Noise Report Comments 2020-02-24Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 13:32:28 Pacific Daylight Time
Page 1 of 3
Subject:Re: The Wave Noise Report Comments
Date:Monday, February 24, 2020 at 5:16:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
From:Nicole Criste
To:Cheri Flores
Cheri,
For #12: I would have to look at the numbers again, but I don’t think they have that issue off-site. A 1 dB increase at
50 feet from centerline will not result in an exceedance at a house 100 feet from centerline. My concern is on-site.
Both in the overall - if their traffic increase triggers a need for a higher wall or for extra construcTon techniques on
houses adjacent to either roadway; and for the houses closest to the wave machine.
On #16: yes, EAP is also hypotheTcal, whereas during ExisTng + Ambient + cumulaTve in 2026, the project is
supposed to be operaTng.
Hope his clarifies.
Nicole
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 24, 2020, at 2:11 PM, Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov> wrote:
Nicole,
For #12, I do agree with you, if the ambient without project noise level
is under 65dBA and they are increasing it over that, then any increase
regardless of the difference in noise level, would be significant. But for
noise levels that are already above 65, most of the roadway segments
show an increase of less than 1 dB which is barely audible. I agree that
they shouldn’t contribute to an already exceeded standard but how
would they mitigate for that, especially for roadway noise that may
affect other places, ie. Jefferson n/o 50th? Overriding consideration???
For #16, just want to clarify in my head. EP is hypothetical, since that
condition won’t occur, understand that. Are you saying that EAP would
also be hypothetical? To me, the EAP looks the same as the Existing +
Ambient + Cumulative 2026 scenario.
I hope I’m not overthinking this but I want to make sure we are on the
same page. Thank you!!!
<image001.png>
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760-777-7067
www.laquintaca.gov
Page 2 of 3
From: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 12:47 PM
To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Re: The Wave Noise Report Comments
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and
cauTon when opening acachments, clicking links or responding to requests for informaTon. **
Cheri,
For #12, the comment relates to our standard, which is 65 for residenTal. The explanaTon they
give allows them to go over 65 by saying that there is a range above 65 before they reach
‘substanTal.’ I disagree. If our standard is 65, anything above that requires miTgaTon.
For #16, they make a comment when discussing E+P that the project cannot occur under
ExisTng (now) anf therefore the exisTng vondiTons don’t macer. The same is true for ExisTng +
Project + Ambient (EAP). That’s my only point.
Am checking email a couple of Tmes a day, so let me know if I’m not clear.
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Principal
TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.®
42635 Melanie Place, Ste 101
PALM DESERT, CA. 92211
(760) 341-4800
FAX#: 760-341-4455
E-Mail: ncriste@terranovaplanning.com
From: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 12:18:56 PM
To: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Subject: The Wave Noise Report Comments
Hi Nicole,
After reviewing the noise report comments, I have questions on a few of
them. Comments 12 and 16. Can you explain your thoughts when
Page 3 of 3
them. Comments 12 and 16. Can you explain your thoughts when
reviewing? Here are my thoughts and let me know what you think.
For Comment 12, I see what the noise study is doing here, they are
trying to define what a substantial increase would be per
Guideline/Threshold A:
Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies
The threshold doesn’t say any increase, it says substantial, so any
increase over 65 dBA wouldn’t necessarily be a significant impact. My
thought is that this discussion is fine but could be simplified a bit since
it is overly complicated. I haven’t read the court case so I don’t know
it’s relevance here but I don’t think they need to cite it as long as the
methodology for defining “substantial” is explained. Also with that
statement, “no single noise increase that renders the noise impact
significant,” it seems that it is not needed since they in fact do define a
noise increase that renders a significant impact.
For Comment 16, I’m not quite understanding your comment. I don’t
think the discussion on Existing plus Ambient with Project (EAP) would
have the same conclusion as the discussion on Existing with Project
(EP), that the condition (EAP) doesn’t occur since EAP estimates the
background ambient conditions at proposed project buildout (2026).
Let me know if I’m missing something.
Thanks Nicole for checking this out and sorry to bother you!
<image001.png>
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760-777-7067
www.laquintaca.gov
January 30, 2020
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
2440 Junction Place, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80301
SUBJECT: NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS COMMENTS FOR THE WAVE PROJECT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2019-0002
ZONE CHANGE 2019-0004
SPECIFIC PLAN 2019-0003 (AMENDMENT 5 TO SP 03-067)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2019-0005 (TTM 37815)
MASTER PROJECT 2019-0004
Dear Mr. Simon,
The City has completed the initial review of the Noise Impact Analysis submitted for the above-
referenced project and has the following comments (please note that we have used “first
instance” when referencing comments to note that the discussion occurs elsewhere in the report,
and that the same changes need to be made at multiple locations):
1. The noise study will need to be amended based on changes expected to the traffic impact
analysis. This will include analysis of special event noise levels. Please review for
consistency once the traffic study is complete.
