The URL can be used to link to this page

CC Resolution 2008-024RESOLUTION NO. 2008-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2007061056) PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 83-002, AMENDMENT No. 6; GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-107; ZONE CHANGE 2006-127; TENTATIVE TRACT 33226; SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-852; AND, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2006-011 AS BEING ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE; RECOGNIZING THE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS TO CERTAIN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; AND RECOGNIZING THE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED, BUT WHICH CAN BE REASONABLY MITIGATED, IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED CASE: SUBSEQUENT EIR (SCH #2007061056) APPLICANT: CROWNE POINTE PARTNERS, LLC WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 '` day of April, 2008, hold a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the request of Crowne Pointe Partners LLC (hereinafter "Applicant") for approval of a General plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map, and Site Development Permit, (hereinafter "Entitlement Approvals") to allow construction of a 264-unit residential condominium and townhome project, a guard gatehouse, two common area pools and other recreational amenities (hereinafter "Project"). The Project site is located within the PGA West development, bounded on the north and east by the PGA West Stadium Course and clubhouse, and on the south and west by PGA Boulevard, and more particularly described as: LOT K AND PORTION OF LOT 1, TR 29421; PORTION OF PARCEL 7, PARCEL MAP 20426 WHEREAS, it was determined pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 15000 et seq.) that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR"); and, WHEREAS, on June 11, 2007, the City of La Quinta, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the SEIR; mailed that NOP to public agencies, organizations, and persons likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed Project; and, Resolution No. 2008-024 Subsequent EIR (SCH# 2007061056) Crowns Pointe Partners, LLC Adopted: April 15, 2008 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City thereafter caused to be prepared a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("Draft SEIR"), which, taking into account the comments it received on the NOP, described the Project and discussed the anticipated environmental impacts resulting therefrom, and on November 16, 2007, circulated the Draft SEIR for public and agency comments; and, WHEREAS, the Draft SEIR has been prepared and circulated, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"), as amended (Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.); and, WHEREAS, the public comment period for the DEIR closed on January 2, 2008; and, WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the comments received on the Draft SEIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on February 5, 2008, distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8t" day of January, 2008, hold a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the information presented in the Draft SEIR, along with the request of the applicant for approval of the Entitlement Approvals to allow construction of the Project as a 290- unit residential condominium development of one, two and three-story structures, including a 7,122 s.f. clubhouse facility and 43.5-foot high clock tower (reduced to a maximum 33 feet high), and did in fact recommend such approval to the City Council by a 3-1 vote; and, WHEREAS, subsequent to the Planning Commission recommendation of January 8, 2008, the applicant proposed revisions to the Project, based on both written and oral testimony from residents of PGA West, as presented during the Planning Commission Public Hearing. Said revisions include: 1) a reduction in unit count from 290 to 264; 2) elimination of the third -story elements of the Village units with a reduction of maximum height from 33.6 feet, to 29.5 feet; 3) elimination of the 7,122 s.f. clubhouse facility and 43.5-foot high clock tower; and 4) the addition of a second common area pool and replacement of the 7,122 clubhouse with a smaller common pool and restroom/changing structure; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information pertaining to the Draft SEIR at a duly -noticed public hearing held on April 1 ", 2008; and, Resolution No. 2008-024 Subsequent EIR (SCH# 2007061056) Crowns Pointe Partners, LLC Adopted: April 15, 2008 Page 3 WHEREAS, said Project changes previously described herein were reviewed by the Planning Department pursuant to 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and it was determined that recirculation of the Draft SEIR was not required, because the changes would contribute to an overall reduction of the identified potential Project impacts; and, WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of La Quinta, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA, that the City shall not approve a project unless there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts, which means that all adverse environmental impacts have been avoided to the extent feasible or substantially lessened, and any remaining unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts are acceptable based upon the City's findings and determinations consistent with CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta has read and considered all documentation comprising the Final EIR, and has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the proposed project, and determined it is complete and adequate, that it fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, and reflects the City Council's independent judgment; and, WHEREAS, prior to action on the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, the City Council considered all significant adverse environmental impacts, mitigation measures and proposed project alternatives identified in the FEIR, and has found that all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the Project and implementation of the Entitlement Approvals have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible and the City Council has determined that the proposed alternatives to the Project do not: 1) meet the City's and/or applicant's objectives for the Project Site; and/or 2) are not feasible; and/or 3) are not environmentally superior; and WHEREAS, CEQA provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which a FEIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project unless the public agency makes written factual findings for each of the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the Draft SEIR; and Resolution No. 2008-024 Subsequent EIR (SCH# 2007061056) Crowns Pointe Partners, LLC Adopted: April 15, 2008 Page 4 WHEREAS, CEQA Guideline Section 15093(b) recognizes that the La Quinta City Council may proceed to approve the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, despite the fact that certain potentially significant adverse environmental impacts are identified in the FEIR which are not mitigated to a level of insignificance, where the City has stated in writing the reasons to support its action based upon the Draft SEIR and other information in the public record; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Project is necessary to serve the existing and future needs of the City of La Quinta. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Quinta resolves as follows: SECTION 1. Certification. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR as presented, the City Council certifies the EIR for the Project and that the FEIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council adoption and certification of the FEIR reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to recommending approval of the Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California has reviewed and adopts the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit A, entitled "CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts," which is incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth. SECTION 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, in addition to the findings made in the body of the FEIR, has reviewed and finds that the Statement of Overriding Considerations as shown on the attached Exhibit B, entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," is necessary, and the City Council adopts and incorporates herein by this reference as though fully set forth. SECTION 4. Mitigation Monitoring Program Approval. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project is hereby adopted as Exhibit C. Resolution No. 2008-024 Subsequent EIR (SCH# 2007061056) Crowns Pointe Partners, LLC Adopted: April 15, 2008 Page 5 SECTION 5. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The custodian of the records and proceedings shall be the Planning Director, and such records and proceedings shall be on file in the Planning Department in the City of La Quinta, California. SECTION 6. Notice of Determination and Completion. The City Council requires that the Planning Department Director file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Riverside and with the State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of City Council approval of the Ordinances associated with this action. SECTION 7. Certification, Posting and Filing. The City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this Resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed. The City Clerk shall post the Resolution in three conspicuous places in the City of La Quinta. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, does hereby certify Subsequent Environmental Impact SCH# 2007061056 for General Plan Amendment 2006-107, Zone Change 2006-127, Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment No. 6, Tentative Tract Map 33226, and Site Development Permit 2006-852, as adequate and complete and in compliance with the requirements of CEQA for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. 3. This Resolution shall not take effect until and unless a Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City is executed by all parties and recorded with the Riverside County Recorder's Office. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 15`n day of April, 2008 by the following vote, to wit: Resolution No. 2008-024 Subsequent EIR ISCH# 2007061056) Crowns Pointe Partners, LLC Adopted: April 15, 2008 Page 6 AYES: Council Members Henderson, Sniff, Mayor Pro Tern Osborne NOES: Council Member Kirk ABSENT: Mayor Adolph ABSTAIN: None EEE M. OSBORNE, Mayor Pro Tern City of La Quinta California ATTEST: VERONICA J. N City of La Quin (CITY SEAL) YNT-ECINO, CIVIC, City , California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California EXHIBIT A CEQA FINDINGS and STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA for the SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT NO. 6 (00033855 DOC, I} CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) I. Introduction. The proposed Eden Rock at PGA West Specific Plan project would result in the construction of 264 total residential dwelling units, in three different types of multi -family units. Specifically, (i) 79 manor homes in 25 two-story buildings, with each building including 2 attached townhomes and 1 penthouse unit; plus 2 buildings with 2 attached one-story units in each building; (ii) 83 courtyard homes, located in 41 one and two-story duplex buildings, arranged in courtyards of 4 units, with 1 individual stand-alone unit; and (iii) 102 village condominium homes, located in 17 buildings, each of which will contain 6 units. The project will also include 2 common area pools with restroom/changing facilities as well as an internal pedestrian path system and a designated active recreation lot. The subject site is comprised of approximately 42 acres, located at the northwest corner of PGA Boulevard and Spanish Bay, at the center of the existing PGA West community. The Applicant is requesting that the City: (1) certify of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("SEIR") and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; (2) approve General Plan Amendment No. 2006-127; (3) approve an amendment to the La Quinta Official Zoning Map, Zone Change 2006-127; (4) approve Amendment No. 6 to Specific Plan 83-002; (5) approve Tentative Tract Map 33226; (6) approve of Site Development Permit 2006-852; and (7) approve a proposed Development Agreement 2006-011 (collectively referenced herein as the "Project'). The City of La Quinta (the "City") previously reviewed and approved the original PGA West Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan") that allowed for the development of up to 5,000 residential units, 650 hotel rooms, approximately 120,000 square feet of resort commercial uses and a 20-acre commercial center, all on approximately 1,665 acres. The City certified the PGA West Specific Plan Final EIR (SCH 483062922) in May 1984 (the "Final EIR"), which included the 41.95 Project site as part of the entire 1,665-acre Specific Plan area. The prospective hotel and commercial space was to be developed on the Project site. On September 20, 1988, the City approved an amendment to the Specific Plan, which increased the number of hotel rooms from 650 rooms at four stories, to 1,000 rooms at six stories, and decreased the retail/resort commercial square footage from 120,000 to 100,000. On June 6, 1989, the City approved a second amendment to the Specific Plan, adding an additional 21.5 acres to the northwest portion of the Specific Plan area. A third amendment was approved by the City on August 6, 1996, which involved no land use changes, but updated the Specific Plan to reflect then -current conditions related to unit counts, formatting of the document and minor changes to development standards for residential uses. On October 3, 2000, a fourth amendment was approved by the City which changed the zoning of 20 acres from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential for the Pagel of 73 {00033855 DOC, I } Residence Club project but did not otherwise affect PGA West. A proposed fifth amendment was submitted but never completed. A Plot Plan approval was granted for a 1,000-room, six -story hotel facility site (Plot Plan 89-413) on June 27, 1989, which, again, was to be located on the Project site. The approval, extended twice, was determined to have expired on June 27, 1994. However, the existing General Plan and Specific Plan show a hotel/commercial use for the 42-acre Project site. Applicant now proposes Amendment No. 6 to the Specific Plan for the development of a 290-unit residential condominium project with recreational amenities, including a clubhouse building and common pools, as explained above. City Staff has worked with the EIR consultant, and other outside expert consultants, to ensure that the Subsequent EIR discloses and analyzes all of the Project's potentially significant adverse environmental effects, as well as mitigation measures and Project alternatives that may reduce or avoid these effects to the maximum extent feasible. The Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth below (the "Findings") are made by the City as its findings for the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq.). These Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City regarding the Project's environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives to the Project, and the overriding considerations which, in the City's view, justify approval of the Project, despite the Project's significant environmental effects. II. General Findings and Overview. A. The Eden Rock at PGA West Project. The proposed Specific Plan area is located in La Quinta, approximately 105 miles east of the City of Los Angeles and the Pacific Coast and approximately 240 miles west of the Phoenix/Scottsdale metropolitan region (the "Specific Plan Area"). Access to the Specific Plan Area is provided via the Interstate 10 Freeway from the existing Jefferson Street interchange. The Project as originally submitted contemplates the construction of 290 total residential dwelling units, in three different types multi -family units. Specifically, (i) 79 manor homes in 27 buildings, with each building including 2 attached townhomes and 1 penthouse unit; (ii) 83 courtyard homes, located in two-story duplex buildings, with each court yard consisting of approximately four units and one, individual stand-alone unit; and (iii) 128 village condominium homes, located in 8 buildings, each of which will contain 16 units. Finally, the Project will include a 7,122-square-foot clubhouse/recreation center. Originally, the Project application was for 320 units. Based upon input from neighbors and City Staff, the Applicant reduced the unit count to 310 homes. The number of homes was again reduced to 290 units, prior to circulation of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Finally, prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant Page 2 of 73 (00033855 DOC, I } removed two additional units to provide one-story Manor Homes and adjacent to existing residential duplex units at the northwest corner of the Project site. A series of approvals from the City would be necessary for implementation of the proposed Project. Discretionary approvals may include, but are not limited to, the following: • General Plan Amendment 2006-107: to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element from Tourist Commercial (TC) to Resort Mixed Use (RMU) on the 41.95- acre Project Site; • Zone Change 2006-127: to amend the La Quinta Zoning Map, from Tourist Commercial (CT) to Tourist Commercial/Residential Specific Plan (CT/RSP), on the 41.95-acre Project Site; • Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment No. 6: Amending the PGA West Specific Plan to implement development principles and guidelines for a 290-unit residential condominium Project with a clubhouse building and common pools, on the Project Site; • Tentative Tract Map 33226: A subdivision of 41.95 acres into 97 residential lots, a 1.35-acre community center lot, and other common area lots; • Site Development Permit 2006-852: for site plan and building design approval of 290 one, two, and three-story condominium units on 41.95 acres, a 7,122-square-foot recreation building with a 32-foot by 72-foot common pool, and private entry gatehouse; and • Development Agreement 2006-011: an agreement relating to the Applicant's development of the Project subject to any limitations and exceptions therein or in any related approvals or future discretionary actions as specified in the agreement, and implementing a funding mechanism ensuring payment to the City of La Quinta to financially offset the potential loss in City revenues that may result from the conversion of the original hotel/resort site to residential uses. The Planning Commission reviewed the Eden Rock project on January 8, 2008, and recommended City Council approval, subject to conditions, by a 3-1 vote. There were several residents who presented opposing testimony on the project. Subsequent to the Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant has revised the project to address the majority of issues raised and considered during the January 8 2008 public hearing. The revisions focus on the Village units at the center of the project, and consist of the following: • Reduction in the total unit count, from 290 to 264, by a reduction in the Village unit count, from 128 to 102 • Reduction in Village unit height from 3-story (33.5 feet), to 2-story (29.5 feet) • Revision in unit size range, previously 1,090 to 2,464 s.f; now 1,476 to 2.100 s.f. Page 3 of 73 {00033855 DOC, I } • Elimination of the Garden House recreation facility, and the associated 43.5-foot high clock tower • In lieu of the Garden House, two common pools are provided, at the west and east ends of the Village area, each with a small pool house changing structure, and accessory shade structures. No changes were made to the site plan or architecture relative to the Courtyard and Manor units, as originally presented to the Planning Commission. City staff determined the proposed changes to the project do not require review by the Planning Commission, as they are based on discussion and recommendations made by the Planning Commission at its January 8 meeting. In addition, the proposed changes include components of the alternatives as discussed in the Draft SEIR prepared for the project, such as reductions in the number of units and building height. City staff has also reviewed the changes made to the project in context of the Draft SEIR and, pursuant to 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required. The project changes would contribute to an overall reduction in potential project impacts, and are similar to the alternatives that are analyzed in the Draft SEIR B. Description of the Environmental Impact Report. The City distributed a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study ("NOP") to local, state and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals, for a 30-day comment period from June 11, 2007 to July 12, 2007. The NOP, and the comment letters received on the NOP, can be found in Appendix 1 of the Subsequent Draft EIR. Based on the preliminary review conducted by the City and responses to the NOP, the City found that the Project could have potential environmental effects, including effects on the following: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning; Noise; Public Services; Transportation and Traffic; and Public Utilities. In accordance with CEQA, the City determined the Project raised potentially significant concerns, and determined that a subsequent environmental impact report should be prepared. In November of 2007, the City prepared and released for public review the Draft Subsequent EIR. The Draft Subsequent EIR circulated for a 45-day public review period from November 16, 2007 to January 2, 2008. The City prepared written responses to the comments received during the public comment period and included those responses in the Project's Final Subsequent FIR (the "FSEIR"). The FSEIR for the Project consists of (i) an introduction; (ii) a project description; (iii) the City's responses to comments; (iv) changes to the Draft Subsequent EIR; (v) a list of the prepares of the FSEIR; and (vi) the Draft Subsequent EIR and all appendices thereto. A copy of the FSEIR was made available for public review and provided to all public agencies commenting on the Draft Subsequent EIR at least 10 days prior to certification. C. Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record. For purposes of CEQA and for the Findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for Page 4 of 73 (00033855 DOC; 1) the City's Findings and determinations consists of the following documents and testimony, at a minimum: • The City's General Plan, as amended, and all environmental documents relating thereto; • The PGA West Specific Plan; • The 1983 Traffic Impact Report for PGA West (SP 83-002), including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • The 1984 Draft EIR for PGA West, Specific Plan 83-002, SCH No. 83062922, including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • The 1984 Final EIR for PGA West, Specific Plan 83-002, SCH No. 83062922, including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan 83-002, including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • Environmental Assessment/Environmental Checklist Form for Amendment No. 1 to SP 83-002, including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • The Supplementaf Traffic Study for PGA West prepared in connection with Amendment No. 1 to SP 83-002, including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • The Final Supplemental Traffic Study for Amendment No. 1 to SP 83-002, including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • Amendment No. 2 to Specific Plan 83-002, including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • City of La Quinta Environmental Information Form for Specific Plan 83-002, Amendment No. 2, including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan 83-003, including all Appendices thereto, all Page 5 of 73 100033855 DOC, 11 environmental review documents prepared therefore, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan 83-002, including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • Addendum to Environmental Impact Report for Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan 83-002, including all Appendices thereto, all supporting materials referenced therein and all City Resolutions and Ordinances related to the same; • The Draft Subsequent EIR for Amendment No. 6 to Specific Plan 83-002, including all Appendices thereto and all supporting materials referenced therein; • The Final Subsequent EIR for Amendment No. 6 to Specific Plan 83-002, including all comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR, all responses thereto, and all supporting materials referenced therein; • All testimony and written comments received at any public hearing relating to the Project, including the January 8, 2008 City Planning Commission hearing, and the April 1, 2008 City Council hearing; • All reports of the City relating to the Project, including reports submitted to the City by expert consultants, and all supporting materials referenced therein; • All financial feasibility data, memoranda, and reports submitted by the Applicant; • These Findings made by the City and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") adopted by the City for the Project; • All final City Staff reports relating to the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Final Subsequent EIR and/or the Project; • All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning documents relating to the Project, the Draft Subsequent EIR or the Final Subsequent FIR, prepared by or submitted to the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies; and • All matters of common knowledge to the City, including but not limited to the City's policies, guidelines and regulations. The documents described above, comprising the record of proceedings, are located in the City of La Quinta Planning Department, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253. Page 6 of 73 100033855 DOC, 1 j D. Consideration of the Environmental Impact Report. In adopting these Findings, the City finds that the Final Subsequent EIR (including the Draft Subsequent EIR) was presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final Subsequent EIR prior to making its decision on the Project. The City further finds that the Final Subsequent EIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and its Guidelines. By these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the Final Subsequent EIR. