Loading...
2025 09 22 CC Minutes Sp Mtg CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 1 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Mayor Evans. PRESENT: Councilmembers Fitzpatrick, McGarrey, Peña, Sanchez, and Mayor Evans ABSENT: None PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Pro Tem McGarrey led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA – None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA – Confirmed CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION; PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (1) OF SUBDIVISION (d) OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9; CASES NAMES AND NUMBERS – MULTIPLE (listed below, all in U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware) CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER SilverRock Development Company, LLC 24-11647 SilverRock Lifestyle Residences, LLC 24-11648 SilverRock Lodging, LLC 24-11650 SilverRock Luxury Residences, LLC 24-11652 SilverRock Phase I, LLC 24-11654 RGC PA 789, LLC 24-11657 COUNCIL RECESSED THE OPEN SESSION PORTION OF THE MEETING AND MOVED INTO CLOSED SESSION AT 4:01 P.M. MAYOR EVANS RECONVENED THE OPEN SESSION PORTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 4:21 P.M. WITH ALL MEMBERS PRESENT REPORT ON ACTION(S) TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Ihrke reported no actions were taken in Closed Session that require reporting pursuant to Government Code section 54957.1 (Brown Act). CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING Council’s authorization remains in place for the City Attorney, in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office and Special Counsel, to defend and protect the interests of the City in the multiple bankruptcy cases filed by SilverRock Development Company LLC and its responsive affiliates as reported out for Closed Session Item No. 2 from the August 6, 2024, Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. (A) ADOPT RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2025-0002 (ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002- 453); AND (B) ADOPT RESOLUTION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY REPORT, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT, AND OPTION TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT WHICH INCLUDES A REPURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 OPTION PROPERTY; AND (C) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2025-0001 (REINSTATED AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2014-1001) TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SILVERROCK SPECIFIC PLAN AREA; CEQA: AN ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-453 HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 52, WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET [RESOLUTION NOS. 2025-022 AND 2025-023; ORDINANCE NO. 626] City Attorney Ihrke said he provided a brief announcement regarding the proceedings of this item at the public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission on September 9, 2025; and after discussions with the City Manager and the Interim Design and Development Director, it was determined that it would be helpful for a similar announcement to be provided at the public hearing of this item before the Council to provide context. Mr. Ihrke said there are two parallel processes underway regarding this project: (1) Relating to federal law and the bankruptcy case proceedings before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of in Delaware, and (2) Relating to state and City laws that apply under the City’s land use and economic development authority With respect to No. 1 above – federal law and the bankruptcy case: City Attorney Ihrke said on August 5, 2024, SilverRock Development Company LLC and its affiliates (debtors), collectively referred to as “SDC,” voluntarily petitioned for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware; and per Council’s direction and approval, the City retained Special Counsel who has continuously been working with the City Manager and City Attorney throughout these proceedings. Prior Announcements CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING regarding the bankruptcy case are available on the City’s website at www.laquintaca.gov/talus. The bankruptcy case has progressed through many phases, and the City, through the City Manager and Legal Counsel after getting direction from the Council, have been very active in monitoring and participating in this litigation. The most relevant background information for purposes of tonight’s public hearing is that the bankruptcy court approved and ordered a set of “Bid Procedures” which, in general, provide a process for the marketing and eventual sale and selection of a new owner and developer of the debtors’ assets (i.e., the former Talus development property). The marketing opportunity included, as was originally envisioned with the debtors’ project, the potential to acquire surrounding real property still owned by the City for purposes of eventually developing that land for uses that would be consistent with the luxury resort and residential and golf course uses permitted per the existing SilverRock Specific Plan. Several steps have taken place under those Bid Procedures, including a selection of a “stalking horse” and a live auction. Those prior steps have led to a point where TBE RE Acquisition Co. II