Loading...
2025 10 07 SRR - Turnbridge - ORD 626 SRR ADA Supplemental Staff RptCONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3 Distributed to Council & the public on October 7, 2025, prior to the start of the Council meeting City of La Quinta CITY COUNCIL MEETING: October 7, 2025 SUPPLEMENT TO STAFF REPORT AGENDA TITLE: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 626 ON SECOND READING 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Supplement to the Staff Report (Supplement) is to address receipt of additional written correspondence, received by the City Council and Director of the Design and Development Department after the posting and publication of the agenda for tonight's regular meeting. Staff recommendation remains the same, and all information in the Staff Report (as revised October 4, 2025), remains the same and is not changed by this Supplement. SUPPLEMENT TO AGENCY AND PUBLIC REVIEW Yesterday, on October 6, 2025, after the conclusion of the Council's September 22, 2025 public hearing, a letter with multiple exhibits and attachments sent on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) was received by the City (October 6 letter), objecting to the City's reliance on Environmental Assessment (EA) 2025-0002, Addendum No. 3 (Addendum) to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration under EA 2002-453 (2002 MND). The Addendum was adopted by Resolution No. 2025-022 (the Resolution) after the conclusion of a duly noticed public hearing on the applicant's proposed 2025 SilverRock Master Plan (the Project) and agreements and documents related thereto. The October 6 letter, as with all comments received, are on file and available for review with the City Clerk's Office and Design and Development Department. In summary, the October 6 letter alleges the Addendum was legally inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) and implementing guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.) (CEQA Guidelines). The October 6 letter makes legal arguments that will be addressed, seriatim, below. Untimely Submittal of Letter Similar to the September 26, 2025 letter received from SAFER and addressed in the Staff Report, the October 6 letter is untimely. As referenced in the Staff Report, public hearing notices for the Project were advertised in the Desert Sun pursuant to State law on September 8, 11 (in two separate public hearing notices), and 18, 2025. Every public hearing S-1 notice included the notice that the City prepared an Addendum to the 2002 MND, and every public hearing notice advertised that the public hearing on the project, and the Addendum, would occur on September 22, 2025. SAFER was aware of the public hearing date, as it submitted a letter on that date, similarly objecting to the proposed action to approve the Project. Pursuant to State and City law, any development agreement, like the Reinstated and Amended Development Agreement (ADA) before the Council today, must be adopted by ordinance. (Gov. Code, § 65867.5(a); La Quinta Mun. Code, § 9.250.020(C)(11).) Except for urgency ordinances, State law provides that every ordinance may not be adopted within five days of its introduction, and must be adopted at a regular meeting of the Council. (Gov. Code, § 36934.) The only recommended action tonight is for the Council to adopt Ordinance No. 626 on second reading, in accordance with State and City law. There is no public hearing on second reading, nor is a public hearing required. The date of the public hearing on the Project, as well as date to submit comments on the Addendum, was September 22, 2025, by the close of the public hearing. In connection with its decision on Ordinance No. 626, the Council may find that the October 6 letter was untimely and cannot be properly considered in connection with the previously heard and considered Resolution adopting the Addendum. The Minutes can reflect this finding if so made by the Council. Review and Analysis of Allegations in October 6 Letter As was identified in the public hearing notices and the Resolution, the Addendum was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164. Nonetheless, and in the event a court were to find that the City should have considered the October 6 letter, the Council may confirm that it reviewed and considered the October 6 letter along with the following responses, which have been submitted by applicant's legal counsel and independently reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and Design and Development Department: 1. The Council considered the allegation and argument that the proposed Project, to be implemented (in part) through the ADA, would be "growth inducing." The October 6 letter states that the Project would increase the City's population by 9.9%. As explained in the Addendum (pp. 3.0-7 — 3.0-8), however, the City's 2035 General Plan accounted for the growth resulting from the original project, and the Project's modifications would reduce that total population, and the Project's modifications would contribute approximately 9.9% of the planned future population growth in the City. 2. The Council considered the traffic allegations and arguments raised in the October 6 letter, including the letter from Tom Brohard and Associates attached as Exhibit A. The allegations and arguments appear to be based on inaccurate facts and/or speculation. Specifically, the allegations that the Project will have significant traffic impacts relating to the level of service (LOS) at City intersections appear to be based on the incorrect assumption that trip generation rates of the Project will be 20% higher than the project originally S-2 approved in 2002. As explained in the Addendum (p. 3.0-30), the Project reduces trip generation by approximately 27% (from 10,389 daily trips to 7,571 daily trips). 