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the mitigation measures specified therein, are hereby approved and adopted, and shall be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other measures. The Final Subsequent EIR and these Findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. E. Severability. If any term, provision or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City. III. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. F. Air Quality 1. Temporary, Localized Air Quality Impacts During Construction (PM10 and PM2.5) (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential temporary and localized air quality impacts, resulting from the Project's construction, are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 5.0-33 through 5.0-35. During the Project's construction, it is anticipated that the maximum 24-hour PMIo and PMZ 5 concentration thresholds, provided by the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), will be exceeded. If these projections are indeed accurate, the Project's construction may create a temporary and localized significant impact. The increase in concentrations of PM10 and PMZ 5 are anticipated to remain significant, Project -specific impacts, even with the implementation of the following mitigation measures. (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant air quality impacts by the following mitigation measures, as described in the Draft Subsequent EIR as MM-AQ-I through MM- AQ-11, which are hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. 1. 5.0-1 -- The Developer shall prepare a Construction Traffic Emission Management Plan to minimize emissions from vehicles Page 7 of 73 100033855 DOC, I } including, but not limited to, scheduling truck deliveries to avoid peak hour traffic conditions, consolidating truck deliveries, and prohibiting truck idling in excess of 5 minutes. 2. 5.0-2 -- The Contractor shall ensure that the use of all construction equipment is suspended during first -stage smog alerts. 3. 5.0-3 -- The Contractor shall install wind monitoring equipment on site, to the extent feasible, and suspend grading activities when wind speeds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines. 4. 5.0-4 -- The Contractor shall maintain construction equipment by conducting regular tune-ups according to the manufacturers' recommendations. 5. 5.0-5 -- The Contractor shall recommend the use of electric welders to avoid emissions from gas or diesel welders to the extent feasible. 6. 5.0-6 -- The Contractor shall recommend the use of on -site electricity or alternative fuels rather than diesel -powered or gasoline - powered generators to the extent feasible. 7. 5.0-7 -- The Contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on all unpaved Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. 8. 5.0-8 -- The Contractor shall ensure that all unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project site are watered at least three times daily during dry weather. 9. 5.0-9 -- The Contractor shall limit the maximum speed on all unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 10. 5.0-10 -- The Contractor shall plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. 11. 5.0-11 -- The Contractor shall comply with the La Quinta Municipal Code, Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive Dust Control), including the preparation of a fugitive dust control plan pursuant to the provisions of the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook. 12. 5.0-12 -- Require compliance with Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive Dust) of the La Quinta Municipal Code, including preparation of PM control plan. (c) Findings. Page 8 of 73 )00033855 DOC, 1) 1. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potential temporary and localized air quality impacts, resulting from the Project's construction, will be substantially lessened, to the maximum extent feasible, through the implementation of the mitigation measures described above, because those mitigation measures will reduce the production of particulates, including PM10 and PM2 5- 2. Remaining Impacts. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the implementation of the mitigation measures described above will not be sufficient to reduce all temporary and localized air quality impacts to less - than -significant levels. Even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project will continue to cause these significant and unavoidable temporary, localized air quality impacts. The significant and unavoidable temporary, localized air quality impacts would be avoided under the No Project Alternative, and would be slightly reduced under the two reduced density alternatives discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR and Final Subsequent EIR (Alternatives 3 and 4). While the No Project Alternative would avoid this impact because there would be no grading or construction activity that would generate fugitive dust, the two reduced density alternatives would only result in slight decreases in PM10 and PM2,5 impacts because the site grading activities that generate fugitive dust would be substantially the same for the proposed Project and for the reduced density alternatives. Accordingly, neither of the reduced density alternatives would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels. Further, the Draft Subsequent EIR identifies no other mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the only mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR, if any, that would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels, as described more fully in the Draft Subsequent EIR, Section VI of these Findings, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. In particular, the City finds that Alternative 1 (No Project) is economically infeasible and fails to achieve any of the basic objectives of the Project, as those objectives are set forth in Sections 1.0 and 3.0 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, including to provide a broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City. Furthermore, the City finds that Alternative 4 (reduction of 123 homes) and Alternative 3 (reduction of 27 Manor Homes) would not meet the project objectives as effectively as the proposed Project, and that given only slight improvement in construction -related air quality impacts would be achieved under these Alternatives, at best, the benefits of the proposed Project substantially outweigh any such slight reduction in construction - related air quality impacts. Page 9 of 73 (00033855 DOC, 1) Finally, the City finds that all three alternatives described above are financially infeasible, based upon the financial information provided by the Applicant. As explained in more detail in the February 8, 2008 Memorandum submitted to the City by the Applicant, Alternative 3 (reduction of 27 Manor Homes) reduces the project revenue without a corresponding level of reduction in project costs, thus reducing the projected profits to a level insufficient to justify the cost and risk of proceeding with the Project. Likewise, Alternative 4 (reduction of 123 homes) also substantially reduces the projected revenue. In fact, given the additional time that would be required to redesign the project, and given the slower projected absorption rate for detached single family homes, the costs under this alternative actually increase, while the revenues decrease, resulting in a projected loss of several million dollars. In short, the City finds that the No Project Alternative and both reduced density alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) are financially infeasible to develop, particularly given the risks and uncertainties in the current residential real estate market, and the City rejects these alternatives as unacceptable on that basis. 3. Overriding Considerations. Any remaining significant temporary, air quality impacts are determined to be acceptable because they are substantially outweighed by the overriding social, economic, environmental and other benefits of the Project, as more fully set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Cumulative, Temporary, Air Quality Impacts During Construction (PMIo and PM2.5) (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential cumulative, temporary and localized air quality impacts, resulting from the Project's construction, are discussed in Draft Subsequent FIR at pages 5.0-42 through 5.0-45. During the Project's construction, it is anticipated that the maximum 24-hour PMIo and PM2.5 concentration thresholds, provided by the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), will be exceeded. If these projections are indeed accurate, and because the basin in which the Project is situated is designated as a nonattainment zone for PMIo and PM2 5, the Project's construction may contribute to temporary significant cumulative impacts. The increase in concentrations of PMIo and PM25 are anticipated to remain cumulatively considerable -- and potentially significant -- impacts, even with the implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned below and provided in Section III.F.I(b). (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant cumulative impacts by mitigation measures 5.0-1 Page 10 of 73 {00033855 DOC, 1 } through 5.0-12, which are set forth above in Section III.F.I (b), and which are also described in the Draft Subsequent FIR as MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-11, which are hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. (c) Findings. 1. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potential, temporary cumulative air quality impacts, resulting from the Project's construction, will be substantially lessened, to the maximum extent feasible, through the implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above, because those mitigation measures will reduce the production of particulates, including PM10 and PM2.5, that would contribute to this cumulative impact. 2. Remaining Impacts. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the implementation of the mitigation measures described above will not be sufficient to reduce all temporary, cumulative air quality impacts to less - than -significant levels. Even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project will continue to cause these significant and unavoidable temporary, cumulative air quality impacts. The Project's contribution to the significant and unavoidable temporary, cumulative air quality impacts would be avoided under the No Project Alternative, and would be slightly reduced under the two reduced density alternatives discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR and Final Subsequent EIR (Alternatives 3 and 4). While the No Project Alternative would avoid any contribution to this impact because there would be no grading or construction activity that would generate fugitive dust, the two reduced density alternatives would only result in slight decreases in PM10 and because PMz 5 impacts because the site grading activities that generate fugitive dust would be substantially the same as for the proposed Project and for these two Alternatives. Accordingly, neither of the reduced density alternatives would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels. Further, the Draft Subsequent EIR identifies no other mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the only mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR, if any, that would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels, as described more fully in the Draft Subsequent EIR, Section VI of these Findings, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. In particular, the City finds that Alternative 1 (No Project) is economically infeasible and fails to achieve any of the basic objectives of the Project, as those objectives are Page 1 I of 73 (00033855 DOC, I} set forth in Sections 1.0 and 3.0 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, including to provide a broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City. Furthermore, the City finds that Alternative 4 (reduction of 123 homes) and Alternative 3 (reduction of 27 Manor Homes) would not meet the project objectives as effectively as the proposed Project, and that given only slight improvements in construction -related air quality impacts would be achieved under these Alternatives, at best, the benefits of the proposed Project substantially outweigh any such slight reduction in construction - related air quality impacts. Finally, the City finds that all three alternatives described above are financially infeasible, based upon the financial information provided by the Applicant. As explained in more detail in the February 8, 2008 Memorandum submitted to the City by the Applicant, Alternative 3 (reduction of 27 Manor Homes) reduces the project revenue without a corresponding level of reduction in project costs, thus reducing the projected profits to a level insufficient to justify the cost and risk of proceeding with the Project. Likewise, Alternative 4 (reduction of 123 homes) also substantially reduces the projected revenue. In fact, given the additional time that would be required to redesign the project, and given the slower projected absorption rate for detached single family homes, the costs under this alternative actually increase, while the revenues decrease, resulting in a projected loss of several million dollars. In short, the City finds that the No Project Alternative and both reduced density alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) are financially infeasible to develop, particularly given the risks and uncertainties in the current residential real estate market, and the City rejects these alternatives as unacceptable on that basis. 3. Overriding Considerations. Any remaining significant temporary, cumulative air quality impacts are determined to be acceptable because they are substantially outweighed by the overriding social, economic, environmental and other benefits of the Project, as more fully set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is incorporated herein by this reference. G. Transportation Parking and Circulation 1. Cumulative Traffic Impacts (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential, cumulative traffic impacts, resulting from the Project's implementation, are discussed in Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 11.0-24 through 11.0-31. Specifically, the Draft Subsequent EIR analyzes Post General Plan without Project (2020) traffic conditions (cumulative without Project traffic condition) at the following six intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours: (i) Washington Street and Avenue 50; (ii) Page 12 of 73 (00033855 DOC, I) Jefferson Street and Avenue 50; (iii) Jefferson Street and Avenue 54; (iv) PGA Boulevard and Westerly Project Access; (v) Southerly Project Access and PGA Boulevard; and (vi) Madison Street and Avenue 54. The intersections at (a) Washington Street and Avenue 50; (b) Jefferson Street and Avenue 50; (c) Jefferson Street and Avenue 54; and (d) Madison Street and Avenue 54 were projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak hours for the cumulative without Project traffic conditions. The intersections at PGA Boulevard and Westerly Project Access and Southerly Project Access and PGA Boulevard would be constructed as part of the Project and, therefore, are not part of the existing without Project condition. The Draft Subsequent EIR also analyzed Post General Plan with Project (2020) traffic conditions (cumulative with Project traffic conditions) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the same six intersections. To assess the cumulative with Project traffic condition, Project traffic was added to cumulative without Project traffic. The Post 2020 General Plan traffic volumes already assume traffic generated by the existing General Plan Project site designation as a hotel, resort land use, and as a result, the traffic study and the Draft Subsequent EIR analysis are conservative, in that no reduction of trips was taken into account with the proposed residential development (as opposed to that of the existing planned hotel use). Therefore the traffic study and analysis in the Draft Subsequent EIR assume a worst case scenario. Significant cumulative impacts would occur at the following study area intersections during peak hours for cumulative with Project traffic conditions: (i) Washington Street and Avenue 50 during the P.M. peak hour; (ii) Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 during the P.M. peak hour; and (iii) Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 during both (A.M. and P.M.) peak hours. (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant cumulative traffic impacts by the following mitigation measures, as described in the Draft Subsequent EIR, which are hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. I. 11.0-1 -- Jefferson Street at Avenue 54: Prior to issuance of the first Project building permit, Project shall pay $125,000 (25%) toward traffic signal at Avenue 54 and Jefferson Street. If City has not commenced installation of said signal prior to the first Project building permit, Project shall install traffic sign prior to first Certificate of Occupancy, with credit for 75% of total cost applied against the traffic component of the City DIF as building permits are issued. 2. 11.0-2 -- Washington Street at Avenue 50: The Project applicant shall contribute its fair -share toward the cost of the following intersection improvements pursuant to the Development Impact Fee program established by the City of La Quinta -- Washington Street at Avenue 50: Page 13 of 73 (00033855 DOC; 1) Construction of a third northbound through lane, a second southbound left -turn lane, a southbound right -turn lane with right -turn overlap phase, second eastbound left-tum lane, a second eastbound through lane, a second westbound through lane, and a westbound right -turn overlap phase. 3. 11.0-3 -- Jefferson Street at Avenue 50: The Project applicant shall contribute its fair -share toward the cost of the following intersection improvements pursuant to the Development Impact Fee program established by the City of La Quinta -- Jefferson Street at Avenue 50: Construction of a second southbound left -turn lane, a second eastbound left -turn lane, and a second westbound through lane. (b) Findings. 2. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potential, cumulative traffic impacts, resulting from the Project's implementation, will be substantially lessened, to the maximum extent feasible, through the implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above, because those mitigation measures will require the Applicant to pay its fair -share of the traffic improvements needed to accommodate cumulative increases in traffic, thereby alleviating traffic congestion attributable to the Project. It should be noted that, as discussed below in Section IV, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 11.0-1, the Project's contribution to the significant cumulative traffic impacts at the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 54 would be reduced to less than significant levels. With regards to the remaining two intersections that are expected to experience significant, cumulative traffic impacts (i.e., the intersections at Washington Street and Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street and Avenue 50), the proposed Project shall contribute its fair -share towards the cost of the necessary improvements through the Development Impact Fee program established by the City. In doing so, those impacts will also be reduced to a less -than -significant level. However, the timing for collection of the remaining funds needed to construct these improvements, and the actual construction of these improvements, cannot be determined with certainty at this time. If the necessary improvements are fully funded and constructed in a timely manner, the Project applicant's payment of the DIF shall reduce the cumulative, significant impacts at the intersections at Washington Street and Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 to a less -than -significant level. While these impacts are capable of mitigation to a less -than -significant level, out of an abundance of caution, they have been identified in this Section III as significant and unavoidable, because the City cannot be reasonably certain that the necessary improvements will actually be constructed at the time the traffic increases occur. Therefore, significant cumulative impacts to these intersections may result if the City Page 14 of 73 100033855 DOC, 1) is not able to collect the additional funds required to construct these improvements when required to provide the capacity needed to accommodate projected cumulative traffic volumes. 3. Remaining Impacts. As explained above, while these impacts are capable of mitigation to a less -than -significant level, out of an abundance of caution, they have been identified in this Section III as significant and unavoidable, because the mitigation measures cannot now be implemented. Significant cumulative impacts to these intersections may result if the City is not able to collect the additional funds required to construct these improvements when required to provide the capacity needed to accommodate projected cumulative traffic volumes. These significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts would be avoided under the No Project Alternative. However, as explained above, the intersections at (a) Washington Street and Avenue 50; (b) Jefferson Street and Avenue 50; (c) Jefferson Street and Avenue 54; and (d) Madison Street and Avenue 54 are already projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak hours even if the Project were not implemented. Under the No Project Alternative, no additional fees would be generated from the Project to fund the necessary improvements. As explained below in Section VI, Alternative 3 would result in 158 fewer daily trips than the Project and, as a result, would result in less traffic when compared to the Project. Nevertheless, while the reduction of 158 trips would reduce the impact to Project area intersections by about 9 percent, Alternative 3 would still result in a significant cumulative traffic impact and would generate less fees to the City to fund the necessary improvements. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen this significant cumulative traffic impact. Also as explained below in Section VI, Alternative 4 would result in 113 fewer daily trips than the Project and, as a result, would result in less traffic when compared to the Project. Nevertheless, while the reduction of 113 trips would reduce the impacts to Project area intersections, Alternative 4 would still result in a significant cumulative traffic impacts and would generate less fees to the City to fund the necessary improvements. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not avoid or substantially lessen significant cumulative traffic impacts. Further, the Draft Subsequent EIR identifies no other mitigation measures or alternatives that would otherwise reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make infeasible the only mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR, if any, that would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels, as described Page 15 of 73 { 00033855 DOC, I } more fully in the Draft Subsequent EIR and Sections VI of these Findings. In particular, the City finds that Alternatives 1 (No Project) is economically infeasible and fails to achieve any of the basic objectives of the Project, as those objectives are set forth in Sections 1.0 and 3.0 of the Draft Subsequent EIR, including the object to provide a broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City. Furthermore, the City finds that Alternative 4 (reduction of 123 homes) and Alternative 3 (reduction of 27 Manor Homes) would not meet the project objectives as effectively as the proposed Project, and that given only slight reductions in vehicle trip generation would be achieved under these Alternatives, the benefits of the proposed Project substantially outweigh any such slight reduction in vehicle trips. Finally, the City finds that all three alternatives described above are financially infeasible, based upon the financial information provided by the Applicant. As explained in more detail in the February 8, 2008 Memorandum submitted to the City by the Applicant, Alternative 3 (reduction of 27 Manor Homes) reduces the project revenue without a corresponding level of reduction in project costs, thus reducing the projected profits to a level insufficient to justify the cost and risk of proceeding with the Project. Likewise, Alternative 4 (reduction of 123 homes) also substantially reduces the projected revenue. In fact, given the additional time that would be required to redesign the project, and given the slower projected absorption rate for single family homes, the costs under this alternative actually increase, while the revenues decrease, resulting in a projected loss of several million dollars. In short, the City finds that the No Project Alternative and both reduced density alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 4) are financially infeasible to develop, particularly given the risks and uncertainties in the current residential real estate market, and the City rejects these alternatives as unacceptable on that basis. 