2020-06-16 MP 2019-0004 RTC1
Nichole Romane
From:Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:32 PM
To:Vann, Nicole;Brizuela, Christopher;Consulting Planner
Cc:Rowe, Mike;Depalatis, Paul;Garrett Simon;Cheri Flores
Subject:Re: 2553: MP 2019-0004 [2553-MSA1.NRzf]
EXTERNAL:This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta.Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments,clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Thanks Nicole!
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:Vann,Nicole"nvann@msaconsultinginc.com>
Date:Tuesday,June 16,2020 at 1:09 PM
To:Nicole Criste ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>,Brizuela,Christopher"
cbrizuela@msaconsultinginc.com>,Nicole Criste Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>
Cc:Rowe,Mike"mrowe@msaconsultinginc.com>,Depalatis,Paul"pdepalatis@msaconsultinginc.com>,
Garrett Simon gsimon@meriwetherco.com>,Cheri Flores clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject:RE:2553:MP 2019 0004 2553 MSA1.NRzf]
Nicole,
Attached are the RTC from Urban. I meant to send those to you this morning, my apologies!
Nicole Vann
Planner
MSA Consulting, Inc.
760-320-9811
From:Nicole Criste ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Sent:Tuesday,June 16,2020 12:59 PM
To:Brizuela,Christopher cbrizuela@msaconsultinginc.com>;Nicole Criste Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>
Cc:Rowe,Mike mrowe@msaconsultinginc.com>;Depalatis,Paul pdepalatis@msaconsultinginc.com>;Garrett Simon
gsimon@meriwetherco.com>;Vann,Nicole nvann@msaconsultinginc.com>;Cheri Flores clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject:Re:2553:MP 2019 0004 2553 MSA1.NRzf]
2
Chris,
We have reviewed the materials submitted,and have the following questions or comments:
1. There are two copies of the Hydrology Study in the MP2019 0004 folder,labeled differently.Please let me know
which is correct,and which I should delete.
2. Please provide,in the MP2019 0004 folder,a copy of the draft Coral Canyon Specific Plan in Word.
3. It is Urban Crossroads’practice to provide a response to comments letter when amending their reports.If they
or any of the other sub consultants provided such letters,please email them to me as opposed to uploading
them to Trakit).It will make our second review of technical studies much more time and cost efficient.
We have initiated our second review of the application for completeness,and will send our determination
when it is complete.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Nicole
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
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:Brizuela,Christopher"cbrizuela@msaconsultinginc.com>
Date:Monday,June 15,2020 at 4:25 PM
To:Nicole Criste Ncriste@laquintaca.gov>
Cc:Rowe,Mike"mrowe@msaconsultinginc.com>,Depalatis,Paul"pdepalatis@msaconsultinginc.com>,
Garrett Simon gsimon@meriwetherco.com>,Vann,Nicole"nvann@msaconsultinginc.com>
Subject:2553:MP 2019 0004 2553 MSA1.NRzf]
Resent From:ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>
Hi Nicole,
It was my understanding that the upload process created a time stamped list.That said,please see below for an
itemized list of what was uploaded:
CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN:
Zone Change Exhibit
General Plan Amendment Exhibit
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Document
Tentative Tract Map
Preliminary Engineering Plans
o Conceptual Sewer Exhibit
3
o Conceptual Water Exhibit
o Conceptual Grading Exhibits
o Preliminary Hydrology Report
Initial Study
Technical Studies
o Geotechnical Report
o Paleo Report
o Traffic Report and Appendix
o Preliminary Hydrology Report
o Biological Report
o Noise Report
o Cultural Report
o GHG Report
o Air Quality Report
Authorization Letter
AMENDMENT V OF ANDALUSIA COUNTRY CLUB SPECIFIC PLAN:
Andalusia Country Club Specific Plan document clean)
Andalusia Country Club Specific Plan document redline)
Signed SPA and EA applications
Best,
Christopher Brizuela
Planner
MSA Consulting, Inc.
From:Nicole Criste ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Sent:Monday,June 15,2020 4:03 PM
To:Vann,Nicole nvann@msaconsultinginc.com>
Cc:Garrett Simon gsimon@meriwetherco.com>
Subject:MP 2019 0004
Nicole,
I received 26 emails for uploads to the Master Project for the Wave.The transmittal that is included in them,however,
does not provide a list of the documents that are supposed to be there.Please provide a list of what documents are
included in the upload,so that I am sure of what has been provided.
Nicole
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
City of La Quinta
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
4
Aid in Future COVID 19 Relief Funding and Get Your Community Counted!Take the 2020 Census Online Here:
https://my2020census.gov/,Everyone Counts!
