The URL can be used to link to this page

Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR - Compiled 2022-03-08 CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT FINAL EIR SCH# 2021020310 Applicant: THE WAVE DEVELOPMENT, LLC 2440 Junction Place, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80301 Lead Agency: CITY OF LA QUINTA 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Preparer: MSA CONSULTING INC. 34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, California 92270 February 2022 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Coral Mountain Resort, La Quinta CA DEIR/FEIR Preparers Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR i‐1 February 2022 EIR Preparers The Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared by the City of La Quinta (City) with the assistance of MSA Consulting, Incorporated. Report preparers and consultants are identified as follows, along with agencies, and individuals that provided information used to prepare the Draft and Final EIR. Lead Agency The City of La Quinta Planning Division 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: 760‐777‐7000 Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: 760‐341‐4455 Email: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov EIR Preparers MSA Consulting, Inc. 34200 Bob Hope Drive Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Phone: 760‐320‐9822 Michelle Witherspoon, Director of Environmental Services Jesus Herrera‐Cortez, Senior Environmental Planner, GIS Analyst Nicole Vann, Planner Asia Lee, Environmental Planner Derek Gallerani, Planning CAD Technician Michael Rowe, Principal Engineer LSA Associates, Inc. 901 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite B200 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone: 760‐416‐2075 EIR PREPARERS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR i‐2 February 2022 Jodi Ross‐Borrego, Principal Biologist Jill Carpenter, Senior Biologist/Bat Specialist CRM Tech 1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 Phone: 909‐824‐6400 Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator Deirdre Encarnacion, Archaeologist/Report Writer Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Paleontological Surveyor/Field Director Nina Gallardo, Archaeologist/Native American Liaison Harry M. Quinn, Geologist/Paleontologist Ben Kerridge, Paleontological Surveyor/Report Writer Salvadore Z. Boites, Paleontological Surveyor Hunter O’Donnell, Paleontological Surveyor Michael D. Richards, MA, Registered Professional Archaeologist Sabrina Fajardo, Paleontological Surveyor Sladden Engineering 45090 Golf Center Parkway, Suite F Indio, CA 92201 Phone: 760‐863‐0713 Matthew J. Cohrt, Project Geologist Brett L. Anderson, Principal Engineer Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Suite C‐256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 Phone: 805‐426‐4477 Haseeb Qureshi, Associate Principal (AQ and GHG Report) Alyssa Tamase (AQ Report) John Kain, AICP Principal (Traffic Impact Analysis) Marlie Whiteman, Principal Engineer (Traffic Impact Analysis) Janette Cachola (Traffic Impact Analysis) Bill Lawson, Principal Engineer, INCE (Noise Study) EIR PREPARERS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR i‐3 February 2022 Musco Lighting 100 1st Avenue West P.O. Box 808 Oskaloosa, IA 52577 Phone: 641‐673‐0411 Additional Agencies and Organizations Consulted Along with a list of EIR prepares, a list of public agencies, organizations and persons consulted for the EIR is included below, compliant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15129. The following list includes agencies that were informally or formally contacted, as well as agencies that responded to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) or commented on the DEIR (listed in alphabetical order). ‐ Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ‐ Air Resources Board ‐ Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians ‐ Cabazon Band of Mission Indians ‐ Cahuilla Band of Indians ‐ CAL FIRE ‐ California Department of Fish and Wildlife ‐ CalTrans District #8 ‐ Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy ‐ Colorado River Board ‐ Fish and Game Region #6 ‐ Imperial Irrigation District ‐ Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians ‐ Morongo Band of Mission Indians ‐ Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) ‐ Public Utilities Commission ‐ Regional WQCB #7 ‐ Ramona Band of Cahuilla ‐ Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) ‐ Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ‐ Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D. (Vertebrate Paleontology) ‐ Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians ‐ Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians ‐ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) ‐ Torres‐Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians ‐ Twenty‐Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians EIR PREPARERS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR i‐4 February 2022 The following list includes the agencies that commented during the public review period of the Draft EIR (as listed in Chapter 2.0 of the Final EIR, Table 2‐1, Comment Letters Received on the Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR). ‐ Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) ‐ CALFIRE ‐ Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) ‐ Bighorn Institute ‐ Riverside County Flood Control (RCFC) ‐ Imperial Irrigation District (IID) ‐ Cactus to Clouds ‐ CVWD ‐ Center of Biological Diversity ‐ California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Final EIR Consultants In addition to consulting with the project’s technical report preparers regarding the technical studies, additional organizations were consulted during the drafting of this Final EIR. The consultants include ELMT Consulting for the Biological Memo (Appendix D.5 in this Final EIR), Kelly Slater Wave Company for additional information regarding the Wave Basin (Appendix L.4 and L.5 in this Final EIR), LSA Associates for their updated studies (Appendix D.3 and D.4 in this Final EIR), Musco Lighting for their Light Memo (Appendix B.1 and B.2 in this Final EIR), and Urban Crossroads for their Noise Memo Update (Appendix K.3 in this Final EIR) and Traffic Memo (Appendix L.1 through L.3 in this Final EIR) (listed in alphabetical order below). The following organizations and individuals provided information or assistance in the preparation of the Final EIR: ELMT Consulting Thomas McGill, Ph.D. Managing Director, Senior Biologist, Senior Regulatory Specialist Kelly Slater Wave Company 3300 La Cienega Place Los Angeles, CA 90016 Phone: 310‐804‐7092 Harold J. Portillo, VP Wave Project Design LSA Associates, Inc. EIR PREPARERS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR i‐5 February 2022 901 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite B200 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone: 760‐416‐2075 Jodi Ross‐Borrego, Principal Biologist Jill Carpenter, Senior Biologist/Bat Specialist Meridian Consultants 706 S. Hill Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: 641‐673‐0411 Tony Locacciato, AICP Musco Lighting 100 1st Avenue West P.O. Box 808 Oskaloosa, IA 52577 Phone: 641‐673‐0411 Matt Pearson, Non‐Sports Engineering Manager Tim Newendorp, Project Engineer SZR Law 4590 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Phone: 805‐446‐1496 James D. Vaughn, Esq. Urban Crossroads, Inc. 1197 Los Angeles Avenue, Suite C‐256 Simi Valley, CA 93065 Phone: 805‐426‐4477 John Kain, AICP Principal Marlie Whiteman, Principal Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR i February 2022 Chapters Chapter 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1‐1 1.2 Role of the Lead Agency ..................................................................................... 1‐1 1.3 Organization of the Final EIR .............................................................................. 1‐1 1.4 Draft EIR Public Review Period ........................................................................... 1‐3 1.5 Certification of the EIR and Project Selection Process ....................................... 1‐3 1.6 Consideration of Recirculation ........................................................................... 1‐3 Chapter 2.0 Comment Letters and Response to Comments .............................................. 2‐1 2.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................. 2‐1 2.2 Frequent Topics of Concern ................................................................................ 2‐4 2.2.1 Light and Glare .................................................................................... 2‐5 2.2.2 Biological Resources .......................................................................... 2‐11 2.2.3 Water Resources ................................................................................ 2‐17 2.2.4 Noise .................................................................................................. 2‐28 2.2.5 Traffic ................................................................................................ 2‐32 2.2.6 Length of Draft EIR ............................................................................ 2‐36 2.2.7 Ability to Comprehend Draft EIR ........................................................ 2‐36 2.3 Public Agencies & Area Residents Comment Letters & Responses ................... 2‐37 Public Agencies 1. Comment Letter No. 1: Airport Land Use Commission ............................... 2‐38 2. Comment Letter No. 2: Airport Land Use Commission ............................... 2‐39 3. Comment Letter No. 3: CALFIRE ................................................................. 2‐40 4. Comment Letter No. 4: Southern California Association of Governments .. 2‐41 5. Comment Letter No. 5: CALFIRE ................................................................. 2‐42 6. Comment Letter No. 6: Riverside County Flood Control ............................. 2‐43 7. Comment Letter No. 7: Imperial Irrigation District .................................... 2‐45 8. Comment Letter No. 8: CactusToClouds ..................................................... 2‐46 9. Comment Letter No. 9: CALFIRE ................................................................... 2‐50 10. Comment Letter No. 10: Coachella Valley Water District ........................... 2‐52 11. Comment Letter No. 11: Center of Biological Diversity ............................. 2‐54 12. Comment Letter No. 12: California Department of Fish and Wildlife ......... 