Loading...
2022-04-20 Callimanis Comments by LQRRD to PCFrom: Tania Flores Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:15 PM To: Alena Callimanis Cc: Danny Castro; Cheri Flores; Consulting Planner Subject: RE: Ms. Flores, can you please forward this electronically to the Members of the Planning Commission Attachments: Letter to the Planning Commission from LQRRD April 19 2022.pdf Good afternoon, All public comment and presentations from the April 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting were made available to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting in digital format. Any items received up to the adjournment of that meeting were added to the final record of the meeting and made available to the Commission and the public in digital format within days of the meeting. All public comment received since that time will be included in the upcoming agenda packet for review. Thank you. Tania Flores I Administrative Technician Design & Development Department City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico I La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. (760)777-7023 TFlores@LaQuintaCA.gov www.LaQuintaCA.gov City Hall is now open to the public during normal business hours. Please follow all CDC and State recommended guidelines as they pertain to COVID-19 safety and awareness. All public services continue to be available via phone, email or online web portal and the public is encouraged to utilize these services when possible. Thank you. Original Message From: Alena Callimanis <acallimanis@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 5:52 PM To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Tania Flores <tflores@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Ms. Flores, can you please forward this electronically to the Members of the Planning Commission ** 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. ** Ms. Flores, we would like to respectfully request that you forward this to the Planning Commission members as soon as possible. The attached document includes the La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development (LQRRD) comments on the applicant's presentations during the April 12 Planning Commission meeting. We would like them to receive this electronically if possible while they are still reviewing the information the Commission received during last week's meeting. We sincerely apologize that this was not completed last week and we hope that does not present a problem to the Commissioners. Thank you very much for your consideration and support of our request. Alena Callimanis LQRRD 81469 Rustic Canyon Dr. La Quinta, CA 92253 919 606-6164 MeiInia Bird dents For Rasp onsld le Devel o pm enl To: Chairperson Nieto, Vice Chair Currie, Planning Commissioners and Staff We would like to thank you for the opportunity to present to you during these public hearings on the Coral Mountain Surf Resort and your patience to thoughtfully listen to Staff, Developer and legal team, and to all the public comments. We especially commend you on your ability to keep a neutral bearing. It must be so difficult when you hear statements that are obviously misleading. We do need to apologize if you have seen our skeptical expressions, rolling eyes or shaking heads. LQRRD would like to take this opportunity to highlight those areas discussed on April 12 where we were particularly concerned about information that was brushed aside with vague comments, or with statements that were obviously misleading. We apologize in advance for the length of this document, and our delay in getting it to you, but we feel this information is critical for you to have as background before you vote. 1) The first statement we would like to reference, is by Tony L. who spoke about noise. The comment was made that when you double the distance from a noise source, you drop 6 decibels of sound. I would certainly like to reference this weekend's Coachella Fest. If sound truly drops off like this, why do we hear the music from Coachella all over town? We will reference Trilogy in particular. Residents Saturday night heard not only the low frequency bass noise, but it was clearly perceptible that a female was singing and some words were discernible. And it is well over 5 miles away. People at Point Happy heard the music reverberating off the mountains. By the way, we clearly heard Iron Man announcements from Lake Cahuilla, the Sheriff shooting range behind Lake Cahuilla, cars racing at Thermal Speedway, all this a lot further than the Wave Pool is to Madison. If you look at the diagram with the wave pool, the machinery that pulls the chain for the hydrofoil is significantly closer to Coral Mountain, less than 350 feet away from the Mountain per the light study. Contrary to the information from the applicant, the effect of the starting of the machinery to generate the wave on Coral Mountain was not studied. Also, with the bi-directional nature of the wave, no impact of wave noise going back against Coral Mountain was even considered. And the sound is generated for