12641-05 RTC
June 10, 2020
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
2440 Junction Place, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80301
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS LETTER FOR AIR QUALITY AND GHG REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2019-002, ZONE CHANGE 2019-0004, SPECIFIC
PLAN 2019-0003 [AMENDMENT 5 TO SP 03-067], TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2019-0005
TTM 37815], AND MASTER PROJECT 2019-0004)
Dear Mr. Garrett Simon:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Response to Comments for the General Plan Amendment
2019-002, Zone Change 2019-0004, Specific Plan 2019-0003 [Amendment 5 to SP 03-067], Tentative
Tract Map 2019-0005 [TTM 37815], and Master Project 2019-0004 (Project), which is in the City of La
Quinta (City). This letter has been prepared in response to the January 10, 2020 comments prepared by
the City of La Quinta on the Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) and Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHGA)
dated on December 3, 2019 by Urban Crossroads, Inc. Attachment “A” to this letter includes the City
comments.
AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1
Comment noted. The analysis has been revised to reflect the 21,920 cubic yards of import . It is our
understanding that the import quantity will be hauled from an on-site location. As a conservative
measure, this analysis assumes a hauling trip length of 1 mile (the length of the Project site).
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2
The AQIA analyzes localized construction and operational emissions impacts at the nearest sensitive
receptors. It should be noted that no Phasing Plan or detailed information has been provided detailing
which Planning Areas will be constructed during each phase of construction. As such, consistent with the
Coral Mountain Specific Plan Noise Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., the nearest
sensitive receptor used to evaluate construction and operational air quality impacts for emissions of
PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and CO is represented is an existing residential home located 37 feet/11 meters from
the Project site. It should be noted that the LST Methodology explicitly states that “It is possible that a
project may have receptors closer than 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters
to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters (1).” As such, the 25-meter
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
June 10, 2020
Page 2 of 7
12641-05 RTC
distance will be used to conservatively evaluate construction and operational air quality impacts air
quality impacts for emissions of PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and CO.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 3
Comment noted. The analysis has been revised to reflect the VMT/trip of 7.91 miles as identified in the
Coral Mountain Traffic Impact Analysis report (TIA).
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4
This is a typo. The SP threshold used in the GHGA analysis is based on the Project’s 2026 buildout year.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5
Comment noted. The analysis has been revised to reflect the energy demands for the wave pool use
provided by the Project Applicant.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6
Project water use is based on information provided in the Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply
Verification for the Proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan by MSA Consulting, Inc.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 7
The trip purposes in CalEEMod has been adjusted to account for the internal reductions consistent with
the TIA. This method is appropriate and ensures that emissions are not understated.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 8
Comment noted. The analysis has been revised to included air quality and GHG impacts associated with
mobile-related emissions from special events .
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
Haseeb Qureshi
Associate Principal
12641-05 RTC
ATTACHMENT “A” CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMENT LETTER
January 10, 2020
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
2440 Junction Place, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80301
SUBJECT: AIR QUALITY AND GHG REPORT REVIEW COMMENTS
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 its review of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions reports, and
has the following comments. When the studies are revised and resubmitted, please provide the
Project’s CalEEMod excel file for review in addition to the responses to this memo.
In general, the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Reports analyzed Project emissions against the
appropriate SCAQMD thresholds. However, there are questions regarding CalEEMod inputs and
emission projections for the Project.
1. Construction Hauling
Currently, the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Reports do not account for “hauling” emissions
because “earthwork activities are expected to balance on site and no import or export of soils
would be required” (AQ Report, pg 27). Two comments:
A. The preliminary grading plan shows a subtotal cut/fill of 896,838 CY/918,759 CY
with an import of 21,920 CY (see screenshot below). If the cut and fill calcs
balanced on-site, that would still require an import of 21,920 CY, which was not
accounted for in the construction hauling emissions and will require a re-run of
CalEEMod. Haul trips should consider actual haul locations to determine miles per
haul. CalEEMod assumes a 20-mile haul trip, one-way. This may need to be
adjusted for accuracy. Also, the CalEEMod re-run will need to be specific about
which Phase(s) will require material import.
B.It is unclear how the balanced earthwork material is divided amongst the three
separately phased site plans and whether or not this division would have an impact
on material being hauled from one phase area to another. This could potentially
result in a 0.3-0.75-mile haul trip depending on the location of earthwork and
stockpile area. For example, Phase 1 will generate substantial cut in order to dig
the wave pool. If all cut is to remain on Phase 1 property, the analysis is adequate,
but an explanation must be added. If, on the other hand, Phase 1 cut is being
moved to Phase 3 property, hauling must be incorporated into the analysis. Please
provide further explanation and re-run CalEEMod, if necessary.