4. Overriding Considerations. Any remaining significant Project - specific cumulative traffic impacts are determined to be acceptable because they are substantially outweighed by the overriding social, economic, environmental and other benefits of the Project, as more fully set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is incorporated herein by this reference. IV. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Significant Impacts and Potentially Significant Impacts which are Avoided or Mitigated to a Less -Than -Significant Level. A. Air Quality 1. Short -Term Construction Impacts. Page 16 of 73 100033855 DOC; 1 j (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potentially significant impacts to air quality, resulting from the Project's construction, are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 5.0-33 through 5.0-36. (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant impacts by mitigation measures 5.0-1 through 5.0-12, which are set forth above in Section III.A.I(b) (and also in Draft SEIR as MM- AQ-1 through MM-AQ-11), and which are hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. (c) Findings. Based upon the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Final Subsequent EIR and the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the above described changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR; 1. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potentially significant construction impacts to air quality (other than those listed in Section III.A.1), will be substantially lessened to a level of less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above, because those measures will substantially reduce the fugitive dust and construction emissions that could occur as a result of the Project's construction. 2. Remaining Impacts. Any remaining air quality impacts resulting from the Project's construction (other than those listed in Section III.A.1), will be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Air Quality Impacts (a) The Project's potentially significant cumulative impacts to air quality, resulting from the Project's construction, are discussed in the Draft Subsequent FIR at pages 5.0-42 through 5.0-45. (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant cumulative impacts by mitigation measures 5.0-1 through 5.0-12, which are set forth above in Section III.A.I(b) (and also in the Draft Subsequent EIR as MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-11), and which are hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. (c) Findings. Based upon the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Final Subsequent EIR and the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the above described changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen this significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft Subsequent FIR: Page 17 of 73 (00033855.DOC, 1) I. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potentially significant cumulative impacts to air quality resulting from the Project's construction, other than those listed in Section III.A.2, will be substantially lessened to a level of less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measure mentioned above, because those measures will substantially reduce the amount of fugitive dust and construction emissions, which could occur as a result of the Project's construction, thus reducing this cumulative impact. 2. Remaining Impacts. Any remaining cumulative air quality impacts resulting from the Project's construction — other than those listed in Section III.A.2 — will be less than significant. B. Cultural Resources 1. Historical Resources (a) The Project's potentially significant impacts to historical resources are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 6.0-4 through 6.0-8. Although the Phase I Assessment found no significant historical resources, it remains possible that such resources could be uncovered during grading and the ground -disturbing activity. (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant impacts by the following mitigation measures, which are also described in the Draft Subsequent EIR, and which are hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. 1. 6.0-1 -- The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors. Proof of retention of monitors shall be given to the City prior to issuance of the first earth -moving or clearing permit. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for notification to and analysis by the City's Planning Director. If prehistoric resources are discovered during monitoring or the subsequent construction phase, the Planning Department shall be notified immediately. 2. 6.0-2 -- Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. Page 18 of 73 (00033855.DOC, 1) 3. 6.0-3 -- The final report on the monitoring shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. 4. 6.0-4 -- A Ramona Band tribal monitor shall be included within the monitoring crew and a meeting to discuss the disposition of any and all archaeological resources discovered and/or collected during monitoring or construction of the Project. The developer/property owner shall enter into a pre -excavation agreement with the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians and the City of La Quinta, which addresses inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources and the disposition of cultural resources found during the development of the Project. 5. 6.0-5 -- Any earth moving activity in Holocene -age lakebed required for the proposed Project shall be monitored by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist shall be empowered to redirect or halt earth moving activities if required to identify and remove resources. The monitor shall also be equipped to quickly remove resources if found. The monitor shall submit, within 30 days of completion of earth moving activities, a report of findings to the Planning Department for its review and approval. 6. 6.0-6 -- Recovered specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. Packaging of resources, reports, etc. shall comply with standards commonly used in the paleontological industry. 7. 6.0-7 -- A report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens shall be submitted to the City Planning Department prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for the Project. The report shall include pertinent discussions of the significance of all recovered resources where appropriate. The report and inventory, when submitted will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources. 8. 6.0-8 -- In the event that human remains are encountered within the Project area, the following actions shall be immediately taken upon the discovery: • Stop work immediately and contact the County Coroner. • The Coroner has two working days to examine human remains after being notified by the responsible person. If the remains are Page 19 of 73 (00033855 DOC, 1) Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC. • The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased Native American. • The most likely descendent has 24 hours to make recommendations to the owner, or representative, for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains and grave goods. • If the owner does not accept the descendant's recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. • If the descendent does not make recommendations within 24 hours, the owner shall keep the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance. (c) Findings. Based upon the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Final Subsequent EIR and the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the above described changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR: 1. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potentially significant impacts to historical resources will be substantially lessened to a level of less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above, because those measures provide for careful monitoring of such resources during grading and construction activities, and provide for specific actions in the event of an unexpected discovery of historical resources. 2. Remaining Impacts. Any remaining impacts to historical resources will be less than significant. 2. Archeological Resources (a) The Project's potentially significant impacts to archeological resources are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 6.0-1 through 6.0-8. Although the Phase I assessment found no significant archeological resources, it remains possible that such resources could be uncovered during grading and other ground - disturbing activity. (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant impacts by mitigation measures 6.0-1 through 6.0-8, which are provided above in Section IV.B.1(b) (and also in the Draft Subsequent EIR), which are hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Page 20 of 73 (00033855 DOC, 1) Monitoring/Reporting Program. (c) Findings. Based upon the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Final Subsequent FIR and the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the above described changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR: 1. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potentially significant impacts to archeological resources will be substantially lessened to a level of less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above, because those measures provide for careful monitoring of such resources during grading and construction activities, and provide for specific actions in the event of an unexpected discovery of archeological resources. 2. Remaining Impacts. Any remaining impacts to archeological resources will be less than significant. 3. Paleontological Resources (a) The Project's potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources are discussed in the Draft Subsequent FIR at pages 6.0-1 through 6.0-8. In particular, the Project site is considered to be in an area of high paleontological sensitivity. (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant impacts by mitigation measures 6.0-1 through 6.0-8, which are provided above in Section IV.B.I(b) (and also described in the Draft Subsequent EIR), which are hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. (c) Findings. Based upon the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Final Subsequent EIR and the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the above described changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR: 1. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources will be substantially lessened to a level of less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above, because those measures provide for careful monitoring of such resources during grading and construction activities, and provide for specific actions in the event of an unexpected discovery of paleontological resources. Page 21 of 73 100033855 DOC, 1 } C. Noise 2. Remaining Impacts. Any remaining impacts to paleontological resources will be less than significant. 1. Cumulative Noise Impacts (a) The Project's potentially significant cumulative noise impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 9.0-23 through 9.0-26. (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant impacts by the following mitigation measures, which are also described in the Draft Subsequent EIR, and which are hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. 1. 9.0-1 -- Excavation, grading, and other construction activities related to construction of land uses contained in the proposed Project shall be restricted to daytime hours only, in compliance with the City's Municipal Code requirements. 2. 9.0-2 -- Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far away from occupied residences as possible, and screened from these uses by a solid noise attenuation barrier. 3. 9.0-3 -- Operate earthmoving equipment on the construction site as far away from vibration -sensitive land uses as possible. 4. 9.0-4 -- Temporary noise barriers with a sound transmission coefficient that would attenuate noise levels at nearby residences to existing ambient levels for all construction phases shall be specified by an acoustical engineer. 5. 9.0-5 -- All stationary construction equipment (e.g., air compressor, generators, etc.) shall be operated as far away from noise sensitive uses as possible. If this is not possible the equipment shall be shielded with temporary sound barriers, sound aprons, or sound skins. 6. 9.0-6 -- Equipment used for construction of the proposed Project shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g., jackhammers) wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatically powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. A muffler could lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dB(A). External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dB(A). Page 22 of 73 (00033855 DOC, I} 7. 9.0-7 -- Quieter procedures shall be used (such as drilling rather than impact equipment) wherever feasible. The Project applicant shall require construction contractors to ensure that construction equipment is fitted with sound reduction equipment, per manufacturers' specifications. 8. 9.0-8 -- Signs shall be posted prior to construction activities with contact information for residents report noise complaints. 9. 9.0-9 -- Residential units and outdoor living areas shall incorporate setbacks from roadways and the construction of noise barriers suitable to assure that exterior noise levels for residential development do not exceed the amended standards. 10. 9.0-10 -- Project designs, such acoustical specifications for window glass, shall be required to include measures which assure that interior noise levels for residential development do not exceed 45 CNEL. (c) Findings. Based upon the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Final Subsequent EIR and the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the above described changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen this significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR: 1. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potentially significant cumulative noise impacts will be substantially lessened to a level of less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above, because those measures limit construction hours, regulate construction activities, place certain restrictions on the construction equipment to be used, and incorporate project design features that serve to reduce the Project's contribution to cumulative noise impacts. 2. Remaining Impacts. Any remaining cumulative noise impacts will be less than significant. D. Public Services 1. Impacts to Schools (a) The Project's potentially significant impacts to schools are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 10.3-2 through 10.3-4, and include both project -specific and cumulative increases in the demand on school facilities. (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant impacts by the following mitigation measure, which is also described in the Draft Subsequent EIR, and which is hereby adopted and Page 23 of 73 00033855 DOC, 1 } will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. 1. 10.3-1 -- The project developer shall pay the school developer fees in effect at the time of development prior to zone clearance for the individual residences and other proposed structures. The fees obtained in this mitigation measure provide the maximum amount of mitigation that can be imposed by the City to mitigate significant impacts on school facilities. Under Government Code Section 65995, the payment of these fees would reduce the direct and cumulative impacts of the project to less than significant levels. (c) Findings. Based upon the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Final Subsequent EIR and the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the above described changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR: 1. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potentially significant impacts to schools will be substantially lessened to a level of less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measure mentioned above, because that measure requires the Project developer to pay the maximum amount of school impact fees allowable under Government Code Section 65995, in order to fund additional school facilities. By way of such payment, impacts to schools will be statutorily mitigated to less than significant levels. 2. Remaining Impacts. Any remaining impacts to schools will be less than significant. F. Transportation, Traffic, Parking and Circulation 1. Traffic Impacts to the Intersection of Jefferson at Avenue 54 (a) The Project's potentially significant traffic impacts to the intersection of Jefferson at Avenue 54 are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 11.0- 10 through 11.0-24. (b) Mitigation Measure. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant impacts by the following mitigation measure, which is also described in the Draft Subsequent EIR, and which is hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. 1. 11.0-1 -- Jefferson Street at Avenue 54: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall pay $125,000 to the City to cover the project's obligation for this traffic signal. Prior to issuance of the 132"d (50% of units) building permit the developer shall conduct a traffic Page 24 of 73 t00033855 DOC, I) warrant study. It shall be determined by the Public Works Director if traffic signal warrants are met for this intersection. If warrants are met, the Public Works Director shall add the signal to the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for construction the following year. If traffic signal warrants are not determined to be met pursuant to the aforementioned, a second signal warrant determination shall be conducted by the developer prior to issuance of the 264s' building permit. If the Public Works Director determines warrants are met, the signal improvement shall be added to the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for construction the following year. (c) Findings. Based upon the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Final Subsequent EIR and the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the above described changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant Project -specific traffic impacts to the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 54, as identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR: 1. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potentially significant traffic impacts to the intersection of Jefferson at Avenue 54 will be substantially lessened to a level of less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measure mentioned above, because this will ensure that the traffic signal is warranted and installed, if needed, when the Project begins contributing any vehicle trips to this intersection. 2. Remaining Impacts. Any remaining traffic impacts to the intersection of Jefferson at Avenue 54 will be less than significant. 2. Cumulative Traffic Impacts -- Intersections (a) The Project's potentially significant cumulative impacts to the intersections at (i) Washington Street and Avenue 50 (P.M. Peak hour); (ii) Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 (P.M. Peak hour); and (iii) Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 (A.M. and P.M. Peak hour) are discussed in the Draft Subsequent FIR at pages 11.0-24 through 11.0-31. These impacts are also analyzed and discussed in Section III.G, above, as potentially significant and unavoidable if City -funded improvements are not in place when additional Project trips occur. (b) Mitigation Measures. The Project has been modified to mitigate or avoid these potentially significant impacts at the above -described intersections by the following mitigation measures, which are also described in the Draft Subsequent EIR, and which is hereby adopted and will be implemented by the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program. 1. 11.0-1 -- Jefferson Street at Avenue 54: Prior to issuance of the first Project building permit, Project shall pay $125,000 (25%) toward Page 25 of 73 j00033855 DOC, 1 } traffic signal at Avenue 54 and Jefferson Street. If City has not commenced installation of said signal prior to the first Project building permit, Project shall install traffic sign prior to first Certificate of Occupancy, with credit for 75% of total cost applied against the traffic component of the City DIF as building permits are issued. 2. 11.0-2 -- Washington Street at Avenue 50: The Project applicant shall contribute its fair -share toward the cost of the following intersection improvements through the Development Impact Fee program established by the City of La Quinta -- Washington Street at Avenue 50: Construction of a third northbound through lane, a second southbound left -turn lane, a southbound right -turn lane with right -turn overlap phase, second eastbound left -turn lane, a second eastbound through lane, a second westbound through lane, and a westbound right -turn overlap phase. 3. 11.0-3 -- Jefferson Street at Avenue 50: The Project applicant shall contribute its fair -share toward the cost of the following intersection improvements through the Development Impact Fee program established by the City of La Quinta -- Jefferson Street at Avenue 50: Construction of a second southbound left -turn lane, a second eastbound left -turn lane, and a second westbound through lane. (c) Findings. As explained above in Section IILB, the cumulative traffic impacts to the intersections at (i) Washington Street at Avenue 50; and (ii) Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 will only be mitigated to a level of less -than - significant if and when the City funds and constructs these improvements through its DIF program. However, out of an abundance of caution, and because it is not now known if or when these improvements will be constructed, the cumulative traffic impacts to these two intersection are discussed both in this Section IV and above in Section III.G. Based upon the Draft Subsequent EIR, the Final Subsequent EIR and the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the above described changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, and if and when the City funds and constructs these improvements through its DIF program, doing so will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft Subsequent EIR: 1. Effects of Mitigation. The Project's potentially significant cumulative intersection -related traffic impacts will be substantially lessened to a level of less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measures mentioned above, if and when the City funds and constructs these improvements through its DIF program because these improvements will improve the level of service at the above -described intersections, such that any traffic impacts at those locations will be less - than -significant. 2. Remaining Impacts. Any remaining cumulative intersection - Page 26 of 73 100033855 DOC, I } related traffic impacts will be less than significant. V. Findings and Recommendations Regarding Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant. A. Aesthetics 1. Views. (a) Potential Impact. Implementation of the Project will result in the construction of a mix of several different types of residential dwelling units and a 7,122 square -foot clubhouse with a 33 foot high clock tower, as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 4.0-9 through 4.0-30 (the clock tower has been reduced from 43 feet to 33 feet, as recommended by the Planning Commission, so the tower will be no higher than the adjacent buildings). (b) Findings. There are no scenic or historic resources located on the Project site. The Project Site is not visible from any designated scenic highways. The Project's layout, and its proposed location, minimize impacts to views, and in particular, views of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Moreover, the clock tower has been reduced in height to no taller than the rooflines of the Village Homes. For these reasons, and for other reasons mentioned in the Draft Subsequent EIR, any impacts to views as a result of the Project's implementation are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less - than -significant impact. 