up to a 1/2 mile. It is not a "point" sound, but a "line" sound. The other thing we would like to respectfully request for the Commissioners to review is the document we included in your packet "Surf Wave Parks — Assessing the Sound of Fun", by Shane Chambers and Ralph James from the Bioacoustics Research Laboratory, in Western Australia. https://acoustics.asn.au/conference proceedings/AAS2018/pa pers/p 142. pdf Patrons, traffic, plant and machinery noise are often misperceived by the public to be the (only) main contributing noise sources. However, long durational noise from the resonance of air in the tube of the wave or formation of vapor bubbles created in the spilling or breaking process (especially traveling for almost 1/2 mile) must be studied and are dominant. Airborne generation of noise from breaking waves has been shown to be complex, containing tonal, modulating and broadband components, which are all additive when assessing noise dose. These sounds are the Low Frequency Sounds we discussed in our presentation that travel long distances and need to be evaluated when placed in environmentally sensitive areas. With the way the surf basin is situated, and that there would be 50 hertz frequencies in the "C" range generated by the surf (without considering the wave mechanism) this low frequency noise can also impact wildlife. At the Coral Mountain side of the wave basin, part of the surf basin would not be blocked by Coral Mountain. Until further evidence of noise generated from such parks is available, control of such noise will be difficult to evaluate, and authorities should demonstrate caution when assessing such proposals placed in noise sensitive areas. The Council reviewing the Tompkin's Surf Park did and killed the project mentioned in this paper. https://wavepoolmag.com/urbnsurf-forced-to-find-new-Iocation- for-perth-wave-pool/ It was a very telling statement that Tony said he has never in 40 years had anyone read the EIR. We have identified and we can pinpoint missing information from the Lemoore study and sound factors being changed (like "soft" to "hard" surfaces from one analysis to another). Given the new significant information shared at the April 12 meeting about the Potential of Surf -wave Park Low Frequency Noise that could affect humans and wildlife, the Commission needs to request a recirculation of the EIR per Section 15088.5. 2) In Mr. Gamlin's discussion on Green House Gas emissions, he discussed the elimination of almost 4000 metric tons a year based on best practices of using solar and other technologies for the project. This of course does not include the tremendous electrical consumption of the wave mechanism, which will require a new substation buildout. Mr. Gamlin discussed the equivalent reduction of 850 cars off the road per year. We would like to respectfully mention that all the STVRs that will be at Coral Mountain would contribute at least 850 more cars per day for special events and probably 600 cars per day, every day, based on the City of La Quinta's STVR maximum people capacity, for example 8 — 10 people for a 3 bedroom home. Even at 30% STVR occupancy per day, 200 STVRs will typically bring a minimum of 3 cars per day per residence based on what is seen at PGA West. 2) Mr. Gamlin spoke about the vistas viewable from Monroe of the area before Trilogy and Andalusia were build and that Coral Mountain aesthetic impacts are equivalent to impacts of Trilogy and Andalusia being built out. We would respectfully disagree in that the vast open areas he referred to are not equivalent to building right under Coral Mountain. You cannot compare the aesthetics of building Trilogy and Andalusia with the aesthetic impacts to Coral Mountain. 3) Mr. Gamlin also attempted to do a land use equivalence of residences near La Quinta Resort and residences near Coral Mountain. There are not seventeen 80 foot lights around a one half mile long wave pool at the La Quinta Resort, with noise 7am — 10pm, traffic, 365 days a year, and four special events at a minimum. The developer tells us lights won't be an issue. We know the drone photos in the PDF presentation we gave were not that clear, and we can send you the original photos if you want. But at 70 feet, if you look closely at the photos in the documentation we left for you, the drone clearly showed full houses visible in Andalusia, Trilogy, Cantera and the houses on the north side of 58, and in the distance. That means for miles around, the glow of the light will be fully visible. To say that the EIR took into account the closest developments of Cantera and Lisa Castro's house is not true. The line of sight to Coral Mountain totally bypassed Cantera and went across the street. Cantera is bounded by Coral Mountain Resort on two sides and is the closest development to the Coral Mountain itself and the surf basin. In addition, there will be lights for the sidewalks and bike and electric vehicle access along Coral Mountain so there will be light spillage on the Mountain. Lisa Castro's property and house are right by the lights at the other