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA L50. Project Operational Noise Levels Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed project operations that include surf lagoon/wave machine activity, outdoor pool/spa activity, outdoor activity and neighborhood commercial land use activity, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the off-site and on-site operational source noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the receiver locations. Per Urban Crossroad’s calculations, the daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 39.8 to 53.3 dBA Leq. The on-site project receiver locations are expected to range from 51.8 to 64.5 dBA Leq. To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of La Quinta exterior noise level standards at the off-site and on-site receiver locations. The operational noise levels associated with the Coral Mountain Specific Plan project will satisfy the City of La Quinta daytime exterior noise level standards with no planned nighttime operational noise source activity. Therefore, the operational noise impacts to on-site and off-site receptors are considered less than significant at all receiver locations. This is depicted in the table below. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 110 Table XIII-8 Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels Receiver Location1 Project Operational Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2 Surf Lagoon/ Wave Machine Outdoor Pool/ Spa Activity Outdoor Activity Neighborhood Commercial Total Noise Level Standards dBA Leq)3 Noise Level Standards Exceeded?4 R1 44.2 36.0 19.0 41.8 46.6 65 No R2 38.0 30.3 11.8 45.7 46.5 65 No R3 37.4 29.7 10.9 42.5 43.8 65 No R4 38.2 30.9 11.4 40.9 43.0 65 No R5 39.3 32.3 12.1 37.7 42.1 65 No R6 51.4 44.0 19.5 31.5 52.2 65 No R7 45.0 38.9 11.5 28.9 46.0 65 No R8 46.6 36.5 13.5 23.2 47.0 65 No R9 41.1 30.3 15.3 23.5 41.5 65 No R10 38.6 29.0 13.5 31.4 39.8 65 No P1 58.3 43.8 37.2 32.4 58.5 65 No P2 53.1 51.4 23.8 34.5 55.4 65 No P3 61.1 46.7 29.2 30.5 61.3 65 No P4 53.7 40.8 15.8 23.3 53.9 65 No P5 53.9 48.6 22.0 32.8 55.1 65 No P6 53.2 46.4 29.5 36.0 54.1 65 No P7 50.4 45.6 23.5 37.6 51.8 65 No P8 44.7 37.3 18.7 53.0 53.7 65 No P9 62.2 47.9 38.6 32.5 62.4 65 No P10 64.0 55.1 24.7 31.4 64.5 65 No 1 See Exhibit 10-A for the off-site (R)eceiver and on-site (P)roject locations. 2 Unmitigated CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.1. 3 Exterior noise level standards for residential land use, as shown on Table 4-2. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? Project Operational Noise Level Increase To describe the project operational noise level increase, the project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise level measurements for the nearby receiver locations potentially impacted by project operational noise sources. The difference between the combined project and ambient noise levels describe the project noise level increase to the existing ambient noise environment. As indicated in Table XIII-9, the project will generate unmitigated daytime operational noise level increase ranging from 0.0 to 4.9 dBA Leq at nearby off-site receiver locations. This increase satisfies the incremental operational noise level criteria presented at the beginning of this noise discussion, which states that (1) a project noise increase of greater than or equal to 5 dBA is potentially significant if ambient noise is less than 60 dBA, (2) a project increase of greater than or equal to 3 dBA is potentially significant if ambient noise is between 60 and 65 dBA, and (3) a project increase of greater than or equal to 1.5 dBA is potentially significant if ambient noise is greater than 65 dBA. Therefore, Urban Crossroads concluded that the incremental project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 111 Table XIII-9 Daytime Project Operational Noise Level Increases Receiver Location1 Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Meas. Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Threshold7 Threshold Exceeded?7 R1 46.6 L1 54.2 54.9 0.7 5.0 No R2 46.5 L2 62.5 62.6 0.1 3.0 No R3 43.8 L3 61.2 61.3 0.1 3.0 No R4 43.0 L4 54.5 54.8 0.3 5.0 No R5 42.1 L5 59.7 59.8 0.1 5.0 No R6 52.2 L6 58.7 59.6 0.9 5.0 No R7 46.0 L7 57.9 58.2 0.3 5.0 No R8 47.0 L8 43.8 48.7 4.9 5.0 No R9 41.5 L9 51.7 52.1 0.4 5.0 No R10 39.8 L10 61.9 61.9 0.0 3.0 No 1 See Exhibit 9-A in the noise study for the off-site sensitive receiver locations. 2 Total Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 10-3 in the noise study. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A in the noise study. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1 in the noise study. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4 of the noise study. Construction Impacts The project-specific noise study analyzed the potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the project. Noise generated by the project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages: (1) site preparation, (2) grading, (3) building construction, (4) paving, and (5) architectural coating. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to in excess of 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet. Hard site conditions are used in the construction noise analysis which result in noise levels that attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from a point source (i.e. construction equipment). For example, a noise level of 80 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receiver would be reduced to 74 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receiver and would be further reduced to 68 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receiver. According to the noise study, if project-related construction activities create noise levels which exceed the 85 dBA Leq acceptable noise level threshold at the nearby sensitive receiver locations, the project will have significant construction noise impacts. Receiver locations to project construction is indicated in Figure XIII-4. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 112 Figure XIII-4 Construction Activity and Receiver Locations Urban Crossroads analyzed the project-related noise during each construction stage, and based on the stages of construction, the noise impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to create temporarily high noise levels at the nearby receiver locations. The construction noise levels by phase and stage at the nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations is outlined in Table XIII-10 and Table XIII-11. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 113 Table XIII-10 Phase 1 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary Receiver Location1 Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest Levels2 R1 65.6 63.8 61.9 61.5 55.5 65.6 R2 65.8 64.0 62.1 61.7 55.7 65.8 R3 63.0 61.2 59.3 58.9 52.9 63.0 R4 62.3 60.5 58.6 58.2 52.2 62.3 R5 61.6 59.8 57.9 57.5 51.5 61.6 R6 71.3 69.5 67.6 67.2 61.2 71.3 R7 72.5 70.7 68.8 68.4 62.4 72.5 R8 76.5 74.7 72.8 72.4 66.4 76.5 R9 58.7 56.9 55.0 54.6 48.6 58.7 R10 58.0 56.2 54.3 53.9 47.9 58.0 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A in the noise study. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project site boundaries (construction activity area) to nearby receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 11.1 in the noise study. Table XIII-11 Phase 2 & 3 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary Receiver Location1 Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest Levels2 R1 74.8 73.0 71.1 70.7 64.7 74.8 R2 69.9 68.1 66.2 65.8 59.8 69.9 R3 67.9 66.1 64.2 63.8 57.8 67.9 R4 68.8 67.0 65.1 64.7 58.7 68.8 R5 70.6 68.8 66.9 66.5 60.5 70.6 R6 75.8 74.0 72.1 71.7 65.7 75.8 R7 68.6 66.8 64.9 64.5 58.5 68.6 R8 67.5 65.7 63.8 63.4 57.4 67.5 R9 63.7 61.9 60.0 59.6 53.6 63.7 R10 64.0 62.2 60.3 59.9 53.9 64.0 P1 82.8 81.0 79.1 78.7 72.7 82.8 P2 76.8 75.0 73.1 72.7 66.7 76.8 P3 82.3 80.5 78.6 78.2 72.2 82.3 P4 70.6 68.8 66.9 66.5 60.5 70.6 P5 82.5 80.7 78.8 78.4 72.4 82.5 P6 82.9 81.1 79.2 78.8 72.8 82.9 P7 83.2 81.4 79.5 79.1 73.1 83.2 P8 83.1 81.3 79.4 79.0 73.0 83.1 P9 75.3 73.5 71.6 71.2 65.2 75.3 P10 72.6 70.8 68.9 68.5 62.5 72.6 Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 114 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A in the noise study. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project site boundaries (construction activity area) to nearby receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 11.1 in the noise study. To evaluate whether the project will generate potentially significant temporary construction noise levels at off-site sensitive receiver locations, a construction-related noise level threshold is adopted from the Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The construction related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than eight hours per day, and for every 3 dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than four hours per day, 92 dBA for more than one hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative construction noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. The construction noise analysis shows that the highest construction noise levels will occur when construction activities take place at the closest point from primary project construction activity to each of the nearby receiver locations. To evaluate whether the project will generate potentially significant short- term noise levels at nearby receiver locations, a construction-related NIOSH noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq was used as acceptable thresholds to access construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearby receiver locations will satisfy the 85 dBA Leq significance threshold during project construction activities shown in Tables XIII-10 and XIII-11. Therefore, Urban Crossroads concluded that the noise impacts due to project construction noise is considered less than significant at all receiver locations. Additional project improvements include the installation of an off-site transformer bank at the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Avenue 58 Substation, located at 81600 Avenue 58. The off-site improvements will extend a distribution line along Avenue 58. Conduit systems will also be installed along Avenue 58 as part of the proposed upgrades. Construction for the conduits and line extension would occur in the existing right of way and within the existing IID yard. The developer will work with IID on the timing and scope of the improvements. Construction of the off-site improvements will comply with City construction noise standards. In order to lessen the impacts of construction noise levels, the City of La Quinta has established hours of operation within Municipal Code, Section 6.08.050, which indicates that construction shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday to Friday during the months of October to April, and to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday to Friday during the months of May to September. All year, construction activities are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays. The project will be required to comply to the construction hours allowed per the La Quinta Municipal Code. Urban Crossroad’s in-depth analysis of project-related off-site traffic, on-site traffic, operational and construction noise, concluded that noise impacts created by the project are anticipated to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The mitigation is interpreted in Figure XIII-5, Summary of On- Site Recommendations, and listed as mitigation NOI-1 and NOI-2. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 115 Figure XIII-5 Summary of On-Site Recommendations Mitigation: NOI-1: To satisfy the City of La Quinta 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use, the construction of 6-foot high noise barriers is required for the low density residential development within Planning Area II. 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. The noise barrier shall be constructed using one of the following materials: Masonry block; Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 116 Stucco veneer over wood framing (or foam core), or one-inch thick tongue and groove wood of sufficient weight per square foot; Glass (1/4-inch-thick), or other transparent material with sufficient weight per square foot capable of providing a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA; Earthen berm; Any combination of these construction materials. NOI-2: Future on-site interior noise reduction features shall include: Windows: All residential lots require first- and second-floor windows and sliding glass doors that have well-fitted, well-weather-stripped assemblies, with minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 27. Doors (Non-Glass): All exterior doors shall be weather-stripped and have minimum STC ratings of 25. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the attic space. Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system e.g. air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g. fresh air supply) shall be provided which satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Final Noise Study: A final noise study shall be prepared prior to obtaining building permits for the project. This report would finalize the mitigation measures described in this study using precise grading plans and actual building design specifications, and may include additional mitigation, if necessary, to meet the interior noise level standards for residential (45 dBA CNEL) land uses. b) Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment, vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. Vibration is quantified by various methods. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean squared (RMS). The RMS amplitude is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. RMS is commonly measured by Decibel notation (VdB), which serves reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (i.e. residents, the elderly and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities. As stated in the previous discussion, Urban Crossroads completed a Noise Impact Analysis (“noise study”) for the approximately 386-acre project site, which analyzed the potential impacts of noise and vibration created by the proposed project. Per the noise study, potential ground-borne vibration is associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities. Ground-borne vibration levels from automobile traffic are generally overshadowed by vibration generated by heavy trucks that roll over the same uneven roadway surfaces. However, due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 117 associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity Noise Impact Analysis). Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. The proposed project’s construction activities most likely to cause vibration impacts are: Heavy construction equipment: Although all heavy mobile construction equipment has the potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to buildings, the vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage. Trucks: Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem. As stated previously, vehicular traffic vibration is rarely perceptible, however, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table XIII-12, below. Table XIII-12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Small bulldozer 0.003 Jackhammer 0.035 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Large bulldozer 0.089 Source:Federal Transit Administration,Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment In order to determine the impacts of project-related vibration, Urban Crossroads used Riverside County General Plan Noise Element Policy N 16.3 vibration standards to determine the thresholds of significance, since the City of La Quinta does not identify specific construction vibration level standards. Policy N 16.3 identifies a motion velocity perception threshold for vibration due to passing trains of 0.01 inches per second (in/sec) over the range of 1 to 100 Hertz (Hz). For the purposes of the analysis, Urban Crossroads determined that the perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec shall be used to assess the potential impacts due to project construction at nearby sensitive receiver locations. According to the noise study, at distances ranging from 90 to 1,451 feet from project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.000 to 0.009 in/sec RMS and will remain below the threshold of 0.01 in/sec RMS at all receiver locations. This is displayed in Table XIII-13. Therefore, the project related vibration impacts are considered less than significant. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 118 Table XIII-13 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels Receiver1 Distance to Const. Activity Feet) Receiver Levels (in/sec) PPV2 RMS Velocity Levels in/sec)3 Threshold in/sec) RMS4 Threshold Exceeded?5Small Bulldozer Jack- hammer Loaded Trucks Large Bulldozer Peak Vibration R1 154' 0.000 0.002 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.01 No R2 181' 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.01 No R3 323' 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.01 No R4 519' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.01 No R5 352' 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.01 No R6 134' 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.01 No R7 90' 0.000 0.005 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.01 No R8 90' 0.000 0.005 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.01 No R9 1,451' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 No R10 1,378' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 No 1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A. 2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 6-6. 3 Vibration levels in PPV are converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013. 4 Source: County of Riverside General Plan Noise Element, Policy N 16.3. 5 Does the vibration level exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold? Per Table XIII-13, the peak project-construction vibration level, approaching 0.013 in/sec PPV, is below the FTA vibration levels for building damage at the residential homes near the project site. Moreover, the impacts at the site are of the closest sensitive receivers are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the project site perimeter. Additionally, onsite construction is not anticipated to significantly impact onsite residents and residential structures since building standards for seismic activity in the area exceeds impacts created by vibration of construction activity. Therefore, generation of excessive groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels by the project is anticipated to be less than significant. Mitigation: None c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 19 miles southeast of Palm Springs International Airport, and 4.25 miles west of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. Therefore, the project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or the vicinity of a private airstrip, and as such, no impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive airport related noise levels is anticipated. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 119 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a) Less Than Significant Impact. As previously discussed throughout this document, the project is proposing the construction of approximately 386 acres of vacant land on the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street in the City of La Quinta. The mixed-use project proposes neighborhood commercial uses on 7.8 acres, tourist commercial uses on 117.7 acres, open space recreational uses on 27 acres, and low- density residential uses on approximately 232.1 acres. The low-density residential component will allow for the construction of up to 496 single family detached residential dwellings and associated amenities. The proposed tourist commercial component is intended to allow for the construction of resort residential and tourist commercial uses, including a boutique hotel (up to 150 keys), 104 attached resort residential units, as well as retail spaces, restaurants, golf facilities, and The Wave basin. The project’s existing General Plan land use and zoning designation of Low Density Residential allows up to 4 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). As a part of the entitlement process, the project will submit a Zone Change (ZC) and General Plan Amendment (GPA) concurrently with the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. This will allow for the Low Density Residential and Tourist Commercial land uses, which propose various residential products and densities. See the Land Use and Planning Section of this document for further discussion. According to the 2018-2019 California Department of Finance population and housing estimates, the City of La Quinta’s total population is approximately 42,098 with an average household size of 2.68. The City of La Quinta’s General Plan (LQGP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed future growth in Section III, Part L, Population and Housing. The EIR forecasts a population of 46,297 people by year 2035. As stated previously, the project proposes 496 single family detached dwellings, 104 attached resort residential units and 150 hotel keys, for a total of 750 units at buildout. As a result of project build-out, the proposed development could add approximately 2,181 new residents to the City (according to the Traffic Impact Analysis), for an approximate population of 44,279. This is an increase of 0.95 percent, and still below the projected 2035 population forecast of 46,297. This projected increase is a conservative figure because it assumes that the project’s future residents will not be current residents of La Quinta. However, it is anticipated that some of the project’s tenants will be existing residents from within the City of La Quinta and/or from neighboring incorporated and unincorporated areas. Additionally, the 150 hotel keys and 104 resort residential units proposed for the project, assuming total build-out, will not lead to permanent residents of the project. These residential units are anticipated to fluctuate throughout the year. Therefore, although the project would contribute to the growth within the City of La Quinta, significant growth to population, housing and employment is already anticipated in the City’s General Plan and EIR. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None b) No Impact. The proposed development is located on land that is currently vacant and designated as Low Density Residential and Open Space. The project proposes a mixed-use development consisting of Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 120 commercial, tourist, residential and open space uses on the approximately 386-acre property. Therefore, development of the project site would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing and there would be no impact. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 121 15. PUBLIC SERVICES – Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Source: City of La Quinta Fire and Police Department Website, City of La Quinta 2035 General Plan Update a) Fire Less Than Significant Impact. The Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), under contract with the City of La Quinta, provides 24-hour fire protection and emergency medical services to the City. There are three City-owned fire stations within the City of La Quinta, Fire Station 32, Station 70 and Station 93. Each station is staffed with full-time paid and volunteer firefighters. Fire Station 32 is located at 78111 Avenue 52 and is approximately 7.4 miles from the proposed project site. This stations equipment includes a primary and reserve fire engine, volunteer squad, and rescue vehicles. Fire Station 70 is located at 54001 Madison Street and is approximately 2 miles from the project site. This station is equipped with a primary engine, a brush fire engine, and a volunteer squad. Fire Station 93 located at 44-555 Adams Street is located approximately 8.9 miles from the proposed project site and is equipped with a primary engine and a reserve engine. The Riverside County Fire Department operates under a Regional Fire Protection Program, which allows all of its fire stations to provide support as needed regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. Per the La Quinta 2035 General Plan EIR, the average response times are between 5 and 7 minutes. Development of the proposed project may cause an incremental increase in demand for emergency services; however, the size and location of the project is not expected to cause an undue hardship on the fire department since there is existing residential neighborhoods adjacent to the site that are receiving fire services. First responders for fire protection services would primarily be from Fire Station 70. The proposed project could be adequately served by fire protection services within the 5-7-minute response time, and no new or expanded facilities would be required. Additionally, the project complies with the 2035 General Plan Emergency Services Policy ES-1.2 in that all new development proposals are routed to the Fire Department to assure that project access and design provide for maximum fire life safety. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 122 The project would be required to implement all applicable fire safety requirements, to include, installation of fire hydrants, and sprinkler systems. Moreover, the project would be required to comply with Development Impact Fees in place at the time of construction. The City enacts a development fee on all new development within the City to finance public facilities which goes towards the funding of fire services. Therefore, the impact is less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Police Less Than Significant Impact. Law enforcement services are provided to the City of La Quinta through a contractual agreement with Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s department provides 24- hour municipal police services associated with a City police department. The La Quinta police department operates out of the Thermal Station located at 86625 Airport Boulevard. There is also a Civic Center Community Policing Office, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico. The Thermal station is approximately 6.8 miles from the project site. The City’s police department patrols 7 days a week, 365 days a year and 24-hours a day. The department serves a population of approximately 41,204 residents and patrols over 33 square miles. The City also employs volunteers that assist the Sheriff’s Department, through a program known as “Citizens on Patrol” (COP). They are trained by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and assist and support the deputies of the La Quinta Police Department. Per the 2035 General Plan EIR (adopted in 2013), the City has 51 sworn officers and 5 community service officers. The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department maintains a staffing ratio of 1.23 officers per 1,000 residents which is well above the standard and accepted ratio of one officer per 1,000 residents. The proposed project could result in additional incident responses but not to the extent that would delay response times or create demands that would require the construction of a new police station or new facilities. The development would occur within an area of existing residential uses, which is already being served by the La Quinta Police Department. Additionally, the project complies with the 2035 General Plan Emergency Services Policy ES-1.6 in that all new development proposals shall be continued to be routed to the Police Department to assure that the project access and design provide for a defensible space and maximum crime prevention while maintaining City design standards and codes. The project would also be required to comply with Development Impact Fees in place at the time of construction. These development fees on new development allow the City to continue to finance public facilities which goes towards the funding of various public services to include police. Development of the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts to police services. Mitigation: None Schools Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta is served by two school districts; Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). DSUSD serves the portion of the City west of Jefferson Street and north of Avenue 48, which includes the northern Sphere of Influence. CVUSD boundaries include the areas of Jefferson Street and east of Avenue 48. The proposed project site is within the boundary of the CVUSD; Westside Elementary is the closest school to the proposed project and is 2.3 miles away. Cahuilla Desert Academy is approximately 4.8 miles away and Coachella Valley High School is approximately 4.1 miles away. As previously discussed throughout this document, the project is proposing a mixed-use development consisting of residential, resort, and recreational uses with up to 496 single family detached units, 150 key resort hotel and 104 attached resort residential units. Per the California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates (2019), the City of La Quinta has 2.68 persons per household (PPH). The single- Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 123 family portion of the project has the potential to generate 378 new students based on the District’s Student Generation Rate (Table XV-1). Table XIV-1 CVUSD District Wide Student Generation Rate School Type Dwelling Units Generation Rate* Students Generated Elementary School 496 0.4351 215 Middle School 496 0.1247 61 High School 496 0.2065 102 Total New Students 378 Source: 2018 CVUSD Fee Justification Study for New Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development, September 7, 2018 The addition of 378 new students is not anticipated to cause a substantial impact to the District nor would additional school facilities need to be constructed as a result of the proposed project. Per the 2018 CVUSD Fee Justification Study, a capacity analysis was conducted from 2017/2018 school year and the District has excess capacity at its elementary and high school to accommodate students from new development. Moreover, Assembly Bill 2926 and Senate Bill 50 (SB 50) allow school districts to collect “development fees” for all new construction for residential/commercial and industrial use. At the time of writing, DSUSD developer fees are $3.79/sq.ft. for residential and $0.61/ sq.ft. for commercial. Monies collected are used for construction and reconstruction of school facilities. Impacts to school services are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Parks Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta provides public and private parks, trails, open space and multi-city recreational facilities with various amenities. The City oversees 11 city parks, a civic center and three nature preserve areas. The project is proposing to develop a surf wave basin that will provide artificial waves for recreational surfing competitions and other water sports. The project would also provide separate recreational amenities for the single-family residential and resort hotel component. Amenities would be in the form of common open space, walking paths, active and passive outdoor areas, and other health and wellness amenities. Per the 2035 La Quinta General Plan, the City has a policy of providing a minimum of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The City currently exceeds its level of service and the amount of parkland required by the QUIMBY Act, and new residents would not significantly impact park facilities. The project will also be required to comply with the City’s Development Impact Fees which includes a Park and Recreation fee. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Other Public Facilities No Impact. No increase in demand for government services or other public facilities is expected beyond those discussed in this section. Therefore, there is no impact. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 124 16. RECREATION – Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in the previous discussion, the City of La Quinta provides public and private parks, trails, open space and multi-city recreational facilities with various amenities. The City oversees 11 city parks, a civic center, and three nature preserve areas. The project proposes a mixed-use development consisting of commercial, tourist commercial, low density residential, and open space recreational uses on approximately 386 acres of vacant land. The tourist commercial land use designation proposes the development of golf facilities, clubhouse and resort amenities, supporting ancillary uses and the Wave basin. A commercial complex at the center of the project site will function as the social center and focal point of the community. Additional uses include: The Wave Club: features changing rooms, board storage, family pool and a casual dining/lounge area. The Hotel or “Long House”: contains public and common areas of the hotel and provides a hospitality component to the resort centrally located. Amenities include a restaurant and bar, meeting space, swimming pool, and lodging. Lodging unit options range from Wave front hotel rooms to detached casitas. o Fitness Center: contains yoga, cardio, and spin studios, and locker room facilities. o Spa: contains several treatment rooms pre/post treatment lounge, changing areas and small retail area overlooking an outdoor courtyard. The Wave Basin: the primary amenity and centerpiece to the resort accommodating surfers throughout the day and used for professional competitions and recreational purposes (for members and guests). o Board Room: where surfers check-in, gear-up, change, meet their instructors, and prepare to get in the water, including a space to explore and identify the best boards for their surf style and skill. Check-in facilities also support a retail surf shop. o Shaping Studio: where surfboards are custom made by instructors (artists in residence) offering hands-on educational seminars, DIY production and live demonstrations. o High-Performance Center: a facility for experienced surfers with programming to reach the next- level through multi-day, in-water coaching sessions, equipment testing, advanced video analysis; and dry-land strength endurance, mobility and sport specific training. The Farm: located within a date-palm grove, the Farm will provide produce to the project property. At the pedestrian level, trails and Walk Streets will connect the Farm and Resort Residential neighborhoods and the Hotel. The Farm offers a diverse menu of family-oriented programming options ranging from action sports and swimming to casual dining and banquet-sized events. Tennis, pickleball, rock climbing, basketball, practice golf, skate parks, pump tracks, slacklining, stand-up paddle boarding, biking and volleyball are some of the activities envisioned at the Farm. In addition to the recreational facilities proposed for the tourist commercial portion of the project, the Parks and Recreation zone (Planning Area IV), located on approximately 27 acres on the western side of the Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 125 project property, allows open space, low-impact active and passive recreational activities, such as hiking trails. The master plan for development within the Coral Mountain Specific Plan has, as a primary focus, recreation amenities for golf, tennis, and passive walking within the project site. Bike paths are a passive use of the private roadway system within the SP area with connections to the existing established network of bike paths on adjacent circulation links. The project will comply with the City’s parkland in lieu fee Quimby) and other development impact fees. The increased use of existing park facilities associated with the project will not substantially increase the use of existing parks as to accelerate their physical deterioration, and the proposed recreational facilities are not anticipated to have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 126 17. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Source: The Wave – Coral Mountain, Traffic Impact Analysis, November 15, 2019, Revised April 2020. The project consists of a master planned themed resort comprised of a recreational pool (wave pool), a 150- key hotel, 104 attached dwelling units, 496 detached dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail, a pop-up village park, and a total of 265 parking spaces. The project is anticipated to be constructed in phases, with Phase 1 (2021) including resort (wave pool and hotel uses), 104 attached dwelling units, 26 detached dwelling units and 10,000 square feet of retail. Project Phase 2 (2023) adds 25,000 square feet of retail. Project Phase 3 (2026) adds 470 detached dwelling units and 25,000 square feet of retail. The following access locations are proposed to serve the project: Madison Street / Main Access (full access) South Access / Avenue 60 (full access) Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 (full access) Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 (right-in / right-out access) Madison Street / Project Access 3 (right-in / right-out access) A detailed traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for the proposed project by Urban Crossroads, November 15, 2019. The TIA was based upon an analysis of existing roadway conditions in the project vicinity, a variety of traffic count sources (including peak hour counts collected by the consulting traffic engineers), the General Plan Circulation Element, planned roadway improvements and other data and information. The TIA provides documentation and analysis of existing traffic conditions, trips generated by the project, distribution of the project trips to roads outside the project, and projected future traffic conditions. According to the TIA, the analysis was conducted utilizing the City of La Quinta’s Engineering Bulletin #06-13 and #10-01, alongside consultation with City staff during the scoping process. The analysis also considered the General Plan as well as the approved Project Traffic Study Scoping agreement. Project trips were generated based on the rates collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017. TIA Analysis Methodology The TIA indicates that traffic counts were obtained on August 15, 2017, April 9, 2019, May 7, 2019 and September 10, 2019. The weekday AM and PM peak hour count data was representative of typical peak hour conditions in the study area. No observations indicated atypical traffic conditions on the count dates. Examples of atypical traffic conditions include construction activity which prevents or limits roadway access and occasionally incorporates detour routes. A 20% increase was applied to counts taken in August, 5% increase was applied to counts taken in April, and 10% increase was applied to counts taken in May in accordance with the City of La Quinta’s EB#06-13. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 127 The average AM/PM peak hour intersection growth between 2017 and 2019 counts data at selected study area and nearby intersections was approximately 2.66%. The additional growth rate is applied to the study area intersections with 2017 counts to reflect 2019 conditions. The potential impacts to traffic and circulation were evaluated for each of the following conditions: Existing (2019) Conditions Existing Plus Project (E+P) Existing Plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects without (EAC) and with Project (EAPC) for each of the following phases: o Project Phase 1 (2021) o Project Phase 2 (2023) o Project Buildout (Phase 3, 2026) o Project Buildout (Phase 3, 2026) – Special Event General Plan buildout (2040) Without Project Conditions – establishes future year baseline to evaluate the proposed Project. General Plan buildout (2040) With Project Conditions – represents future year baseline traffic conditions with the proposed project. The TIA indicates that, based on discussions with City staff, the following peak hours were selected for this analysis: Weekday AM peak (peak hour between 6:00 am -8:30 am) Weekday PM peak (peak hour between 2:30 pm -5:30 pm) A total of 22 intersections were evaluated for their current and future operating conditions, including: Table XVII-1 ID Intersection Location ID Intersection Location 1 Madison Street / Avenue 58 12 Monroe Street / Avenue 58 2 Madison Street / Airport Blvd. 13 Monroe Street / Airport Boulevard 3 Madison Street / Avenue 54 14 Monroe Street / Avenue 54 4 Madison Street / Avenue 52 15 Monroe Street / Avenue 52 5 Madison Street / Avenue 50 16 Monroe Street / 50th Avenue 6 Jefferson Street / Avenue 54 17 Jackson Street / 58th Avenue 7 Jefferson Street / Avenue 52 18 South Access / Avenue 60 –(Future Intersection) 8 Jefferson Street / Pomelo 19 Madison Street / Main Access – (Future Intersection) 9 Jefferson Street / Avenue 50 20 Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 -(Future Intersection) 10 Madison Street / Avenue 60 21 Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 – (Future Intersection) 11 Monroe Street / Avenue 60 22 Madison Street / Project Access 3 – (Future Intersection) A total of 6 roadway segments were evaluated for their current and future operating conditions, including: Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 128 Table XVII-2 ID Roadway Segment ID Roadway Segment 1 Avenue 58, west of Madison Street 4 Madison Street, south of Airport Boulevard 2 Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street 5 Avenue 60, west of Monroe Street 3 Avenue 58, west of Jackson Street 6 Monroe Street, south of Airport Boulevard Exhibit XVII-1 General Plan EIR Study Area Intersections Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 129 Level of Service Standard Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of transportation system performance based upon the ratio of traffic volume relative to the capacity of the roadway or intersection. The volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) indicates the overall performance of the roadway segment or intersection and corresponds to a rating of A through F identifying its level of capacity utilization and relative level of congestion. LOS A represents free-flow traffic with little or no delay whereas LOS F represents a breakdown of traffic flow and a high incidence of delay. Table XVII-3 Level of Service Description Mid-Link and Uninterrupted Flow Level of Service Volume/Capacity Ratio A 0.00 – 0.60 B 0.61 – 0.70 C 0.71 – 0.80 D 0.81 – 0.90 E 0.91 – 1.00 F Not Meaningful Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board – Special Report 209, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C. 2000. According to the City of La Quinta Circulation Element, for roadway segment travel, LOS is a measure of the flow of traffic; while for intersections, the LOS is based on the number of seconds the vehicle is delayed in passing through the intersection. The Element further states that although accepting a lower level of service (LOS E or even F) at certain intersections and segments during peak season may result in periodic congestion, once familiar with network constraints, travelers will seek alternative paths and traffic will be distributed to those parts of the network with surplus capacity. Table XVII-4 Roadway Segment Capacity Thresholds Roadway Classification Lane Configuration Capacity (Vehicles per Day) Local 2-Lane Undivided 9,000 Collector 2-Lane Undivided 14,000 Modified Secondary 2-Lane Divided 19,000 Secondary 4-Lane Undivided 28,000 Primary 4-Lane Divided 42,600 Potentially Significant Intersection Project Impacts Intersection Project Impacts According to the TIA, a potentially significant project impact at an unsignalized study area intersection is defined to occur when an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side street for a two-way stop control or LOS E or worse for the intersection an all-way stop controlled intersection and the addition of project traffic resulting in an addition of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement. Per Engineering Bulletin #06-13, the following LOS criteria will be utilized for study area intersections. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 130 Table XVII-5 City of La Quinta LOS Criteria Intersection Type LOS Criteria Signalized Intersections LOS “D” or better All-way Stop Controlled Intersection LOS “D” or better for all critical movements Cross-street Stop Controlled Intersection LOS “E” or better for the side street Table XVII-6 Impact Criteria for Intersections Already Operating at LOS E of LOS F Significant Changes in LOS LOS E An increase in delay of 2 seconds or more LOS F An increase in delay of 1 se3cond or more Pursuant to the criteria outlined for the analysis of study area intersection using the Highway Capacity Methodology HCM), a potentially significant project impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the addition of project trips will result in the level of service (LOS) for that intersection to exceed the criteria established in the following table or E+P traffic conditions. Roadway Section Project Impacts The City of La Quinta has established LOS D as the minimum level of service for its street segments. According to the TIA, a potentially significant project impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway segment if the segment is projected to be operating at LOS E or LOS F and the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio increases by 0.02 or more with the addition of project traffic for the E+P traffic conditions. Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts Intersections The TIA states that a potentially significant cumulative impact is defined to occur at any signalized intersection if the addition of project trips will result in the LOS for that intersection to exceed the criteria state previously for Significant Impacts. A potentially significant cumulative impact at an unsignalized study are intersection is defined to occur when, with project traffic included, an intersection has a projected LOS F on a side street for a two-way stop control or LOS E or worse of the intersection an all-way stop controlled intersection and the addition of project traffic resulting in an addition of 3 seconds or more of delay for any movement. Roadway Segments The TIA states that a potentially cumulative impact is defined to occur at any study area roadway segment if the project would cause the Existing LOS to fall to worse than LOS D for Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects traffic conditions. A potentially significant cumulative impact is also defined to occur on any study area roadway segment that is already operating at LOS E and LOS F, if the project traffic will increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.02 for Opening Year Cumulative with Project traffic conditions. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Methodology According to the TIA, the analysis utilized the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as amended by the MUTCD 2012 California Supplement for all Study area intersections. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 131 Future intersections that do not currently exist have been assessed regarding the potential need for new traffic signals based on future average daily (ADT) volumes, using Caltrans planning level ADT-based signal warrant analysis worksheets. The traffic report emphasizes the importance of noting that a signal warrant defines the minimum condition under which the installation of a traffic signal might be warranted. This threshold does not require that a traffic control signal be installed at a location, but rather, that other traffic factors and conditions be evaluated in order to determine whether the signal is truly justified. Also, signal warrants do not necessarily correlate with LOS. An intersection may satisfy a signal warrant condition and operate at or above acceptable LOS or operate below acceptable LOS and not meet a signal warrant. 