2. Visual Character (a) Potential Impact. Implementation of the Project will result in the construction of a mix of several different types of residential dwelling units and a 7,122 square -foot clubhouse with a 33 foot high clock tower, as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 4.0-9 through 4.0-30. (b) Findings. The Project Site is currently vacant graded land. The site is surrounded on all sides by existing development. No significant native habitats occur on the site. The Project density is compatible with existing densities within PGA West. As proposed, the Project would complete the buildout of the PGA West Specific Plan as a golf -oriented resort and residential development. Finally, the Project has been designed to be consistent with the visual character of the existing PGA West community. For these reasons, and for other reasons mentioned in the Draft Subsequent EIR, any impacts to the visual character of the Project site and its surrounding areas are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 3. Light & Glare Page 27 of 73 J00033855 DOC, 1) (a) Potential Impact. Implementation of the Project will result in the construction of a mix of several different types of residential dwelling units and a 7,122 square -foot clubhouse with a 33 foot high clock tower, as discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 4.0-9 through 4.0-30. (b) Findings. Light is emitted by existing residential uses located near the Project Site. Project lighting would be required to meet applicable City of La Quinta standards, including the City's Lighting "Dark Sky" Ordinance. Moreover, light and glare generated by the Project would be typical of residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Project Site. For these reasons, and for other reasons mentioned in the Draft Subsequent EIR, any impacts related to light and glare resulting from the Project's implementation are considered to be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than - significant impact. B. Air Quality 1. Criteria Pollutants — Operations (a) Potential Impact. The Project's operational air quality impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 5.0-36 through 5.0-42. (b) Findings. Operational emissions at the Project site would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources as a result of normal day-to-day activities on the Project site after occupation. Stationary emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices. Emissions would also be generated through landscaping activities, architectural coating applications, and the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to, from, and within the Project site. These sources of emissions were taken into account, and their projected amounts were calculated using the data and methodologies identified in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook and in current motor vehicle emission factors in the URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management Software. As indicated in the Draft Subsequent EIR, operational emissions associated with the complete build out and operation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. For these reasons, and for other reasons mentioned in the Draft Subsequent EIR, air quality impacts related to the Project's operation are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 2. Localized Carbon Monoxide Emissions — Operations (a) Potential Impact. Localized carbon monoxide ("CO") emissions resulting from the Project's operations are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 5.0-36 through 5.0-42. Page 28 of 73 t00033855 DOC; 1) (b) Findings. The Project will not result in CO concentrations that exceed state or federal standards, an no significant CO hotspot impacts will occur to sensitive receptors. For these reasons, and for other reasons mentioned in the Draft Subsequent FIR, any air quality impacts resulting from localized CO emissions from the Project's operations are expected to be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 3. Consistency with SCAG AQMP Population Projections (Regional Attainment for Ozone) (a) Potential Impact. The Project's consistency with the Southern California Association of Governments' ("SCAG") Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP") population projections is discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 5.0-36 through 5.0-42. (b) Findings. The proposed Project would not exceed SCAG's 2004 projected population in the City of La Quinta. Therefore, based on the SCAG's most recent AQMP, implementation of the Project would not jeopardize the area's regional attainment plan for ozone. For these reasons, and for other reasons mentioned in the Draft Subsequent EIR, any impacts related to the region's attainment for ozone, resulting from the Project's implementation, are expected to be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 4. Odors (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to air quality, as a result of the possible production of objectionable odors, are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 5.0-36 through 5.0-42. (b) Findings. The proposed residential and recreational uses on the Project site will not generate objectionable odors. For this reasons, and for other reasons mentioned in the Draft Subsequent EIR, any air quality impacts related to objectionable odors from the Project's implementation are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than - significant impact. 5. Hazardous Materials (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to air quality, as a result of the possible presence of hazardous materials, are discussed in the Draft Subsequent FIR at pages 5.0-36 through 5.0-42. (b) Findings. The Project will not result in hazardous materials on -site, and Page 29 of 73 (00033855 DOC, 1) will not be a source of toxic air contaminants regulated by the SCAQMD, state, or federal government, except as a result of normal use of household and consumer products, architectural coatings, and similar products. For these reasons, and for other reasons mentioned in the Draft Subsequent EIR, any air quality impacts related to hazardous materials generated from the Project's implementation are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 6. Cumulative Regional Air Quality Impacts (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality from the Project's operations are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 5.0-42 through 5.0-48. (b) Findings. The additional residents and resulting vehicle trips from the Project are consistent with SCAQMD's forecasts. In addition, the ratio of Average Daily Trips ("ADTs") for the Project compared to Riverside County as a whole, is less than the population ratio. Under the applicable SCAQMD method, the Project's incremental contribution to cumulative, regional air quality impacts is not considered cumulatively considerable. For these reasons, and for other reasons mentioned in the Draft Subsequent FIR, any cumulative impacts to regional air quality resulting from the Project's implementation are expected to be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 7. Cumulative Impacts to Global Climate Change (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential cumulative impacts to global climate change, as a result of the Project's implementation, are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 5.0-43 through 5.0-45. (b) Findings. To date, no quantitative emission thresholds or similar criteria have been established to evaluate the cumulative impact of a single project on the global climate. Nonetheless, the Climate Action Team ("CAT"), established by Executive Order S-3-05, has recommended strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of Executive Order S-3-05. In its report to the Governor and the Legislature, the CAT recommended strategies that could be implemented by various state boards, departments, commissions, and other agencies to reduce GHG emissions. The EIR analyzes several Project design features and mitigation measures that would result in lower fuel combustion emissions, reduced energy usage, water conservation, and other collateral benefits with respect to GHG emissions. Since the Project is (i) consistent with the CAT's Vehicle Climate Change Standards; (ii) compliant with the CAT's HFC Reduction Strategies; (iii) meets or exceeds California energy standards and/or energy efficient lighting requirements; and (iv) conforms with the local water efficient landscape ordinance and/or the landscape and ornamental budget Page 30 of 73 100013855 DOC, I ) outlined by the Department of Water Resources, the proposed Project would substantially lessen its contribution to GHG emissions and global climate change, and would not meaningfully contribute to cumulative global climate change impacts from GHG emissions. C. Cultural Resources 1. Disturbance to Human Remains (a) Potential Impact. The Project will involve the construction of a 290-unit residential development on currently vacant land. Construction will include some grading and excavation. The Project's potential to disturb human remains is discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 6.0-5 through 6.0-8. (b) Findings. The proposed Project Site is not a known burial site or cemetery. No remains are known to have been interred at the Project Site. The proposed Project will be subject to state legal requirements, which mandate that the coroner be contacted, and that he/she take responsibility for proper disposal of remains, and for Native American consultation, if necessary, should any remains be found. For these reasons, any impacts related to the disturbance of human remains are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 2. Cumulative Impacts to Culture Resources (a) Potential Impact. The Project will involve the construction of a 290-unit residential development on currently vacant land. Construction will include some grading and excavation. The Project's potential cumulative impacts to cultural resources are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on page 6.0-8. (b) Findings. According to the City of La Quints Comprehensive General Plan Draft EIR, cumulative impacts to cultural resources will be reduced to a less than significant level, provided that all development projects are reviewed by a qualified archeologist, historian and/or architectural historian, and that all such sites are surveyed for cultural resources. The proposed Project will be subject to such review. For these reasons, any cumulative impacts to cultural resources resulting from the Project's implementation are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. D. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Water Quality Standards and Waste Discharge Requirements (a) Potential Impact. Impacts related to water quality standards and waste Page 31 of 73 100033855 DOC, 1) discharge requirements are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 7.0-3 through 7.0-7. (b) Findings. The Project will be connected to Coachella Valley Water District ("CVWD") sanitary sewer lines, rather than septic tanks, thereby eliminating the potential for contamination of groundwater. In addition, the proposed Project will be required to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") requirements for storm flows during the Project's construction and during its operation. These requirements are designed to assure that water quality is not impacted by development sites, and for these reasons, any impacts related to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for these less -than -significant impacts. 2. Groundwater Supplies and Groundwater Recharge (a) Potential Impact. The Project will involve the construction of a 290-unit residential development, which will consume existing groundwater supplies. Impacts related to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 7.0-3 through 7.0-7. (b) Findings. Domestic water for the Project will be supplied by the CVWD, which has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan ("UWMP") based on General Plan land uses in all the jurisdictions within its service area, which would include the much greater water demands of the approved hotel use on the Project site. The UWMP demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve the proposed Project -- in addition to existing demand -- without substantially depleting groundwater supplies. The CVWD also has a water management plan in place to address groundwater overdraft. For these reasons, any impacts to groundwater supplies, or related to groundwater recharge, resulting from the Project's implementation are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for these less -than -significant impacts. 3. Stream/River Course Alternation/Substantial Erosion/Siltation (On and Off Site) (a) Potential Impact. The Project will involve the construction of a 290-unit residential development, which will require some grading and excavation. Potential impacts related to on- and off -site stream or river course alternation, and potential impacts related to erosion and siltation, are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 7.0-3 through 7.0-7. (b) Findings. Project improvements on the site include catch basins and a storm drain system, which would channel stormwater to the pre-existing outlet, located south of the Project site. All infrastructure would be integrated into the Page 32 of 73 �00033855 DOC, 1 } existing stormwater system designed within PGA West. The City Public Works Department has reviewed the Project as it relates to the current hydrologic conditions, and the approved drainage system for the PGA West Specific Plan, and has determined that Project runoff would be accommodated by the existing master drainage design for PGA West with installation of the proposed improvements. The City Engineer will review hydrological analysis of the proposed Project prior to issuance of grading permits to assure that the Project would effectively control stormwater runoff. Additionally, since the Project would add pavement and landscaping to the Project Site, the potential for on -site erosion would decrease. Since proposed on -site improvements would accommodate Project drainage and limit erosion, impacts associated with erosion on- and off -site would be less than significant with Project implementation. Finally, no rivers or streams are located on or adjacent to the Project Site, and no rivers or streams are currently affected by drainage on the Project Site. For these reasons, potential impacts related to on- and off -site stream or river course alternation, and potential impacts related to erosion and siltation resulting from the Project's implementation, are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for these less -than -significant impacts. 4. Alteration of Existing Draining Patterns and Amount of Surface Run - Off Potentially Causing Flooding (On and Off Site) (a) Potential Impact. The Project will involve the construction of a 290-unit residential development, which will require some grading and excavation. Potential impacts related to drainage patterns and surface run-off resulting from the Project's implementation are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 7.0-3 through 7.0-7. (b) Findings. The Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site by increasing the amount of impervious surfaces, and by the installation of a drainage infrastructure. However, all infrastructure would be integrated into the existing stormwater system designed within PGA West. The City Public Works Department has reviewed the Project as it relates to the current hydrologic conditions, and the approved drainage system for the PGA West Specific Plan. The City Public Works Department has determined that Project drainage would be accommodated by the existing master drainage design for PGA West, with installation of the proposed improvements. As discussed above, no rivers or streams are located on or adjacent to the Project Site and no rivers or streams are currently affected by drainage on the Project Site. For these reasons, any impacts related to drainage patterns and surface run-off resulting from the Project's implementation are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for these less -than -significant impacts. 5. Run -Off Quality and Quantity (a) Potential Impact. The Project will involve the construction of a 290-unit Page 33 of 73 {00033855 DOC, 1) residential development, which will create additional impervious surfaces, and possible give rise to additional run-off. Potential impacts related to run-off resulting from the Project's implementation are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 7.0-3 through 7.0-7. (b) Findings. As discussed above, the proposed drainage improvements would adequately facilitate drainage associated with the Project. Therefore, the Project will not generate runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems. In addition, residential areas do not typically generate substantial quantities of polluted runoff. Finally, potential impacts from runoff generated by the Project will be reduced through compliance with City policies and mandates, including implementation of water efficient landscaping. For these reasons, potential impacts related to run-off are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for these less -than -significant impacts. 6. Construction of Project -Related Storm Water Facilities (a) Potential Impact. The Project will involve the construction of a 290-unit residential development, which will create additional impervious surfaces, and possibly give rise to additional storm water run-off. Potential impacts from the construction of Project -related storm water facilities are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 7.0-3 through 7.0-7. (b) Findings. The Project will require construction of new on -site stormwater drainage facilities, such as catch basins and a new storm drain across PGA Boulevard south of the Project Site. This infrastructure improvement will be integrated into the existing system serving PGA West, and no expansion of the existing facilities beyond these improvements and minor curb and gutter widening will be required. All drainage plans will be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits, to ensure compliance with all applicable drainage standards set by the City. For these reasons, potential impacts from the possible construction of Project -related storm water facilities are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than - significant impact. 7. Flood Hazards (a) Potential Impact. The Project will involve the construction of a 290-unit residential development, which will create additional impervious surfaces, and possibly give rise to flood hazards. Potential impacts related to these possible flood hazards are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 7.0-3 through 7.0-7. (b) Findings. The Project Site is not located within a FEMA flood zone. Therefore, the Project will not place housing within, or otherwise interfere with, a Page 34 of 73 {00033855 DOC; I) 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA. The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of a levee or dam. Finally, additional drainage facilities will be constructed, as described above. For these reasons, potential impacts related to the possible flood hazards resulting from the Project's implementation are considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. 8. Seiche, Tsunamis and Mudflows (a) Potential Impact. Potential impacts related to, or resulting from, seiche, tsunamis and/or mudflows are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 7.0-3 through 7.0-7. (b) Findings. Based upon the location of the Project site, there are no potentially significant impacts or hazards related to, or resulting from, seiche, tsunamis and/or mudflows resulting from the Project's implementation. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 9. Cumulative Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality (a) Potential Impact. Potential cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 7.0-6 through 7.0-7. (b) Findings. As described above, the Project's design includes all necessary water and drainage infrastructure to serve the Project, and as a result, the Project will not cause or contribute meaningfully to any significant cumulative impacts relating to hydrology and water quality. E. Land Use and Planning 1. Physical Division of an Established Community (a) Potential Impact. Implementation of the Project will result in the construction of a mix of several different types of residential dwelling units and a 7,122 square -foot clubhouse with a 33 foot high clock tower. The Project site is located in the middle of the existing PGA West Community. The Project Site is currently undeveloped, vacant land, and is the last portion of the PGA West Community that has not been developed, with the exception of 15-20 scattered residential lots. The fully -developed properties adjacent to the Project Site consist of golf courses and single-family residential units. Approximately 2,500 developed residential units exist within the PGA West Community. The Project's potential to create a physical division of an existing, established community is discussed in the Draft Subsequent FIR at page 8.0-7. (b) Findings. The Project will not have a significant land use and planning impact due to the physical division of an established community because the Page 35 of 73 (00033855 DOC, 1) residential project will be constructed on presently vacant land, and will be integrated into the existing single-family residences and golf courses that surround the Project site. In addition, the Project will maintain the existing golf cart path built around the site and will not impede, restrict or remove any part of the path. Additionally, structures on the site will not visually divide the existing community, as the tallest structures will be located within the central interior portion of the Project Site. 2. Potential Conflicts with Applicable Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 8.0-7 through 8.0-19. (b) Findings. As specified in Amendment No. I to the PGA West Specific Plan, dated September 20, 1988, the Project site is currently designated for the development of a six -story 1,000-room hotel and an associated retail development of approximately 100,000 square feet. Surrounding uses, as explained, are residential in nature (other than the existing golf courses). While the proposed Project is not consistent with the current land use designation for the Project Site, it is consistent with surrounding uses. Many areas within the existing PGA West Community have net densities between five and eight units per acre. The net densities for the proposed Project range from 6.5 units per acre to 14.3 units per acre, with a proposed overall net density of just under seven units per acre. Therefore, the Project density is compatible with existing densities within PGA West. The Project's proposed landscaping and architectural elements are consistent with the existing visual character of the PGA West community and the City of La Quinta. The Project applicant's requested entitlements, including a Specific Plan Amendment, a General Plan Amendment, a Site Development Permit, a Tentative Tract Map and a Development Agreement, would ensure that the proposed Project would not conflict with either the adopted General Plan or the PGA West Specific Plan. Additionally, the Project applicant's requested change to the existing zoning designation would ensure that the proposed Project would not conflict with the City's Municipal Code, Title 9, Zoning. For these reasons, the proposed Project will not create any potential conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations. Accordingly, any impacts related to such potential conflicts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required for these less -than -significant impacts. 3. General Plan Consistency Page 36 of 73 100033855 DOC, I } (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential inconsistencies with the City's existing General Plan are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 8.0-9 through 8.0-19. (b) Findings. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan's Land Use Element — Residential Goals. Policies and Programs, because it (i) will increase the number of multi -family units within the City; (ii) will be compatible with the residential character of PGA West; (iii) is designed for compatibility with adjacent land uses (i.e., residential in nature), with a similar net density; and (iv) will comply with the approved Specific Plan development standards and all City standards for residential developments. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan's Land Use Element — Other Land Use Goals, Policies and Programs, because it (i) will not disturb existing open space areas or existing recreational resources; and (ii) will comply with the Quimby Act under the City Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan's Traffic and Circulation Elements, because (i) it will result in less than significant project -level traffic impacts; (ii) it will retain the existing golf course path built around the site, thereby encouraging the use of continuous and convenient access to recreational areas; and (iii) all new on -site roadways will be developed to City of La Quinta standards. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan's Open Space Element, because it will (i) provide for 12.9 acres of open space on site for use by Project residents; and (ii) not alter any existing on -site or off -site recreational open space uses. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan's Parks and Recreation Element, because it will (i) provide for approximately 12.9 acres of open space, including 3.62 acres of active open space, thereby creating sufficient recreational facilities to meet the active and passive recreational needs of its residents; and (ii) comply with the Quimby Act under the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan's Natural Resources Element because (i) it will neither result in significant operational air quality impacts, nor would it expose residents to point sources of substantial pollutants; (ii) it is not located within close proximity to air pollution point sources; (iii) it will comply with Title 24 standards for energy efficiency; (iv) no paleontological resources are known to occur on the site; and (v) any impacts to water resources, hydrology and water quality will be less than significant. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan's Infrastructure Page 37 of 73 (00033855 DOC, I ) and Public Services Element because (i) impacts to public safety will be less than significant; (ii) the Project Applicant shall be required to pay school impact mitigation fees; (iii) it will improve the Project site with drainage facilities, and will not otherwise be subject to stormwater or flooding hazards; (iv) it will include recycling facilities and will not result in any significant impacts related to solid waste; (v) it will connect to the existing water infrastructure within PGA West, which will adequately meet the water needs of the Project; (vi) it will connect to the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure within PGA West, which will adequately meet the wastewater needs of the Project; (vii) impacts to water, wastewater, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas will all be less than significant; (viii) the Project applicant will pay its fair -share of the cost of new utility improvements implemented to serve the Project; and (ix) underground utility and electric wires up to 34.5 kilovolts will be buried. The proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan's Environmental Hazards Element because (i) it will comply with the Uniform Building Code; (ii) the Project Site is not located within a blow sand or wind erosion hazard area; (iii) the Project will improve the Project site with drainage facilities, such that no significant flooding impacts will occur; and (iv) noise impacts will be less than significant. For these reasons, impacts related to potential inconsistencies with the City's existing General Plan are expected to be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. Therefore, the City finds that the Project is consistent with the City's General Plan goals and policies, and the Project will not have any significant impacts relating to General Plan consistency. 4. SCAG Plan Consistency (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential inconsistencies with the SCAG's existing Plan are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at page 8.0-19. (b) Findings. The Project is consistent with the overall goals established by SCAG because (i) it is an infill development project and is located within an area presently served by transportation and utilities infrastructure; (ii) the Project Site is currently a vacant, partially graded lot that has been disturbed by past uses, and the development of the site will not result in the removal of any significant biological, scenic, or cultural resources; (iii) it will utilize existing infrastructure adjacent to the Project Site, which would reduce the cost and potential impacts of adding infrastructure in an undeveloped area without existing infrastructure; and (iv) Project Site is not located within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("CVMSHCP"). For these reasons, the Project will be consistent with the SCAG's existing Plan, and all such impacts are expected to be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. Page 38 of 73 J00033955 DOC; 1) 5. Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential cumulative land use and planning impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at page 8.0-20. (b) Findings. The City's buildout of its General Plan is expected to increase the City's population to 72,208 residents, from a current population of 41,000. The proposed Project will introduce 290 multi -family dwelling units, which represents a 1.2 percent increase in the anticipated number of units at General Plan buildout. The Project only represents a 1.2 percent increase in the City's anticipated population at General Plan buildout. Such an increase in growth is not considered significant. For these reasons, the Project's potential cumulative land use and planning impacts are expected to be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. F. Noise 1. Construction -Related Noise Impacts (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential construction -related noise impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 9.0-15 through 9.0- 18. (b) Findings. Based upon the Project's compliance with the limitation on construction hours set forth in the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, and the distance from the Project site to the nearest sensitive receptors, any construction noise impacts related to the Project's construction are considered less than significant. In addition, daily transportation of a maximum of 107 construction workers during the building construction phase is expected to cause slight increases in noise levels along Project roadways; however, noise levels from such trips will be less than significant because any such increases would be imperceptible at less than 3 dB(A). Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 2. Vibration and Ground -Borne Noise Impacts (a) Potential Impact. Persons residing and working in the area surrounding the Project could be exposed to the generation of ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels related to construction activities. Such impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 9.0-17 through 9.0-18. (b) Findings. Pile driving equipment will not be used during the Project's construction activities. Large bulldozers —which, out of all the equipment to be used on the Project site, would create the greatest amount of vibration —are capable of producing approximately 81 VdB at 50 feet. However, since the large Page 39 of 73 (00033855 DOC, 1 } bulldozers will be used in excess of 50 feet from the nearest sensitive land uses and would cause substantially less than 70 vibration events per day, construction activities are not expected to exceed the Federal Railroad Administration ("FRA") groundbome vibration threshold. For these reasons, impacts related to vibration and ground -borne noise are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 3. Operational Noise Impacts -- Off -Site Noise Impacts (a) Potential Impact. Implementation of the Project will result in the construction of 290 total new residential dwelling units; and, once completed, the Project's operation will generate some additional roadway noise. The Project's operational off -site noise impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent FIR at pages 9.0-19 through 9.0-23. (b) Findings. The Draft Subsequent EIR included a noise modeling study, which quantified the traffic noise level increases along 16 applicable and relevant roadway segments in order to identify the roadway noise level change attributable to the proposed Project. That study found that the roadway noise level increases attributable to the Project range from 0.0 dB(A) to 0.9 dB(A), which are not noticed by the human ear. Since all relevant roadways shall be smooth, ground - borne vibration from traffic will barely be perceptible, if at all. Finally, the residential uses resulting from the Project will only generate noise typical of residential neighborhoods, including people talking, cars starting, lawn equipment, etc.; none of which will generate noise levels unacceptable for such uses. For these reasons, off -site operational noise impacts from the Project's implementation are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 4. On -Site Noise Impacts (a) Potential Impact. The Project's operational on -site noise impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 9.0-21 through 9.0-23. (b) Findings. As with off -site noise impacts, roadway noise on the adjacent circulation system will generate noise contours that could extend into the proposed Project area. Future roadway noise volumes in the year 2020 were utilized — and assumed a worst -case scenario -- when calculating these projected contours along public roadways adjacent to the Project's future residences. The Draft Subsequent EIR's noise study found that the loudest roadway noise contour at the future residential exterior living areas would be 63.8 dB(A) CNEL, which is below the City's Comprehensive General Plan amended exterior standard of 65 dB(A) for sensitive receptors. Finally, all residential dwelling units are required to comply with Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code for the conservation of energy associated with building design and construction. The Project's residences will be constructed with insulated walls, glazed windows, and weather stripping Page 40 of 73 {00033855 DOC, 1 } on all doors and windows opening to the exterior. As a result, interior noise levels along PGA Boulevard are expected to be below the interior threshold of 45 dB(A) CNEL for residential space as stated in Title 24. For these reasons, on -site operational noise impacts from the Project's implementation are considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required for this less -than - significant impact. 5. Airport Noise Impacts (a) Potential Impact. The Project's susceptibility to potential airport -related noise impacts is discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on page 9.0-23. (b) Findings. The proposed Project site is located over 7 miles from the nearest airport land use or private airstrip. For this reason, potential airport - related noise impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. G. Public Services 1. Impacts to Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services are discussed in the Draft Subsequent FIR at pages 10.1-1 through 10.1-4. (b) Findings. With regards to fire protection during the Project's construction, (i) water facilities must be installed before construction is started; (ii) all buildings must be inspected to insure code compliance; and (iii) the Project construction site will be subject to CVWD and Riverside County Fire Department standards relative to water availability and Fire Department firefighting equipment accessibility standards. With regards to fire protection and emergency medical services during the Project's operation, (a) all construction must comply with the La Quinta Municipal Code and the California Fire Code; (b) hydrants will be installed and the Project site plan must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department; (c) the Project applicant must pay the City development impact fees in the amount of $10,423 for the provision of future fire facilities, based on the incremental need for additional facilities resulting from the proposed Project; (d) according to the Fire Department, no additional fire department resources will be needed to address the fire prevention and fire suppression needs of the Project; and (e) while the Project will increase the demand for paramedic services -- due to the increased human activity at the site -- that increase will not be beyond the ability of the Fire Department and American Medical Response ("AMR"), which provides paramedic services to the City. Finally, with regards to cumulative impacts, the Fire Department continually review new development plans and proposals; and the City will continue to coordinate with the Fire Department and the CVWD to ensure the timely expansion of facilities and water Page 41 of 73 (00033855.DOC; 1 } infrastructure, and insure that all new development comply with fire codes and other applicable standards. For these reasons, impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 2. Impacts to Police Protection Services (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to police protection services are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 10.2-1 through 10.2- 4. (b) Findings. The Project Site is located within the PGA West community, which is fully gated and stationed with security guards at entry points 24 hours a day. The Sheriffs planning standard for police protection services is one officer per every 1,000 residents. Currently, the ratio is 1.1 officers per 1,000 residents. The Project's implementation will not materially disturb this current ratio. Rather, it will only decrease the ratio to 1.07 officers per 1,000 residents, which complies with the Sheriffs planning standard. With regards to cumulative impacts, the City's Comprehensive General Plan EIR explains that while the demand for additional police protection services in the City is expected to increase substantially as the City continues to grow, the cumulative impacts will be less than significant because (i) the Sheriffs Department will review new development plans and proposals; (ii) new development will incorporate additional security features; and (iii) the City will monitor Sheriffs Department staffing levels to insure adequate police services. For these reasons, impacts to police protection services are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 3. Cumulative Impacts to Schools (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential cumulative impacts to schools are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 10.3-3 through 10.3-4. (b) Findings. As stated in the City of La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan EIR, although the demand for additional school services will increase substantially as the City continues to grow, the cumulative impact will be less than significant because all future project applicants are required to pay school impact fees, just as the Project applicant here is required to pay such fees, to ensure the construction of adequate school facilities. For these reasons, the Project's cumulative impacts to schools are expected to be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 4. Impacts to Parks and Recreation (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to parks and recreation Page 42 of 73 (00033855 DOC, I) are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 10.4-1 through 10.4-3. (b) Findings. The Project's Garden House facility, which would serve all residences of the proposed Project, consists of exercise rooms, a large main pool, children's pool, spa/Jacuzzi and clubhouse. Since recreational facilities would be provided to residents of the proposed Project, the Project will result in a reduced need for additional public parks or recreational facilities. California's Quimby Act provides a required standard of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which standard is also utilized by the City. The introduction of 832 residents will require an additional 2.5 acres of park and recreational area to comply with the Quimby Act requirements. However, the proposed Project includes 3.62 acres of active open space. As a result, the Project meets its on -site requirement for parkland. Additionally, Project applicant will pay the City's park impact fees for park improvements. Finally, as stated in the City's Comprehensive General Plan, although the demand for open space resources will increase over time, the cumulative impact will be less than significant with implementation of the Quimby Act for the dedication of parkland or in -lieu fees. For these reasons, the Project's impacts to parks and recreation are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 5. Impacts to Library Services (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to library services are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 10.5-1 through 10.5-3. (b) Findings. The Project will marginally reduce the current ratio of 0.24 square foot of library space per resident by approximately 2 percent. However, the planned interior renovations to the City's library will add approximately 10,000 additional square feet of library space. With this renovation, and including the approximately 832 residents attributable to the Project, the City's ratio of square feet of library space per resident will increase by 100 percent to 0.48, which is very close to the recommended standard of 0.5 square foot per resident. Furthermore, the Project applicant will pay the City's development impact fees for library improvements. Finally, as stated in the City's Comprehensive General Plan EIR, although the overall demand for additional library services will increase as the City continues to grow, the cumulative impact is considered less than significant because the City and Riverside County will continue to monitor usage at the City's library and determine appropriate mitigation fees to provide adequate library services. For these reasons, the Project's impacts to library services are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required. H. Transportation, Traffic, Parking and Circulation 1. Traffic Impacts to Roadway Segments Page 43 of 73 (00033855 DOC, 1) (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to roadway segments are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 11.0-12 through 11.0-31. (b) Findings. The City Traffic Engineer has determined that all of the roadway segments that could potentially be impacted by the proposed Project are currently operating at an acceptable LOS, will continue to do so with the additional vehicle trips generated by the Project. Moreover, the Traffic Impact Analysis for the City's General Plan, and the associated analysis in the City's General Plan EIR, determined that all roadway segments potentially impacted by the proposed Project (those roadway segments connecting the studied intersections) would operate at an acceptable LOS in the Post (2020) General Plan traffic conditions, with and without the Project. That traffic analysis was based on the development of a hotel, resort land use on the Project site, as designated by the General Plan, and utilized a daily trip rate of 250 trips per acre for such uses. The General Plan's Traffic Impact Analysis estimated that the existing hotel/resort land use on the Project site would generate approximately 10,488 average daily trips. The proposed Project is estimated to only generate 1,711 average daily trips, 8,777 fewer average daily trips than anticipated in the General Plan Traffic Impact Analysis. Given that all roadway segments potentially impacted by the proposed Project (those roadway segments connecting the studied intersections) would operate at an acceptable LOS in the Post (2020) General Plan traffic condition, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to roadway segments. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 2. Air Traffic Safety Risks (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential air traffic safety risk impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on page 11.0-19. (b) Findings. The nearest airport to the proposed Project is the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, located approximately 6 miles southeast of the Project site. Given the distance of the nearest airport, the proposed Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. For these reasons, air traffic safety risk impacts from the Project's implementation are considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. 3. Traffic Design Feature Hazards (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts related to traffic design feature hazards are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 11.0-12 through 11.0-31. (b) Findings. All roadways will be designed to City of La Quinta standards Page 44 of 73 {00033855 DOC, t } and will meet minimum City requirements for fire truck and ambulance access. The Project will be required to adhere to standard engineering practices and requirements, and will be subject to planning and design review by the City to avoid traffic hazards created by design features and land use incompatibilities, or inadequate emergency access. For these reasons, impacts related to traffic design feature hazards are considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. 4. Emergency Access (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts related to emergency access are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on page 11.0-20, (b) Findings. As indicated, all roadways will be designed to the City's standards and will meet minimum City requirements for fire truck and ambulance access. Secondary emergency access would be provided to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal. For these reasons, potential impacts related to emergency access are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required. 5. Parking (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential parking impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 11.0-20 through 11.0-22. (b) Findings. The City Code requires that the Project provide 870 spaces. The proposed Project will provide a total of approximately 871 parking spaces, which is slightly above the 870 total spaces required by the City's municipal code. For these reasons, the Project's parking impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. 6. Alternative Transportation (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts related to alternative transportation are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on page 11.0-22. (b) Findings. The proposed Project will provide 164 golf cart spaces as part of the Courtyard and Manor homes. Golf carts will utilize the proposed private street rights -of -way for travel within the Project site. The City's General Plan indicates that expanding golf cart usage can provide an enjoyable, convenient, economical and safe alternative to automobile use. On -site circulation consists of private streets. The City's General Plan does not require bike paths, trails, landscaped setbacks or similar improvements on private streets. The proposed Project will not conflict with the City bus route used to service the Project (Line 70). Since the Project will provide golf cart parking, allow access to PGA West in general, and not conflict with existing bus routes, the Project will not conflict Page 45 of 73 {00033855 DOC, I } with the City's adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, and for these reasons, the Project's potential impacts related to alternative transportation are considered less than significant. 7. All Intersections Other Than Jefferson at Avenue 54 (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to area intersections are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 11.0-12 through 11.0-31. (b) Findings. A traffic study was prepared in conjunction with the Draft Subsequent EIR. That study indicated that, for the existing (2007) LOS without and with the Project Traffic Conditions, all study area intersections other than Jefferson at Avenue 54 are projected to operate at an acceptable LOS during existing plus Project peak hour conditions. Development of the proposed Project could also result in a significant impact, as defined by the Engineering Bulletin, to the intersection of Jefferson Street at Avenue 50 because the Project would add 25 or more trips to that intersection, which is currently operating at LOS D. However, because the Project would result in a less than one second increase in peak hour delay, and because that intersection would operate at an acceptable level for the existing (2007) with Project traffic condition, this impact would not require mitigation at the project level, and is not considered a significant project - specific impact. For these reasons, the Project's potential impacts to area intersections, other than Jefferson at Avenue 54, are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than - significant impact. 8. Cumulative Traffic Impacts on all Roadway Segments (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to area roadway segments are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 11.0-24 through 11.0-31. (b) Findings. The Traffic Impact Analysis for the General Plan and the associated analysis in the General Plan EIR determined that all roadway segments potentially impacted by the proposed Project (those roadway segments connecting the studied intersections) will operate at an acceptable LOS in the Post (2020) General Plan traffic condition, even assuming the much higher vehicle trips generated by the approved hotel use by the site. The currently proposed Project would generate 8,777 fewer average daily trips than anticipated in the General Plan Traffic Impact Analysis, and as a result, the City Traffic Engineer determined that the proposed Project will reduce roadway segment loads on all roadway segments potentially impacted by the proposed Project (those roadway segments connecting the studied intersections). Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to roadway segments, and no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. Page 46 of 73 100033855 DOC, I } 9. Cumulative Traffic Impacts on all Intersections other than those listed in Sections III.G and IV.F. (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to area intersections are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 11.0-24 through 11.0-31. (b) Findings. At post General Plan build -out, without Project (2020) traffic conditions (i.e., cumulative without Project traffic condition), all study area intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak hours. Although the Post 2020 General Plan traffic volumes already assume traffic generated by the existing General Plan Project site designation as a hotel, resort land use, the traffic study and the Draft Subsequent EIR analysis are conservative in that no reduction of trips has been taken into account with the proposed residential development (i.e., they assume implementation of the currently approved 1,000 room hotel). The proposed Project's trips have been added to these Post 2020 General Plan volumes without any trip reductions, and therefore, the traffic study and this analysis assume a worst case scenario. The traffic study shows that significant cumulative impacts would occur at the following study area intersections during peak hours for cumulative with project traffic conditions: Washington Street and Avenue 50 during the PM peak hour; Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 during the PM peak hour and Jefferson Street and Avenue 54 during both peak hours. Since these potential impacts are significant, but reduced to a level of less -than -significant following mitigation, these impacts are addressed in Section F. Impacts to all other intersections would be less than significant. 10. Cumulative Impacts Regarding Traffic Design Feature Hazards (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential cumulative impacts regarding traffic design feature hazards are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at page 11.0-29. (b) Findings. Development of the proposed Project and related projects would be required to adhere to standard engineering practices and requirements, and would be subject to planning and design review by the City to avoid traffic hazards created by design features and land use incompatibilities. For these reasons, and because such impacts (if and when they occur) are relatively site specific, cumulative impacts associated with such hazards are less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for these less - than -significant impacts. 11. Cumulative Emergency Access Impacts (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential cumulative impacts regarding emergency access are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at page 11.0-29. Page 47 of 73 {00033855 DOC, 1 } (b) Findings. Development of the proposed Project and related projects would be required to adhere to standard engineering practices and requirements, and would be subject to planning and design review by the City to avoid inadequate emergency access. For these reason, and because such impacts (if and when they occur) are relatively site specific, cumulative impacts associated with emergency access are less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 12. Cumulative Impacts Parking (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential cumulative impacts regarding parking are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at page 11.0-29. (b) Findings. Under the City's Municipal Code, the proposed Project and related projects will be required to comply with design guidelines and provide adequate on -site parking as conditions of development approval, and, thus, it is unlikely that related projects will have a significant cumulative effect on parking design or demand in the area. For these reasons, cumulatively significant impacts are not anticipated. As stated, the Project is anticipated to provide parking in excess of code required parking. Consequently, project -related impacts will not be cumulatively considerable and will be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 1. Public Utilities 1. Water Supply & Demand — Construction (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential construction -related impacts on water supply and demand are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 12.1-3 through 12.1-5. (b) Findings. During the construction phases of development, water from water tank trucks would be used to suppress dust generated by/from (i) earthmoving activities, (ii) the operation of vehicles on dirt surfaces, and (iii) exposed dirt surfaces. However, this water consumption during construction would be minimal and temporary, and as such, the impacts to water facilities and supplies would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 2. Water Supply & Demand — Operational (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts on water supply and demand are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 12.1-3 through 12.1- 5. Page 48 of 73 (00033855 DOC, 1} (b) Findings. The CVWD has indicated that it will provide water service to the proposed Project in accordance with the District's current regulations. Those regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the Project applicant. Furthermore, if additional pipelines or other facilities are required by the CVWD for service to the Project site, the Project applicant will pay a fair - share contribution towards the cost of the same. As explained below, the CVWD has analyzed and planned for the projected increase in water demand between 2010 and 2030, and will be able to accommodate the Project demand. With the payment of CVWD's fees, the Project will result in a less than significant impact associated with the construction of new facilities. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 3. Water Supply & Demand — Cumulative (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential cumulative impacts on water supply and demand are discussed in the Draft Subsequent FIR at pages 12.1-3 through 12.1-5. (b) Findings. As stated in the City of La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan EIR, although water demand will increase as the City continues to grow, the cumulative impact would be less than significant because the City and CVWD will review all new development to assess potential impacts to local groundwater supplies, and insure that new development incorporates on -site retention and detention basins to replenish groundwater subbasins. For these reasons, the Project's contribution to cumulative water supply and demand impacts will not be considerable and are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 4. Wastewater (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential wastewater impacts are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 12.2-2 through 12.2-4. (b) Findings. CVWD has sufficient Infrastructure and excess treatment capacity to serve the Project, and collects fees from all new development it serves to fund future planned expansion. For these reasons, potential project -specific and cumulative wastewater impacts are considered less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 5. Solid Waste — Construction (a) Potential Impact. The Project's solid waste impacts related to construction are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 12.3-2 through 12.3-5. Page 49 of 73 (00033855 DOC; 1) (b) Findings. The Project Site is currently undeveloped and therefore no demolition waste would be generated. Solid waste generated during construction will represent only a slight marginal increase in solid waste flows. To facilitate construction recycling efforts, the City of La Quinta encourages developers to recycle the maximum amount of construction waste possible and publishes a pamphlet which identifies companies that recycle materials such as asphalt, brick, cardboard, concrete, green waste, metal, roofing, and wood waste among others. Since construction waste will result in a short-term and only minimal increases in solid waste disposal, and since many types of construction waste can be recycled, this impact would be less than significant. For these reasons, solid waste impacts related to the Project's construction are considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. 6. Solid Waste — Operational (a) Potential Impact. The Project's impacts related to solid waste are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 12.3-2 through 12.3-5. (b) Findings. Operation of the Project will result in the continuous and long- term generation of solid waste. However, on account of the existing Citywide waste diversion rate of 59 percent, approximately 226 tons of solid waste generated from the Project would be diverted from area landfills. Therefore, the Project is expected to result in the annual disposal of 157 tons of waste into area landfills. This represents a less than 1 percent increase over the City's total landfilled waste in 2005. Given that Project -generated waste represents a marginal increase in the City's total disposal and that waste diversion measures such as participation in the City's recycling program will be undertaken, sufficient landfill capacity exists to serve the Project. Therefore, impacts associated with landfill capacity are expected to be less than significant. Moreover, the proposed Project will be required to participate in the City's residential solid waste recycling program, and the recycling of landscaping waste. Compliance with these programs will result in a reduction of solid waste exceeding 50 percent, thereby complying with the goals specified in AB 939. Pursuant to the California Integrated Waste Management Board's "Model Ordinance" and the City's Zoning regulations, the proposed Project will provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Therefore, since the Project would comply with applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste, the project -specific and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Consequently, no mitigation measures are required for this less -than -significant impact. 7. Electricity — Operational (a) Potential Impact. The Project's impacts related to electricity are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 12.4-3 through 12.4-5. Page 50 of 73 100033955 DOC, I) (b) Findings. No additional power generation facilities will be required to serve the Project, and the Imperial Irrigation District maintains at least a 15% reserve over projected maximum electricity demand every year. Given the reserve requirement, additional future generation capacity, imported energy and the Project's compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency standards, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in energy demand relative to the availability of supply, and the impact of the Project on electrical supply would thus be less than significant. Moreover, Electricity to serve the proposed Project would be transmitted to the area via the existing IID transmission and distribution lines in the local vicinity. For these reasons, project -specific and cumulative impacts related to electricity are considered less than significant. 8. Natural Gas — Operational (a) Potential Impact. The Project's impacts related to natural gas are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 12.5-2 through 12.5-5. (b) Findings. The Gas Company has indicated that it can accommodate new service to planned developments within the City of La Quinta through continued coordination with developers. The City requires that all new development finance its fair share of public utilities infrastructure and improvements required to properly service the proposed development. The proposed gas distribution system for the Project will be installed by the applicant, and will connect to the adjacent existing distribution system in accordance with the Gas Company's policies and extension rules. No significant environmental impacts are expected to occur on account of this connection. Moreover, construction of new facilities is not anticipated, and as such, no significant environmental impacts associated with construction are expected. For these reasons, project -specific and cumulative natural gas impacts from the Project's implementation are considered less than significant. 9. Telephone and Cable Television (a) Potential Impact. The Project's impacts related to telephone and cable television services are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 12.6-1 through 12.6-2. (b) Findings. It is the responsibility of the Project applicant to enter into contracts with Verizon and Time Warner Cable for telephone and cable television service. This will be completed following approval of the proposed Project. Given that the Applicant shall coordinate with Verizon and Time Warner Cable to provide service to the Project, the project -specific and cumulative impacts related to telephone and cable television, and their related facilities, are expected to be less than significant. Page 51 of 73 00033855 DOC, I } J. Other Effects Found Not To Be Significant 1. Agricultural Resources (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to agricultural resources are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on pages 13.0-1 through 13.0-2. (b) Findings. The Project site is vacant, graded land and is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland. The Project site is currently zoned as Tourist Commercial, with existing hotel and commercial approvals dating back to the mid-1980s. The proposed Project will not conflict with any existing agricultural zoning. There are no Williamson Act contracts associated with the Project site or the properties in the immediate vicinity. Finally, land surrounding the Project site is developed with low density residential and golf uses. No designated or existing Farmland would be affected by implementation of the proposed Project. For these reasons, the Project's potential impacts to agricultural resources are considered less than significant. 2. Biological Resources (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to biological resources are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on pages 13.0-2 through 13.0-3. (b) Findings. The proposed Project site is currently vacant graded land, and is an in -fill site surrounded by existing residential and golf course uses. There are no species of concern identified as occurring on the Project site, nor were any species of concern observed during a visual inspection of the Project site. There have been no species observed on or around the Project site that are identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species on local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, the Project site has already been heavily impacted by previous grading activities and uses since the late 1980s. Portions of the site have been used as construction staging areas, stockpiling areas, and other uses associated with construction of the PGA West Specific Plan area over the years. The site is surrounded on all sides by existing development. No significant native habitat occurs on the site, and no sensitive natural community exists on the Project site or its surrounding areas. The proposed Project site does not occur in a survey area for any sensitive species, as identified in the General Plan. Furthermore, the site is not identified as a conservation area in the CVMSHCP. There are no areas of riparian habitat or any other identified sensitive natural community on the site. Page 52 of 73 100033855 DOC, 1 } The Project site is not in proximity to, nor does it contain, wetland habitat or a blue -line stream. There are no marshes or vernal pools located on or around the Project site. Therefore, Project implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Therefore, no impact would result. The local area consists of established, developed properties; the Project site and the immediate area do not contain native resident or migratory species or native nursery sites. In addition, there are no wildlife migration corridors in the Project area. There are no local policies or ordinances that seek to protect biological resources that are applicable to the Project site. Finally, the proposed Project occurs outside the fee boundary for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. If the CVMSHCP is implemented before or concurrent with Project construction, the Project applicant will be required to pay fees in place at that time. There are no other adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans applicable to the Project site. For all of these reasons, the Project's potential impacts to biological resources are considered less than significant. 3. Geology and Soils (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts to geology and soils are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on pages 13.0-4 through 13.0-5. (b) Findings. The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As part of the Coachella Valley, the site is located in a seismically active region and could experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake. However, the Project must comply with the Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zones and, as designed, the Project will not expose people or structures to unique, potential substantial adverse effects related to earthquakes or strong seismic groundshaking. The site is within the liquefaction hazard area mapped in the General Plan. Liquefaction could cause damage to the Project structures if it were to occur at the site. However, if liquefiable soils or soils subject to seismic settlement are found, appropriate site preparation and foundation design measures shall be included in the Project design. Existing building codes (Uniform Building Code) and General Plan criteria to address liquefaction are in place to allow proper design and construction practices. Page 53 of 73 {00033855.DOC, I} The site is flat, and is not located near a hillside. Thus, there is no potential for landslides and no impact would result. The site is presently vacant and predominantly consists of exposed soils. While construction activity may result in temporary soil erosion, buildout of the Project would actually reduce the potential for soil erosion by increasing the amount of paved and developed surfaces on the site and introducing soil - stabilizing features through landscaping. Therefore, impacts to soil erosion would not be significant. Soil settlement could damage structures, pavements, and subsurface utilities on the Project site. However, since the soils on the Project site generally have relatively similar densities, the potential for seismically induced differential settlement is low. Additionally, as mentioned, existing building codes (Uniform Building Code) and General Plan criteria to address liquefaction are in place to allow proper design and construction practices. Moreover, soils in the area of the Project site are not expansive. For these reasons, impacts to geology and soils are considered less than significant. 4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on pages 13.0-5 through 13.0-6. (b) Findings. The proposed Project would result in the storage by individual homeowners of small amounts of chemicals for household cleaning purposes. Homeowner participation in the household hazardous waste programs implemented by Burrtec throughout the City, and Riverside County -sponsored hazardous waste disposal events, would serve to reduce the potential for improper disposed of household chemicals. Because of its residential nature, no routine transport, use, or disposal of any other hazardous materials is contemplated by the Project, and no release of hazardous materials is projected or expected. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the Project site. As such, the potential for wildland fires to affect the site is not significant. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the Project area, or its surrounding areas. The Project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip, so no such hazard exists. The Project has been considered and integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning, and therefore, the impact to emergency response and evacuation would not be significant. Page 54 of 73 00033855 DOC; 1) Finally, the Project site is not within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school; nor will it emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, no impact would result. For these reasons, the Project's potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are considered less than significant. 5. Mineral Resources (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts related to mineral resources are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on page 13.0-7. (b) Findings. The Project site is located in an area of the City designated as Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which indicates that no mineral resources occur. As such, no impact to mineral resources would occur as a result of the proposed Proj ect. 6. Population and Housing (a) Potential Impact. The Project's potential impacts related to population and housing are discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on pages 13.0-7 through 13.0-8. (b) Findings. With Project implementation, the City's 2010 projected population and household count would be exceeded. However, since both the population and housing estimates are well within SCAG 2015 and 2030 projections, the Project has been accounted for within long-range growth projections for the City. Furthermore, the PGA West Specific Plan, which includes the Project site, was originally approved for 5,000 residential units. Subsequent amendments reduced that total to 3,936 units. PGA West currently contains approximately 2,500 units, and is predominantly built out with exception of the Project Site. With construction of the Project, PGA West buildout would contain approximately 2,800 units, which is well within the approved unit count for the Specific Plan area. Finally, the site is currently vacant; thus, the Project would not displace people or housing units. For these reasons, the Project's potential impacts related to population and housing are considered less than significant. K. Other CEQA Considerations 1. Significant Irreversible Environmental Impacts (a) Potential Impact. Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by implementation of a proposed Project to ensure that such changes are justified. Irreversible changes include the use of nonrenewable resources during construction and operation of a Project to such a degree that the use of the Page 55 of 73 { 00033855 DOC, 1 } resource thereafter becomes unlikely or infeasible. A significant environmental change can result from a primary and/or secondary impact that generally commits future generations to similar uses. Irreversible environmental change can also result from environmental accidents associated with the Project. The Project's potential to cause significant irreversible environmental impacts is discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 13.0-8 through 13.0-9. (b) Findings. Operation of the proposed Project would occur in accordance with Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, which sets forth conservation practices that limit the amount of energy consumed by the proposed Project. The limited use of potentially hazardous materials contained in typical cleaning agents and pesticides for landscaping would occur on the site, similar to currently ongoing uses for the existing developed landscaping, golf and residential surrounding the Project site. However, such materials would be used, handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable government regulations and standards that would serve to protect against a significant and irreversible change resulting from accidental release of hazardous materials. The commitment of the nonrenewable resources required for the construction and operation of the proposed Project would limit the availability of resources for future uses and future generations in the larger regional setting during the life of the proposed Project. However, given the Project's limited size and scope, the use of such resources is not expected to be of such a degree that their use thereafter would become unlikely or infeasible. For these reasons, the Project's potential to cause significant irreversible environmental impacts is considered less than significant. 