Loading...
2021-07-21 MichielsTuesday, July 27, 2021 at 15:27:36 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 5 Subject:MORE RE: In opposi-on of a Wave park a Coral Mountain Date:Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 3:46:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Rob Michiels To:Consul-ng Planner CC:Ria Michiels, Mike Charles, Ramon Baez, lqresidentsstopthewave@gmail.com, drebryna@telusplanet.net Dear Ms Sauviat Criste, I would like to remind the City leaders that the 2035 La Quinta General Plan is the (long) existing plan for our communities. This plan was supposed to be legally binding and now it appears that the City mayor and council are going to use loopholes to invalidate it? I would also like to add to my previous comments (email dated 07/20/21) by adding the following specific questions that need to be addressed by the review process: 1. First, the legal record should clearly reflect that this proposed development is not in compliance with the existing 2035 zoning plan for La Quinta. a. Why does the City even consider this project? b. To clarify the process, the city should provide its residents with a written and public justification of its intent, so that there can be no misunderstanding of facts, history and responsibilities if the future brings lawsuits. c. The rezoning process requires a rigorous investigation of all factors and a specific justification of communal benefits. The current reports submitted by the developer are anything but that. d. Neutrality of reporting is paramount. So why are these not 3rd party studies, instead of experts hired by the developer? e. DEIR documents are meant to be read and understood by the average person and are supposed to follow a specific format and size requirement. The currently submitted documents are anything but that and are full of vague and subjective language, which of course is not inconsistent with having been written by people being paid by the developer. Why can the City not commission new studies and reports from non-conflicted independent experts? 2. The City is being asked to rezone based on grounds of (doubtful) benefits and (undefined) developer promises to local government officials (DEIR 3-18). a. This proposed amusement park is private. How does that benefit La Quinta residents? b. This proposed development is focused on short term rentals and also features fractional ownership formulas. How does that reconcile with the nature of the surrounding residential developments? c. Most cities are fighting against short term rentals nuisances. Why would La Quinta be intent on promoting such activities, instead of focusing on the needs of long-term residents? d. This proposed development aims to operate 365 days a year from 7AM to 10PM with corresponding traffic noise, operating noise (wave equipment noise, wave noise (roar), announcement/alarm noise, music noise, etc...) (DEIR 1-29, 4.11-15, 4.11-47, 4.11-49) i. Why are the reports not investigating each one of these noise categories individually? ii. Why are the reports not investigating all of these noise categories combined? iii. Why are the reports relying solely on theoretical noise models? iv. Why are the reports allowed to use and extrapolate data from other non-identical facilities? v. Why are the developers not asked to execute real-time and real-life noise experiments (for all noise sources individually and cumulatively) within the affected communities? vi. Why is everyone studiously ignoring the impact during construction over a number of years, especially since the developer is projecting and requesting “open timing” for completion? vii. How can the City accept the unrealistic and unscientific argument that a “mountain absorbs noise”? e. This proposed development aims to operate 365 days a year from 7AM to 10PM with corresponding Page 2 of 5 light pollution from a number of proposed new light sources (DEIR 4.1-41, 4.1-39, 4.1-57, 4.10-28) i. Why are the reports not investigating each one of the possible light sources individually? ii. Why are the reports relying solely on theoretical light pollution models? iii. How can a report that states “insignificant” impact from 80ft light poles be considered bona fide? No refereed technical explanation or justification is provided in the report. Please justify why such a glaring oversight should not be rectified and a new independent report commissioned? iv. How can the City accept the unrealistic and unscientific argument that “light will not significantly reflect off water”? v. Why would the developers be allowed an exemption (for 80ft) from the current municipal code which allows only 8 ft pole heights for this type of use? vi. Why are the developers not asked to execute real-time light impact experiments (for all light sources individually and cumulatively – especially the two third mile long 80 ft poles every 20 ft along the basin) within the affected communities? vii. Why should there not be an independent study of project light impacts on the surrounding communities? f. This proposed development aims to exceed the current permissible height specs of the municipal code for various structures (DEIR 4.1-57, 4.1-12, 4.1-13). i. Why do the current reports not address such structures individually and specifically? ii. How can loss of mountain view by numerous surrounding residential developments not be considered a substantial objection to this proposed project? iii. How serious can you take a report that states that “vegetation is not permanent as it can change form or be removed” as part of the argumentation that view loss is not an applicable argument in this case? How can the City possibly accept this type of rationale without further thought or question? Why should there not be an independent study of impacts on the surrounding communities? iv. At some point the report states: “However, impacts associated with scenic vistas cannot be reduced to less than significant levels and will remain significant and unavoidable.” (DEIR 4.1-45). How can this be deemed acceptable as an argument to support a zoning change? g. This proposed development will create potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (DEIR 1-22) and will increase demand for energy in the service areas of IID and SoCal Gas Co (DEIR 4.5-34). The developer admits that project specific impacts to greenhouse gas emissions will be significant and unavoidable (DEIR 1-13). i. How can the City justify a zoning change given these negative environmental facts? ii. La Quinta residents are already being asked on a regular basis to conserve energy during heat waves. How will the energy consumption of this project specifically impact the surrounding communities? iii. The EIR small print states that the developer will purchase vast amounts of carbon credits. How can the City possibly believe, or prove, that this is a beneficially “green” project? h. This proposed development will require massive amounts of hazardous chemicals that will be used and stored on site (DEIR 4.8-18). i. Nowhere in the reports is there any substantial or specific explanation of usage, storage or safety measures. Local residents demand to know all risks as detailed in an independent study. ii. Available chemical treatments will not be sufficient during very hot summer months to provide adequate protection from microscopic amoeba in the over-warm water. The developer has stated the water will not be cooled during summer, hence this health risk is currently not be mitigated: Who will be liable if/when brain (amebic meningoencephalitis) infections occur? Will the City (and thus ultimately residents) end up footing the bill after being sued by a dead surfer’s family? How will the developer specifically mitigate this issue? 