LLC, subsidiary of Turnbridge Equities, has been designated the “successful bidder” of the auction and is recommended by the debtors, with the City’s concurrence, as the proposed purchaser of the debtors’ assets. As part of the Bid Procedures, any potential “successful bidder” would have to enter into a valid and binding statutory development agreement and related documents and agreements connected to the economic development and incentives that are proposed to be provided as public subsidies. It should be noted that, under the Bid Procedures, any party potentially interested in bidding, to be a “qualified bidder,” had to negotiate and have drafted a statutory development agreement and related documents connected to the economic development and public subsidies in order to participate in the auction. It should also be noted that the Bid Procedures currently in place have an escrow for the potential sale of the debtors’ assets proposed to close before the end of this year. With respect to No. 2 above – the state and City law parallel process: All cities, including charter cities like La Quinta, derive their land-use authority from the California Constitution (Article XI, sections 5 and 7) under what is commonly known as the “police power.” This power is broad and flexible, and it allows cities to enact, for instance, zoning ordinances and other land use policies and procedures. This police power is primarily codified in state law under the “Planning and Zoning Law,” which includes, among many other land use allowances, the authority for cities to enter into statutory development agreements. A key aspect of exercising the police power is that, as California courts have repeatedly held, standard approval processes and public participation procedures must be followed. Required public hearings and public participation cannot be “contracted away” by a simple CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING settlement agreement. Rather, exercise of the police power requires compliance with state and City laws governing land use decisions even if litigation is involved. In fact, there is a binding state court case that expressly concluded that use of a statutory development agreement pursuant to state law is the correct procedure by which a developer and a city may lawfully agree to permit a specifically described development project, including fixing the zoning governing it. Thus, the Turnbridge Equities application for a development agreement is before you. Pursuant to state and City law, the Planning Commission must review, and did review, any development agreement at a public hearing and provide a recommendation to the Council. As noted in the staff report and notice of this public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the development agreement. The decision by the Council is expressly described and legally noted as a legislative act with the Council having full discretion to make the final decision on the development agreement, but as this Council has noted many times in the past, it always takes into account and considers the Planning Commission’s recommendation. By state law, any development agreement must be adopted by ordinance. Similarly, State law confirms the authority for cities to provide economic development incentives, or economic opportunities, based on a broad range of potential public subsidies. For example, Government Code Section 53083 defines an “economic development subsidy” to mean a host of different items for the purpose of stimulating economic development within the city’s jurisdiction, which include, but are not limited to, grants, loans, loan guarantees, fee waivers, land price subsidies, matching funds, tax abatements, tax exemptions, and tax credits. In general, state laws for economic development incentives must be considered by the legislative body of the city, i.e. the Council, at a public hearing and must have a report produced in connection with the proposed economic development incentives. The report must address specified information, such as estimated jobs and estimated revenues that would attach to the project or program receiving the incentives. That report similarly is before the Council, with the Turnbridge Equities application, and should be approved by a resolution. City Attorney Ihrke noted the main point of this long background for tonight’s meeting is that the role of the Council is exactly the same as it would be for any other development agreement application that has and economic development incentives attached to the proposed project. The Council will be acting in its legislative capacity, and it is able to exercise its discretion in connection with this land use and economic development application. Also, as the Council is aware, anytime there is a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City provides the proposed environmental review document, which here, is an addendum that has been included with the staff report and similarly is proposed to be adopted by its own resolution. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING For purposes of this public hearing, the Council’s role, consideration, and any eventual vote on the application before it, should be addressed and reviewed just like any other development agreement application that has a proposed economic development subsidy. That way, the state and City legal requirements and procedures that apply in this situation will be addressed, which have been triggered by the filing of Turnbridge Equities’ application with the City. Mr. Ihrke reiterated this project is governed by federal law and the bankruptcy case, as noted above. The City has retained Special Counsel for that purpose of the City’s representation before the bankruptcy court, but an important legal requirement as far as the federal laws and procedures are concerned is that the bankruptcy court must approve and authorize the sale of the debtors’ assets to Turnbridge Equities. That proposed sale is being addressed pursuant to the Bid Procedures referenced above, and any decision made by the Council at this meeting may be rendered moot if the bankruptcy court does not authorize the sale to Turnbridge Equities. Please note the proposed ordinance and resolution for the development agreement and economic development incentives agreements are expressly subject to and conditioned upon the bankruptcy court approving the sale of the debtors’ assets to Turnbridge Equities. Mr. Ihrke said it was appropriate to explain the reason for scheduling tonight’s public hearing, as a special Council meeting under the Brown Act, instead of a regular Council meeting. In summary, this date was identified as one or two possible dates, namely today or tomorrow (September 22 and 23, 2025), for noticing and holding this public hearing and being able to meet with the bankruptcy court’s timeline per the Bid Procedures with the targeted closing date to be before the end of this year. Also, when the notices of the City’s public hearings were published in the Desert Sun newspaper, there was a bankruptcy court hearing set for September 24, 2025, which was subsequently rescheduled, but the City’s public hearing date had already been noticed. Therefore, the special Council meeting to hold this public hearing was scheduled and noticed for today. Mr. Ihrke said this concludes his announcement explaining the parallel tracks related to this project. Council discussed there have been prior deliberations that special Council meetings may be necessary to consider pending matters related to this project; as well as other special Council meetings have been held in the past. Interim Design and Development Director Flores and Planning Consultant Criste, CEO, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc., presented the staff report, which is on file in the City Clerk’s Office. The City received WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS from LOZEAU | DRURY LLP, dated September 22, 2025 – comments submitted by Partner Richard Drury on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) – objecting to the City’s consideration of the proposed SilverRock Resort project due to (1) alleged failure to CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING provide adequate notification, and (2) alleged inadequacies in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) proposed addendum. Mrs. Criste said the above noted Lozeau | Drury LLP letter alleged that the proposed CEQA addendum is insufficient, however, Table 2-2 Comparative Land Use Summary: Prior Environmental Reviews and the 2025 SilverRock Master Plan of the addendum clearly depicts and lays out all of the past iterations of the project and where it is now; thus, the addendum has correctly analyzed the project, and the requirements under CEQA Sections 15162 and 15164 have been met. Mrs. Criste noted that the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 9, 2025, and recommended Council approval of the project, with a vote of 6 ayes, and 1 member absent due to a conflict of interest recusal stemming from the proximity of real property to the project location. City Attorney Ihrke said the above noted Lozeau | Drury LLP letter also alleged that the public hearing for tonight’s meeting was not properly noticed and the agenda packet was not properly published, which statements are rebutted as follows: (A) The City Clerk confirmed that the agenda packet for tonight’s special Council meeting was published on the City’s website in the “calendar” direct link from the City’s home page, where all public meetings for the Council as well as City boards and commissions are published in the general course of business. (B) The agenda included a “Declaration of Posting” by the City Clerk declaring that it was published on the City’s website, and paper copies were posted at freely accessible bulletin boards to members of the public, located near the entrance to the Council Chamber at 78495 Calle Tampico and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51321 Avenida Bermudas. (C) The alleged violation of the 72-hour advanced posting requirement pursuant to the Brown Act applies to noticing regular public meeting, and as tonight’s meeting is a special meeting the applicable posting requirement is 24 hours, which was met when the agenda packet was published on Friday, September 19, 2025. (D) There were also several publications in the Desert Sun newspaper, the City’s designated adjudicated newspaper of general circulation, that identified the public hearing scheduled for September 22, 2025, at 4 p.m., all of which publications included a description that the Council would consider the various items related to the 2025 SilverRock Resort Master Plan project, and expressly stated that the City has prepared an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 