2‐67 13. Comment Letter No. 13: California Department of Fish and Wildlife ......... 2‐69 14. Comment Letter No. 14: Bighorn Institute ................................................ 2‐98 Area Residents 15. Comment Letter No. 15: Anne and Ron Smith .......................................... 2‐101 16. Comment Letter No. 16: Dina Stuart ........................................................ 2‐104 TABLE OF CONTENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR ii February 2022 17. Comment Letter No. 17: Monica Harrington ........................................... 2‐105 18. Comment Letter No. 18: Connie Glavin .................................................... 2‐108 19. Comment Letter No. 19: Sarah Zappas ..................................................... 2‐109 20. Comment Letter No. 20: Kristina Dailey ................................................... 2‐112 21. Comment Letter No. 21: Diane Rebryna ................................................... 2‐114 22. Comment Letter No. 22: Derek Wong/Brdgette & Phil Novak .................. 2‐119 23. Comment Letter No. 23: Bobbie Fleury .................................................... 2‐126 24. Comment Letter No. 24: Agnes Collins ..................................................... 2‐128 25. Comment Letter No. 25: Maggie Hamilton ............................................... 2‐132 26. Comment Letter No. 26: Ilona Sala ........................................................... 2‐133 27. Comment Letter No. 27: Judy Carey ........................................................ 2‐134 28. Comment Letter No. 28: Kelly Welton ...................................................... 2‐135 29. Comment Letter No. 29: Mike Charles ..................................................... 2‐137 30. Comment Letter No. 30: Dorothy Dupree ................................................ 2‐138 31. Comment Letter No. 31: Kenneth Jones ................................................... 2‐139 32. Comment Letter No. 32: Brenda Vatland ................................................. 2‐141 33. Comment Letter No. 33: Dave Wiezel ...................................................... 2‐142 34. Comment Letter No. 34: Diane Rebryna (2) .............................................. 2‐143 35. Comment Letter No. 35: George Koenig ................................................... 2‐148 36. Comment Letter No. 36: Sandra Stratton ................................................. 2‐151 37. Comment Letter No. 37: Connie Glavin .................................................... 2‐155 38. Comment Letter No. 38: Dan Rendino ...................................................... 2‐156 39. Comment Letter No. 39: JoAnne Thompson ............................................. 2‐157 40. Comment Letter No. 40: Carol & Richard Strop ........................................ 2‐158 41. Comment Letter No. 41: Alena Callimanis ................................................ 2‐163 42. Comment Letter No. 42: Lisa Castro ......................................................... 2‐167 43. Comment Letter No. 43: Catherine Giles .................................................. 2‐174 44. Comment Letter No. 44: Richard Holub .................................................... 2‐175 45. Comment Letter No. 45: Rob Michiels ...................................................... 2‐176 46. Comment Letter No. 46: Rob Michiels ...................................................... 2‐178 47. Comment Letter No. 47: Eva Parker ........................................................ 2‐179 48. Comment Letter No. 48: Robert Stowe .................................................... 2‐180 49. Comment Letter No. 49: Sheila Warren .................................................... 2‐183 50. Comment Letter No. 50: Carolyn Winnor ................................................. 2‐186 51. Comment Letter No. 51: July 20 th City Council Meeting ........................... 2‐189 52. Comment Letter No. 52: Robert Michiels ................................................. 2‐197 53. Comment Letter No. 53: Dan Rendino ...................................................... 2‐213 54. Comment Letter No. 54: Carol Welty &Art Stephens ............................... 2‐217 TABLE OF CONTENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR iii February 2022 55. Comment Letter No. 55: Fredrick Roth ..................................................... 2‐219 56. Comment Letter No. 56: Derek Wong ...................................................... 2‐220 57. Comment Letter No. 57: Agnes Collins .................................................... 2‐221 58. Comment Letter No. 58: Duncan Woodfin ............................................... 2‐223 59. Comment Letter No. 59: Martin Brewer ................................................... 2‐225 60. Comment Letter No. 60: Bridgette Novak ................................................ 2‐229 61. Comment Letter No. 61: Bridgette Novak ................................................ 2‐231 62. Comment Letter No. 62: Philip Novak ...................................................... 2‐236 63. Comment Letter No. 63: Sandra Stratton ................................................. 2‐241 64. Comment Letter No. 64: Terje Berger....................................................... 2‐254 65. Comment Letter No. 65: Alena Callimanis ................................................ 2‐255 66. Comment Letter No. 66: Wendy Clarke .................................................... 2‐259 67. Comment Letter No. 67: Diane Rebryna & Anast Demitt ......................... 2‐262 68. Comment Letter No. 68: Dan Stiel ............................................................ 2‐268 69. Comment Letter No. 69: Thomas Swope Jr. ............................................. 2‐270 70. Comment Letter No. 70: Jan Wm. Talbott ................................................ 2‐271 71. Comment Letter No. 71: Kathy Weiss ....................................................... 2‐272 72. Comment Letter No. 72: August 3 rd City Council Meeting ........................ 2‐277 73. Comment Letter No. 73: Lisa Jeffery ......................................................... 2‐292 74. Comment Letter No. 74: Rosette Kivel ..................................................... 2‐293 75. Comment Letter No. 75: Natilie Maupin ................................................... 2‐294 76. Comment Letter No. 76: Liz Ervin ............................................................. 2‐295 77. Comment Letter No. 77: Diane Rebryna ................................................... 2‐297 78. Comment Letter No. 78: Harvey Reed ...................................................... 2‐316 79. Comment Letter No. 79: Mitchell Tsai ...................................................... 2‐318 80. Comment Letter No. 80: Sally Arroyo ....................................................... 2‐352 81. Comment Letter No. 81: Fritz E. Bachli ..................................................... 2‐356 82. Comment Letter No. 82: Ramon Baez ...................................................... 2‐363 83. Comment Letter No. 83: Bruce Bauer ....................................................... 2‐366 84. Comment Letter No. 84: Alena Callimanis ................................................ 2‐401 85. Comment Letter No. 85: Alena Callimanis ................................................ 2‐403 86. Comment Letter No. 86: Alena Callimanis ................................................ 2‐405 87. Comment Letter No. 87: Alena Callimanis ................................................ 2‐408 88. Comment Letter No. 88: Alena Callimanis ................................................ 2‐410 89. Comment Letter No. 89: Alena Callimanis ................................................ 2‐412 90. Comment Letter No. 90: Anast Demitt ..................................................... 2‐413 91. Comment Letter No. 91: Mary Greening .................................................. 2‐420 92. Comment Letter No. 92: Carol Jensen ...................................................... 2‐424 TABLE OF CONTENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR iv February 2022 93. Comment Letter No. 93: Suzanne Kahn .................................................... 2‐426 94. Comment Letter No. 94: Francine Roy ...................................................... 2‐427 95. Comment Letter No. 95: Carolyn Winnor ................................................. 2‐430 96. Comment Letter No. 96: Brian and Gale Levy ........................................... 2‐435 97. Comment Letter No. 97: Nancy Bruce ...................................................... 2‐439 98. Comment Letter No. 98: Dennis and Jackie Miller .................................... 2‐446 Chapter 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR .............................................................................. 3‐1 3.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................. 3‐1 3.2 No Significant New Information Requiring Recirculation ................................. 3‐26 Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .............................................. 4‐1 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4‐1 4.2 Monitoring Authority.......................................................................................... 4‐1 4.3 Enforcement Responsibility ................................................................................ 4‐2 4.4 Mitigation Monitoring Table............................................................................... 4‐2 List of Tables Chapter 2.0 Comment Letters and Response to Comments 2‐1 Comment Letters Received on the Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR ................. 2‐1 2.0‐3 Outdoor Water Demand ................................................................................... 2‐17 Chapter 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR 4.1‐1 Development Standards Planning Area I ............................................................ 3‐3 4.1‐7 PA I Development Standards Comparison .......................................................... 3‐4 4.10‐8 SCAG Connect SoCal Goals Consistency Analysis .............................................. 3‐16 4.13‐13 Project Buildout (2026) ..................................................................................... 3‐23 Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4‐1 Coral Mountain Resort Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............. 4‐3 List of Exhibits Chapter 2.0 Comment Letters and Response to Comments 2‐1 Surf Lighting – Cross Sections ............................................................................. 2‐8 2‐2 Surf Lighting Distance ....................................................................................... 2‐10 2‐3 Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan ............................................................................. 2‐16 TABLE OF CONTENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR v February 2022 ES‐6 Model Inflows and Outflows by Scenario ......................................................... 2‐26 ES‐8 Cumulative Change in Storage for Future Scenarios ......................................... 2‐27 Chapter 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR 3‐11 & 4.15‐1 Conceptual Water Plan ....................................................................... 3‐25 List of Appendices B.1 Lighting Memo, Musco Lighting B.2 Lighting Test Memo, Musco Lighting D.3 Update Focused Bat Survey, LSA Associates D.4 Update Biological Report, LSA Associates D.5 Biological Resources Assessment (McGill Memo), Dr. McGill, ELMT Consulting K.3 Noise Memo, Urban Crossroads, Inc. L.1 Traffic Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc. L.2 VMT Evaluation (Revised), Urban Crossroads, Inc. L.3 Traffic Memo, Urban Crossroads, Inc. L.4 Average Surfer Population, Kelly Slater Wave Co. M.1 Wave Basin Areas, Kelly Slater Wave Co. M.2 Geotechnical Memo, Kelly Slater Wave Co. P Trail Easement Letter of Agreement, Desert Recreation District FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Coral Mountain Resort, La Quinta CA 1.0 Introduction Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 1‐1 February 2022 Chapter 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The City of La Quinta is the “Lead Agency” under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.) is responsible for preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort project (“project”). The Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, written comments received during the public comment period, responses to those comments, and changes or errata to the Draft EIR. The City of La Quinta prepared this EIR to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Coral Mountain Resort project. 1.2 Role of Lead Agency Under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, "Lead Agency" means the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a proposed project. Pursuant to Section 15051(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a city normally serves as the lead agency for private development projects within its boundaries. The CEQA Guidelines provides that a lead agency is responsible for preparing the environmental documents for a project, including an environmental impact report. The CEQA Guidelines further provide that a lead agency must consult with responsible agencies as part of the lead agency's efforts to prepare the environmental document. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines state that a "Responsible Agency" means a public agency other than the lead agency that has responsibility for carrying out or approving the project. Section 15063(g) of the CEQA Guidelines also provides that in addition to consulting with responsible agencies, lead agencies must also solicit consultation and comments from trustee agencies. Under CEQA, a "Trustee Agency" means a state agency with "jurisdiction by law" over natural resources affected by a project that are "held in trust for the people of the State of California," though the agency need not have any approval authority over the project. 1.3 Organization of Final EIR The Final EIR have been prepared in conformance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of La Quinta CEQA Guidelines to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed Project, that is anticipated to begin development in 2021. The CEQA 1.0 INTRODUCTION Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 1‐2 February 2022 Guidelines require the City to prepare an EIR for any project that includes a request for approval of discretionary actions that may result in significant effects on the environment. Upon preliminary review, the City determined that since the project may have significant effects on the environment, a Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review and inspection in June 2021. This Final EIR was prepared pursuant to Section 15089 of the CEQA Guidelines and incorporates the June 2021 Draft EIR by reference; comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45‐day public comment period; written responses to comments; and corresponding revisions to the text of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR included the preparation of technical studies such as Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hydrology, Noise, Traffic, etc. Pursuant to Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Final EIR includes the following components: Chapter 1.0 Introduction This Chapter provides an introduction of the environmental process. Chapter 2.0 Comment Letters and Response to Comments This Chapter provides a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR during the 45‐day public review period. Comments written to the City, and their responses, are provided in this Chapter 2.0. Chapter 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR This Chapter provides clarification and makes necessary corrections to certain in formation in the Final EIR. Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This Chapter provides the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which identifies mitigation measures, timing, responsibility for mitigation implementation, and levels of significance after mitigation. The Draft EIR and Final EIR were both made available for public review and inspection at the City of La Quinta Planning Division, the La Quinta Library, and on the City’s website: City of La Quinta Planning Division 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: 760‐777‐7000 1.0 INTRODUCTION Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 1‐3 February 2022 Hours: Monday – Thursday 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. http://www.laquintaca.gov/thewave La Quinta Library 78275 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Phone: 760‐564‐4767 Hours: Monday – Thursday 10 a.m. to 7 p.m.; Friday – Saturday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and Sunday 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. 1.4 Draft EIR Public Review Period The Draft EIR was released for public comment on June 22, 2021. The document was sent to the California State Clearinghouse, public agencies, and individuals who had expressed an interest or requested to receive the Draft EIR. In addition, a Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability was published in the Desert Sun. The Notice of Completion/Notice of Availability was also sent to the Riverside County Clerk. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available at the locations listed above. The public comment period ended on August 6, 2021. During the public review period, the City received a total of 98 comments in the form of letters, emails, and verbal presentations. 1.5 Certification of the EIR and Project Selection Process In order to certify the Final EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 prescribe that the City must find that: a) The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) The Final EIR was presented to the decision‐making body and that the decision‐making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR; and c) The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgement and analysis. If the Lead Agency certifies the Final EIR, it can then consider approving the project, in whole or in part. 1.6 Consideration of Recirculation CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a Lead Agency to recirculate a revised EIR only if significant new information is identified following the release of the Draft EIR. “Significant new information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information, for example, a new significant environmental impact or substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. New information is not considered significant unless the EIR is 1.0 INTRODUCTION Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 1‐4 February 2022 changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the proponent has declined to implement. The City has evaluated the information contained in this Final EIR as well as other information in the record, and has determined that no significant new information has been added to the EIR after public notice was given of the availability of the Draft EIR for pubic review. Therefore, CEQA does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Coral Mountain Resort, La Quinta CA 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐1 February 2022 Chapter 2.0 Responses to Comments 2.1 Purpose This chapter provides the comments made on the Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR, and responses to those comments. This chapter includes copies of the comment letters received by the City of La Quinta regarding the Draft EIR. Each comment letter is numbered for reference and the individual comments in each letter are identified by a letter (i.e., “a”, “b”, etc.). In addition, Section 2.2 of this chapter also includes thorough “topical responses” concerning particular topics which were raised in many of the comment letters, including light, biological resources, water resources, noise, and traffic. These “topical responses” are referenced in some of the individualized comment responses to minimize redundancy and shorten the overall length of this Final EIR. The City received a total of 98 comment letters, including 14 from public agencies and other organizations, and 84 from local area residents. Table 2‐1, Comment Letters Received on the Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR, provides a list of all comment letters received, from public agencies and members of the general public, including the ID number assigned to each comment letter, the date it was received, and commenter’s name. Table 2‐1 Comment Letters Received on the Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR Public Agencies Letter ID Date Agency Commenter 1 June 22, 2021 ALUC Paul Rull 2 June 22, 2021 ALUC Daniel Zerda 3 June 28, 2021 CALFIRE Kohl Hetrick 4 June 29, 2021 SCAG Annaleigh Ekman 5 June 30, 2021 CALFIRE Kohl Hetrick 6 August 3, 2021 RCFC Deborah De Chambeau 7 August 4, 2021 IID Donald Vargas 8 August 6, 2021 Cactus to Cloud Sendy Barrows 9 August 6, 2021 CALFIRE Adria Reinertson 10 August 6, 2021 CVWD William Patterson 11 August 