The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-08-02 P NovakMonday, August 2, 2021 at 15:20:26 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 3 Subject:Comment on the DEIR for the proposed La Quinta Wavepark development Date:Monday, August 2, 2021 at 11:31:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:Novak, Philip To:ConsulKngPlanner@laquintaca.gov, levans@laquintaca.gov, rradi@laquintaca.gov, kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov, jpena@laquintaca.gov, ssanchez@laquintaca.gov, cdd@la-quinta.org, drebryna@telusplanet.net, Derek Wong, rSaez7@gmail.com, kathy@crystalspringsranch.co, BridgeV Home Novak August 2, 2021 Attention: Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov From: Philip Novak, La Quinta Resident RE: Noise ﬁndings in the DEIR I wish to criticize the defensibility of the DEIR’s position that the proposed Wavepark “will not have any signiﬁcant noise impacts” (4.11.7). The DEIR’s Noise conclusions (4.11) are based entirely on a Noise study (Appendix K-1) carried out by Urban Crossroads’ William Lawson. Thus my criticisms are directed to Lawson’s study. My ﬁrst criticisms address two points in his study of trafﬁc noise. They are relatively minor points but, if valid, deserve to be amended in the ﬁnal EIR. My third and last criticism is major. It calls into serious question the validity of his study of the Wavepark’s projected operational noise. Criticism 1: An apparent contradiction. The DEIR’s contention that the project will not have any signiﬁcant trafﬁc noise impacts appears to directly contradict something Lawson’s Noise Study says on p.1 of its own Executive Summary. Here is Lawson’s statement, verbatim: Based on the signiﬁcance criteria in outlined in Section 4, the Project-related noise level increases are considered potentially signiﬁcant [emphasis Novak’s] under Existing with Project conditions at the following two roadway segments: • Madison Street north of Avenue 58 (Segment 8) • Avenue 60 west of Madison Street (Segment 27) Criticism 2: A bafﬂing and, to me, incomprehensible paragraph in Lawson’s Executive Summary. Immediately following the passage just quoted above, Lawson states: All other roadway segments are shown to experience less than signiﬁcant noise level impacts under Existing plus Project conditions. However, this scenario is provided solely for analytical purposes and will not occur, since the Project will not be full [sic] developed (Phase Page 2 of 3 1, 2 & 3) and occupied under Existing 2019 conditions. Therefore, no mitigation measures are considered to reduce the Existing with Project condition traffic noise level increases, and impacts are considered less than signiﬁcant since they will not actually occur. The analysis shows that the unmitigated Project-related traffic noise level increases under all traffic scenarios will be less than signiﬁcant. [emphases Novak’s]. First, what is it exactly that Lawson is referring to in line 2 as “this scenario”? How extensive is this supposedly non-occurring scenario? Second, he says that the “scenario,” whatever it is, will not occur. What exactly will not occur? Third, in the paragraph’s second underlined phrase Lawson tells us again that something “will not occur,” but also that this non-occurring something will carry a measurable level of signiﬁcance (i.e., “none”). How can something non-existent be measured? Fourth, in the last sentence Lawson’s use of the word “analysis” seems an overstatement. I suggest it would be far more accurate to describe his activity here as a thought experiment or a theoretical consideration. Criticism 3: Lawson’s crucial assumption in studying the La Quinta Wavepark’s projected operational noise – namely, that his audio recording of the Lemoore Surf Ranch’s actual operational noise during a 53-minute period on April 13, 2020 is a fully adequate proxy of what the La Quinta Wavepark’s operational noise (15 hours per day, most days of the years) will be -- is breathtakingly ﬂimsy. He never argues for this assumption, for example, by providing an appropriately comprehensive account of all the relevant topographical (and many other) differences and similarities between Lemoore and La Quinta. He just assumes, and implicitly asks his readers to assume along with him, that Lemoore operational noise is a fully adequate stand-in for what the