for the SilverRock Resort pursuant to CEQA Sections 15162 and 15164: a. Economic Development Subsidy Report, and agreements relating thereto, for proposed public subsidies to Turnbridge Equities, published on September 8, 11, and 18, 2025; and CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING b. Development Agreement 2025-0001 (Reinstated and Amended DA 2014- 0001), and Environmental Assessment 2025-0002 (Addendum No. 3 to Mitigated Negative Declaration to EA 2002-453), published on September 11, 2025; which also included direct mailing of the public hearing notices to property owners within 500 feet from the project location in accordance with the Government Code. City Attorney Ihrke commented that the City provided adequate notice as required by state and City laws, and the agenda was posted on the City’s website and the designated freely accessible in-person locations. APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE / PRESENTER: Michael Gazzano, Managing Director, West Coast at Turnbridge Equities – explained that Turnbridge Equities is a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)-registered direct investment fund manager; provided data and descriptions on the types of past projects undertaken; listed the benefits of the proposed SilverRock project to the local community; detailed the components of the project, and changes from the previous development plan; and outlined the phases and planning areas for the project. APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE / PRESENTER: James Vaughn, Partner, Procopio – Land Use / Real Estate Law – responded to the letter received LOZEAU | DRURY LLP, dated September 22, 2025, on behalf of the SAFER Group raising three main alleged deficiencies, namely (a) inadequate public meeting notice and Brown Act compliance, (b) the appropriate approach to CEQA compliance would have been a tiering approach, and (c) the project would have significant impacts in the following areas – growth inducement, traffic, air quality, and valley fever, a fungal lung infection caused by a fungus that lives in the soil. Mr. Vaughn countered each objection raised by the SAFER Group as follows: (a) Inadequate public meeting notice and Brown Act compliance – Mr. Vaughn was able to access and download the published agenda packet from the City’s website. (b) The appropriate approach to CEQA compliance would have been a tiering approach – Mr. Vaughn said the tiering approach is not applicable for this project, and page 22 of the published agenda packet, or Section 1.4 Purpose of an Addendum spells out when an addendum to an environmental assessment is adequate, quoting “An Addendum to an adopted MND is appropriate where the lead agency has determined that changes to the project, changed circumstances, or new information would not result in the identification of new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the adopted MND. An Addendum is appropriate where a lead agency has determined that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 call for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.” Mr. Vaughn noted that the proposed Reinstated and Amended Development Agreement with Turnbridge Equities calls for certain changes to the previously approved project, which has been analyzed and approved numerous times in the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING past; the matter under consideration is whether or not the proposed changes to the project result in any new or substantially more severe environmental affects, and as explained in the staff report and by the applicant, the proposed project changes actually result in a substantial decrease in the intensity and density of the development throughout the project site; the total number of proposed hotel rooms and residences combined is 599 units, where the currently approved project included over 1,000 units. Thus, it is not surprising that the Addendum determined that for each topic and issue, the proposed project will not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. (c) The project would have significant impacts in three areas:  Growth Inducement – calculations show that the impacts under the currently approved project would be double from the impacts under the proposed project, thus, it is not “growth inducing” but rather it is a significant reduction.  Traffic – pursuant to case law precedent, it has been determined that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis is not required for an approved environmental assessment for which VMT was not the appropriate standard at the time of approval; further, under the proposed project the traffic trip generation is in fact reduced from the currently approved project.  Air Quality – the argument is inadequate because the proposed project results in reduction of the anticipated increase in population from the currently approved project.  Valley Fever – the letter does not present an argument linking the project to valley fever; further, the project site has already been mass graded and partially constructed. Mr. Vaughn concluded that the arguments raised on behalf of SAFER do not constitute any evidence of any kind that the impacts of the proposed project will result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, thus, the proposed Addendum to the MND is the appropriate document. MAYOR EVANS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 5:00 P.M. City Clerk Radeva said WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS were received from the citizens and entities listed below, in alphabetical order, regarding Public Hearing Item No. 1 related to the SilverRock Resort (formerly Talus) project, which were distributed to Council, made public, published on the City’s website, and included in the public record of this meeting.  