end of the surf basin. If you look at the site plans, cars and trucks will only run on her side of the development through to 60th. There are no through roads on the west side by Coral Mountain. Lisa Castro is a widow who expected to make this her forever home. She has lived in this house when it had the original Thermal address before it was transferred to La Quinta. Mr. Gamlin says they will be a good neighbor. The precedent of approving this project should send chills up the spines of all the residents. A developer comes in, builds a private resort, not for resident use, and it does not matter that people live steps away and are faced with constant noise, lights, water spray, chlorine vapor, etc. The attorney disclosed that the Wave Project must provide the City $1.7 Million in income annually. "This is the best thing for the City of La Quinta". Why can't a residential community at Coral Mountain be the best thing for La Quinta by bringing in permanent residents, not STVRs. As Toll Brothers did across the street at Stone Creek, they charge a special City of La Quinta assessment to help make up the tax difference. If you do a residential development, which is hot right now, you could easily get $600,000 to $800,000 annually as part of this special assessment, which will provide real homes to real families. And it won't cause the tremendous GreenHouse Gas and aesthetic issues. 5) The lawyer spoke about CVWD and its Indio Subbasin Contingency Plan and how it takes into consideration the Colorado River and drought and the State Water Project. Here are the facts as presented in the Indio Subbasin Plan: a) The lawyer said CVWD was conservative that they only used a 45% reduction in the State Water Project allocation of Colorado River water to CVWD. The lawyer failed to mention that in 2020 and 2021 the allocation was dropped to 5% of normal. And in 2022 that was dropped to 0%, that is no Colorado River water coming to CVWD through the State Water Project. The lawyer also described the massive overdraft through 2009 and how that has been reversed. Yes, CVWD was able to purchase more Colorado River Water, which brought it up to only 45% of what it was in 2009. So in effect we still have a long way to go to be back to full capacity. But we will not have excess water from the Colorado River to purchase. There is no other magic source of Water. CVWD did not take into consideration the drought in the Indio Subbasin Plan or in the Drought Contingency Plan. This is what they say: "California's Colorado River water rights are defined by the 1922 Colorado River Compact and the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act. CVWD's portion of California's rights were set by the 1931 Seven Party Agreement (USBR, 1931.3) Under the Seven Party Agreement, CVWD receives 330,000 AF of Priority 3A Colorado River water and has water rights as part of the first 3.85 million AFY of Colorado River water allocated to California. In other words, CVWD expects it will continue to get first rights for the Colorado River Water. As part of the Drought Contingency Plan, this is what CVWD has written: "Colorado River (Canal) water has been a significant water supply source for the Indio Subbasin since the Coachella Canal was completed in 1949. CVWD is the only agency in the Indio Subbasin that receives Colorado River water allocations. Total available Colorado River deliveries increase to 464,000 AF in 2045". This statement proves that CVWD keeps thinking it will get more and more Colorado River water and did NOT consider drought in their plans, as alluded to by the attorney. As far as the Drought Contingency Plan (DCP), "implementation of the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan Agreement (Lower Basin DCP; USBR, 2019) may affect reliability of Colorado River water supply through the year 2025. In addition to criteria set in the 2007 Interim Guidelines, the Lower Basin DCP establishes that certain Colorado River users in the Lower Basin, including CVWD, make DCP contributions if specific triggers are met between 2020 and 2026. CVWD agrees to contribute between 14,000 AF and 24,500 AF if the elevation of Lake Mead drops to between 1,045 feet and 1,030 feet before 2026". Again, there are no built in drought contingencies being factored in today in the CVWD subbasin studies. This has been happening throughout the DEIR and the EIR. We keep seeing vague generalities, or definitions from CEQA that go on for pages and pages that make people think studies must be accurate versus just being "filler" information. As you listen to the last set of presentations from the developer and the lawyer, please remember we have been studying this project in depth for well over a year now. If we had not, we would probably acquiesce to the developer's dialogue. But we just can't do that because we know the issues and we know this project should not be built in the desert, with a surfing basin as its centerpiece. Respectfully, Carolyn Winnor La Quinta Resident and Secretary La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development