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) According to the City of La Quinta, the 5-year CIP is a planning instrument used by the City to identify capital improvements needs and to coordinate financing and timing of those needs in a manner that maximized benefit to the public. The purpose of the CIP is to provide the City with a long-range program for major municipal capital construction projects based upon the systematic development of an accompanying financial plan. The CIP document is a statement of the City’s goals, objectives and priorities for a five-year period, as well as the financial commitments required in order to accomplish those objectives. As each annual budget is prepared, additional projects and priority needs are identified and added to the CIP to maintain a total five-year plan. TUMF The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) program identifies network backbone and local roadways that are needed to accommodate growth. The regional program was put into place to ensure that developments pay their fair share and that funding is in place for the construction of facilities needed to maintain an acceptable level of service for the transportation system. The TUMF is a regional mitigation fee program and is imposed and implemented in every jurisdiction in Western Riverside County. According to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments TUMF Handbook, effective July 1, 2012, the following are provisions from the TUMF Ordinance and provided as background information: The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply only to new development yet to receive final discretionary approval and or issuance of a building permit or other development right and to any reconstruction or new use of existing buildings that results in a change of use and generates additional vehicular trips. No tract map, parcel map, conditional use permit, land use permit or other entitlement shall be approved unless payment of the mitigation fee is a condition of approval for any such entitlement. The mitigation fee shall be paid to the applicable jurisdiction. No building or similar permit, certificate of occupancy or business license reflecting a change of use shall be issued unless the applicant has paid the mitigation fee. Mitigation fees shall be imposed and collected by the applicable jurisdiction and shall be transmitted to CVAG to be placed in the Coachella Valley Transportation Mitigation Trust Fund. All interest or other earnings of the Fund shall be credited to the Fund. Following the payment of required fees such as TUMF and Development Impact Fees (DIF) less than significand impacts are anticipated relative to the CMP. Alternative Transportation The City of La Quinta is served by the SunLine Transit Agency. Currently no bus services are located within the Project study area. Transit service is reviewed and updated by SunLine periodically to addresses issues such as budget, ridership and community demand. Changes in land use can affect these periodic changes, which could lead to enhanced service where appropriate. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 132 Existing Conditions Summary The project is located at the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street on approximately 384.55 Acres. The eastern property Boundary is formed by Madison Street. The project property is currently vacant and undeveloped, with desert vegetation of varying densities. The site is primarily surrounded by Natural Open Space and Low-Density Residential communities to the north, south, east and west. Avenue 58 and residential properties define the project’s northern boundary, Madison Street defines the eastern boundary, Coral Mountain defines the property’s southwestern boundary, and vacant land and residential properties define the western boundaries. Andalusia East lies east of the project site, east of Madison Street. According to the TIA, the segment of Avenue 58 that is adjacent to the project is designated as a Secondary roadway 4-Lane Undivided.) The adjacent segment of Madison Street is also designated as a Secondary roadway (4-Lane Undivided.) Avenue 60 is designated as a two-lane local roadway (2-Lane Undivided.) The TIA indicated that Primary Arterials are six lane roadways with parking and a typical right of way of 108-feet. Secondary streets are four-lane undivided roadways with parking and a typical right of way of 103-feet. Collector streets are two lane roadways with a typical right of way of 80-feet. Local streets are defined as two-lane, undivided, roadways. Class II Bicycle Paths are proposed along Avenue 58, Avenue 60 and Madison Street. Class II Bicycle Paths are on road bicycle lanes. Avenue 58 is currently an east/west paved roadway, with three lanes. The north portion contains two paved lanes, a bike lane and curb, gutter and landscape parkway. The south side adjacent to the project is paved with one drive aisle and paved shoulder. Madison Street is currently paved with 4-lanes, landscaped median and curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway along most of the project frontage. Avenue 60 is currently paved, with two lanes, curb and gutter from the intersection of Madison Street to approximately 660 feet to the west, in which it transitions into a dirt roadway, terminating at to the project’s frontage and ultimately US Bureau of Reclamation Dike 4. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 133 Table XVII-7 Intersection Analysis for Existing (2019) Conditions * Intersection Traffic Control Note 3) Intersection Approach Lanes Note 1) Delay Secs) Note 2) Level of Service Note 2) Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound AM PM AM PM L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R 1 Madison St/Avenue 58 AWS 1/2/1 1/2/d 1/1/1 1/2/1 8.5 9.3 A A 2 Madison St/Airport Blvd. TS 1/2/d 1/2/0 0/0/0 1/0/1 9.9 8.4 A A 3 Madison St./ Avenue 54 AWS 2/2/1 1/2/0 1/2/d 1/2/1 12.9 15.9 B C 4 Madison St./ Avenue 52 TS 2/2/1 2/2/d 1/2/d 1/2/1 27.9 28.5 C C 5 Madison St./ Avenue 50 TS 2/2/1 2/2/1 1/2/1 1/2/1 28.6 29.4 C C 6 Jefferson St./ Avenue 54 AWS 0.5/1/0.5 2/2/1 1/2/0 1/1/1 14.5 27.8 B D 7 Jefferson St./ Avenue 52 RDB 0.5/0.5/1/>> 0.5/0.5/1/>> 0.5/0.5/1/>> 0.5/0.5/1/>> 9.4 9.7 A A 8 Jefferson St./ Pomelo TS 1/3/0 1/3/0 0.5/0.5/1 0.5/0.5/1 8.4 14.3 A B 9 Jefferson St./ Avenue 50 TS 1/3/1 2/3/1 1/2/1 1/1/1 46.3 49.4 D D 10 Madison St./ Avenue 60 AWS 0/0/0 1/0/1 0.5/0.5/0 0/0/1 8.2 9.1 A A 11 Monroe St./Avenue 60 AWS 1/1/0 1/1/1 0.5/0.5/1 0/1!/0 8.1 8.3 A A 12 Monroe St./Avenue 58 AWS 0/1!/0 0.5/0.5/1 0/1!0 0/1!/0 8.1 9.4 A A 13 Monroe St./Airport Blvd AWS 1/1/0 1/2/d 1/1/1 0/1!/0 8.5 9.2 A A 14 Monroe St./ Avenue 54 AWS 0/1!/0 0.5/0.5/1 1/1/0 0/1!/0 14.3 12.7 B B 15 Monroe St./ Avenue 52 AWS 0/1!/0 1/2/0 1/1/1 1/2/d 15.4 27.1 C D 16 Monroe St./ 50th Avenue TS 1/2/0 1/2/0 1/1/1 1/1/1> 16.6 18.0 B B 17 Jackson St./ 58th Avenue AWS 0/1!/0 0/1!/0 0/1!/0 0/1!/0 7.5 8.2 A A 18 S. Access/ Avenue 60 Intersection Does Not Exist 19 Madison St/Main Access Intersection Does Not Exist 20 Project Access 1/Ave. 58 Intersection Does Not Exist 21 Project Access 2/Ave. 58 Intersection Does Not Exist 22 Madison St /Project Access 3 Intersection Does Not Exist 1. When a right turn is designated the land can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap Phasing; d = Defacto Right Turn Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Thru/Right Lane; 0.5=Shared Lane 2. Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 software BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3. TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Controlled; RDB = Roundabout As mentioned previously, 22 area intersections were analyzed in the TIA. All 17 existing intersections are currently operating at LOS D - or better. All study roadway sections are currently operating at acceptable LOS. Traffic Signal Warrants for Existing traffic conditions indicate that, based on existing peak hour intersection turning volumes, the following 4 unsignalized study area intersections currently warrant a traffic signal. Madison Street at Avenue 54 Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 Monroe Street at Avenue 54 Monroe Street at Avenue 52 Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 134 Alternative Transportation The study area has existing pedestrian and bicycle paths along sections of surrounding and nearby streets. Jefferson Street, Madison Street, Monroe Street, Avenue 50, Avenue 52, Avenue 54, Airport Boulevard, Avenue 58, Avenue 60 and Avenue 62 are planned to include a Class II Golf Cart/NEV path and Multi-use path. Avenue 58 currently has an existing sidewalk and on-street bike lane on the north side of the street that is adjacent to the project. Madison Street currently has an existing on-street bike lane on the east side of the roadway that is adjacent to the project. A sidewalk is found along the northern portion of the roadway that is adjacent to the subject property (the partial frontage of Andalusia East.) a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Project Impacts: Trip generation was calculated by land use type and was calculated using the reference Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017) prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). As previously discussed throughout this document, the project consists of a master planned themed resort comprised of a recreational pool (wave pool), a 150-key hotel, 104 attached dwelling units, 496 detached dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail, a pop-up village park and a total of 265 parking spaces. For the purposes of this CEQA analysis, the date for full development and occupancy is assumed to be 2026. The proposed project will be constructed in three phases. The TIA calculates that, upon buildout, the project will generate a net total of approximately 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. Trip distributions have been developed based on RivTAM and local knowledge in the vicinity of the project site and refined to reflect the roadway network and the surrounding uses near the proposed project as they exist and are planned: Trip distribution patterns for the proposed Project residential and resort components: 50% of trips north on Madison Street, 30% east on Avenue 58 and 20% east on Avenue 60 (Figure 4-1 of the TIA.) Trip distributions patterns for the proposed Project shopping center components: 30% north on Madison Street, 25% west on Avenue 58, 20% east on Avenue 58 and 15% east on Avenue 60 and 10% east into Andalusia East (Figure 4-2 of the TIA.) Table XVII-8 Trip Generation Summary Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity note 2) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached 210 26 DU 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.62 0.37 0.99 9.44 Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 104 DU 0.11 0.35 0.46 0.35 0.21 0.56 7.32 Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.20 0.27 0.47 7.87 Shopping Center 820 10 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75 Wave Pool Facility (Note 4) 12 AC 1.20 0.80 2.00 2.40 1.60 4.00 50.00 Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 135 Table XVII-9 Phase 1 (2021) Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE LU Code Quantit y note 2) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached 210 220 26 DU 104 RM 5 14 19 16 10 26 245 Multifamily Housing (Low- Rise) 11 36 47 36 22 58 761 Internal to Retail/Resort (2) (3) (5) (9) (7) (16) (141) Residential External Trips 14 47 61 43 25 68 865 Shopping Center 820 10 TSF 6 4 10 18 20 38 378 Pass-By (25%) (1) (1) (2) (5) (5) (10) (95) Internal to Residential/Resort (3) (3) (6) (4) (4) (8) (72) Shopping Center External Trips 2 0 2 9 11 20 211 Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181 Internal to Residential/Retail (7) (8) (15) (11) (17) (28) (324) Resort Hotel External Trips 34 7 41 19 24 43 857 Wave Pool Facility (note 4) 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600 Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort 8) (6) (14) (16) (12) (28) (306) Wave Pool Facility External Trips 6 4 10 13 7 20 294 Project Subtotal 77 79 156 129 112 241 3,165 Internal Capture Subtotal (20)(20)(40)(40)(40) (80) (843) Pass-By (Shopping Center) (1)(1)(2)(5)(5) (10) (95) Total 56 58 114 84 67 151 2,227 1. Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). 2. DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Occupied Room 3. Pass-by Source: Shops at Coral Mountain TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 2009) 4. Since ITE does not have trip rates for a wave pool facility, similar use based on SANDAG’s recreation park (developed peak hour and daily rates are utilized. Table XVII-10 Phase 2 (2023) Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity note 2) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached 210 220 26 DU 104 RM 5 14 19 16 10 26 245 Multifamily Housing (Low- Rise) 11 36 47 36 22 58 761 Internal to Retail/Resort (2) (5) (7) (10) (8) (18) (158) Residential External Trips 14 45 59 42 24 66 848 Shopping Center 820 35 TSF 20 13 33 64 69 133 1,321 Pass-By (25%) (4) (4) (8) (16) (16) (32) (330) Internal to Residential/Resort (5) (4) (9) (8) (8) (16) (144) Shopping Center External Trips 11 5 16 40 45 85 847 Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181 Internal to Residential/Retail (8) (8) (16) (13) (19) (32) (370) Resort Hotel External Trips 33 7 40 17 22 39 811 Wave Pool Facility (note 4) 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600 Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort 9) (7) (16) (17) (13) (30) (328) Wave Pool Facility External Trips 5 3 8 12 6 18 272 Project Subtotal 91 88 179 175 161 336 4,108 Internal Capture Subtotal (24)(24)(48)(48)(48) (96)(1000) Pass-By (Shopping Center) (4) (4) (8) (16) (16) (32) (330) Total 63 60 123 111 97 208 2,778 5. Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). 6. DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Occupied Room 7. Pass-by Source: Shops at Coral Mountain TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 2009) 8. Since ITE does not have trip rates for a wave pool facility, similar use based on SANDAG’s recreation park (developed peak hour and daily rates are utilized. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 136 Table XVII-11 Project Buildout (2026) Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity note 2) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached 210 220 496 DU 104 RM 94 273 367 308 184 492 4,682 Multifamily Housing (Low- Rise) 11 36 47 36 22 58 761 Internal to Retail/Resort (10) (20) (30) (40) (29) (69) (595) Residential External Trips 95 289 384 304 177 481 4,848 Shopping Center 820 60 TSF 35 22 57 110 119 229 2,265 Pass-By (25%) (7) (7) (14) (28) (28) (56) (566) Internal to Residential/Resort (9) (7) (16) (21) (35) (56) (448) Shopping Center External Trips 19 8 27 61 56 117 1,251 Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181 Internal to Residential/Retail (14) (10) (24) (15) (21) (36) (416) Resort Hotel External Trips 27 5 32 15 20 35 765 Wave Pool Facility (note 4) 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600 Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort 12) (8) (20) (26) (17) (43) (470) Wave Pool Facility External Trips 2 2 4 3 2 5 130 Project Subtotal 195 356 551 513 385 898 9,489 Internal Capture Subtotal (45)(45)(90)(102)(102) (204)(1,929) Pass-By (Shopping Center) (7) (7) (14) (28) (28) (56) (566) Total 143 304 447 383 255 638 6,994 9. Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). 10. DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Occupied Room 11. Pass-by Source: Shops at Coral Mountain TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 2009) 12. Since ITE does not have trip rates for a wave pool facility, similar use based on SANDAG’s recreation park (developed peak hour and daily rates are utilized. Future Traffic Conditions Future traffic conditions were evaluated, considering existing traffic, ambient growth, and other developments in the area. Future “with project” conditions analyzed include, project traffic plus existing ambient growth plus cumulative traffic conditions. In accordance with the City of La Quinta’s traffic study guidelines and as documented in Appendix 1.1 of the TIA, the Study analyzed the following scenarios: Existing (2019) Conditions E+P= Existing Plus Project EAP = Existing Plus Ambient Growth plus Project o Existing 2019 volumes o Ambient growth traffic for 7 years o Project Traffic EAPC (2021) = Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project traffic for each applicable Phase. o Existing 2019 volumes o Ambient growth traffic o Cumulative Development traffic o Project Phase 1 Traffic EAPC (2023) = Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project traffic for each applicable Phase. o Existing 2019 volumes o Ambient growth traffic o Cumulative Development traffic o Project Phase 2 Traffic Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 137 EAPC (2026) = Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project traffic for each applicable Phase. o Existing 2019 volumes o Ambient growth traffic o Cumulative Development traffic o Project Buildout (Phase 3) Traffic o Project Buildout (Phase 3) – Special Events General Plan buildout (2040) Without Project Conditions – establishes future year baseline to evaluate the proposed Project. General Plan buildout (2040) With Project Conditions – represents future year baseline traffic conditions with the proposed project. The TIA states that the year 2040 forecast volumes are based upon an updated version of the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) which became available in the CVAG region during 2016. It is consistent with the SCAG draft 2016 RTP for the Transportation Project Prioritization Study TPPS) 2040 project. TIA Roadway Improvement Assumptions Project Access: The Wave – Coral Mountain Project is proposed to be served by the following project access locations: Madison Street / Main Access (full access) South Access / Avenue 60 (full access) Project Access 1 / Avenue 58 (full access) Project Access 2 / Avenue 58 (right-in/right-out access) Madison Street / Project Access 3 (right-in/right-out access) Project Phase 1: Avenue 59: Construct roadway to its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary along the commercial portion of the project. Madison Street: Construct roadway to its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary along the commercial portion of the project. Avenue 60 should be constructed as a 2-lane roadway along the project boundary. Project Access 1 & Avenue 58 (intersection 20): Provide northbound cross-street stop control. Construct south leg with on shared northbound left-right turn lane. Accommodate westbound left turn lane within two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) striping. Provide northbound cross-street stop control for Project Access 2 & Avenue 58 (intersection 21). Construct south leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns should not be accommodated at this intersection. Madison Street & Project Access 3 (intersection 22): Provide eastbound cross-street stop control. Construct west leg with one right turn outbound lane. Left turns should not be accommodated at this intersection. Eastbound cross-street stop control should be provided for Madison Street & Main Access (intersection 19). Construct west leg with one left turn outbound and one right turn outbound lane. Construct a northbound left turn inbound lane with a minimum turn bay length of 150’. South Access & Avenue 60 (intersection 18): Provide southbound cross-street stop control. Construct north leg with one shared left-right turn outbound lane. Construct west leg with one shared left-through lane. Construct east leg with one shared through-right lane. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 138 Project Phase 2: Conditions are the same improvements recommended as for Project Phase 1 (see previous section.) Project Buildout (Phase 3): Avenue 58: Construct roadway to its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary along the residential/remaining portion of the Project. Madison Street: Construct roadway to its ultimate half-section width as a Secondary along the residential/remaining portion of the Project. For all Project Phases: Construct traffic signal for the intersection of Madison Street and Main Access when warranted. On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site. Sight distance at the project access driveways should be reviewed with respect to City of La Quinta sight distance standards at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. Table XVII-12 Intersection Analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Note 3) Intersection Approach Lanes Note 1) Delay Secs) Note 2) Level of Service Note 2) Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound AM PM AM PM L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R 1 Madison St/Avenue 58 AWS 1/2/1 1/2/d 1/1/1 1/2/1 10.0 12.8 A B 2 Madison St/Airport Blvd. TS 1/2/d 1/2/0 0/0/0 1/0/1 8.8 9.9 A A 3 Madison St./ Avenue 54 AWS 2/2/1 1/2/0 1/2/d 1/2/1 15.2 23.5 C C 4 Madison St./ Avenue 52 TS 2/2/1 2/2/d 1/2/d 1/2/1 29.1 30.0 C C 5 Madison St./ Avenue 50 TS 2/2/1 2/2/1 1/2/1 1/2/1 29.1 29.8 C C 6 Jefferson St./ Avenue 54 AWS 0.5/1/0.5 2/2/1 1/2/0 1/1/1 13.2 20.1 B C 7 Jefferson St./ Avenue 52 RDB 0.5/0.5/1>> 0.5/0.5/1>> 0.5/0.5/1>> 0.5/0.5/1>> 10.6 11.2 B B 8 Jefferson St./ Pomelo TS 1/3/0 1/3/0 0.5/0.5/1 0.5/0.5/1 8.8 14.3 A B 9 Jefferson St./ Avenue 50 TS 1/3/1 2/3/1 1/2/1 1/1/1 46.5 49.4 D D 10 Madison St./ Avenue 60 AWS 0/0/0 1/0/1 0.5/0.5/0 0/1/1 8.7 9.5 A A 11 Monroe St./Avenue 60 AWS 1/1/0 1/1/1 0.5/0.5/1 0/1!/0 8.5 8.9 A A 12 Monroe St./Avenue 58 AWS 0/1!/0 0.5/0.5/1 0/1!/0 0/1!/0 8.9 11.0 A B 13 Monroe St./Airport Blvd AWS 1/1/0 1/2/d 1/1/1 0/1!/0 9.0 10.0 A B 14 Monroe St./ Avenue 54 AWS 0/1!/0 0.5/0.5/1 1/1/0 0/1!/0 16.3 14.4 C B 15 Monroe St./ Avenue 52 AWS 0/1!/0 1/2/0 1/1/1 1/2/d 16.8 34.3 C D 16 Monroe St./ 50th Avenue TS 1/2/0 1/2/0 1/1/1 1/1/1> 16.6 18.5 B B 17 Jackson St./ 58th Avenue AWS 0/1!/0 0/1!/0 0/1!/0 0/1!/0 7.7 8.6 A A 18 S. Access/ Avenue 60 CSS 0/0/0 0/1!/0 0/1/0 0/1/0 8.9 8.9 A A 19 Madison St/Main Access CSS 1/2/0 0/2/0 1/0/1 0/0/0 12.7 15.6 B C 20 Project Access 1/Ave. 58 CSS 0/1!/0 0/0/0 0/1/0 1*/2/0 9.2 9.8 A A 21 Project Access 2/Ave. 58 CSS 0/0/1 0/0/0 0/1/0 0/2/0 8.6 9.0 A A 22 Madison St /Project Access 3 CSS 0/2/0 0/2/0 0/0/1 0/0/0 8.9 10.1 A B 1. When a right turn is designated the land can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap Phasing; d = De facto Right Turn Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Thru/Right Lane; 0.5=Shared Lane; 1=Improvement 2. Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 139 For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 software BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3. TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Controlled RDB = Roundabout; Table XVII-13 Intersection Analysis for Horizon Year (2040) with Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Note 3) Intersection Approach Lanes Note 1) Delay Secs) Note 2) Level of Service Note 2) Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound AM PM AM PM L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R L/T/R 1 Madison St/Avenue 58 With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1/2/1 1/2/d 1/2/1 1/2/1> 41.5 70.3 D E With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 1/2/1 1/2/d 2/1/1 1/2/1> 35.1 53.0 D D 2 Madison St/Airport Blvd. TS 1/2/d 1/2/0 0/0/0 1/0/1 23.7 29.7 C C 3 Madison St./ Avenue 54 TS 2/2/1 1/2/0 1/2/1>> 1/2/1> 44.2 53.3 D D 4 Madison St./ Avenue 52 TS 2/2/1 2/2/1 1/2/d 1/2/1 39.5 53.3 D D 5 Madison St./ Avenue 50 TS 2/3/1 2/2/1 1/2/1 1/2/1> 37.6 54.8 D D 6 Jefferson St./ Avenue 54 TS 1/2/1 2/2/1 1/1/1 1/1/2> 24.2 48.4 C D 7 Jefferson St./ Avenue 52 RDB 0.5//2.5/1>> 0.5/2.5/1>> 0.5/2.5/1>> 0.5/2.5/1>> 5.9 9.1 A A 8 Jefferson St./ Pomelo TS 1/3/0 1/3/0 0.5/0.5/1 0.5/0.5/1 6.4 21.4 A C 9 Jefferson St./ Avenue 50 TS 1/3/1 2/3/1 2/2/1 2/2/1 42.2 54.6 D D 10 Madison St./ Avenue 60 TS 0/1!/0 2/1/1> 2/2/0 1/2/1 49.6 53.1 D D 11 Monroe St./Avenue 60 With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1/2/0 1/2/0 1/2/0 1/1/1> 46.1 103.9 D F With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 1/2/0 1/2/1 1/2/1> 1/2/1> 37.2 53.0 D D 12 Monroe St./Avenue 58 With GPCE Update Improvements TS 1/2/1 1/2/0 1/2/0 1/2/0 50.1 75.9 D E With Modified GPCE Improvements TS 2/2/1> 2/2/0 1/2/1 1/2/0 39.5 52.0 D D 13 Monroe St./Airport Blvd TS 1/2/0 1/2/d 1/2/0 1/2/1> 37.8 45.4 D D 14 Monroe St./ Avenue 54 TS 1/2/1 1/2/1 2/2/1 1/2/1 31.6 54.5 C D 15 Monroe St./ Avenue 52 TS 2/2/1 2/2/0 1/2/1 1/2/1 39.0 54.3 D D 16 Monroe St./ 50th Avenue TS 2/2/1 2/2/0 1/2/1 1/2/1> 34.1 54.5 C D 17 Jackson St./ 58th Avenue TS 1/2/0 1/2/0 1/2/0 1/2/0 29.7 38.0 C D 18 S. Access/ Avenue 60 CSS 0/0/0 0/1!/0 0/1/0 0/1/0 34.2 34.8 D D 19 Madison St/Main Access 12.7 15.6 B C With Cross-Street Stop Control CSS 1/2/0 0/2/0 1/0/1 0/0/0 113.2 91.7 F F With Traffic Signal TS 1/2/0 0/2/0 1/0/1 0/0/0 7.6 9.0 A A 20 Project Access 1/Ave. 58 CSS 0/1!/0 0/0/0 0/2/0 1*/2/0 12.9 14.5 B B 21 Project Access 2/Ave. 58 CSS 0/0/1 0/0/0 0/2/0 0/2/0 10.2 10.4 B B 22 Madison St /Project Access 3 CSS 0/2/0 0/2/0 0/0/1 0/0/0 13.6 14.4 B B 1. When a right turn is designated the land can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right; > = Right Turn Overlap Phasing; d = De facto Right Turn Lane; 1! = Shared Left/Thru/Right Lane; 0.5=Shared Lane; 1=Improvement; 1 =Improvement per City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (May 2012); *=Left turn lane accommodated within two-way left turn lane. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 140 2. Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM6), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. Delay and level of service is calculated using Synchro 10.1 software BOLD = LOS does not meet the applicable jurisdictional requirements (i.e., unacceptable LOS). 3. TS = Traffic Signal; AWS = All Way Stop; CSS = Controlled; RDB = Roundabout 4. Since roundabout analysis in Synchro is limited to a maximum of 2 lanes per approach, traffic has been utilized at this location similar to the City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout TIA worksheets.) The TIA states that no specific off-site mitigation or area-wide improvement would be required to accommodate project-related traffic aside from the improvements to adjacent roadways and other Project Design Features included in Final Engineering Plans. The project proponent will be required to contribute development impact fees (e.g., traffic signal mitigation fees) and participate in the Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program (further discussed in this section.) Table XVII-14 Roadway Volume/Capacity Analysis For General Plan Buildout (2040) With Project Conditions Roadway Segment Roadway Designation Through Travel Lanes note 1) Capacity note 2) ADT note 3) Volume/ Capacity Ratio Avenue 58 West of Madison St. Secondary 4 28,000 12,500 0.45 West of Monroe St. Secondary 4 28,000 14,000 0.50 West of Jackson St. Secondary 4 28,000 19,000 0.68 Madison St. South of Airport Blvd Primary 4 42,600 34,000 0.80 Avenue 60 West of Monroe Blvd Secondary 4 28,000 24,000 0.86 Monroe St. South of Airport Blvd Primary 4 42,600 26,000 0.61 1. Existing Number of Through Lanes; 1 = City of La Quinta General Plan Buildout number of lanes. 2. Source: City of La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06-13 (Oct 2017) 3. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) expressed in vehicles per day. Traffic Volume Forecasts Summary: E+P (Existing + Project): The 22 (17 existing and the 5 Project intersections) study area intersections are anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS with the addition of Project traffic for the E+P traffic conditions. EAP (Existing + Ambient + Project): Under EAP traffic conditions, five study intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAP conditions. (#3 Madison Street/Avenue 54; #6 Jefferson Street/Avenue 54; #12 Monroe Street/Avenue 58; #14 Monroe Street/Avenue 54 and #15 Monroe Street/Avenue 52.) EAP analysis results indicate that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 (#7) experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 141 All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for E+P and EAP traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. EAPC Phase 1 (2021) (Existing + Ambient + Project + Cumulative): Four study are intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP) in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAP conditions. (#3 Madison Street/Avenue 54; #6 Jefferson Street/Avenue 54; #14 Monroe Street/Avenue 54 and #15 Monroe Street/Avenue 52.) One Cumulatively impacted intersection was identified. The (#7) Jefferson Street/Avenue 52 intersection experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. EAPC Phase 1 (2021) analysis results indicate that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate. All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC (2021) traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. EAPC Phase 2 (2023): For EAPC (2023) traffic conditions, five study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal (which is funded in the CIP in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAP conditions. (#3 Madison Street/Avenue 54; #6 Jefferson Street/Avenue 54; #12 Monroe Street/Avenue 58 and #14 Monroe Street/Avenue 54, #15 Monroe Street/Avenue 52.) One Cumulatively impacted intersection was identified for EAPC Phase 2 (2023). The (#7) Jefferson Street/Avenue 52 intersection experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. The improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate. All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC (2023) traffic conditions, consistent with Existing traffic conditions. EAPC Phase 3 (2026): For EAPC (2026) traffic conditions, eight study area intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable LOS under EAPC conditions. (#1 Madison Street/Avenue 58; #3 Madison Street/Avenue 54; #6 Jefferson Street/Avenue 54; #11 Monroe Street/Avenue 60; #12 Monroe Street/Avenue 58; #13 Monroe Street/Airport Boulevard; #14 Monroe Street/Avenue 54, #15 Monroe Street/Avenue 52.) In addition, the Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 (#9), a second westbound through lane is necessary to maintain acceptable level of service. Similar to EAPC Phase 2 conditions, (#7) Jefferson Street/Avenue 52 intersection experiences deficient operations under cumulative “without project” conditions. EAPC Phase 1 (2021) analysis results indicate that the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 requires reconstruction of the current roundabout design to incorporate 2 circulating lanes around the center island. This effectively accommodates an additional through lane in the northbound and southbound directions to provide acceptable LOS. For the intersection of Madison Street at Avenue 58 (#1), addition of project traffic requires the installation of a traffic signal. Therefore, the required signal will be installed by the Project, and reimbursement to the Project developer may be provided for all but the Projects fair share by future developments, or CIP, or DIF. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 142 For the remaining deficient study area intersections, the improvements are needed with or without the Project, so a fair share contribution is appropriate for these locations. All study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS for EAPC Phase 3 (2026) traffic conditions. Year 2040: General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions includes the Travertine project currently under consideration in the City of La Quinta that proposes to eliminate the connection of Madison Street as a General Plan roadway south of Avenue 60. Therefore, the General Plan Buildout (Year 2040) conditions analysis assumes elimination of this connection. Intersection lane recommendations described previously provide acceptable LOS under Year 2040 traffic conditions. As noted above, the proposed project is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on the area transportation network. The TIA has identified actions and recommendations relating to project design that are considered Standard Conditions. These recommendations are derived from the City of La Quinta Municipal Code and the City of La Quinta General Plan Update Circulation Element. Traffic Signal Control Installations are summarized in the following table. Table XVII-15 Installation of CIP-funded Traffic Signal Controls TIA Phase Intersection TIA Scenario Existing (2019) Madison Street at Avenue 54 Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 Monroe Street at Avenue 54 Monroe Street at Avenue 52 Project Phase 1 (2021) Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (E+P) (EAP)(EAPC1) Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (E+P) (EAP) (EAPC1) Madison Street at Avenue 54 (EAP)(EAPC1) Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (EAP)(EAPC1) Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (EAP) Madison Street at Avenue 58 (EAP)(EAPC1) Madison Street at Main Access* (EAP) Monroe Street at Airport Blvd (EAP)(EAPC1) Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 Improvements not possible Project Phase 2 (2023) Madison Street at Avenue 54 (EAPC2) Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (EAPC2) Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (EAPC2) Madison Street at Avenue 54 (EAP) EAPC2) Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (E+P) (EAP) (EAPC1) (EAPC2) Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 Improvements not possible Project Phase 3 (2026) Madison Street at Avenue 58 (EAP)(EAPC1) (EAPC3) Madison Street at Avenue 54 (EAP)(EAPC1) (EAPC3) Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 (E+P) (EAP)(EAPC1) (EAPC3) Monroe Street at Avenue 60 (EAPC3) Monroe Street at Avenue 58 (EAP)(EAPC1) (EAPC3) Monroe Street at Airport Blvd (EAP)(EAPC1) (EAPC3) Monroe Street at Avenue 54 (EAP)(EAPC3) Monroe Street at Avenue 52 (E+P) (EAP) (EAPC1) (EAPC3) Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 Improvements not possible Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 Improvements not possible Existing: Traffic Signals needed with or without Project. Constructed as Project Design Feature when warranted. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 143 Table XVII-16 Illustrates the project fair share percentages for Year 2040 conditions. These percentages, however, are an approximation only as they are intended only for discussion purposes and do not imply any legal responsibility or formula for contributions or mitigation. Table XVII-16 Project Fair Share Percentages for Year 2040 ID Intersection Project Only Traffic 2040 With Project Peak Hour Traffic Project Fair Share (%) Note 2) 1 Madison St / Ave. 58 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 339 464 3,235 4,690 10% 10% 3 Madison St. / Ave. 54 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 182 240 5,224 6,689 3% 4% 4 Madison St. / Ave. 52 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 98 129 4,330 5,452 2% 2% 5 Madison St / Ave. 50 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 58 72 4,587 6,410 1% 1% 6 Jefferson St. / Ave 54 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 61 80 3,135 3,871 2% 2% 7 Jefferson St / Ave. 52 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 76 97 5,035 6,097 2% 2% 9 Jefferson St / Ave. 50 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 77 96 4,954 6,161 2% 2% 10 Madison St. / Ave. 60 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 125 169 2,875 3,853 4% 4% 11 Monroe St. / Ave. 60 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 82 111 3,094 4,863 3% 2% 12 Monroe St. / Ave. 58 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 141 185 3,311 4,733 4% 4% 13 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 76 97 3,200 4,442 2% 2% 14 Monroe St. / Ave. 54 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 76 97 3,987 5,384 2% 2% 15 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 76 97 4,174 5,664 2% 2% 16 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 58 72 4,319 6,011 1% 1% 17 Monroe St. / Airport Blvd AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 61 81 2,594 3,735 2% 2% 1 Total New Traffic = Horizon Year 2040 with Project - Existing (2018) Traffic 2 Project Fair Share % = (Project Only Traffic/Total New Traffic) Special Events Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 144 EAPC Phase 3 (2026) Weekend Special Event Conditions: The applicant anticipates the potential occurrence of special events at this location involving attendance of not-to-exceed 2,500 guests per day arriving or departing on Saturdays (up to 4 events per year.) Weekend Traffic Volumes and Conditions The TIA indicates that the weekend special even intersection LOS analysis is based on traffic volumes observed during the weekend peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected on February 22, 2020. Discussions with City staff resulted in the selection of the Saturday peak hour between 10:00 am and 2:00 pm. The sample comparison of the PM weekday data and weekend counts focuses on 4 key intersections. These intersections are identified in the subsequent table. Table XVII-17 Weekend Intersection Count Locations ID Intersection Location ID Intersection Location 1 Madison Street at Avenue 58 11 Madison Street at Avenue 58 5 Madison Street at Avenue 50 13 Monroe Street at Avenue 54 Volume changes at these locations are extrapolated to the remaining study area locations as identified in the TIA. The average peak hour intersection change between weekday PM peak hour and weekend peak hour count data at selected study area and nearby intersections is a decrease of approximately 17.20%. The ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide weekend trip generation rates for special events at a wave pool facility since the use is very specific. Vehicle trips are calculated based on estimated number of guests anticipated for these special events and a vehicle occupancy average of 2.4. The Weekend Project Trip generation during a special event based on 2,500 guests per day at the Wave Pool facility and approximately 25% of the guests arriving or departing during the arrival and departure peak hours. Weekend rates for other on-site land uses represent typical Saturday rates. As shown in Table XVII-19, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a net total of 8,932 trip-ends per day on a Saturday during a special event with 906 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the arrival peak hour and 844 vph during the departure peak hour. Table XVII-18 Project Buildout (2026) Trip Generation Summary-Weekend Special Event Trip Generation Rates (Note 1) Land Use ITE LU Code Units Note 2) Saturday Mid-Day Peak Hour Weekend DailyInOutTotal Single Family Detached 210 DU 0.50 0.43 0.93 9.54 Multifamily Housing Low-Rise) 220 (note 6) DU 0.38 0.32 0.70 8.14 Resort Hotel 310 (note 3)RM 0.40 0.32 0.72 8.19 Shopping Center 820 TSF 2.34 2.16 4.50 46.12 Wave Pool Facility - (note 4)Guests See Subsequent Table Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 145 Table XVII-19 Trip Generation Results Trip Generation Results Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity note 2) Arrival Peak Hour Departure Peak Hour Weekend DailyInOutTotalInOutTotal Single Family Detached 210 496 DU 248 213 461 248 213 461 4,732 Multi-Family Housing (Low- Rise) 220 (note 6) 104 DU 40 33 73 40 33 73 847 Internal to Retail/Resort (18) (40) (58) (53) (25) (78) (600) Residential External Trips 270 206 476 235 221 456 4,979 Shopping Center 820 60 TSF 140 130 270 140 130 270 2,767 Pass-By (26%) (35) (35) (70) (35) (35) (70) (719) Internal to Residential/Resort Shopping Center External Trips 80 62 142 70 69 139 1,550 Resort Hotel 310 note 5) 150 RM 60 48 108 60 48 108 1,229 Internal to Residential/Retail (20) (28) (48) (24) (19) (43) (430) Resort Hotel External Trips 40 20 60 36 29 65 799 Wave Pool Facility (note 4) 2500 Guests 260 14 274 14 260 274 2,084 Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort 42) (4) (46) (4) (46) (50) (480) Wave Pool Facility External Trips 218 10 228 10 214 224 1,604 Project Subtotal 748 438 1,186 502 684 1,186 11,659 Internal Capture Subtotal (105) (105) (210) (116) (116) (232) (2,008) Pass-By (Shopping Center) (35) (35) (70) (35) (35) (70) (719) Project Total External Trips 608 298 906 351 533 884 8,932 1. Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). 2. DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Occupied Room 3. Source: Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017) 4. Vehicle trips are calculated based on estimated number of guests during special events and vehicle occupancy of 2.4 5. Saturday data for Hotel (ITE Land Use 310) has been utilized 6. Since Saturday peak hour in/out ratio is not available for ITE Land Use 220, the in/out Saturday split for ITE LU 210 (Single Family Detached Residential) has been utilized. The TIA indicates that trip generation patterns for the special event components of the proposed project is consistent with the typical weekday operation. The intersection analysis results indicate that the following study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an unacceptable LOS Conditions: Table XVII-20 Impacted Intersections during Weekend Events Impacted Intersections during Weekend Events Madison Street at Avenue 58 Monroe Street at Airport Blvd Madison Street at Avenue 54 Monroe Street at Avenue 54 Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 Monroe Street at Avenue 52 Monroe Street at Avenue 60 Jefferson Street at Avenue 52 Monroe Street at Avenue 58 The improvement recommendations for weekend events are consistent with the improvements for EAPC Phase 3 (2026) weekday typical operations. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 146 A queuing analysis was performed for the With Project Weekend Special Event Conditions to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Project Entries. All project entries were determined to be adequate for special event conditions. The TIA indicates that special events of up to 2,500 guests are anticipated to generate approximately 2,084 daily trips to and from the wave pool facility alone, of which 1,604 are from outside the project residential, retail, and resort hotel. During the arrival and departure peak hours, approximately 624 guests are anticipated to arrive or depart per hour, with an average of 2.4 persons per vehicle. Approximately 260 total inbound trips to the wave pool facility alone are anticipated during the arrival peak hour (of which 214 are from outside the project residential, retail, and resort hotel,) with a similar quantity occurring in the outbound direction during the departure peak hour. Special event attendee vehicles are anticipated to access the wave pool facility via the Project Main Entry. For large special event venues, traffic control typically includes special event flaggers, law enforcement personnel, online or transmitted event information (suggested routes, parking, etc.,) and portable changeable message signs (CMS). In the case studied within the TIA, with appropriate wayfinding signage, these special event traffic control measures are not currently anticipated to be necessary. However, if at a later date these measures are determined to be desirable/necessary, the facility management should coordinate with the City staff to develop a traffic management plan prior to the Special Event. Congestion Management Plan The County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires a LOS E or better for regional roadways. As noted previously and in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for this project, the generation, distribution, and management of project traffic is not expected to conflict with the CMP; no CMP roadways were identified in the vicinity of the Project in the TIA. The project and background traffic will not exceed City level of service standards or travel demand measures, or other standards established by the City or Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) for designated roads or highways. The Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF) program identifies network backbone and local roadways that are needed to accommodate growth. The regional program was put into place to ensure that developments pay their fair share and that funding is in place for the construction of facilities needed to maintain an acceptable level of service for the transportation system. The TUMF is a regional mitigation fee program and is imposed and implemented in every jurisdiction in Western Riverside County. According to the Coachella Valley Association of Governments TUMF Handbook, effective July 1, 2012, the following are provisions from the TUMF Ordinance and provided as background information: The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply only to new development yet to receive final discretionary approval and or issuance of a building permit or other development right and to any reconstruction or new use of existing buildings that results in a change of use and generates additional vehicular trips. No tract map, parcel map, conditional use permit, land use permit or other entitlement shall be approved unless payment of the mitigation fee is a condition of approval for any such entitlement. The mitigation fee shall be paid to the applicable jurisdiction. No building or similar permit, certificate of occupancy or business license reflecting a change of use shall be issued unless the applicant has paid the mitigation fee. Mitigation fees shall be imposed and collected by the applicable jurisdiction and shall be transmitted to CVAG to be placed in the Coachella Valley Transportation Mitigation Trust Fund. All interest or other earnings of the Fund shall be credited to the Fund. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 147 Following the payment of required fees such as TUMF and DIF, less than significand impacts are anticipated relative to the CMP. Alternative Transportation As mentioned previously, the General Plan proposes a Future Class II Golf/NEV path and multi-use path along Avenue 58, Madison Street and Avenue 60. Interior to the project, Project Design Features (PDF) are incorporated that encourage the use of alternative transportation measures including pedestrian and bicycle travel. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to existing bike lanes. Temporary impacts may occur during construction; however, any bicycle access adjacent to the project will be restored to existing conditions. The project design will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. The project will implement the following Standard Conditions. Standard Conditions 1. Streetscape improvement plans will be required for the project frontage on Avenue 58, Madison Street and Avenue 60, prior to the initiation of future landscape or roadway improvements per the City’s design standards. 2. Clear unobstructed sight distances shall be provided at the site access and internal intersections. Sight distances shall be reviewed at the time of preparation of final grading, landscape and street improvement plans. 3. Off-street parking shall be provided to meet the anticipated parking demand as required by the parking standards in the City of La Quinta Municipal Code and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. 4. All off-street parking areas shall be adequately illuminated without glare or excessive light beyond the property. 5. The project proponent shall provide accessible routes of travel in accordance with current ADA guidelines and standards. 6. The internal streets within the proposed private gated residential area shall be installed and maintained as private streets and shall be developed in accordance with development standards set forth in the La Quinta Municipal Code, and other applicable standards and guidelines. 7. Final layout and site access design shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer during the development review process. 8. Emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access shall be provided for all new development to the satisfaction of the City of La Quinta. 9. A traffic signing and striping plan shall be developed in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project site and submitted to the City of La Quinta for review and approval. 10. The applicant shall coordinate with the SunLine Transit Agency regarding the need for public transit facilities. 11. The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required by the City of La Quinta. 12. The project proponent shall contribute traffic impact mitigation fees, by participating in the TUMF program. 13. A Construction Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared for use during construction activities. Construction includes onsite and offsite improvements. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 148 14. Appropriate wayfinding signage shall be used during special events of up to 2500. 15. If at a later date additional measures are determined to be desirable/necessary, the facility management should coordinate with the City staff to develop a Traffic Management Plan prior to the Special Event. The TIA identifies several site-specific recommendations that have been incorporated into the project design and can be considered PDFs. Following implementation of the site design recommendations within the TIA, standard conditions required by the City of La Quinta impacts are anticipated to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures TRA-1 and TRA-2. Mitigation: TRA-1: The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required by the City of La Quinta, Transportation DIF will be paid prior to occupancy of the corresponding Phase of development identified in this discussion and found in table XVII-15 or as determined by the City TRA-2: The project proponent shall participate in the TUMF program and contribute traffic impact mitigation fees prior to the issuance of Building Permits. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT): According to the TIA the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures for determination of transportation impacts have recently changed to an evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than vehicle delay or level of service, due to Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). Vehicle delay and level of service are still used in La Quinta traffic studies, as presented previously in this CEQA document and the TIA. VMT is a measure of the amount of travel for all vehicles in a geographic region over a given period of time, typically a one-year period. According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) proposed CEQA Guideline Implementing SB 743, projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in a project area compared to existing conditions should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) publishes a resource for local governments to assess emission reductions from Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. The CAPCOA report recognizes that land use planning provides the best opportunity to influence GHG emissions through a reduction in overall VMT. According to the National Center for Sustainable Transportation, a number of cities, regions and states across the United States have begun to deemphasize vehicle delay metrics such as LOS. In their place, policymakers are considering alternative transportation impact metrics that more closely approximate the true environmental impacts of driving. Goals for reducing Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) have been the primary motivation for the shift to VMT measures. Reductions in VMT produce many other potential benefits, such as reductions in other air pollutant emissions, water pollution, wildlife mortality and traffic congestion, as well as improvements in safety, health, and savings in public and private costs. The TIA states that while the CAPCOA report is primarily focused on the quantification of project-level mitigation measures, the VMT estimates for the project have been calculated using the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RivTAM) updated in the CVAG region for consistency with the SCAG draft 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (TRP) for the Transportation Project Prioritization Study (TPPS) 2040. VMT estimates take into consideration the relationship between residential and non-residential uses, trip balancing effects, internal capture, etc. VMT estimates also consider overall project trip generation and the interaction of these trips within the project and between the Project and surrounding areas. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 149 VMT Findings Approximately 2,181 residents and 674 employees (including 434 employees associated with the hotel and recreational wave pool, and 240 employees associated with the retail uses are anticipated for buildout of the Project. The amounts to a service population of 2,855 SP. Three PDFs were incorporated into the Project that reduce automobile trips and the distance traveled per service population. These three PDFs are: Increase diversity of land uses, and provide pedestrian network improvements; and provide traffic calming measures and low-stress bicycle network improvements. The PDFs are projected to reduce the Daily VMT from 91,279 to 75,129. This is a 17.7% reduction. The following table provides a summary of the VMT for land uses without planned integration and proposed Project conditions. Table XVII-21 VMT for Land Uses without Planned Integration and Proposed Project Project Scenario Daily VMT VMT/Service Population VMT/Trip Land Uses without Planned Integration 91,276 32.0 9.61 Proposed Project 75,129 26.3 7.91 The VMT/Specific Plan mix of land uses (including hotel, retail, and service-oriented uses) is anticipated to encourage trip capture on-site, resulting in a lower than usual VMT per service population VMT/Specific Plan). The VMT/SP associated with the Project could potentially fall within the range of approximately 25.0 to 32.0, but the Project location, mix of uses and effectiveness of the design features support a conservative estimate of 26.3 VMT/SP. As stated previously, the project VMT is approximately 75,129 annual vehicle miles traveled for the 674 employees and 2,181 residents added by the project, which is less than the City average of 26.4 per SP. For further discussion of VMT see the Energy and Greenhouse Gas sections of this document. Therefore, Impacts associated with VMT are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None c) Less Than Significant Impact. Hazards: The Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport is located approximately 4.25 miles east of the project site. The property is not located within the boundaries of the airport’s land use compatibility plan. The project is not expected to impact the facilities or operations of regional airports and will not result in altered air traffic patterns. A queuing analysis was performed for the With Project Conditions to assess the adequacy of turn bay lengths to accommodate vehicle queues at the Project entries. Turn pocket lengths for project access intersections with exclusive turn lanes were estimated based on the updated peak hour volumes presented for the General Plan Buildout Year (2040) With Project conditions within the TIA. The document indicates that simulation and optimization traffic modelling tools Syncro and SimTraffic were utilized to evaluate traffic flows and identify potential queuing issues at the project entry intersections. Syncro is a macroscopic analysis and optimization program, and SimTraffic performs microsimulations and animation of vehicle traffic. According to the TIA, for each of the turn lanes evaluated, the maximum of the AM or PM peak hour 95th percentile queue is anticipated to be less than the storage length provided. The recommended turn bay lengths are anticipated to provide adequate storage for the 95th percentile queue. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 150 The project will be developed in accordance with City of La Quinta design guidelines and will not create a substantial increase in hazards due to a design feature. The project’s access points will be located with adequate sight distances, and project-generated traffic will be consistent with existing traffic in the area. The internal circulation system would be designated in accordance with the City of La Quinta guidelines and would provide adequate fire department access and widths as required. Sharp curves are avoided by design guidelines. A Traffic Control Plan may be required as a condition of approval to be implemented throughout all construction activities. This plan will work to reduce potential impacts that may arise due to conflicts with construction traffic. Impacts will be less than significant. The project’s access points will be located with adequate sight distances, and project-generated traffic will be consistent with existing traffic in the area. The project is not anticipated to increase hazards due to geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Following implementation of the recommendations within the TIA, as well as the review and approval process at the City of La Quinta, impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None d) Less Than Significant Impact. Emergency Access: Regional access to the project site will be provided via primary arterials, secondary arterials and a variety of local roads. As mentioned previously, primary Resort/Residential project access will be provided on Madison Street via the Main Access at Intersection 19; emergency access for Resort/Residential Project access will be provided on Avenue 60 via the South Access (TIA intersection 18;) primary commercial access will be provided driveways located at Project Access 1, 2 and 3 (TIA intersections 20, 21 and 22 respectively.) Resort/Residential driveways will be gated with a Knox-Box Rapid Entry System or similar device to facilitate emergency access by fire fighters and other emergency first responders. Prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department will review the project site plan to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access. The project is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts are less than significant relative to inadequate emergency access. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 151 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project cause a substantial Adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resource Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i)Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local Register of historical resources as defined in Public Resource Code Section 5020.1(k), or; ii)A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. a i-ii) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Public Resource Code 21074 identifies “Tribal Cultural Resources” as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with culture value to California Native American Tribe” and that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion on the national, state, or local register of historic resources or that are determined by the lead agency, in its discretion, to be significant when taking into consideration the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe. On July 23, 2019, CRM Tech submitted a written request to the NAHC for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Land File and notified the nearby Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians of their field work and invited Tribal participation. The Sacred Lands File identified no Native American cultural resources within the project areas and recommended that the local Native American groups be contacted. CRM Tech sent request for comments to 11 Tribes. Five Tribal representatives have responded in writing. The Augustine Band of Mission Indians, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians have all stated that their tribes are unaware of any cultural resources within the project area. The Cahuilla Band requested notification of future progress of the project and the Augustine Band requested notification of any cultural resources recovered during the project. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians requested copies of all cultural resource documentation and Native American monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities. The Morongo Band of Cahuilla Indians deferred to the Agua Caliente and stated they may provide comments to the City during the AB 52 consultations. David Mirelez, Tribal Monitor for the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians accompanied the CRM Tech on their intensive field level survey. He provided verbal comments while participating in the archaeological field survey. His comments pertained to the three rock art sites and requested that they be protected. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 152 Per the project-specific archaeological report, a total of eight sites and seven isolates are known to be present within or partially within the project boundary today. The report determined that only three sites constitute an archaeological and historical resource. The other sites were previously determined not to be eligible for listing in the California Register due to the low number of artifacts and the minimal archaeological data potential. Therefore, none of these four sites appears eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, and none of them qualifies as a “historical resource.” The isolates located within the project area consist of either prehistoric ceramic shards or glass fragments from the historic period, with no associated archaeological features or other artifacts. By definition, isolates like these do not qualify as archaeological sites due to the lack of contextual integrity. Therefore, they do not qualify as historical resources and no further consideration is required. Three of the sites contain panels of rock art as well as other associated artifacts and features (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”. According to the 2003 evaluation, the images from the Rock Art Complex likely represent a style of rock art that was produced within a very narrow span of time. The kinds of information important to the prehistory of these sites have provided or are likely to contain (1) distribution and design element inventory of petroglyphs, a recognized sensitive resource to contemporary Native Americans; (2) designs that may be unique in themselves and represent a style and time period not yet fully recognized and described; (3) data about milling features unique to the Coachella Valley that reflects part of the subsistence patters of the valley post Lake Cahuilla; 4) unique opportunity to study ethnic petroglyphs; and, (5) data on the ceramic manufacturing and distribution of local vs. exotic wares through further analysis. Given the rich archaeological discoveries in and near the project area, the possibility of encountering buried prehistoric cultural remains cannot be overlooked. CRM Tech recommends that archaeological monitoring be implemented during all ground disturbing activities. To prevent potential project impacts to the three resources, CRM Tech recommends the sites at the toe of the slope be avoided and protected in situ during the project’s construction by establishing the area as an Environmentally Sensitive Area. For the balance of Site 33-001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation should be completed to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section of this initial study, 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 (Site 33-008388). A comprehensive recordation program is recommended for Site 33-008388 to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The applicant has agreed to avoid disturbance of the standing adobe remains during all earth moving activities and preserve the remains in place as a community feature with an informational plaque. The feature will be maintained in perpetuity by the future Homeowners Association. To ensure that all significant Tribal Cultural Resources are identified and fully considered, the City of La Quinta initiated a 30-day government to government Tribal consultation period with local Tribes. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians responded to the City and requested consultation. The meeting between the Tribe and the City of La Quinta took place in February 2020. In addition to their request for Tribal monitoring, the Tribe also requested preservation of the Coral Reef Ranch adobe (Site 33-008388) located in Planning Area II, and the preservation of the entire Rock Art Complex site (33-001715, 33-009545 and 33-000193). The applicant and the Tribe agreed to CRM Tech’s recommendation of preserving the four resources, CRM Tech recommends the sites at the toe of the slope be avoided and protected in situ during the project’s Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 153 construction by establishing the area as an Environmentally Sensitive Area. For the balance of Site 33- 001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation will be completed to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project. The applicant will also extend the preservation area for Site 33-001715 up to the CVWD easement. The Agua Caliente has also requested that the remaining identified cultural sites undergo surface collection, testing, and excavation, if necessary. After implementing TCR-1 and CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-4 and CUL-5 in the Cultural Resources section of this initial study, the impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4, located on pages 49 and 50 TCR-1: A qualified archaeologist will be required to provide 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, and 33-28912. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 154 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonable foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? a) Less Than Significant Impact. CVWD provides domestic and wastewater service to the project vicinity and is largest provider of potable water in the Coachella Valley. It operates more than 100 wells and serves a population of 283,000 in its service areas. CVWD’s 2012 adopted Water Management Plan and 2015 Urban Water Management Plan have been developed to assist the agency in reliably meeting current and future water demands in a cost-effective manner. Additionally, CVWD treats nearly 6.3 billion gallons of wastewater a year. CVWD operates six water reclamation plants and maintains more than 1,000 miles of sewer pipeline and more than 30 lift stations that transport wastewater to the nearest treatment facility. Two well sites will be required to adequately serve the site. The well sites will be located within the projects existing footprint. The exact location of well sites will be subject to CVWD approval. No new water or wastewater treatment facilities are required as a result of the projects development. As a standard requirement, the project site design will incorporate stormwater management by conveying site runoff into on-site retention basins with a combined capacity to handle the water quality management plan design capture volume and the controlling 100-year storm event volume. The site is under the jurisdiction for power from Imperial Irrigation District (IID), natural gas from Southern California Gas Company, and Frontier and Charter Communications for telecommunications. The project will be able to tie into the existing cable, gas and telecommunications lines located along Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage systems, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. IID has indicated that additional offsite improvements will be required to meet the projects power demand. The project will be required to install three 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 & Monroe. The offsite improvements for the conduit system will take place in the right of way of Avenue 58, between Andalusia Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 155 and PGA West. Avenue 58 is a fully improved road and classified as a secondary arterial. These improvements would be installed during Phase I of the development. Both designated improvement areas have already been developed and would not cause a substantial environmental impact. The improvements would have temporary impacts that are typically associated with construction. The project will comply with the City’s construction requirements. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None b) Less Than Significant Impact. Groundwater is the primary source of domestic water supply in the Coachella Valley. CVWD is the largest provider of potable water in the Coachella Valley and currently provides potable water to the City of La Quinta. CVWD’s 2012 adopted Water Management Plan and 2015 Urban Water Management Plan have been developed to assist the agency in reliably meeting current and future water demands in a cost-effective manner. The comprehensive Water Management Plan guides efforts to eliminate overdraft, prevent groundwater level decline, protect water quality, and prevent land subsidence. The 2015 UWMP serves as a planning tool that documents actions in support of long-term water resources planning and ensures adequate water supplies are available to meet the existing and future urban water demands. Development of the Project would result in an overall increase in water demand from the Project Site during operation. Water consumed by the Project was analyzed in the project-specific Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV). The analysis of water resources and water supply is based upon the understanding of projected water supplies as developed by CVWD and used the WSA/WSV prepared and adopted for the project, including estimates of available groundwater, Colorado River water, and SWP sources. The project would have an increased water demand of 941.03 AFY. This estimation includes indoor and outdoor use for the Residential and Non-Residential areas. This quantity is approximately 0.49-percent of the total project water supplied by the CVWD in 2035 (194,000 AFY). As shown in Table 19-1, the residential water demand is 97.22 AFY, the non-residential demand is 42.34 AFY, and outdoor water demand is estimated to be 801.47 AFY. Table XIX-1 Estimated project Water Service Demand For Residential, Commercial and Other Uses Potable water will be provided to the site by constructing an 18-inch and 12-inch water main to connect to an existing 18-inch diameter domestic water pipeline on Avenue 58 and a 24-inch water pipeline on Madison Street. The infrastructure and design components for the project will be consistent with CVWD requirements and the UWMP. The project will be further reviewed by City and CVWD staff to ensure compliance with all current and applicable water requirements. Per CVWD’s Urban Water Management Plan, the district has a 2020 target water use demand of 473 GPCD. CVWD’s 2015 per capita daily water use of 383 GPCD is currently 19 percent below the 2020 target of 473 GPCD. CVWD has currently achieved its 2020 water use target but continues to implement demand management measures to reduce per capita water use. CVWD anticipates the average per capita use by its existing customers will at least maintain the 383 GPCD average usages observed in 2015. GPCD in the future and any added population added beyond 2015 will use 291 GPCD. This reduced use for new customers is a result of the implementation of plumbing upgrades code and updated landscape ordinance requirements. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 156 Moreover, the City’s Municipal Code has several ordinances in place to ensure water supply and efficiency measures are in place. Additionally, the City has adopted CVWD’s water-efficient landscape ordinance (in compliance with the Department of Water Resources Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance). This ordinance requires landscape design that incorporates climate appropriate plant material and efficient irrigation for all new and rehabilitated landscaping projects. Compliance with these ordinances will ensure that future development reduces water demand to meet target demands. The overall development will be expected to implement water conservation measures to reduce impacts to the public water supply per the CVWD UWMP. Therefore, impacts to water supplies are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None c) Less Than Significant Impact. CVWD has developed a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for Sanitary Sewer Systems. The primary goal of the SSMP is to minimize frequency and severity of Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs). The SSMP will cover the management, planning, design, and operation and maintenance of the District's sanitary sewer system. The wastewater system serves approximately 265,000 customers. The system collects municipal waste from residential and commercial users, delivering the collected wastewater to one of six Wastewater Reclamation Plants. The system includes approximately 1,100 miles of sewer, 34 lift stations and approximately 17,000 manholes. The project is proposing a new 15-inch and 12-inch sewer main that would collect flow from the development to an existing 15-inch gravity sewer main at Avenue 58 and 12-inch sewer main off of Madison Street. Flows would then be delivered to CVWDs Wastewater Reclamation Plant No.4 (WRP- 4). WRP-4 has a plant capacity of 9.9 MGD located in Thermal. The annual average flow to this facility is approximately 4.75 MGD (5,300) AFY. The proposed project is estimated to generate wastewater at 156,839 GPD or 0.157 MDG, which is one percent of the plant’s capacity. The project will undergo additional review by CVWD and City staff to assure compliance with all current and applicable wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, the project is not expected to exceed CVWD’s wastewater capacity demand and impacts are less than significant without mitigation. Mitigation: None d) Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste disposal and recycling services for the City of La Quinta is provided by Burrtec. Solid waste and recycling collected from the proposed project will be hauled to the Edom Hill Transfer Station. Waste from this transfer station is then sent to a permitted landfill or recycling facility outside of the Coachella Valley. These include Badlands Disposal Site, El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill and Lamb Canyon Disposal Site. Cal-Recycle data indicates the Badlands Disposal site has 15,748.799 cubic yards of remaining capacity, the El Sobrante Landfill has a remaining capacity of 145,530,000 tons of solid waste, and Lamb Canyon Disposal has a remaining solid waste capacity of 19,242,950 cubic yards. Using the residential solid waste generation factor of 0.41 tons per dwelling unit from the Riverside County EIR No. 521, the project could generate up to 116 tons of solid waste at full buildout. As part of its long-range planning and management activities, the Riverside County Department of Waste Resources (RCDWR) ensures that Riverside County has a minimum of 15 years of capacity, at any time, for future landfill disposal. The 15-year projection of disposal capacity is prepared each year by as part of the annual reporting requirements for the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The most recent 15-year projection by the RCDWR indicates that no additional capacity is needed to dispose of countywide waste through 2024, with a remaining disposal capacity of 28,561,626 tons in the year 2024. Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 157 In addition, all future development would be required to comply with mandatory commercial and multifamily recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. Therefore, the project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines; and the project will be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to serve the project. Therefore, impacts relative to solid waste are less than significant without mitigation. e) No Impact. The project will comply with all applicable solid waste statutes, policies and guidelines. All development is required to comply with the mandatory commercial and multi-family recycling requirements of Assembly Bill 341. The project will also comply with the recycling requirements of Cal Green and develop a waste management plan that will include diverting at least 50% of construction and demolition material from landfills. There are no impacts relative to applicable solid waste regulations. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 158 20. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water resources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? a-d) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is currently characterized as vacant land with scattered vegetation of varying densities. Vegetation within the project area includes Desert Saltbush scrub, Tamarisk scrub, Mesquite Hummock, and Sonoran creosote. The project site currently sits within a somewhat urban and develop context within the City of La Quinta. Residential land uses surround the property to the north and east. The property’s western and southern boundaries are met by vacant land and Coral Mountain. Scattered residential estate properties lie south of the project site. According to CAL Fire’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in State Responsibility Areas (SRA) Map, the project site is not located in an SRA or located in an area classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. Per CAL Fire’s map, the project property is located in a (incorporated) Local Responsibility Area LRA) that is designated “non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone”. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high, high or moderate fire hazard severity zones, therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The FHSZ map designates the area west of the project site, i.e. Coral Mountain, as a Federal Responsibility Area (FRA). However, this site is also not designated as a very high, high or moderate FHSZ. Wildfire risk is related to a number of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazards by intensifying the effects of wind and make fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. According to the Riverside County General Plan, wildfire susceptibility is moderate to low in the valley and desert regions on the western and eastern sides of the Salton Sea. Methods in which they address the hazard of wildland fires includes creating setbacks that buffer development from hazard areas, maintaining brush clearance to reduce potential fuel, use of low fuel landscaping, and use of fire- resistant building techniques. Therefore, the project site is not expected to expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. In addition to this, the La Quinta General Plan (LQGP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) states that fire hazards exist where wildland areas are adjacent to or are intermixed with urbanized areas. Many of these wildland areas include rugged topography with highly flammable vegetation. La Quinta is situated at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains; however, these areas are considered low wildfire zones. The open space and wilderness areas on the western portion of the City are made up primarily of Granitic rock and sparse desert vegetation. Therefore, there is limited vegetation to burn that could cause a major wildfire. The flat Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 159 urbanized areas of La Quinta are considered very low wildfire areas. Moreover, the project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Impacts are less than significant without mitigation. The project will provide development of infrastructure (water, sewer, and storm drainage). The proposed improvements would allow for decreased fire risk relative to existing conditions. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As a result, the project is not expected to require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The project site will be connected to an existing network of streets. The proposed circulation improvements would allow for greater emergency access relative to the existing conditions. Landslides include rockfalls, deep slope failure, and shallow slope failure. Factors such as the geological conditions, drainage, slope, vegetation, and others affect the potential for landslides. One of the most common causes of landslides is construction activity that is associated with road building. According to the project-specific geotechnical report completed by Sladden Engineering in February 2019, the site is located on relatively flat ground except for the ascending slope that is located on the west side of the site. Therefore, Sladden Engineering concluded that risks associated with slope instability should not be a controlling factor in project design. Additionally, land uses proposed for the areas adjacent to Coral Mountain are designated for Open Space Recreation uses. This use is intended to allow for active recreational uses including golf, golf practice facilities, hiking trails, gardens and tennis courts. As a result, the project is not expected to expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes and no impact is expected to result from the project. Overall, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation: None Coral Mountain Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2020/Page 160 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As concluded in the Biological and Cultural Resources sections of this document, the proposed project would result in no impacts or less than significant impacts with mitigation to these resources. The project is compatible with the City of La Quinta General Plan and Zoning and its surroundings. The project will not significantly degrade the overall quality of the region’s environment, or substantially reduce the habitat of a wildlife species, case a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare of endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory. Based upon the information and mitigation measures provided within this Initial Study, approval and implementation of the project is not expected to substantially alter or degrade the quality of the environment, including biological, cultural or historical resources. Impacts are less than significant after implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in sections IV and V of this document. Mitigation: See Biological Section IV and Cultural Section V. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project and its location is found to be adequate and consistent with existing federal, state and local policies and is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan and surrounding land use. Approval and implementation of the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts related to cumulatively considerable impacts. Mitigation: None c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not result in impacts related to environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The project has been designed to comply with established design guidelines and current building standards. The City’s review process will ensure that applicable guidelines are being followed. Based upon the findings provided in this document, and mitigation measures and standard conditions incorporated into the project, impacts are less than significant. Mitigation: None