LOZEAU | DRURY LLP – comments submitted by Partner Richard Drury on behalf of the SAFER – objecting to the City’s consideration of the subject items due to: (1) alleged failure to provide adequate notification, addressed by City Attorney Ihrke above, and (2) alleged inadequacies in the proposed Addendum No. 3 to MND to Environmental Assessment 2002-453 pursuant to the California CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING Environmental Quality Act, addressed by Consulting Planner Criste and Mr. Vaughn above.  Mary Mann, La Quinta – objecting to the City’s consideration of the subject items due to their consideration at a special meeting instead of a regular meeting of the Council, and requesting consideration for public access through the project site to public lands. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Mario Gamboa representing the Laborers’ International Union of North America, LiUNA! LOCAL 1184 – provided background on Union members qualifications, make up, and domicile locations; requested that the Council require as a Condition of Approval, that the new developer sign the same Memorandum of Agreement with the Union as negotiated with the previous developer in 2017 to provide the same level of workers’ protections. PUBLIC SPEAKER: David Dinnel, La Quinta – stated his understanding of the terms of the proposed development agreement, specifically the terms related to short-term vacation rental (STVR) revenue and rebates, and if his understanding is correct, he objects to the City’s concessions to the developer; concerned that the STVRs permitted on the SilverRock property will force him to sell his STVR at a loss; and asked for clarification regarding the sale of SilverRock project land for one dollar. Mayor Evans provided the history and evolution of the City’s STVR program; explained the purpose of allowing new STVRs through development agreements, e.g. formerly Talus, now SilverRock Resort, and Coral Mountain projects; and noted that these STVRs are in addition to existing good operators who will not be removed from the Program. City Manager McMillen explained the history of the purchase of the SilverRock Resort property by the City’s former Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in 2002, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) restrictions related to the use of land purchased with tax-exempt bonds, pursuant to the tax reform act of 1986, where municipalities cannot use tax- exempt bond proceeds for money-making ventures; the IRS restrictions allow for what is known as the “private activity test,” which limits the use of bond proceeds on projects that would generate a financial return, other than tax revenue, to cities. If a city receives more than 10% of the total issuance of tax-exempt bonds on a revenue-generating venture, the tax-exempt bonds could become taxable. Mr. McMillen explained the City could not receive more than the 10% of bond issuance, allowed by the IRS restrictions, which resulted in the purchase price for the portion of the SilverRock Resort property acquired by debtors in 2014. At that time, it was determined that nearly equivalent amount that would be received from Development Impact Fees (approximately $10 million) would contribute substantially towards the 10% cap amount, so a one dollar per parcel sale price functionally served as legal limit based on the anticipated economic development benefits of the project. However, in 2021, when the tax-exempt bonds were refinanced and converted to taxable bonds, the limit of one dollar per parcel restriction was eliminated; and now the additional property available for Phase 2 has received a $17 million offer from the developer. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING Councilmember Fitzpatrick added that although the former developer received the original eight parcels for one dollar each, he invested millions in infrastructure improvements at the property to the City’s benefit, in order to make the project site developable. City Manager McMillen addressed Mr. Dinnel’s question regarding the 10-year and subsequent 5-year transient occupancy tax (TOT) rebate detailed in the Economic Development Subsidy Report, included as Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2025-023. Council discussed the proposed project’s economic benefit to the City in future sales tax revenue, and the need for cities to provide such rebates and incentives in order for quality developments to be possible. MAYOR EVANS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 5:15 P.M. Council offered its thanks to those involved in a long, complicated process; noted the developer’s planned improvements to the golf course and the public club house, including the relocation of the latter closer to the SilverRock public park; potential and flexibility of Phase 2 of the project; the change in the market demand over time and therefore changes in the project; the purpose of the 2002 purchase of this property to generate