2.Sensitive Receptors
The sensitive receptor analysis in the Air Quality Report does not consider the addition of Phase
1 sensitive receptors (new residences, hotel guests) when Phases 2 and 3 are being constructed.
The Air Quality Report, specifically section 3.6 Localized Significant – Construction Activity,
should be updated accordingly to include the sensitive receptors present on the property when
each subsequent phase is constructed.
3.Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
It does not appear that a VMT analysis was prepared, or a general VMT assumption made, for
the hotel and wave pool land uses. Default VMTs (CalEEMod) were used in both reports that are
similar to those of residential and commercial land uses (5.4 – 12.5 miles per trip), which is
equivalent to traveling from Palm Springs. It is anticipated that the wave pool and hotel will
attract regional attention, meaning passenger vehicles would likely be traveling from greater
distances such as the Los Angeles or San Diego areas, which are approximately 130 miles west
of the Project area. The default trip miles do not adequately account for emission impacts
associated with the typically long-distance travel associated with hotel uses or the proposed
wave pool. Therefore, the air quality and greenhouse gas emission projections and impacts
should be reevaluated to include VMTs more appropriate for the hotel and wave pool land uses.
4.Project Buildout Year
The following paragraph is located on page 43 of the Greenhouse Report:
As previously noted, the 2017 Scoping Plan identifies a reduction target of 40% below 2020
levels by 2030. As such, the appropriate reduction target for 2030 would be 2.88 MTCO2e/yr.
For analysis purposes herein, the SP threshold for the Project’s buildout year of 2026 was
calculated by linear interpolation between the 2020 target of 4.8 MTCO2e/yr and the 2030 target
of 2.88 MTCO2e/yr. As such, the target for the Project’s buildout year of 2021 is 3.65
MTCO2e/yr.”
Please confirm if the buildout year cited in the last sentence is in fact 2021, or if it is supposed
to be 2026. Please recalculate SP threshold and reassess Project impacts for 2026 if necessary.
5. Wave Pool Energy Demand and Emissions
It is unclear if the energy demand and emissions of the wave pool equipment was accounted for
in CalEEMod. The wave pool will have an unusually high energy demand which should be
calculated based on existing operations at other facilities. Please provide further analysis and
explanation of this energy demand. Re-run CalEEMod with Project-specific energy demand
numbers, if necessary.
6. Wave Pool Water Demand and Emissions
It is stated that water demand projections are based on default CalEEMod values for a
recreational swimming pool” (CalEEMod output notes for Phase 3 Operations). Intuitively, this
assumption is incorrect because it does not account for wave pool daily water loss,
evapotranspiration for a pool of the proposed size, annual cleanings or repairs that may require
full drainage and re-fills, etc. Further analysis should be conducted for water demand (which
should be consistent with the Water Supply Assessment for the project) and specific water
demand calculations should be applied to CalEEMod.
7. New “Vehicle Trips” Values in CalEEMod
It is unclear why the following defaults were adjusted in CalEEMod. Please provide further
explanation. Below is a screenshot of an example (from left, default values in 3rd column and
new values in 4th column).
8. Special Events
The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Reports did not analyze impacts from special events, which
would generate significantly higher mobile-related emissions. The Air Quality and Greenhouse
Gas Reports shall be updated to include a new CalEEMod run and analysis of special events using
daily trips and trip rates consistent with the Traffic Impact Analysis.
If you have any questions please contact me at ncriste@terranovaplanning.com, and/or at (760)
777-7132 or (760) 341-4800.
Sincerely,
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Consulting Planner
Summary of Revisions
Page Number Original Text Revised Text
p. ii (Executive
Summary)
Last two paragraphs Expanded into three paragraphs. See
Conclusion and Recommendations” below for
contents.
p. 10 “A few of the sites also included rock art
panels and human cremation remains. Unique
artefactual remains included processed clay
and a stone ball.”
A few of the sites also yielded more significant
or distinctive findings, including human
cremation remains, rock art panels, and unique
artefacts such as processed clay and a stone
ball.”
p. 14 “Two of the recorded prehistoric
archaeological sites and four of the isolates,
namely 33-005214, 33-005214, 33-009000, 33-
009002, 33-009004, and 33-009005…”
Two of the recorded prehistoric archaeological
sites and four of the isolates, namely 33 -005213,
33-005214, 33-009000, 33-009002, 33-009004,
and 33-009005…”
p. 22 “Therefore, Isolates 33-009001, 33-009003,
33-028907, 33-028908, and 33-028910 to 33-
028912 are not considered potential ‘historical
resources,’ and require no further consideration
in the CEQA-compliance process.”