La Quinta operational noise is expected to be! Given the depth of local La Quintan concern over the Project’s potential for noise pollution, Lawson’s highly questionable root assumption translates into unacceptably weak grounds for his opinions about levels of noise. For the LQCC to uncritically embrace Lawson’s highly dubious report about operational noise and thus to overrule La Quintans’ noise concerns would be tantamount to a dereliction of duty. Further elaboration of Criticism 3. As Lawson begins his report on operational noise he makes reference to the existence of sensitive noise receivers in La Quinta (ten on-site, ten nearby off-site) that he used in his study of La Quinta trafﬁc noise. Under the new heading, “Operational Noise Impacts,” he writes: This section analyzes the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearby receiver locations, identiﬁed in Section 9, resulting from operation of the proposed Coral Mountain Speciﬁc Plan Project. What is Lawson talking about here? We all know that no sensitive noise receiver in La Quinta ever recorded any Wavepark operational noise in La Quinta, for the simple reason that there is currently no Wavepark operation in La Quinta to make any noise. In any case, Lawson soon discontinues references to La Quinta receiver locations and, to his credit, points us to the real source of his operational noise data. He discloses it, mind you, not in his main text, Appendix K-1, but in his own Appendix to that Appendix, namely Appendix 10.1. (Does this qualify as burying crucial information in fine print?) Appendix 10.1 is entitled Page 3 of 3 “Reference Noise Levels,” a studiously vague but ill-disguised name for “Lemoore Noise Levels.” Lawson finally spells out what his all-important “reference noise levels” for operational noise are: measurements of the Wave Machine noise (for 53 minutes on April 13, 2020, time-of-day not disclosed) at the “existing Surf Ranch located at 18556 Jackson Avenue in the City of Lemoore, California.” Lawson tells us that the total noise he is out to measure at Lemoore and then “project” onto La Quinta is the sum of the Lemoore Wave machine noises plus all other site noises, characterizing the latter only as “outdoor pool/spa activity, outdoor activity, and neighborhood commercial land use activity.” Neither here nor anywhere else in Lawson’s study could I find any indication that he included measurements of the noise of 4 jet skis and a loudspeaker (15 hours per day, most days of the year) among his “other site noises.” If Lawson really did omit measuring these noises in trying to project what the La Quinta Wavepark would sound like, his current conclusions suffer a truly fatal blow and should not be accepted into the final EIR. Finally, a minor point, but perhaps important in its own way. Lawson tells us that in order to logarithmically combine all simultaneous Lemoore noises into a sum total, he plugged his Lemoore recordings into a Noise Analysis computer program. Has anyone on the LQCC critically inquired into the scientific standing of this program, whether it has been peer- reviewed and deemed reliable, whether it’s been adequately field-tested, or whether this was perhaps the program’s maiden voyage? Can we trust its output on such a crucial issue? I ask because of something I thought I heard G. Simon say at the LQCC meeting of July 20, 2021, namely that Lawson’s computer program is the brainchild of his retired rocket-scientist (and presumably tech-hobbyist) dad. This wouldn’t mean it can’t be a great program but isn’t some extra due diligence required here? Philip Novak, Professor Emeritus Dept. of Philosophy and Religion Dominican University of California novak@dominican.edu cc: Linda Evans, Mayor, levans@laquintaca.gov Robert Radi, Mayor Pro Tem, rradi@laquintaca.gov. Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Council Member, kﬁtzpatrick@laquintaca.gov John Pena, Council Member, jpena@laquintaca.gov Steve Sanchez, Council Member, ssanchez@laquintaca.gov Cherri Flores, Planning Manager, cdd@la-quinta.org Carlos Flores, Senior Planner, cdd@la-quinta.org Siji Fernandez, Associate Planner, cdd@la-quinta.org Diane Rebryna, drebryna@telusplanet.net Derek Wong, derekwong745@yahoo.com Ramon Baez, rfbaez7@gmail.com Kathy Weiss, kathy@crystalspringsranch.co Bridgett Novak, bnovak26@comcast.net Page 4 of 3