2. Local community home values are likely to be negatively impacted by this development if it proceeds. Will Riverside County reduce the property tax basis for the affected homeowners when that happens? 3. The developer is going to request separate permissions for mass events (DEIR 1-7). a. How will noise violations during Special Events be enforced by the City and what process will be Page 3 of 5 used? b. How will illegal behavior during Special Events be monitored and mitigated? c. Substantial additional traffic impact (including local gridlock for Trilogy and Andalusia) will be felt by local residents. Why will the City not commission an independent study? d. How will unavoidable large crowd litter/trash generation immediately outside the park boundaries be monitored and mitigated? e. Will the developer be asked to cover all additional City service expenses (law enforcement, medical response, fire, road repair, traffic signalization)? f. If events are allowed to occur, will the City limit such individual event permits to maximum 2 per year? 4. California is experiencing a severe drought. For years (and continuing) we are all trying to conserve water. This project will require millions of gallons of potable water every year. Looking at DEIR 4.10-19, 1-27, 1-36, 4.10.20, 4.15-29, 4.15-34 (and I am probably missing a few) a number of questions arise. a. The developer's own estimates project water usage within a “4% or so” margin. What happens when they go over the contract allotted numbers? Can they just buy unlimited additional gallons? b. The developer reports having a contract already for potable water from our local aquifer. How can the local water company be allowed to execute such a wasteful contract when public water reserves are already under tremendous pressure. c. The argument that this project uses less water than a golf is invalid because golf course operations now mostly use recycled (gray) water. Why can the developer not be required to use recycled water? d. Is the City conscious of the fact that with rising population numbers the water wasted on this project are going to be needed in the very near future? e. The developer's reports on water usage are incomplete and rather less than scientifically justified. Why does the City not request very detailed and scientifically/technically justified and independently generated information regarding evaporation, specific water usage patterns for individual elements of the project facilities, detailed wave pool maintenance requirements? 5. The traffic analysis submitted reflects middle of the COVID pandemic activity between November 2019 and October 2020. This analysis mis-represents the actual anticipated traffic reality. (DEIR 4.13-42) a. The impact on local residents will be large. Why will the City not commission an independent study at the developer’s expense? b. What considerations are in place for possible (new) public or private bus transportation to the development? Has a detailed study been submitted? c. What considerations are in place for queue locations for taxi, Uber, Lyft, etc? Has a detailed study been submitted? Respectfully submitted, Rob & Ria Michiels-Denayer 81301 Andalusia La Quinta, CA 92253 Rob Michiels Founding Partner CONSILIUM Associates LLC Cell +1 949 677 4165 (No Texting) Email RMichiels@consiliumassociates.net This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or return e-mail. Thank you, CONSILIUM. Page 4 of 5 From: Consul-ng Planner <Consul-ngPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 9:24 AM To: Rob Michiels <rmichiels@consiliumassociates.net> Cc: Ria Michiels <michiels.ria@gmail.com>; Mike Charles <mgacharles@yahoo.com>; Ramon Baez <rYaez7@gmail.com> Subject: Re: In opposi-on of a Wave park a Coral Mountain Mr, Michiels, Thank you for your comments. Nicole Sauviat Criste Consul-ng Planner City of La Quinta From: Rob Michiels <rmichiels@consiliumassociates.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:24 PM To: Consul-ng Planner <Consul-ngPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Ria Michiels <michiels.ria@gmail.com>; Mike Charles <mgacharles@yahoo.com>; Ramon Baez <rYaez7@gmail.com> Subject: In opposi-on of a Wave park a Coral Mountain ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and cau-on when opening a‘achments, clicking links or responding to requests for informa-on. ** Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to voice my strong opposition to this project. My wife and I have been homeowners at Andalusia for the past 11 years. I believe I am also speaking on behalf of many of my neighbors. We joined this beautiful Andalusia community because: We love the peace and quiet; We love the immaculately dark and clear night skies; We were told the patch of wild and untamed desertscape across from us would eventually be developed into a similarly quiet and uncrowded golf/low density residential community. So, imagine our dismay when that property was sold to another developer, who has quickly, and under the radar, moved to change the zoning from low density residential to high impact commercial. We do not understand why the city of La Quinta would have given the initial permission for that zoning change so this ill-conceived project could move forward to this stage of planning? Do our city leaders really want to tie their political legacy to the desecration of one of the Page 5 of 5 last truly unique and peaceful tracts of La Quinta land by unscrupulous developers who want to change it into a circus like attraction every day all year round? Why go forward and spend untold dollars on investigations when any person with common sense knows this can and should be stopped right now by the city simply holding fast to the original zoning? Why waste millions of gallons of drinking water when we are in the midst of a drought? The so-called expert reports submitted in support of this project are at best theoretical re-do’s of earlier reports (from other projects). No real science or experiments are behind these reports. Is the only underlying agenda that wants to allow this permitting process change the pursuit of a few extra dollars promised for city coffers? If you go forward, I believe future generations will not look kindly on your legacy. Thank you for your consideration. Rob & Ria Michiels-Denayer 81301 Andalusia La Quinta, CA 92253 Rob Michiels Founding Partner CONSILIUM Associates LLC Cell +1 949 677 4165 (No Texting) Email RMichiels@consiliumassociates.net This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or return e-mail. Thank you, CONSILIUM.