Therefore, Isolates 33-009001, 33-009003, 33-
028907, 33-028908, and 33-028910 to 33-
028912 are not considered potential ‘historical
resources.’” (See below.)
pp. 22-23
Conclusion and
Recommendations)
Final four paragraphs Added references to Appendix 4, which
outlines the ESAs at the rock art sites and
preservation area at the adobe site.
Added basic description of excavation
procedures to be undertaken in the
easternmost portion of Site 33-001715 and
provision for mitigation plan to be approved
by all interested parties, including the
culturally affiliated Native American tribes.
Added preservation option for the adobe
remains.
Added clarification that controlled
archaeological testing excavation will be
required if any potentially significant
cultural remains are unearthed during the
monitoring program.
Added clarification on tribal consultation in
the development and implementation of the
monitoring program.
p. 169 None Added Appendix 4 to show locations and
configuration of the proposed ESAs and
preservation area.
12642-06 RTC
April 23, 2020
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
2440 Junction Place, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80301
SUBJECT: THE WAVE AT CORAL MOUNTAIN NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Dear Mr. Garrett Simon:
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this Response to Comments for The Wave at Coral Mountain
Project”), which is in the City of La Quinta. This letter has been prepared in response to the January
30, 2020 comments by City of La Quinta on The Wave at Coral Mountain Noise Impact Analysis (“NIA”)
prepared on December 3, 2019 by Urban Crossroads, Inc.
RESPONSE 1
The NIA has been revised to reflect the updated traffic volumes in the April 1, 2020 Coral Mountain
Specific Plan Traffic Study. This includes traffic analysis of special event conditions.
RESPONSE 2
The NIA has been updated to reflect the current site plan and the Coral Mountain Specific Plan project
name.
RESPONSE 3
Reference to “pop-up village park” have been removed.
RESPONSE 4
This paragraph has been removed.
RESPONSE 5
To avoid any confusion, reference to the grade has been removed. The exterior noise analysis shows
that future exterior noise level at General Plan Buildout Conditions will range from 66.7 to 68.8 without
mitigation. These estimates likely overstate the potential noise level impacts and do account for
potential building setback from the roadway. Therefore, a 6-foot high noise barrier will likely provide
more than enough noise attenuation.
RESPONSE 6
The use of the term “may” has been changed to “shall”.
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
April 23, 2020
Page 2 of 3
12642-06 RTC
RESPONSE 7
Additional on-site receivers were added, and the construction noise analysis was divided into phases to
describe the potential impact on future receivers within the project.
RESPONSE 8
The noise study has been updated to reflect this comment.
RESPONSE 9
Section 3.6 has been revised.
RESPONSE 10
The noise study has been updated to reflect this comment.
RESPONSE 11
The noise study has been updated to reflect this comment.
RESPONSE 12
Reference to the court case has been removed. The analysis considers both the absolute (on-site) and
relative (off-site) traffic noise analysis. All impacts of greater than 65 dBA are not considered significant.
This is consistent with The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. The analysis considers a
range of noise levels to describe the project related incremental noise level increases in the off-site traffic
noise levels. In effect, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is
reduced based on existing ambient noise conditions. The use of the 65 dBA CNEL noise level threshold
is used as the absolute noise level to describe the on-site traffic noise levels.
RESPONSE 13
The CadnaA noise model input worksheets now show the source heights. For AC units the source height
is 5 feet above the roof elevation, parking source height is 5 feet and the Loading Dock Source height is
8 feet.
RESPONSE 14
Section 9.5 has relocated to section 2.3.5.
RESPONSE 15
Section 10 has been updated to reflect this comment.
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
April 23, 2020
Page 3 of 3
12642-06 RTC
RESPONSE 16
The value for R1 is correct, however, the value for the highest reference noise level was incorrectly listed
as 73.5 instead of 71.9.
RESPONSE 17
Additional on-site receivers were added and the potential impacts to on-site receivers are now included
in the noise analysis.
RESPONSE 18
Several actual reference noise level measurements were collected at the existing facility in Lemoore. A
detailed description of this reference noise source is now included in the text.
RESPONSE 19
The outdoor game field activities are used to describe the planned beach club activity use as shown on
the Project site. This section has been retitled simply as outdoor activity and is used to describe the
potential noise levels from the use.
RESPONSE 20
The revised analysis does not identify any nighttime activity associated with the planned uses.
Therefore, nighttime noise mitigation measures are no longer needed.
RESPONSE 21
Additional on-site receivers were added, and the construction noise analysis was divided into phases to
describe the potential impact on future receivers within the project.
Respectfully submitted,
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE
Principal