6, 2021 Center of Biological Diversity Ross Middlemiss 12 August 9, 2021 CDFW Heather Pert 13 August 13, 2021 CDFW Heather Pert 14 August 3, 2021 Bighorn Institute James R. DeForge 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐2 February 2022 Area Residents Letter ID Date Commenter 15 June 21, 2021 Anne and Ron Smith 16 June 21, 2021 Dina Stuart 17 June 22, 2021 Monica Harrington 18 June 23, 2021 Connie Glavin 19 July 1, 2021 Sarah Zappas 20 July 1, 2021 Kristina Dailey 21 July 2, 2021 Diane Rebryna 22 July 3, 2021 Derek Wong/Bridgette & Phil Novak 23 July 6, 2021 Bobbie Fleury 24 July 7, 2021 Agnes Collins 25 July 8, 2021 Maggie Hamilton 26 July 8, 2021 Ilona Sala 27 July 9, 2021 Judy Carey 28 July 10, 2021 Kelly Welton 29 July 11, 2021 Mike Charles 30 July 12, 2021 Dorothy Dupree 31 July 12, 2021 Kenneth Jones 32 July 12, 2021 Brenda Vatland 33 July 12, 2021 Dave Wiezel 34 July 13, 2021 Diane Rebryna (2) 35 July 14, 2021 George Koenig 36 July 15, 2021 Sandra Stratton 37 July 16, 2021 Connie Glavin 38 July 18, 2021 Dan Rendino 39 July 18, 2021 JoAnne Thompson 40 July 19, 2021 Carol & Richard Strop 41 July 20, 2021 Alena Callimanis – Re: City Council Meeting 42 July 20, 2021 Lisa Castro City Council Presentation (sent by Alena Callimanis) 43 July 20, 2021 Catherine Giles 44 July 20, 2021 Richard Holub 45 July 20, 2021 Rob Michiels (1) 46 July 20, 2021 Rob Michiels (2) 47 July 20, 2021 Eva Parker 48 July 20, 2021 Robert Stowe 49 July 20, 2021 Sheila Warren (sent by Alena Callimanis) 50 July 20, 2021 Carolyn Winnor (sent by Alena Callimanis) 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐3 February 2022 51 July 20, 2021 July 20 th City Council Meeting – Transcribed Presentations 52 July 21, 2021 Robert Michiels (3) 53 July 21, 2021 Dan Rendino 54 July 21, 2021 Carol Welty/Art Stephens 55 July 26, 2021 Fredrick Roth 56 July 27, 2021 Derek Wong 57 July 28, 2021 Agnes Collins 58 July 28, 2021 Duncan Woodfin 59 July 29, 2021 Martin Brewer 60 August 2, 2021 Bridgett Novak (1) 61 August 2, 2021 Bridgett Novak (2) 62 August 2, 2021 Philip Novak 63 August 2, 2021 Sandra Stratton 64 August 3, 2021 Terje Berger 65 August 3, 2021 Alena Callimanis – sent for City Council Meeting 66 August 3, 2021 Wendy Clarke 67 August 3, 2021 Diane Rebryna and Anast Demitt City Council 68 August 3, 2021 Dan Stiel 69 August 3, 2021 Thomas Swope Jr. 70 August 3, 2021 Jan Wm. Talbott 71 August 3, 2021 Kathy Weiss 72 August 3, 2021 August 3 rd City Council Meeting – Transcribed Presentations 73 August 4, 2021 Lisa Jeffery 74 August 4, 2021 Rosette Kivel 75 August 4, 2021 Natilie Maupin 76 August 5, 2021 Liz Ervin 77 August 5, 2021 Diane Rebryna 78 August 5, 2021 Harvey Reed 79 August 5, 2021 Mitchell Tsai ‐ Attorney 80 August 6, 2021 Sally Arroyo 81 August 6, 2021 Fritz E. Bachli 82 August 6, 2021 Ramon Baez 83 August 6, 2021 Bruce Bauer – Attorney 84 August 6, 2021 Alena Callimanis 1 85 August 6, 2021 Alena Callimanis 2 86 August 6, 2021 Alena Callimanis 3 87 August 6, 2021 Alena Callimanis 4 88 August 6, 2021 Alena Callimanis 5 89 August 6, 2021 Alena Callimanis 6 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐4 February 2022 90 August 6, 2021 Anast Demitt 91 August 6, 2021 Mary Greening 92 August 6, 2021 Carol Jensen 93 August 6, 2021 Suzanne Kahn 94 August 6, 2021 Francine Roy 95 August 6, 2021 Carolyn Winnor 96 August 5, 2021 Brian and Gale Levy 97 August 6, 2021 Nancy Bruce 98 August 5, 2021 Dennis and Jackie Miller CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provides that written comments received during the public review period for a draft EIR must be responded to in writing. Section 15088(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the written response can be either in a printed copy or in an electronic format. The responses to comments must provide reasoned, good faith analyses regarding all significant environmental issues raised in the EIR comments. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). Moreover, responses to comments submitted by another public agency must be provided to the commenting agency at least 10 days before certification of the Final EIR. When such comments from a sister agency disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that raise concern that the agency may not have fully evaluated the projec t and its alternatives, the lead agency must pay particular care to respond with good faith, reasoned analysis. However, comments that are only objections to the merits of the project itself may be addressed briefly, as they do not relate to a specific environmental concern. In light of the foregoing, the City’s responses to the comment letters identified in Table 2.0‐1 are discussed below in two Sections. Section 2.2 discusses the City’s general responses to “Frequent Topics of Concern” raised in the comment letters, whereas Section 2.3 discusses individualized responses to each comment letter received by the City. As described above, comments which pertain to “Frequent Topics of Concern” have been addressed via reference to that topical response. 2.2 Frequent Topics of Concern The comments received during the public review period raised various issues of concern regarding environmental topics discussed within the Draft EIR. These topi cs (listed in order of appearance in the Draft EIR) include project‐generated light, impacts to biological resources, water resources, noise, and traffic. Therefore, responses to these topics are provided in the subsections below – indicated as Subsections 2.2.1 through 2.2.5. Each subsection provides a thorough, reasoned and good faith analysis of the concerns raised over the proposed project’s potential effects on light, biological resources, water 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐5 February 2022 resources, noise, and traffic, and how each have been adequately addressed in the Draft and Final EIRs. Additional comments, not associated with the environmental topics discussed within the Draft EIR, included the length of the Draft EIR, and the complexity of the Draft EIR and supporting documents. These topics are discussed under Subsection 2.2.6 and 2.2.7. The purpose of each subsection is to avoid unnecessary duplication and potential confusion over providing individualized responses to each separate comment submitted in relation to each of the respective issues. 2.2.1 Light and Glare Comments were received on the lighting proposed for the Wave Basin planned in Planning Area III‐B. These comments requested additional information on the lighting fixtures and given the proposed 80‐foot height of the proposed fixtures, the potential for light and glare from these fixtures to impact Coral Mountain and other surrounding areas and produce a level of light and glare that would be inconsistent with City of La Quinta policies and regulations for nighttime lighting, or otherwise cause significant adverse effects. Comments received also asked if the amount of light and glare associated with these fixtures would result in substantial change in the character of the area. Comments also asked if use of light fixtures with a lower height, or other changes to the proposed lighting plan could reduce any impacts that commenters allege would be potentially significant. The proposed project includes an artificial Wave Basin in the southwestern portion of the project site. To illuminate the Wave Basin during evening hours (dusk until 10:00 p.m.), seventeen LED light fixtures with a height of 80 feet are proposed around the Wave Basin. To determine the potential for these light fixtures to impact the areas located around the Wave Basin, a Lighting Analysis was prepared by Musco Lighting, which was included in Appendix B in the Draft EIR. Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR incorporated information from this Lighting Analysis to evaluate the potential for the light from these fixtures to affect the surrounding areas and existing and planned land uses. Exhibit 4.1‐14, Lighting Analysis Light Direction, of the Draft EIR (page 4.1‐65), illustrates the orientation of the lights on the Wave Basin facility, and Exhibits 4.1‐15 through 4.1‐19 illustrate that the light and glare are focused on the Wave Basin itself, with no spillage outside the planning area. The proposed light fixtures will be located and oriented to efficiently illuminate the Wave Basin, while avoiding spillage of light onto the surrounding areas, consistent with the City’s requirements under Section 9.100.150 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Based on the findings of this project‐specific lighting analysis, light from the proposed LED light fixtures will not spillover or substantially increase light levels in the areas surrounding the Wave Basin. This is due to the directional orientation of the lights downward and toward the Wave Basin. Additionally, to comply with Section 9.100.150 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, the illumination of the recreational Wave Basin will meet the shielding requirements in the Municipal Code, and will conclude at 10:00 p.m. To assure that the operation of 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐6 February 2022 the Wave Basin will conclude at 10:00 p.m., compliant with recreational operational hours allowed by the City of La Quinta (Section 9.100.150(I)(4)(b)), Mitigation Measure AES‐3 was included in the Draft EIR. AES‐3 states the following: “The operation of the Wave Basin will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the lighting will only be permitted between dusk and 10:00 p.m. to ensure compliance with the City’s outdoor lighting requirements (LQMC 9.100.150).” Based on this information, the Draft EIR concluded that operation of the Wave Basin will not have any significant light and glare impacts because the lighting is oriented directly onto the Wave Basin, complies with all Municipal Code requirements for lighting, and avoids spillage of light or glare outside of the planning area. Please consult Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for analysis, exhibits, findings, and conclusions regarding the light fixtures proposed for the Wave Basin. To respond to the questions and comments on the proposed lighting plan for the Wave Basin, additional information has been prepared to elaborate and clarify the information provided in the Draft EIR that supported the conclusion that the proposed lighting will not result in significant impacts to daytime or nighttime views in the area. Musco Lighting provided a memorandum to further explain the performance characteristics of the LED light fixtures proposed and the configuration and orientation of these fixtures. This Lighting Analysis Memorandum (“Lighting Memo”) is included as Appendix B.1 of this Final EIR. The 80‐foot LED light fixtures proposed around the Wave Basin will be Musco Total Lighting Control (TLC) for LED technology fixtures. LED lights produce a focused source of light that can be designed to provide adequate light while avoiding light overspill and minimizing glare. The figure below shows the evolution of lighting design by the manufacturer of the light fixtures proposed around the Wave Basin. As shown in this figure, the TLC for LED fixture has 3 LED fixtures at the top of the pole. This is representative of the actual TLC for LED fixtures proposed for the Wave Basin, which includes a combination of 2 to 6 LED fixtures per pole (See Draft EIR Appendix B for a full description of the proposed lighting system). As shown, the TLC for LED fixture focuses the light down in a manner that prevents direct view of the LED lights. As noted at the bottom of this figure, these are photographs of light fixtures taken 100 feet from the edge of the field where these fixtures are installed. The lighting level from each fixture in candela is also identified. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐7 February 2022 The proposed TLC for LED light fixtures emit almost no direct light when viewed from 100 feet from the fixture because the directional LED lighting with visors is able to generate the same or superior levels of lighting on the Wave Basin as the prior generations of lighting while providing full cut off the light overspill. Specifically, at a distance of 100 feet from the fixture, 7 candela is emitted, which is a level barely perceived. LED light is a more focused source of light and for this reason, typical LED fixtures can generate direct light levels similar to, or more intense, than older metal halide light fixtures. For example, as illustrated above, lights from 2005 fixtures can emit 11,858 candela when viewed from 100 feet from the fixture, and the typical 1989 unshielded light fixtures shown emit 21,400 candela when viewed from 100 feet from a fixture. In addition to the light source technology, another major factor in controlling light is the mounting height and aiming angles of the light fixtures. Mounting height can help control both coverage of the area to be lit and cutoff of light from spilling over into adjacent areas by optimizing the angle at which the light is aimed and cutting off the lighting at a point still within the basin itself. As shown in the Fixture Lighting Cros‐Section Exhibit on the following page, which was prepared by Musco Lighting and Kelly Slater Wave Company, the proposed lighting system for the Wave Basin aims each light to a point near the middle of basin and uses a visor to cut‐off the light at or before reaching the far side of the Basin. This exhibit shows the lighting at two cross‐sections of the Wave Basin (at poles 7 and 10 in the northwestern endzone of the Basin and at poles 6 and 11 at a narrower portion of the Basin). As shown in two cross‐sections, the light from each pole is aimed down toward the center of the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Coral Mountain Resort, La Quinta CA 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐8 February 2022 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐9 February 2022 Basin, with a visor cut‐off near the far side of the Basin, thus preventing light overspill outside of the Wave Basin and also avoids any light emitting upward above the fixture height. Depending on the specific pole, the lighting is cut‐off between 12 and 22 degrees below a horizontal plane running through the lowest point of the fixture, which exceeds the “dark skies” requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.100.150. If the pole height of the system were to be reduced, the system would remain dark skies compliant but the angles used to aim and cut‐off the light would need to extend further across the Basin, which would result in less effective lighting within the Basin, light overspill outside the Basin, or both. In response to requests made by City officials, an actual demonstration of the Musco TLC for LED lights proposed to be used for the Wave Basin was performed on November 17, 2021, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Two locations on the Wave Basin portion of the project site were selected for the test, pole 8 (the pole nearest Coral Mountain) and pole 16 (the pole closest to the nearest adjacent residences). The test fixtures for pole 8 were able to be staged and the exact location and elevation proposed for the actual lighting system. The test fixtures for pole 16 were staged approximately 135’ south of the proposed location of pole 16 (closer to the adjacent residences) due to physical access constraints. Although only two 600‐Watt lighting fixtures are proposed for poles 8 and 16, four 1200‐ Watt fixtures were used on both poles to provide a worst‐case demonstration of the proposed lighting because other poles include four 1200‐Watt fixtures (see DEIR Appendix B, Lighting System Pole/Fixture Summary). Light readings were taken before and after the light fixtures were turned on to determine the actual light from the fixtures at each measurement location. Prior to turning the fixtures on, light levels in the area were measured consistently at 0.01 foot candles (FC), which represents an imperceptible light level. Readings were taken at 30‐foot intervals extending out from all sides of each test pole. At 120‐feet behind and to the side of each pole, the light readings were consistently at 0.01 FC, indicating that these locations were receiving no light from the test light fixtures. The test and results are summarized in a technical memorandum prepared by Musco and Kelly Slater Wave Company, which is attached as Appendix B.2 to this Final EIR. Appendix C to that memo provides contours for where the lighting from the proposed lighting system will drop to 0.5 FC and 0.01 FC, and that exhibit is also copied below. As shown in the Surf Lighting Distance lighting figure on the following page, the lighting drops to 0.01 FC very close to the Wave Basin planning area property line and is approximately 375 feet from the nearest part of Coral Mountain. These contours were generated by the Musco computer modeling and are consistent with the exhibits included with the Draft EIR. In addition, the computer modeling results were further verified by the actual light readings taken during the lighting demonstration, as further explained in Appendix B.2. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐10 February 2022 2.0 Comment Letters and Response to Comments Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐11 Februray 2022 The analysis provided in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, which incorporates information from the Lighting Analysis provided by Musco Lighting (Appendix B in the Draft EIR), and the Lighting Memo provided by Musco Lighting (Appendix B.1 in this Final EIR) and technical memo summarizing the on‐ site lighting demonstration (Appendix B.2 in this Final EIR) which provides additional information that elaborates on and supports the information and analysis in the Draft EIR, provide substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the proposed lighting fixtures for the Wave Basin facility will not result in significant light or glare impacts. 2.2.2 Biological Resources The City received multiple comments regarding the potential for the project to result in impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (PBS), a federally endangered species and State endangered and California Fully Protected species. A Biological Report was conducted for the project site in order to determine the existence or potential occurrence of special‐interest plant and animal species within the study area and in the project vicinity. A literature review was completed, and a field survey of the project site was conducted. The Biology Report, provided as Appendix D.1 in the Draft EIR, was prepared in compliance with CEQA, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), and the Federal and California Endangered Species Acts. The Biology Report determined that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to biological resources with the implementation of mitigation measures. These mitigation measures are listed as Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐6 in Section 4.14, Biological Resources, in the Draft EIR (page 4.3‐22). A full discussion and analysis regarding biological resources is provided in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR. Following the comments provided relating to PBS, the City consulted with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) staff to discuss the potential for the project to result in impacts to PBS. In addition, a focused analysis was prepared by Dr. Tom McGill at ELMT Consulting addressing the presence of PBS in the area around the site, the suitability of the habitat on the site for PBS, and the potential for the project to result in impacts to PBS. This study, titled Biological Resources Assessment of the Coral Mountain Site and Adjacent BLM Lands, is provided in Appendix D.5 of this Final EIR (the “Dr. McGill Report”). PBS in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountain ranges is a covered species under the CVMSHCP. PBS Habitat within these two mountain ranges are part of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, one of twenty‐one Conservation Areas that comprise the Reserve System identified in the CVMSHCP. There are 211,070 acres within this Conservation Area, 55,890 of which are considered Essential Habitat for PBS. PBS are restricted to east‐facing slopes, below 4,000 feet, of the Peninsular Ranges. Above 4,000 feet, the vegetation become denser, decreasing visibility and, therefore, increasing the risk of predation to PBS. The elevational patterns of vegetative associations, in combination with 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐12 February 2022 predator avoidance behavior, has resulted in PBS using a narrow band of elevation, from 800 to 3,400 feet, on the lower slopes of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. The population of PBS in the Peninsular Ranges was listed as endangered in 1998. At the lowest elevation of their range, PBS movement onto the valley floor is very limited because of the typical hesitancy to venture far from escape terrain. Their habitat can be visualized as a long, narrow band that runs north to south along the lower elevations