2. Growth -Inducing Impacts (a) Potential Impact. Pursuant to section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project is considered to have growth -inducing potential if the project would foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area by (i) removing an impediment to growth; (ii) giving rise to economic expansion or growth; (iii) establishing a precedent -setting action; or (iv) developing on or encroaching onto an isolated or adjacent area of open space (i.e., the project is distinct from an "infill" type of project). Should a project meet any one of these criteria, it can be considered growth inducing. Changes from a project that could be precedent -setting include, among others, a change in zoning, general plan designation, general plan text, or approval of exceptions to regulations that could have implications for other properties or that could make it easier for other properties to develop. The Project's potential to cause growth -inducing impacts is discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR at pages 13.0-9 through 13.0-11. (b) Findings. The Project site is located within the PGA West Specific Plan Page 56 of 73 {00033855 DOC, I) area, which is completely developed with golf course and single-family residential uses with the exception of the Project site and 15 to 20 scattered residential lots. The Project is considered "in -fill" -type development. Due to the nature of the surrounding development, all transportation, water, sewer, wastewater, and solid waste infrastructure required to support the proposed Project would be available through existing systems within surrounding streets. Since the surrounding area is completely developed, and the necessary infrastructure to support the Project is already in place, the proposed Project does not remove impediments to growth. Moreover, the Project's addition of 290 multi -family units is responding to goals defined in the City's General Plan. Bringing multi -family housing to the area is a response to an existing identified market demand, rather than creating a new demand for housing. The applicant is requesting several development approvals, in order to subdivide the Project Site, including a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), Tentative Tract Map (TT), Site Development Permit (SDP), and Development Agreement (DA). These development approvals are not considered precedent -setting actions because with approval of these actions, uses proposed in the Project would be in compliance with the adopted PGA West Specific Plan, the adopted City General Plan, and the City's Municipal Code. These actions are typical for development projects proposed in the City, and as such, these actions are consistent with existing precedents. Since the Project site is completely surrounded by developed land and considered "in -fill" development, it does not have the potential to result in growth inducement through the development of, or encroachment into, isolated or open space areas. For these reasons, the Project's potential to cause growth -inducing impacts is considered less than significant. VI. Findings Regarding Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft Subsequent EIR . A. Alternative 1 — No Project The No Project Alternative, discussed in the Draft Subsequent EIR on pages 14.0- 5 through 14.0-8, involves no construction. Under this alternative, the Project Site would remain vacant and in its current condition. The No Project Alternative would result in a continuation of existing conditions at the Project Site; i.e., the Project Site would remain vacant and be a possible candidate for other development proposals, consistent with the City's current General Plan and zoning designations for the site. With regards to aesthetics, the Project would partially obstruct views of the Page 57 of 73 {00033855.DOC, 1} adjacent Santa Rosa Mountains, whereas the No Project Alternative would result in no new aesthetic impacts. However, as explained above, the Project's impacts to aesthetics are less than significant. As such, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant aesthetic impacts. Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no change in air quality resulting from development at the site. No new source of stationary or mobile emissions would be implemented and no new sensitive receptors would be introduced onto the site. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in an increase in emissions and a significant air quality impact due to site grading operations during construction. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Project, Alternative I would reduce or substantially lessen significant air quality impacts. Under the No Project Alternative, the site would not experience any excavating activities that could unearth and interfere with historic artifacts or archaeological resources. In comparison, development of the site could unearth previously unknown archeological or historical resources. Nevertheless, even with the implementation of the Project, impacts related to cultural resources are expected to be less than significant or mitigated to a less -than -significant level. As such, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts to cultural resources. Under the No Project Alternative, existing drainage, erosion and sedimentation patterns on the site would remain unaltered. Sediment carried by storm flows on the site could impact the surrounding drainage system. The Project would improve the site with drainage facilities. Therefore, the No Project Alternative could have a greater impact on storm water quality due to unrestricted flows. The No Project Alternative would not introduce potential pollutants, such as oils and other fluids, to the site and thus would have a lesser impact related to the introduction of pollutants to the area compared to the proposed Project. Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not contribute to the depletion of groundwater supplies. Nevertheless, even with the Project's implementation, these other potentially significant impacts (pollution and groundwater supplies) are expected to be less than significant. With regards to land use, under the No Project Alternative, the existing General Plan land use designation of Tourist Commercial (TC) and zoning designation of Tourist Commercial (CT) would remain in effect. The Project would change the land use designation to Resort Mixed Use (RMU) and the zoning designation to Tourist Commercial Residential Specific Plan Overlay Zone (CTIRSP) allowing the development of 290 multi -family dwelling units on the site. However, these land use impacts are expected to be less than significant. As such, Alternative 1 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant land use impacts. Under the No Project Alternative, no new stationary or mobile noise sources would occur. Additionally, no new residents, which would be sensitive receptors to noise, would be introduced to the site. The proposed Project would permanently increase ambient noise levels in the area due to the addition of trips generated by the Project to streets in the vicinity. However, all impacts related to noise resulting from the Project's implementation are expected to be less than significant or mitigated to a less -than -significant level. As such, Alternative 1 would Page 58 of 73 (00033855 DOC, 1) not avoid or substantially lessen any significant noise impacts. As for public services, under the No Project Alternative, demand within the City would not increase. The proposed Project would increase the demand for public services, but all impacts to such services are less than significant or mitigated to a less -than -significant level. As such, Alternative I would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts to public services. With regards to public utilities, under the No Project Alternative, there would be no increases in water demand, wastewater, solid waste, or energy service requirements. The proposed Project would increase the demand for all these services. However, the Project's impacts to public utilities are less than significant. As such, Alternative I would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts to public utilities. Finally, with regards to transportation and traffic, the No Project Alternative would not generate any new vehicle trips from the site. The proposed Project would result in less than significant project -level impacts with implementation of mitigation. However, the Project could result in significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts if, and only if, the City does not fund and construct the identified intersection improvements in a timely manner. The No Project Alternative could potentially avoid such significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts associated with the Project. It should be noted, however, that even without the implementation of the Project, several area intersections are already projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak hours, as discussed above in Section III.G. Significantly, under the No Project Alternative, no impact fees would be generated to fund the necessary improvements, already needed under General Plan buildout, even without the proposed Project. As stated, the No Project Alternative could result in greater water quality impacts due to unrestricted flows and lack of drainage facilities. However, the No Project Alternative would avoid the significant Project impacts associated with construction emissions and cumulative increase to traffic. As such, the No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. However, by not developing the proposed Project at this site, the following General Plan and Project objectives would not be met: • High quality development which promotes the City's image as "The Gem of the Desert"; • A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City; • Provide PGA West residents with the option to downscale from larger single- family units to smaller multi -family units while retaining the PGA West lifestyle; • Provide luxury second or weekend homes within the destination communities of PGA West and the greater Coachella Valley; Page 59 of 73 {00033855 DOC, I } • Incorporate old world architecture and other design features that will complement the existing club facilities and residences within the PGA West community; and • Develop a gated, self-contained community within PGA West that will offer residents access to first class recreational facilities and amenities While the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet any of the City's goals or objectives for the Project site. For this reason, and for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, this Alternative is rejected. B. Alternative 2 — Existing Approved Specific Plan Uses Alternative 2 involves development of the Project Site as a 6-story, 1,000 room resort hotel with specialty commercial retail uses, a fitness center, and hotel bungalows. With regards to aesthetics, Alternative 2 would develop a hotel building, which would have an elevation of 6 stories/65 feet, and hold 1,000 rooms. The proposed Project would have a maximum building height of 33 feet, and the clock tower — as revised by the Planning Commission — would be 33 feet. Construction of the hotel under Alternative 2 would result in a far greater obstruction of views of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Therefore, Alternative 2 would potentially have greater adverse impacts on scenic views as compared to the proposed Project. Construction of Alternative 2 would generate the same types of emissions during construction, and after occupancy, as the proposed Project. However, Alternative 2 would generate a greater quantity of construction emissions than the proposed Project due to the increase in land use intensity. Additionally, Alternative 2 would generate a greater quantity of operational emissions during both the summer and winter periods due to the much higher number of vehicle trips. Specifically, emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) would increase beyond the recommended threshold, thereby creating a significant impact. The Project would not result in significant operational air quality impacts. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have a greater impact on air quality than the proposed Project and could result in new significant impacts. Construction of Alternative 2 also has the potential to disturb unearthed archaeological or paleontological resources, similar to construction of the Project. The same mitigation measures would be applied to Alternative 2 as to the proposed Project, thereby reducing such impacts to less -than -significant levels. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in equivalent impacts to cultural resources with mitigation. Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts to cultural resources. The proposed Project would result in less than significant hydrology impacts. Alternative 2 would include similar drainage facilities and provide similar improvements. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have equivalent impacts related to hydrology and water quality. As such, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant hydrology impacts. Page 60 of 73 100033855 DOC, I) With regards to land use impacts, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations for the site, and no land use or zone designation changes would be required. However, Alternative 2 would introduce greater mass and scale to the site, and would have the potential for greater land use conflicts with the existing single- family character of the surrounding PGA West development. Land use impacts with the proposed Project are expected to be less than significant. Therefore, Alternative 2 could have greater land use impacts than the proposed Project. The construction phase of Alternative 2 could result in greater temporary increases in noise and vibration levels due to the increase in land use intensity. Operation of Alternative 2 — on account of its volume -- would result in generally higher roadway noise levels in the Project area than would the proposed Project. In addition, on -site noise levels generated by Alternative 2 would be greater, insofar as resort hotel and commercial uses would likely be louder than the residential land uses planned by the proposed Project. Consequently, Alternative 2 would result in a greater permanent increase in noise levels. Alternative 2 would not increase school enrollment, library usage, or the use of existing public recreational facilities. However, Alternative 2 could result in a greater demand for fire and police protection services due to the increased intensity of uses on the site, which would result in a dramatic increase in the number of individuals using the site. The Project would result in less than significant public services impacts. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant public services impacts. Due to the increased intensity of uses on the site, Alternative 2 would result in higher daily water and energy consumption, and increased wastewater and solid waste generation, when compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in a greater impact to public utilities. Alternative 2 would result in 8,777 more daily trips than the Project, and thus would have a greater impact on area intersections. The cumulative impacts associated with unfunded improvements would also occur with this alternative, and could necessitate the construction of additional improvements to accommodate the greater number of trips. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in greater project level impacts, which could be significant, and would also increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts associated with the Project. In sum, implementation of Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts to aesthetics, air quality, land use, noise, police and fire protection, public utilities and traffic. Alternative 2 would result in lesser impacts to public services, since the hotel and commercial space would not directly introduce residents to the City of La Quinta. Since Alternative 2 would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant air quality and traffic impacts associated with the Project, and since Alternative 2 would generally increase impacts, Alternative 2 would not be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Additionally, by implementing Alternative 2, the following General Plan and Project objectives would not be met: Page 61 of 73 {00033855 DOC, 1) • The maintenance and protection of residential neighborhoods to assure that future housing needs are met; • A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City; • Provide PGA West residents with the option to downscale from larger single- family units to smaller multi -family units while retaining the PGA West life style; • Provide luxury second or weekend homes within the destination communities of PGA West and the greater Coachella Valley; and • Develop a gated, self-contained community within PGA West that will offer residents access to first class recreational facilities and amenities. Alternative 2 is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project, and it would not meet the City's goals or objectives for the Project site. Moreover, it would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts associated with the Project. For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed below in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, this Alternative is rejected. C. Alternative 3 — Reduced Density 1 Alternative 3 would eliminate the second stories of 27 Manor Homes, which are located along the northern boundary of the Project Site. As a result, these Manor Homes would be duplex units instead of triplex units. This would reduce the overall unit count to 265 units. With regards to aesthetics, due to the removal of the second stories of the 27 Manor Homes, Alternative 3 would incrementally reduce the visibility of the Manor Homes from viewing locations generally north of the site and near the Project Site. However, removal of these units would not reduce the overall height of the Project because the Manor Homes immediately behind these 27 units would remain two-story structures. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not substantially change views of the nearby Santa Rosa Mountains. Overall, Alternative 3 could have an incrementally lower aesthetic impact, but the proposed Project's aesthetic impacts are also expected to be less than significant. As such, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant aesthetics impacts. Alternative 3 would generate the same types of emissions during construction, and after occupancy, as the proposed Project. The quantity of construction emissions would be incrementally lower, due to the removal of 27 units. However, construction emissions would still be significant due to site grading, which is required to the same extent for both the proposed Project and Alternative 3. Since the number of dwelling units would decrease by 27 units under Alternative 3, trip generation, and associated mobile source emissions, would also decrease. Moreover, Page 62 of 73 t00033855.DOC, 1) Alternative 3 would generate incrementally lower quantities of operational emissions during both the summer and winter periods. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in a lower impact to air quality. Nevertheless, the proposed Project would result in less than significant operational air quality impacts. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant air quality impacts. The extent of excavation and grading activity required under Alternative 3 and the proposed Project would be the same. Therefore, the potential to unearth cultural resources beneath the site would be the same under either development scenario. The same mitigation measures applied to the proposed Project would also be applied to Alternative 3, which in both events, would result in less than significant impacts. Alternative 3 would result in equivalent impacts to cultural resources with incorporation of mitigation. As such, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts to cultural resources. Both Alternative 3 and the Project would increase impervious surface area on the site, improve the site with drainage facilities, and introduce urban pollutant constituents into runoff from the site. As discussed above, the proposed Project would result in less than significant hydrology impacts. Alternative 3 would be expected to design similar drainage facilities, and provide similar improvements to the Project site. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have equivalent impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Just as with the proposed Project, implementation of Alternative 3 would require General Plan land use and zoning designation changes in order to allow the development of residential units on a site. Alternative 3 would result in the same land uses as the Project, with an approximately 9 percent reduction in the total number of units. The density of Alternative 3 would be approximately 6 units per acre, which is slightly less than the density of the proposed Project (7 units per acre). Nevertheless, both densities are consistent with the densities of PGA West, which range from 5 to 8 units per acre. But, since the density, total number of units and heights of the Manor Homes would be incrementally reduced, Alternative 3 would result in marginally lower land use impacts than the proposed Project. Nevertheless, as discussed, the Project would not result in any significant land use impacts. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially reduce any significant land use impacts. Due to the construction of 27 fewer units, Alternative 3 would result in marginally lower construction noise impacts than those generated by the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, operation of Alternative 3 would generate roadway noise due to vehicle trips along PGA Boulevard and other roadways in the Project area. Since the number of dwelling units would be reduced under Alternative 3, the number of daily trips, and associated mobile source noise levels, would also generally decrease. Nevertheless, as discussed, the proposed Project would result in less than significant noise impacts. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant noise impacts. Under Alternative 3, the number of residents added to the City would decrease from approximately 832 to 755 residents; a 9 percent reduction. Therefore, the demand for public services would be approximately 9 percent less than the proposed Project. Nevertheless, as discussed, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to all Page 63 of 73 (00033855 DOC, I public services. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant public services impacts. Since Alternative 3 would reduce the number of dwelling units, impacts associated with the provision of public utilities would also be reduced. As such, Alternative 3 would result in a decreased demand for public utilities, and would result in lower impacts than those associated with the proposed Project. Nevertheless, as discussed, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to public utilities. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant public utilities impacts. As mentioned, Alternative 3 would result in fewer residents, and as a result, would generate fewer daily trips than the proposed Project. The reduction of approximately 158 trips would reduce the impact to Project area intersections by about 9 percent. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in lower Project level impacts related to traffic. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the proposed Project would not result in a significant Project -level traffic impacts with the implementation of mitigation. If the City fails to fund and construct certain intersection improvements through the City's DIF program, the proposed Project could result in significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts. Despite Alternative 3's reduction in the number of daily trips, its cumulative traffic impacts would also remain significant and unavoidable if the necessary intersection improvements are not constructed in a timely manner. Alternative 3 would add at least 10 peak hour trips to critical intersections and is projected to cause a significant Level of Service (LOS) change. Finally, it should be noted that even without the implementation of the Project or Alternative 3, several area intersections are already projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak hours, as discussed above in Section III.G. Nevertheless, since Alternative 3 would decrease the number of daily trips by 158 trips, implementation of Alternative 3 could incrementally lessen the significant cumulative traffic impact. Alternative 3 would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, land use, noise, public services, public utilities and traffic. Alternative 3 would lessen, but not avoid, the significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impact. By completing a project with 27 fewer units at this site, the following Project objectives would be met, but not to the same extent as the Project would meet them: • A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City; • Provide PGA West residents with the option to downscale from larger single- family units to smaller multi -family units while retaining the PGA West life style; and • Provide luxury second or weekend homes within the destination communities of PGA West and the greater Coachella Valley. While Alternative 3 is marginally environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it Page 64 of 73 (00033955 DOC, 1 } would not meet the City's goals or objectives for the Project site as effectively as the proposed Project. Moreover, it would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts associated with the Project. Furthermore, based on the financial feasibility data and memorandum supplied by the Applicant, the reduction in units under this alternative would substantially reduce the revenue generated by the Project without a corresponding reduction in costs, thus reducing the projected profits to a level insufficient to justify the cost and risk of proceeding with the Project. Therefore, in light of this financial feasibility information, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with the residential real estate market, the City finds that Alternative 3 is not financially feasible to develop. For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, this Alternative is rejected. D. Alternative 4 — Reduced Density 2 Alternative 4 would reduce the development density of the proposed Project from 7 dwelling units per acre to 4 dwelling unit per acre for a total reduction of 123 units out of the total 290 units proposed. Therefore, under Alternative 4, a maximum of 167 dwelling units would be developed on the Project Site. All dwelling units would be single-family detached units. According to Title 9, Zoning, Chapter 9.50, Residential Development Standards of the City's Municipal Code, a maximum building height of 28 feet/2 stories applies to Low Density Residential development. Alternative 4 would decrease the development density on the site, and no building would exceed 28 feet in height. The proposed Project would include (i) 79 Courtyard Homes, with building heights ranging from 17 to 25 feet; (ii) 83 Manor Homes, with building heights of 27 feet; (iii) 128 Village Homes, with a maximum building height of 33 feet; and (iv) a clock tower, with a height of 33 feet. As discussed above, the Courtyard and Manor Homes located along the perimeter of the site would be the most visibly prominent structures under the proposed Project. However, since the maximum building heights of those units (17 to 27 feet) are comparable to the maximum building height under Alternative 4 (28 feet), views of the Project Site perimeter from off -site vantage points would remain similar under both development scenarios. However, the mass of the single-family residential structures under Alternative 4 would be lower than the mass of the multi -family and single family attached structures proposed by the Project. Additionally, light and glare impacts under Alternative 4 would be less than those under the proposed Project due to the reduction in the total number of units. Furthermore, the decrease in trip generation would decrease the frequency of passing vehicle headlights. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to aesthetics. For this reason, Alternative 4 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant aesthetics impacts. Alternative 4 would generate the same types of emissions during construction as the proposed Project. The quantity of construction emissions would be lower under this alternative due to the overall reduction in project scale. However, air quality impacts related to Page 65 of 73 {00033855 DOC, 1 i construction would still be significant due to site grading, which is required to the same extent for both the Project and Alternative 4. Since the number of dwelling units would decrease from 290 to 167 units under Alternative 4, trip generation and associated mobile source emissions would also decrease. Therefore, Alternative 4's operation would result in a lesser impact to air quality. Nevertheless, Alternative 4 would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts related to construction emissions. The extent of excavation and grading activity required under Alternative 4 and the proposed Project would be the same. Therefore, the potential to unearth cultural resources beneath the site would be the same under either development scenario. The same mitigation measures applied to the proposed Project would be applied to Alternative 4. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in equivalent impacts with incorporation of mitigation, and would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts to cultural resources. Both Alternative 4 and the Project would increase impervious surface area on the site, improve the site with drainage facilities, and introduce urban pollutant constituents into runoff from the site. Since the density of Alternative 4 would decrease to 4 units per acre, Alternative 4 would have greater areas of pervious surfaces, and would generate lower storm flows and fewer pollutants. Therefore, this alternative would marginally decrease impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. Nevertheless, as discussed, the proposed Project would result in less than significant hydrology and water quality impacts. For this reason, Alternative 4 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Similar to the proposed Project, implementation of Alternative 4 would require General Plan land use and zoning designation changes in order to allow the development of residential units on the Project site. Alternative 4 would develop single-family detached units, whereas the proposed Project would develop single-family attached and multi -family unit structures. Since the majority of PGA West contains single-family detached units, Alternative 4 would be somewhat more consistent with surrounding land uses within PGA West. Additionally, the decrease in density, total number of units and building heights would further reduce land use impacts. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the Project would not result in any significant land use impacts. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not avoid or substantially reduce any land use impacts. Due to the overall reduction in scale, Alternative 4 would result in marginally lower construction noise impacts than those generated by the proposed Project. Similar to the proposed Project, operation of Alternative 4 would generate roadway noise due to vehicle trips along PGA Boulevard and other roadways in the Project area. Since the number of dwelling units would be reduced under Alternative 4, the number of daily trips and associated mobile source noise levels would also generally decrease. However, the difference in noise levels would not exceed 0.1 decibels. Therefore, roadway noise levels under Alternative 4 would be comparable to those associated with the Project. Nevertheless, since construction noise would be incrementally reduced, noise impacts under Alternative 4 would be incrementally lower. But, as discussed above, the proposed Project would result in less than significant noise impacts. For Page 66 of 73 {00033855.DOC, 1 this reason, Alternative 4 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant noise impacts. Under this alternative, the number of residents added to the City would decrease from approximately 832 to approximately 476; an approximately 43 percent decrease. The demand for public services would also decrease by approximately 43 percent under Alternative 4. As such, this alternative would have a lower impact to public services than the proposed Project. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to all public services, and therefore, although Alternative 4 would reduce the severity of impacts, it would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant public services impacts. Since Alternative 4 would reduce the number of dwelling units, impacts associated with the provision of utilities to serve this alternative would also be reduced, particularly when compared to the proposed Project. Nevertheless, as discussed above, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts related to public utilities. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts to public utilities. Alternative 4 would result in fewer residents, and as a result, would generate fewer daily trips than the proposed Project. The reduction of approximately 113 trips would reduce the impact to Project area intersections. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in incrementally lower Project level impacts related to traffic but would also generate lower DIF fees to fund needed improvements. Overall, as discussed above, the proposed Project would not result in a significant Project -level traffic impacts with the implementation of mitigation. If the City fails to fund and construct the necessary intersection improvements in a timely manner, the proposed Project could result in significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts. Despite Alternative 4's reduction in the number of daily trips, its cumulative traffic impacts would also remain significant and unavoidable under these circumstances. Finally, it should be noted that even without the implementation of the Project or Alternative 4, several area intersections are already projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during peak hours, as discussed above in Section III.B. Nevertheless, since Alternative 4 would decrease the number of daily trips by 113 trips, implementation of Alternative 4 would potentially reduce this significant cumulative traffic impact. Alternative 4 would reduce impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, public services, public utilities and traffic. However, even with these reductions, the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project (air quality as a result of construction emissions and cumulative traffic) would remain significant and unavoidable under Alternative 4. Additionally, Alternative 4, which would develop single-family detached units instead of multi -family units, would fail to meet the following General Plan and Project objectives: • A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City; and Page 67 of 73 t00033855.DOC, 1 } • Provide PGA West residents with the option to downscale from larger single- family units to smaller multi -family units while retaining the PGA West life style. While the Alternative 4 is marginally environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet the City's goals or objectives for the Project site. Moreover, it would not avoid or substantially lessen the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Project. Furthermore, based upon the financial feasibility data and memorandum supplied by the Applicant, the significant reduction in units under this alternative would substantially reduce the revenue generated by the Project, without a corresponding reduction in costs, thus reducing projected profits to a level insufficient to justify the cost and risk of proceeding with the Project. In fact, given the additional time that would be required to redesign the Project, and given the slower projected absorption rate for single family homes, the costs under this alternative actually increase, while revenue decrease, resulting in a projected loss of several million dollars. Therefore, in light of this financial feasibility information, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with the residential real estate market, the City finds that Alternative 4 is not financially feasible to develop. For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, this Alternative is rejected. E. Alternative 5 — Reduced Height Alternative 5 would eliminate the third level rooms from several of the Village Homes and would reduce the height of, or eliminate, the clock tower (the Planning Commission has recommended, and the Applicant has already accepted, a reduction in the height of the clock tower to 33 feet). Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative 5 would develop 290 dwelling units. Under Alternative 5, removal of the third stories from Village Homes would decrease the ridge line heights of those units from approximately 33 feet to 27 feet. This height of 27 feet would be equivalent to the ridge line height of the two-story Village Homes. Additionally, Alternative 5 would decrease the height of, or eliminate, the clock tower. As explained above, the Draft Subsequent EIR's aesthetics analysis determined that views of these structures would largely be shielded due to the intervening Courtyard and Manor Homes, and on account of the site's topography. Therefore, although Alternative 5 would reduce the height of the Village Homes and the clock tower, this modification would not substantially alter views associated with the proposed Project. Light and glare impacts under Alternative 5 would also be similar to those under the Project. Since the Project would result in less than significant aesthetics impacts, Alternative 5 would not avoid or substantially lessen any significant aesthetics impacts. The number of residents added to the City would be the same under both the Project and Alternative 5, since both would develop 290 dwelling units. Therefore, the demand for fire, police, school, library, and recreational services would be similar under both scenarios. Following mitigation, impacts to public services would be less than significant under both scenarios. Page 68 of 73 (00033855 DOC, I } Since the footprint and number of dwelling units would be the same under both the proposed Project and Alternative 5, all other potential impacts would be the same for both Alternative 5 and the proposed Project. Since Alternative 5 would develop 290 multi -family dwelling units, it would achieve the General Plan's goals and Project objectives in the same way as the proposed Project. However, Alternative 5 would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed Project, and therefore, this Alternative is not environmentally superior to the proposed Project. F. The Environmentally Superior Alternative The CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative to the Project be identified in an EIR. The CEQA Guidelines also require that "if the environmentally superior alternative is the `no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[e][2]. In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. In order to determine the environmentally superior alternative among the other the alternatives examined in this Section, environmental impacts were compared using analyses from the Project impact sections of the resource areas analyzed in the subsections of Sections III, IV and V of the Draft Subsequent EIR. There are similar potential environmental impacts with both the Project and each of the Project alternatives. Based on the magnitude of the impacts associated with the Project and the alternatives examined, Alternative 1 (the "No Project Alternative") would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would not result any new impacts whatsoevert. However, Alternative 1 would not meet several of the basic objectives of the Project, which generally include (i) obtaining land use compatibility throughout the City; (ii) creating a high quality development which promotes the City's image as "The Gem of the Desert"; (iii) protecting the natural environment; (iv) maintaining and protecting residential neighborhoods to assure that future housing needs are met; (v) providing a broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City; (vi) providing a balanced and varied economic base, which creates a broad range of goods and services to the City's residents and region. Additional Project objectives would also not be met by the implementation of Alternative 1, including (a) providing PGA West residents with the option to downscale from larger single-family units to smaller multi -family units while retaining the PGA West life style; (b) providing luxury second or weekend homes within the destination communities of PGA West t Although the No Project Alternative would not create any new impacts, it may, by leaving the Project site as -is, result in hydrology and water quality impacts, on account of sediment carried by storm flows on the site, which could impact the surrounding drainage system. The Project, and each of the other alternatives, would eliminate this potential hydrology and water quality impact, on account of the drainage facility improvements that would be required in connection with their respective approvals. In addition, the No Project Alternative could delay funding and implementation of the needed intersection improvements, including a traffic signal at Jefferson Street and Avenue 54, which will be installed prior to any occupancy of the proposed Project. Page 69 of 73 {00033855 DOC, Ij and the greater Coachella Valley; (c) incorporating old world architecture and other design features that will complement the existing club facilities and residences within the PGA West community; and (d) developing a gated, self-contained community within PGA West that will offer residents access to first class recreational facilities and amenities. While Alternative 1 is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative, it does not meet any of the Project's basic objectives, and in addition, it is not considered economically feasible because it would not allow for development of the site. As a result, Alternative 1 is hereby rejected. The CEQA Guidelines require that if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Outside of the No Project Alternative, the next most environmentally superior alternative is Alternative 4, Reduced Density 2. Alternative 4 would develop 167 single-family detached residential units, which amounts to a reduction of 123 homes, as compared to the proposed Project. As a result of its reduced density, this Alternative would generate fewer daily trips, thereby reducing traffic impacts. However, while Alternative 4 would reduce traffic impacts, it would not avoid the significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts associated with the Project. Additionally, air quality impacts attributable to the Project's construction would not be avoided or substantially reduced under Alternative 4. Rather, air quality impacts related to construction would still be significant due to site grading, which is required to the same extent for both the Project and Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, hydrology, land use, noise, public services and public utilities due to the decrease in the number of units, building height, Project population and density, but it would not substantially lessen or avoid any of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. In addition, on account of this density change and exclusive development of single-family units, Alternative 4 would not meet the following Project objectives: (i) provide a broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City; and (ii) provide PGA West residents with the option to downscale from larger single-family units to smaller multi -family units while retaining the PGA West lifestyle. Finally, Alternative 4 is not economically feasible, as explained above. Page 70 of 73 {00033855 DOC, 1 } 1W41,11:I1a.1 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA For the EDEN ROCK AT PGA WEST PROJECT SPECIFIC PLAN 83-002, AMENDMENT No. 6 Page 71 of 73 {00033855 DOC; 1) The Project will have some unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts, as described in Section III of the CEQA Findings, including construction -related air quality impacts and potentially cumulative traffic impacts if the City does not fund and construct certain intersection improvements. For this Project, the City hereby adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations concerning the Project's unavoidable significant impacts, so as to explain why the Project's benefits override and outweigh its unavoidable impacts. The Draft Subsequent EIR for the Project recognizes that certain specified adverse environmental impacts may be caused by the approval and construction of the Project, which may not be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the application of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to the Project. Despite the finding in the Draft Subsequent EIR that such unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may be caused by the Project, the City nevertheless finds, after a thorough review and consideration of such potentially adverse environmental impacts, that the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project, as more specifically identified herein, outweigh those unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Those impacts are therefore deemed to be acceptable to the City. Each of the benefits and objectives set forth below constitutes an independent overriding consideration, warranting approval of the Project despite its unavoidable impacts. Furthermore, the City finds that even if any other environmental impacts were determined to be significant, the City would nevertheless still find that such additional impacts are also outweighed by the Project's benefits and objectives, as stated below. In general, the site provides an appropriate location for the envisioned residential uses that will provide housing, recreation, and increased property tax and transient occupancy tax revenue opportunities to the City, its residents, and visitors, and include the following specific benefits: • Complete development of the PGA West Specific Plan with appropriate residential development that compliments the existing residential and recreational uses. • Generate transit occupancy tax revenue to the City, based upon the significant financial commitments set forth in the Development Agreement. • Generate development impact fees and other revenue to fund necessary infrastructure improvements within the City, including a traffic signal at Jefferson Street and Avenue 54. • Generate additional construction -related job opportunities within the City. • Provide a broader range of housing opportunities within the PGA West Specific Plan area. • Provide PGA West residents with the option to downscale from larger single-family units to smaller multi -family units while retaining the PGA West life style; • Provide luxury second or weekend homes within the destination communities of PGA Page 72 of 73 {00033855 DOC; 1) West and the greater Coachella Valley; • Incorporate old world architecture and other design features that will complement the existing club facilities and residences within the PGA West community; and Develop a gated, self-contained community within PGA West that will offer residents access to first class recreational facilities and amenities. In addition, the Project is consistent with the City General Plan's growth and development concepts and goals, including the following points that support additional public benefits resulting from the Project: • Land use compatibility throughout the City; • High quality development which promotes the City's image as "The Gem of the Desert"; • Protection of the natural environment; • The maintenance and protection of residential neighborhoods to assure that future housing needs are met; • A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City; and • A balanced and varied economic base, which provides a broad range of goods and services to the City's residents and region. This Statement of Overriding Considerations is based upon all documents and records contained within the City's files with respect to the Project, including but not limited to the entire record of proceedings as defined in Section II.0 of the City's CEQA Findings. Page 73 of 73 {00033855.DOC, I) U pp � H d U V C cc 3� G� � o p0.,°fib ti 00 0 O N 0 3 0 _ N r U H o a U A ozo V W ° 00 U N b d , wUtiNb � °a daa cl d 4t � 4t N oU vi 00 0 0o b o o U N O O c U ,- d 8 �o .a G ONO+ N O M C GA m °a oo ¢No0 U Ed U Off�++api O ' y El � h =+ U > > S]. U w ro Q o O N N N C/) a U ¢ c7 con v) oz o za z x� A U w d W C A W zm J a aU UU y by T W c 3 0 C U a C7 > E c y E til E ctl L L 'a O pq 7 to 7 pq •O O O 7 O � ¢ iL Gi U O U Q O vi a oz Q ca ^aO G � 6.y Y ma ❑. Z y a y n h w �O 3°�° 3t c3 7cl a 7 R O O O O etl z ato C7 a U Q �cl c m CA id y `�' 'E 'a cr c, O L L O to L to U L O U C O U (C •'7 M �O y N L �' > C OD C C r: O F a C U° p ro U E w 3 C C U° c 0 o a a a a a ro U c U c U c U c U c q.o q o q o q o q o C G O O w U w U w d a O C O C O C O C O C V) CZ Q cn W C N N E s d � W W C s' to a a a a a u u O Q cn Q Q� Q Q 0 O a N Qa N N N N N N q 0 cCtl q 0 eCtl O cCd O tCtl O 0 O 0 O taw tab 3o 3= 3t 3w 3 V V ^' U � U U ••V •�V. a. 0. m a.cL am am am n'm a' o c o , c °• > a�i y �, > a > s E d u a o q W W ro o Ll N N h o y � a •o o N �� ^ m � Y a _ d'C Ewc c '^.°3 � o �' a°'i.v gib„ c.� o cl s E° ^❑ s U U o° t c N o cn E> L3 s o c o ctl c o a� u Y .` � � Y o µo � � o abi actli E � � .E •� >'•>_ ° o •° s o h c '� .� � � .� w ro '� o c> a E °c° � c o�❑ NN E Q; 0 0 0 0 o v Qw 3 4 a o U°m Un. U a U U o� F i .0 0. .cn-1-1 C J t w o o C � C ou c uq on 0 O 'vi to E to C c c� cUC U ❑ r ° L O C O G' 9 JCd p C n E S n° c°CC N a h E o O O � C � 4 w p ro W U U r C U U Z y y c ro ocn ` a� aocn U U00 o U 0 a 9 A W o`u t T T 5q p N E ,g T GGl o o a o a o o r to:a o a Q a a0 a c.L A a`O F J A U o n. a a -� a a ,L', w0 J LI) CA 0 z .0 N a �. O. .0 Y b Y `o o G m o Q O A o A A A w m3 0bo c to to3 c3 to to to c c maa a a ma maa a a oq C NO V O Lb `^ O C Jw O L C itl "ao E s> N 3 o E to Q Vj YO u'o 0 0ovL `a c w= L N -0 o W 'e+Ln O bh '2A N N C_ p RE �04. C O 'Ow°.a bq fio� aAi"'C y NN N 2 o c -0co E ° 44 C aN:e n naO c a a 2 °0 E cN nC •-- N M C Iri r-� W F Q A W zm dA w wY �w �U N C N C N C N C N N .Qi F„ � c � v v a a>i aJi ' � a>i aJi • � a>i aJi • � � � � �' 0 U ,c .S y ,�.E 4 O' N o O ro o 0 v C by o Y C by o :9 aj 7 J 0 0 0 C C S ` {Ni• lz C N 17i 1�i L L F 0 C V y N N H cy ip bA U U U U O c W E C C to E b° z L •�. � •L 'L L 'L z az C o o Q Q o 0 0 z ~ 0. 4 y 4 J 0 y J Vl O Q Q A Q Q C Q L QL C O t3 O 0 0 0 O m O C Om C cC O w t3 O3 b3 t3bo C t3 b3 C b3 C C C C C C ma ma ma maa ma ma m4 0" R. 7 7 � N h 4 C p .D C .2 0p N N O L ,� y� E N �N•, T d F 'G o E c.E ° E?3 .X aJ ~O bno ao o 4 E .0 o o J a� p o .0 = =s 00 C 3 ^ O bCD� w c� 'b bJA �. C p�q 0 T C .N F 09 r 'Y OA .- y N N '- N O N L .O >> ttl N C �'-' 'O O C O p, b etl 'Dp p C •p C N L O N L' 4 J A N U G CO) E y CL J L 0 aX O. O G C cd aJ• `� C zi C 3 C L N eUtl p .o 3 J i~Jtl y o cJi ro" ,J G O L N V' 0 .?) ay O a U C n'CO ' 7 O LC N' \ .( \ / \ / /b ƒ ƒ\ \\\ \\ ( � ) terƒ ak - \/%_- §j} \\k }\ {)) )(( / \� §\ \\ ! / § \/_ � /f\ zau � o )k }® - / d - i �@ t \ )� }z �k ■ / 2 f � �\\ j) >\/ \ \� kj EE - }\)\ (\k ///)koI\ /ƒ/\ / \\ § � )Q {« t ) ) 2§ / k/®g))!` =#§2 - 2 - §2- �a f?(g==®=522==\& ;ee.ega§@(»/. '- 29 ; )}%fƒk/} �w �7 0�°[/7.( ( ®\ 4 )/2\#072§\{k2\//0/�} ) \\ /