3. The October 6 letter raises an argument that vehicle miles travelled (VMT) is required as part of traffic analysis under current CEQA Guidelines. In this case, however, VMT is not the proper measure of transportation impacts for the Proposed. Based on binding court precedent, a change in CEQA Guidelines requiring VMT analysis for new projects does not constitute significant new information or a change in circumstances that would require major revisions to the previously approved 2002 MND as supplemented by the prior Addendums thereto. (See, Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 270.) 4. The October 6 letter alleges that background traffic increases since 2002, including from other golf course communities constructed in the Project vicinity, constitute a significant change in circumstances that would require major revisions to the 2002 MND. However, the prior development and growth in traffic in the Project vicinity is consistent with the growth assumptions addressed in the City's General Plan and in the 2002 MND. 5. The October 6 letter alleges that the Project will have impacts to special status species that were not adequately addressed in the 2002 MND. These allegations, including those allegations in the letter from Shawn Smallwood attached as Exhibit B, however, appear to constitute an improper attack on the analysis and conclusions in the 2002 MND and supporting biological resources surveys, rather than providing any substantial evidence that the Project would cause any new or substantially more severe significant adverse effects than were analyzed in the previously adopted 2002 MND. The October 6 letter does not provide any substantial evidence that the Project will have any substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Instead, the October 6 letter identifies a number of species apparently identified or spotted by Shawn Smallwood as potentially occurring on or within approximately four miles of the Project site, but the October 6 letter does not provide any evidence of new or substantially more severe impacts to special status species that would result from the Project. As such, and notwithstanding the allegations and lengthy exhibits in the October 6 letter, there is no substantial evidence that the Project would cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than those analyzed in the 2002 MND. 6. The October 6 letter alleges air quality impacts from VOC operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD standards, including allegations in a letter from Patrick Sutton attached as Exhibit C. These allegations are based on inaccurate assumptions regarding the Project, and specifically the inaccurate assumption that the Project increases trip generation rates as compared to the previously approved project that was considered with the 2002 MND and supplemental Addendums thereto. Furthermore, the October 6 letter alleges that the assumptions used in the CaIEEMod analysis included in the Addendum were inappropriate. However, the analysis in the Addendum (and the 2002 MND) analyzed and established that the Project will have operational VOC emissions that are below SCAQMD thresholds, and are approximately 20% below the emissions that would have been caused by the previously approved project. As such, the proposed Project will not cause any new or substantially more severe significant air quality impacts than had been analyzed in the previously adopted 2002 MND. S-3 7. With respect to "Valley Fever" impacts alleged in the October 6 letter, including the allegations from the Patrick Sutton letter attached as Exhibit C, there is no substantial evidence of potential adverse health impacts from the proposed Project relating to Valley Fever. The October 6 letter includes generalized statements regarding Valley Fever risks and an increase in reported cases in 2024 in Riverside County generally, but the October 6 letter contains no facts or evidence concerning the presence of the Coccidioides fungus on the Project site or any aspect of the proposed Project that would exacerbate any possible risk of Valley Fever in the City of La Quinta. The October 6 letter also does not consider that the Project site has already been mass graded, and that the completion of Project construction with the proposed Project will reduce the dust, blown sand, and soil erosion risks associated with the partially constructed site. 8. The October 6 letter alleges indoor air quality risks associated with formaldehyde, which includes allegations in the memo from Francis Offerman attached as Exhibit D. There is not, however, any substantial evidence of any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than had been analyzed in the previously adopted 2002 MND. The October 6 letter has generalized statements about building materials and cancer risks, but it contains no information regarding the Project site or the construction materials that would be used for the Project. Furthermore, the October 6 letter does not acknowledge that the proposed Project substantially reduces the amount of building square footage constructed and occupied on the Project site. Conclusion, and Council Findings and Rejection of Allegations In connection with its decision on Ordinance No. 626, and based on the reasons outlined above as well as the substantial evidence already considered by the Council in the Addendum and 2002 MND, the Council may conclude the above -referenced statements serve as its findings, and may reject the allegations and arguments in the October 6 letter, because there is not any new information or change in circumstances that may cause a significant environmental effect that had not been adequately studied in the previously adopted 2002 MND. The Minutes can reflect these findings and decision if so made by the Council Prepared by: Approved by: Bill Ihrke, City Attorney Jon McMillen, City Manager S-4