ongoing revenue for the City; the uses included in Phase 2 will be determined by future market demand; the property was purchased so it would generate revenue for the General Fund to be used for public improvement purposes; the State’s handcuffing of cities with the disbanding of RDAs forced the City to consider all alternatives; grateful for opportunity to dispel rumors, the majority of which are untrue due to misunderstanding of the development process; all cities are struggling post-RDAs; City has committed to moving the project to completion as quickly and as transparently as possible; the immense time and commitment in getting to this point; the complexity of the economics for the new developer in paying off debts of the previous developer, and funding the project; the complexity of agreements to ensure City protections; and the progress and commitment is encouraging. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Sanchez/Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 2025-022 approving Environmental Assessment 2025-0002, adopting Addendum No. 3 to Environmental Assessment 2002-453 as presented. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EA 2002-453) PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15162 AMD 15164 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT ARE PROPOSED THAT RESULT IN NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CASE NUMBER: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2025-0002 PROJECT: SILVERROCK RESORT APPLICANT: TBE RE ACQUISITION CO II, LLC. (SUBSIDIARY OF TURNBRIDGE EQUITIES) Motion passed unanimously. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING City Attorney Ihrke requested that the word “precedent” referenced in the second “WHEREAS” recital and “SECTION 2” on page 399 of the agenda packet, or page 2 of proposed Resolution No. 2025-023 be removed, due to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court pending hearing. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Sanchez/Fitzpatrick to adopt Resolution No. 2025-023 conditionally approving the Economic Development Subsidy Report, Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement, and Option to Purchase Real Property Agreement, which includes Repurchase Option Agreement, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreements if specified conditions are met, as amended by removing the word “precedent” from page 399 of the agenda packet, or page 2 of this resolution, as noted above by the City Attorney. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBSIDY REPORT, TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT, AND OPTION TO PURCHASE REAL PROPERTY AGREEMENT WHICH INCLUDES A REPURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT FOR PHASE 2 OPTION PROPERTY, ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2025-0001 (REINSTATED AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2014-1001) FOR THE SILVERROCK RESORT PROJECT PROJECT: SILVERROCK RESORT APPLICANT: TBE RE ACQUISITION CO II, LLC. (SUBSIDIARY OF TURNBRIDGE EQUITIES) Motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Ihrke requested that the word “precedent” referenced in the second “WHEREAS” recital on page 577 of the agenda packet, or page 2 of proposed Ordinance No. 626, and in the first “WHEREAS” recital and “SECTION 2” on page 579 of the agenda packet, or page 4 of the ordinance, be removed, due to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court pending hearing. MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Sanchez/Peña to take up Ordinance No. 626 by title and number only and waive further reading, as amended by removing the word “precedent” from pages 577 and 579 of the agenda packet, or pages 2 and 4 of this ordinance, as noted above per the City Attorney. Motion passed unanimously. City Clerk Radeva read the following title of Ordinance No. 626 into the record: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY ADOPTING A REINSTATED AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SILVERROCK RESORT CASE NUMBER: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2025-0001 (REINSTATED AND AMENDED DA 2014-1001) PROJECT: SILVERROCK RESORT APPLICANT: TBE RE ACQUISITION CO II, LLC. (SUBSIDIARY OF TURNBRIDGE EQUITIES) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 of 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 SPECIAL MEETING MOTION – A motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Sanchez/McGarrey to move to introduce at first reading Ordinance No. 626 to conditionally approve Development Agreement 2025-0001, Reinstated and Amended Development Agreement 2014-1001, to facilitate development of the SilverRock Specific Plan area, as amended by removing the word “precedent” from pages 577 and 579 of the agenda packet, or pages 2 and 4 of this ordinances, as noted above per the City Attorney. Motion passed unanimously. MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS’ ITEMS Councilmember Fitzpatrick said that the Riverside County Transportation Commission, at its last meeting, notified its members that virtual attendance will no longer be available, and all meetings will require in-person attendance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Councilmembers Fitzpatrick/Sanchez to adjourn at 5:34 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, MONIKA RADEVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California