2. The noise study refers to “The Wave-Coral Mountain” as the project. Please modify the
project description to reflect the newly added “new” Specific Plan, the Specific Plan
Amendment to Specific Plan 03-097, Andalusia at Coral Mountain, the General Plan
Amendment, Change of Zone and Tentative Tract Map. Please also note that references to
Planning Areas will need to be modified now that the project will be governed by an
independent Specific Plan. Presumably, for example, references to Planning Ar ea VIII will
change.
3. References to a “pop-up village park” need to be defined. Please also see comments on this
subject made in the Specific Plan text.
4. Please delete the second paragraph of the Executive Summary. The reference to Ballona is
inappropriate. The impacts of the project components on future residents of the project are
appropriate and will be analyzed in this study and CEQA documents.
5. Page 2 (first instance): The description of the prescribed barrier includes a statement that if
the roadway occurs above the grade of the home, the barrier must be 6 feet from the
highest point on the road. The City’s standard does not allow for walls beyond 6 feet, and
the Specific Plan proposes 8 feet in PA VIII. The noise study needs to clearly state that the
barrier proposed will fit within those standards, and if it does not, will need to be reflected
in the CEQA document as a potentially significant impact.
6. Page 3 (first instance): Operational noise mitigation cannot use “may.” Mitigation is
required, and therefore mitigation measures need to be required, not suggested. Please
rephrase to make clear what the mitigation requirements are, not what they may be. Also
see related comments below.
7. Page 4 (first instance): Both construction noise and vibration need to address not only
impacts to surrounding properties, but also impacts to sensitive receptors within the
project, because the project will be constructed in phases. Therefore, the analysis needs to
include the impacts on phase 1 sensitive receptors of phase 2 construction activities, and
so on through build out of the project. Also see specific comments below.
8. Page 20: Please remove the reference to nursing home uses. There is no nursing home
proposed. Instead, add a reference to the appropriate noise levels for hotels.
9. Page 23: Open Section 3.6 with a sentence that states that the City does not have a
vibration standard, and that the County standard was therefore used.
10. Page 25: First paragraph after lettered list, remove Guidelines after General Plan. Change
Guideline A and Guideline C to Significance Criteria A and C later in the paragraph.
11. Page 25: First paragraph in Section 4.2, please delete the last sentence.
12. Page 26: The use of a court case out of context is inappropriate. Please delete the first
sentence, and rework the paragraph to explain the exceedance. In addition, if the project
results in a noise level in excess of 65 dBA at any sensitive receptor, that is an impact that
requires mitigation, regardless of the level of increase. That needs to be made clear. Also
correct the discussion on page 27 and in Table 4-2 in this regard.
13. Page 30: Madison Avenue should be Madison Street; Cll Conchita should be Calle Conchita.
14. Page 37, Table 6-1: Please add to footnotes where roadway classifications are not City of
La Quinta.
15. Page 54: Last paragraph. The paragraph appears to indicate that the only impact that
matters is the long term (build out) or year 2040 impact. That is not correct. If the
implementation of Phase 1 results in a noise level increase that either is greater th an 3 dB
or which exceeds 65 dBA at a sensitive receptor, that impact must be mitigated. Please
delete the paragraph and replace with a discussion of the impacts of each phase of
development, and that analysis was conducted to determine whether each phase w ould
impact surrounding sensitive receptors.
16. Page 56: Last paragraph. The paragraph is incorrect. The conclusion should be the same as
existing conditions plus project – that the condition could not occur.
17. Section 10: This section deals only with off-site receptors. There is no discussion on noise
levels within the project. Since sensitive receptors will occur adjacent to the surf wave,
hotel and recreational areas, noise levels at interior receptors must be demonstrated, and
mitigation measures provided if necessary.
18. Page 75: Section 10.1.1 should be based on noise measurements at the existing facility in
Lemoore, CA. If that is the case, please modify the text to explicitly state this. If it is not,
we will need to discuss, and a more substantial description of how noise levels were
determined will need to be provided. In addition, the statement “the applicant has
established exterior noise limits…” is unsubstantiated, and without inclusion as mitigation in
the noise analysis and environmental document, cannot be relied on as any more than an
assumption. Either include these limits as mitigation measures in the noise study, or
remove the discussion from the document.
19. Page 76: Section 10.1.4 must define the outdoor game field activities based on land uses
provided in the Specific Plan. As currently described in the Specific Plan, no such activities
are allowed.
20. Page 80: The need for night-time mitigation cannot be stated in terms of “may include.”
Please re-write this section to provide required mitigation measures, and also demonstrate
that these mitigation measures will result in less than significant impacts by quantifying the
reduction.
21. Section 11: This section only considers construction noise and vibration impacts to off-site
receptors. Since this project is to be built in phases, residents of Phase 1 will be impacted
by Phase 2, and so on. Please add a quantified analysis of the impacts to early phase
sensitive receptors from later phase construction, and mitigate as needed.
If you have any questions please contact me at ncriste@terranovaplanning.com, and/or at
(760) 777-7132 or (760) 341-4800. When these comments have been addressed, please
resubmit the noise study for a second review.
Sincerely,
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner