2021-03-18 Plaza RevisedThursday, March 18, 2021 at 10:06:25 Pacific Daylight Time
Page 1 of 2
Subject:Opposi&on to Surf Park Resort
Date:Thursday, March 18, 2021 at 9:58:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
From:Peter Plaza
To:Consul&ng Planner
My name is Peter Plaza, and this is an amendment to my first list of comments on March 9th.
There has been a lot of comments opposing the construc&on and opera&on of the Surf Park, but there are no
comments regarding the 190 acres of vacant land shown on the current Master Plan Design. Currently, “The
Plan” shows approximately half of the parcel of land being developed, leaving approximately 190 acres of
land as future residen&al development. The main roadway coming into the development goes through the
undeveloped parcel of land, with apparent berms on both sides of the roadway with trees and landscaping.
One would assume that the designers and developers want to create a vision-percep&on for the residents
and guest that they are going through the Surf Park that is completed and fully developed. This certainly is
not the case, and one would assume that it opens-up a host of ques&ons and concerns by City Planners,
Consultants and all of us that are members of the Opposi&on to the Surf Park Development, including me. I
ask that the following talking-points be considered at the March 30th Mee&ng:
1. It is quite apparent that only half the parcel of property is planned for development now and the
remaining 190 acres will be vacant and developed in “Phases” over-&me. This opens up a lot of
ques&ons:
a. Will the Master Plan remain for future residen&al homes, or, does the developer plan on
amending the Master Plan in the future by adding more surf wave runs, once the first wave run
proves to be successful? There is a poten&al, the developer is crea&ng a “foot-in-the-door”
scenario now with plans keep their op&ons open for the future. This scenario can’t play out,
and must be stopped in it’s tracks now by not allowing this development to be a Surf Park be
built and only approved this parcel of land for what it is currently zoned for; residen&al homes
and a golf course.
b. How long will the 190 acres be leZ vacant?
c. Will the City of La Quinta
d. How is the 190 acres of vacant property be treated? Will the property be landscaped, or leave
the exis&ng vegeta&on intact, clear and grub the property and leave the surface dirt, or apply a
surface treatment that will require maintenance over &me?
e. How do you prevent 190 acres from becoming a “dust-bowl” over the life of this condi&on?
f. Future construc&on of the vacant parcel of property will now open-up the en&re development,
it’s residents, guests, visitors and the community at large to repeated exposure to construc&on
impacts again, again and again.
g. The main roadway and entrance into the development will become the main thoroughfare for
construc&on vehicles and equipment, resul&ng in disrup&on to the local residents and traffic
pa_erns throughout the area. To prevent this from occurring, a new service entrance will be
required on 58th Street to detour trades, construc&on vehicles, supply deliveries and heavy
equipment from the main roadway. This will put pressure on the traffic pa_ern along this highly
traveled roadway.
h. Hauling, impor&ng and expor&ng of dirt and gravel will be necessary during future development
phases, as a result of limited lay-down areas and remote stockpile areas as the construc&on
con&nues over a 10-year period.
i. How will the developer control natural water run-off, erosion, drainage, ponding and flooding
while the parcel of property remains dormant?
j. Will there be standing water that will be a host for mosquito infesta&on, rodents, odors and
other environmental impacts to the development and surrounding communi&es?
Page 2 of 2
These are just some of the major concerns this development will create and represents the “&p-of-the-
iceberg” scenario that will require all par&es, consultants, etc., to consider these concerns and address them
when developing, reviewing and approving the final Environmental Impact Report.
CONCLUSION
It is without any reserva&on by me and surely all those opposed to this Surf Park Development, that the City
of La Quinta REJECT this proposed Master Plan, REJECT the re-zoning of this parcel of land and REJECT the
mul&ple phases of construc&on over-&me. This development should be reviewed for a residen&al
development with a golf course. Nothing more-nothing less!
Peter Plaza
Trilogy at La Quinta Resident
Sent from Mail for Windows 10