of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. Dr. McGill completed a site visit that included pedestrian surveys of the Coral Mountain project site and adjacent portions of Coral Mountain and BLM lands west of the site to evaluate the suitability of the project site and adjacent land to support PBS. Based on observations made during the site visit, Dr. McGill determined that the southwestern side of Coral Mountain and the hills between the southern end of Coral Mountain and the eastern slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains areas provide an area for PBS to move from the Santa Rosa Mountains into this habitat and then over to Coral Mountain. Available radio collar tracking data from CDFW seems to suggest this. Venturing off Coral Mountain onto the valley floor area on the east side at the west boundary of the project site would subject PBS to threats including collisions with vehicles, predation by native predators, coyote and mountain lion, exposure to toxic landscape plants, and entanglement in wire fences. Dr. McGill confirmed that the project site does not contain suitable PBS habitat. Coral Mountain, however, provides limited foraging habitat and limited escape cover. The intervening area between Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains consisting of both hilly and flat terrain owned by the Bureau of Land Management provides some escape cover but exposes PBS venturing out of the Santa Rosas to predation by coyotes and other large predators. The project site is not within or adjacent to the boundaries of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas. However, habitat modification from development can attract PBS outside of these Conservation Areas and create threats to PBS, as described above. The project’s location in proximity to occupied PBS territory on Coral Mountain results in an edge effect that has the potential to impact the species if PBS were to be attracted onto the project site for potential sources of food or water. As stated on page ES‐12 of the CVMSHCP, “[t]he purpose of the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines is to avoid or minimize indirect effects from development adjacent to or within the Conservation Areas.’ Accordingly, the City and applicant have agreed that the project will comply with the Adjacency Guidelines relating to PBS because the sheep are known to travel outside the designated Conservation Area for sources of forage and water. As explained in the ELMT Consulting report, Dr. McGill determined that the project, as amended by the addition of the sheep barrier and restricted landscape palette zone, is consistent with these guidelines which address toxic and other hazardous plants, drainage, exposure to toxic chemicals and byproducts, lighting, noise, and grading near conservation areas. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐13 February 2022 A well‐designed and maintained barrier/fence along the western edge of the site would eliminate these potential threats to PBS from site development. A barrier/fence would prevent PBS from exiting Coral Mountain onto the site, where there is no escape cover and where they would be very vulnerable to predation and exposure to toxic plants, herbicides and insecticides. PBS would still be able to transverse the open space on the BLM lands between the Santa Rosas and Coral Mountain but will not be able to migrate off Coral Mountain onto the valley floor area of the project site. The proposed Specific Plan has been modified to include a Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan that defines the location and extent of fencing for the project site (please see Figure 13 of the Specific Plan, duplicated below, and associated text on pages 35‐39 of the Specific Plan). The Barrier Plan requires an 8‐foot‐high fence along the entire western boundary to serve as a physical barrier to prevent Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS) from accessing the site. The fence/wall design will be approved by the City of La Quinta in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). It will draw from the prototypical fencing types described in the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) “PBS Barrier Project” and will be consistent with the Coachella Valley Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The Specific Plan plant palette (Table 3 in Section 4.4.3 of the Specific Plan) will include approved specimens listed as “Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (CVMSHCP Table 4‐112) and will avoid specimens listed as “Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants” (MSHCP Table 4‐ 113) in all areas adjacent to Coral Mountain or other BLM open space, including all properties adjacent to any portion of the sheep barrier as shown on Figure 13 in the Specific Plan, provided below (the “Restricted Plant Palette Areas”). In addition, the approved project plant palette will be referenced in the project CC&Rs and will be enforceable by the property owners’ association for the life of the project. The project has also been modified to include the mitigation measure requested by CDFW to provide an education program that will include the preparation of informational materials for distribution to homeowners and hotel guests on the local environmental setting, including proper interactions with PBS. Additionally, the project developer will collaborate with the Desert Recreation District (DRD) regarding the planned public trail connection through the property. The DRD master plan envisions interpretative materials on the trail and markers intended to educate and inform experiences regarding the local setting, including desert flora and fauna. Based on these project features, the project will not result in significant direct or indirect impacts to PBS or involve the development of suitable habitat that could create an attractive nuisance for PBS. This conclusion is consistent with the conclusions set forth in the Draft EIR, and is further supported by the Dr. McGill report, and the Biological Resources Assessment by LSA which has been revised to reflect the additional bat surveys that were completed following the release of the Draft EIR and which confirmed the Draft EIR conclusions regarding potential impacts to bats. See Final EIR Appendix D.4. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐14 February 2022 While the project has been enhanced to include the requested sheep barrier and revised plant palette, and the Draft EIR has been augmented and clarified to further explain that the project will not have any significant direct or indirect effects on the Peninsular bighorn sheep, these do not constitute significant new information as that phrase is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 because none of the information added to the Final EIR “deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect,” nor does it show any new or significantly more severe environmental effects than were disclosed in the Draft EIR. Rather, the comments rec eived regarding PBS and the CVMSHCP requirements demonstrate that the Draft EIR adequately disclosed the project’s potential to impact PBS, and as explained above and in response to the specific comments raised, the project will not have any significant impacts on this federally endangered and California Fully Protected Species. The City also received comments on the potential for the proposed Wave Basin lighting system to affect bats and other wildlife species. An updated bat survey has been provided by the project biologist to include the follow‐up nighttime acoustic and emergence survey performed in June 2021. The updated document, included as Appendix D.3 in this Final EIR, has been updated to include the results of the June 2021 surveys and provides more comprehensive recommendations to minimize potential project‐related adverse effects to roosting bats. The Updated Focused Bat Survey found that although no construction will occur at the rock outcrops at Coral Mountain, where occupied bat roosts were identified during the April and June 2021 surveys, bats roosting in that area could be subject to potential adverse effects from an increase in artificial lighting from the proposed project. Multiple studies indicate that ongoing night lighting, in particular, can be very disruptive to foraging and roosting behaviors. Stone et al. (2009) found that light pollution can negatively impact bats’ selection of flight routes by limiting the options for flyways, and can even eliminate bats’ abilities to use certain roosts and/or foraging areas. Rydell et al. (2017) and Voigt et al. (2018) note that maintaining darkness at maternity roosts is particularly important because at these types of roosts, aggregations of bats are present consistently over a long period of time, individual bats emerge from predictable locations, and juvenile bats are learning how to fly. Illumination of a maternity roost renders the colony more vulnerable to opportunistic predators such as raptors and owls, and predator‐avoidance behaviors such as delayed emergence times reduce their foraging opportunities, thereby lowering juvenile survivorship. Therefore, the consulting biologist updated Mitigation Measure BIO‐4 as follows: Mitigation Measure BIO‐4: To avoid permanent impacts to roosting bats from the installation of new light fixtures associated with the proposed development, all lighting fixtures shall have light shields or similar devices (i.e., dark sky compliant lighting) installed to ensure that there is no light trespass onto Coral Mountain and the surrounding open space. A supplemental light study will be performed to collect nighttime lighting measurements and confirm that no light trespass onto Coral Mountain is 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐15 February 2022 occurring; this will be submitted for City approval prior to issuance of any permit for occupancy or use of the Wave Basin. With the implementation of this revised mitigation measure, potential impacts to bats and other wildlife species are reduced to less than significant levels. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐16 February 2022 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐17 February 2022 2.2.3 Water Resources Comments were received related to the potential effects of the proposed project on water resources and the information and analysis in the Draft EIR on this topic. The Draft EIR incorporates information from the Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV), as amended, for the project approved by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Comments received on the Draft EIR questioned whether the method used to estimate the water demand for the Wave Basin was appropriate given the unique characteristics of the Wave Basin and if, given current and potential future drought conditions, allocating water for the proposed Wave Basin is appropriate, as well as whether the water demand associated with the Wave Basin would affect groundwater management efforts. CEQA Requirements for Water Supply Analysis The Draft EIR incorporates information from the Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) approved by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) as required by Section 15155 of the CEQA Guidelines. For projects that meet the criteria define d in this section of the CEQA Guidelines as “water demand projects” the Lead Agency preparing an Environmental Impact Report is required to request that the governing body of a public water system that will provide water to a proposed project prepare a WSA. The California Water Code § 10910 requires that a WSA be completed to ensure that adequate supplies are available to meet the demands of proposed projects. In addition, the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code § 66473.7) also requires the preparation of a Water Supply Verification (WSV) for proposed subdivisions. For this proposed project, the City requested that CVWD prepare and approve a WSA/WSV. CVWD will be the public water supplier for the project with the source of domestic (potable) water supply for the project being the Indio Subbasin via CVWD’s potable water distribution system. CVWD approved a WSA/WSV providing an assessment and verification of the availability of sufficient water supplies during normal, single‐dry, and multiple‐dry years over a 20‐year projection period to meet the projected demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future water demands of CVWD as required by the Water Code. This WSA/WSV also includes identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, or agreements relevant to the identified water supply for the project and quantities of water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, contracts, and agreements. Approved WSA/WSV Wave Basin Water Demand Estimate CVWD estimates the project’s total domestic water demand for indoor and outdoor use will be approximately 958 acre‐feet per year (AFY). The vast majority of this water is for outdoor uses, which total 801.47 AFY of the total 958 AFY for the project. The project’s outdoor water use is calculated pursuant to the express requirements of CVWD Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4, and those 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐18 February 2022 calculations are shown in Table 2.0‐3, Outdoor Water Demand from the Approved WSA/WSV and copied below: The Wave Basin itself is projected to use 119.58 AFY, or approximately 15% of the projected outdoor water use. The CVWD Landscape Ordinance defines a “Water Feature” as any water applied to the landscape for non‐irrigation, decorative purposes, including fountains, streams, ponds and lakes. The Wave Basin is considered a water feature under CVWD Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4. Water features use more water than efficiently irrigated turf grass and are assigned an evapotranspiration adjustment factor of 1.1 for a stationary body of water and 1.2 for a moving body of water for this reason. The proposed Wave Basin is essentially a lake with moving water and, for this reason, CVWD’s 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐19 February 2022 methodology of applying a 1.2 adjustment factor is appropriate to estimate the amount of water that will be used by the Wave Basin. The equation used to estimate the water demand for landscaping and outdoor water under CVWD’s landscape ordinance for a project defines its “Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA).” MAWA is defined in the CVWD Landscape Ordinance as follows: “MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (MAWA) – For design purposes, the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscape area as specified in Division 2, Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 7, Section 702. It is based upon the area’s reference evapotranspiration, ET adjustment factor, and the size of the landscaped area. The estimated applied water use shall not exceed the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA).” The MAWA for the water basin in the Approved WSA/WSV is based on the area’s reference evapotranspiration (Eto), evapotranspiration (ET) adjustment factor, the size of the landscaped area (LA), and a conversion factor of 0.62 (to gallons per square foot) as shown below: MAWA = Eto * ET adjustment factor * LA * 0.62 Page 22 in the WSA/WSV WSA identifies the information used to estimate the annual water demand for the proposed Wave Basin:  64.22 inches per year for a reference Eto;  ET adjustment factor of 1.2 for a moving water body;  815,443 square feet of area; and  a conversion of 0.62 to convert to gallons. Based on these factors the MAWA for the Wave Basin was determined to be 119.58 AFY calculated as shown below: 64.22 * 1.2 * 815,443 * 0.62 = 38,961,606 gallons per year; or 38.96 million gallons (MG) per year; or 119.58 AFY. It should be noted that for purposes of determining the MAWA for the proposed Wave Basin, the approved WSA/WSV applies the water demand factor to the Wave Basin structure as defined in the Specific Plan, which at the time the WSA was prepared was conse rvatively estimated to be 18.72 acres (815,443 square feet). However, the surface area of the Wave Basin water body will not occupy this entire area. The water surface area of the proposed Wave Basin will occupy approximately 12.5 acres (544,500 square feet) of this 18.72 acres (815,443 square foot) area. The remainder of the Wave Basin area contains the deck and other areas around the Wave Basin. The water demand estimate for the Wave Basin in the approved WSA/WSV is, therefore, conservative as it applies the water demand factor to 18.72 acres when the Wave Basin water body will only occupy 12.5 acres of this area. Adequacy of CVWD Water Supplies to meet project water needs 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐20 February 2022 The WSA/WSV also examines the current condition of the Indio Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin and concluded that the water supplies available from the Indio Subbasin, the State Water Project (SWP), the Colorado River, and other sources will be adequate to supply the project and all other existing and planned uses in accordance with California Water Code Section 10910 et seq. Information on the groundwater conditions in the Indio Subbasin is provided below in response to comments regarding the potential effect of the water needed for the Wave Basin on groundwater conditions and CVWD’s groundwater management efforts, taking into account current and potential future extreme drought periods. Basin Management Conditions in the Indio Subbasin are continually being assessed and quantified in management plans developed and implemented by CVWD. Management of the Subbasin began in the early 1900s to address increasing water demands from pumping to meet agricultural, urban, and rural demands, beginning with capture of local stormwater to supplement the limited natural groundwater replenishment and later by importing water and source substitution projects. This has been a dynamic process with periods of groundwater depletion followed by recovery. Groundwater levels and storage reached historical lows in about 2009, but this overdraft has been stopped by groundwater management efforts and increased groundwater storage has resulted from active water management planning and projects. In 2014, the California Legislature enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to provide a framework for sustainable groundwater management throughout the state. To meet the requirements of SGMA in the Indio Subbasin, four local water agencies formed Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs): CVWD, Coachella Water Authority (CWA), Desert Water Agency (DWA), and Indio Water Authority (IWA) to meet the requirements of the SGMA for management of the Indio Subbasin. The Indio Subbasin GSAs submitted the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWD, 2012a) (2010 CVWMP Update) to the State Department of Water Resources (DWR), accompanied by a Bridge Document (Indio Subbasin GSAs, 2016) to meet the requirements of SGMA. Updates are required every 5 years. The 2010 CVWMP meets the requirements as an Alternative Plan to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) as defined by SGMA for the Indio Subbasin. On July 17, 2019, DWR approved the Alternative Plan with specific recommendations presented in its Indio Subbasin Alternative Assessment Staff Report and a requirement to submit an Alternative Plan Update by January 1, 20221. The Indio Subbasin GSAs prepared and released the Draft Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update on September 21, 2021 for public review with comments being accepted 1 The Indio SGMA Update can be accessed here: http://www.indiosubbasinsgma.org/wp‐content/uploads/2021/12/Indio‐ SGMA‐AlternativePlan‐vol1‐Alternative‐Plan‐FINAL‐to‐be‐Adopted‐Nov‐2021v3.pdf. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐21 February 2022 through October 29, 2021. The Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update will be submitted to the DWR by January 1, 2022. Consistent with SGMA, objectives of the Plan Update are to assess and report progress toward sustainability of the Indio Subbasin, respond to DWR recommendations and, consistent with the goals of the 2010 CVWMP, make needed updates to ensure that future water demands in the Indio Subbasin are reliably met in a cost‐effective and sustainable manner. The Indio Subbasin Plan Area currently relies on a combination of local groundwater, Colorado River water, State Water Project (SWP) exchange water, local surface water, and recycled water to meet demands for four predominant water user groups: municipal, agriculture, golf, and other (e.g., fish farms, duck clubs, polo, etc.). Water flows into the Indio Subbasin from natural infiltration, such as flows from the mountains and local channels that percolate into the ground; subsurface infiltration between subbasins; artificial recharge at multiple surface basins, including those immediatel y south of the project site; wastewater percolation at treatment plant recharge basins, and percolation from domestic use, agriculture, golf courses, and other sources. From 2000 to 2019, the return flows from existing uses have represented the largest source of recharge in the Subbasin, at 402,000 AFY, followed by imported water recharge at 229,400 and natural watershed runoff and stream channel recharge at 47,800 AFY and subsurface inflows at 22,800 AFY. Groundwater pumping, subsurface and drain flows to the Salton Sea, and evapotranspiration are the three largest sources of water extraction from the Basin. Groundwater pumping, at 674,600 AFY, was the largest component of outflow from the Indio Subbasin from 2000 to 2019 followed by net drain flows from agriculture and subsurface outflows of 98,800 AFY. Overall, the storage volume in the Indio Subbasin was reduced by approximately 110,000 AFY from 2000 to 2009 and increased approximately 49,100 AFY from 2010 to 2019. The subbasin was at its minimum storage in 2009, with an estimated loss of storage of approximately 1,890,000 AF from 1970 to 2009, which represents 6 percent of the estimated storage capacity of the Indio Subbasin. Since 2009, groundwater pumping has decreased by about 25 percent and replenishment activities have increased, leading to an increase in the amount of groundwater in storage of approximately 840,000 acre‐feet (AFY), or replacement of about 45 percent of the reduction observed from 1970 to 2009. Water Demand Projections The Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update addresses a 25‐year planning period from 2020 through 2045. The planning in the Update accounts for uncertainties and changes that could affect future water demands, including changes in projected growth, the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, development on Tribal lands, and the effects of water conservation regulations. Water demand is projected for four major categories: municipal, agricultural, golf, and other. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐22 February 2022 Total municipal demand for the Indio Subbasin Plan Area is projected to be 235,148 AFY in 2045, an increase of 71,143 AFY from the 2016 baseline. This municipal demand forecast was developed based on a variety of information, including customer billing data and a geographic information system (GIS) database with land use information at the parcel level. A base projection year of 2016 was used based on the availability of detailed demographic data from the Southern California Association of Governments. Future water demand projections were based on SCAG growth projections for 2020, 2035, and 2045. SCAG socioeconomic forecasts for population, households, and employment served as the starting point for analysis. SCAG GIS local land use planning data was then used to ensure future growth projections could be accommodated by the vacant land available. GIS mapping was used to identify vacant and agricultural lands by local jurisdictions available for future development. Additional information on vacancy rates was used to estimate baseline and projected housing units, including housing units used by seasonal residents and other part‐time uses. Recent development data and land use were used to allocate future housing units into the single‐family and multiple‐family categories. SCAG employment forecasts were used to allocate future commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) demands. This forecast projects an increase in population served by the subbasin from 402,392 in 2016 to 616,048 in 2045, with corresponding increases in residential and landscaping water demand, and 68,149 new jobs by 2045, with associated increases in future commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) water demands. These forecasts are based on SCAG’s regional growth model called “Connect SoCal,” which incorporates General Plan land use assumptions from the cities and counties in Southern California, including the City of La Quinta. As the project site has been planned for 750 residential units, golf course and other non‐residential uses for the past 20 years, the water use included in CVWD’s long‐term projections includes the water demands associated with full buildout of the project site. (See Indio SGMA Alternative Plan, Section 5.3.2). In addition, the project‐specific WSA/WSV confirms CVWD’s conclusion that “there will be sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the Project, as well as for future demands of the Project plus all forecasted demands in the next 20 years.” (See Draft EIR Appendix M, at p. 58, and CVWD’s September 29, 2020 letter confirming the same with respect to the final total project water demand of 958.63 AFY. The forecast also accounts for water loss, consisting of water lost from storage tanks and pressurized water delivery systems and adjustments to account for indoor water conservation that will result from changes in state and federal water efficiency requirements for plumbing fixtures. Going forward, codes and standards for fixtures and appliances will continue to reduce indoor water demand through the replacement of existing fixtures and use of more efficient technologies in new development. Total agricultural demand is projected to decline from 295,150 AFY in the 2016 baseline to 280,243 AFY in 2045. The forecast assumes that by 2045, 5,973 acres of agricultural land will be converted for 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐23 February 2022 urban land uses, and that 950 acres will be converted from idle to active agricultural use in the East Valley. Total demand from golf courses is projected to increase from 105,300 AFY in 2020 to 107,625 AFY by 2045 based on the assumption that three future golf courses, each approximately 150 acres in size, will be developed during the planning period, based on a July 2020 CVWD list of approved Water Supply Assessments. Other demand is a category that includes water demands from fish farms and duck clubs, polo/turf irrigation and water used to mitigate for losses from the Coachella Canal lining. A 5‐year average from 2015 to 2019 of 18,900 AFY, which excludes the temporary use of water to mitigate for the Coachella Canal lining, was used as the baseline for projecting these other demands through 2045. Water demand projections for fish farms, duck clubs, and polo/turf irrigation uses are not projected to increase. Future demand projections include several new recreational lakes and surf parks, along with water use by the Salton Sea Restoration North Shore pilot project. Specifically, these projections include four projects CVWD has approved Water Supply Assessments for that include large water features categorized as lakes, beaches, or surf parks. These four projects water features have a total projected demand of 500 AFY. The proposed Coral Mountain Resort surf basin, which CVWD estimates will have an annual water demand of approximately 120 AFY, as discussed above, is one of the four projects that make up this 500 AFY of additional demand. In addition, the projection for this category included 2,200 AFY of Coachella Canal water for the Sa lton Sea Restoration North Shore pilot project to support wetland habitat. Overall water demand for this category is projected to increase by 2,700 AFY from 18,893 AFY in 2020 to 21,593 AFY by 2045. Total water demand projected for 2045 is approximately 644,610 AFY, which is 240,800 AFY lower than the 885,400 AFY originally projected in the 2010 CVWMP Update. The updated 2045 total demand reflects reductions in SCAG growth projections based on updates from local jurisdictions provided to SCAG, along with conservation savings documented by the water providers over the last decade that are projected to continue into the future. Water Supply Projections The Indio Subbasin Planning Area relies on a combination of local groundwater, Colorado River water, SWP exchange water, surface water, and recycled water to meet water demands as described below. Colorado River water is only allocated to CVWD, and not to the other water providers in the Basin. Total available Colorado River deliveries are projected to be 464,000 AFY in 2045 based on CWVD’s entitlements to Colorado River water. Under the 2003 Quantification Settlement, CVWD currently receives a base entitlement of 330,000 AFY plus an additional 123,000 AFY pursuant to negotiated water transfer agreements with MWD and IID, of which CVWD received 394,000 AFY in 2020. (See Indio SGMA Alternative Plan, Section 6.4.1. Importantly, the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update recognizes that Colorado River supplies face a number of challenges to long‐term reliability 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐24 February 2022 including the extended Colorado River Basin drought and agreements that require water to be shared during extended periods of drought, to protect endangered species and habitat protection, and as a result of climate change. Since 2007, State Water Project (SWP) deliveries have averaged only 45 percent of the projected allocations (87,345 AFY out of the 194,100 AFY specified in the SWP Table A allocations). Accordingly, only 45 percent of the Table A amounts were used in CVWD’s water supply calculations for the 2020 – 2045 time period. However, various projects are being undertaken to increase the reliability of water deliveries from the SWP, including projects by the State Department of Water Resources (DWR) such as the Delta Conveyance Facility. CVWD and DWA are advancing funding over the next 2 years to assist DWR with implementing these projects. In addition, MWD, DWR, CVWD and DWA have also begun planning for the Lake Perris Seepage Recovery Project, which is anticipated to deliver 2,752 AFY to DWA and CVWD starting in 2023. CVWD and DWA have also entered into agreements with the Sites Reservoir Authority for the purpose of obtaining 10,000 AFY and 6,500 AFY, respectively, from the Sites Reservoir Project, which will capture stormwater flows from the Sacramento River and add 1.5 million acre‐feet of additional storage for the SWP to increase reliability during drier periods. In addition to SWP reliability improvements, there are eight wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) or water reclamation plants (WRPs) within the Plan Area, with a ninth in construction by MSWD. CVWD and DWA currently deliver recycled water from three WRPs for irrigation of golf courses, large, landscaped areas, and various other irrigation uses. Forecasted recycled water deliveries from the three WRPs are anticipated to increase from 13,398 AFY in 2020 to 20,213 AFY in 2045 based on additional projects currently being planned. Modeling Results The Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update analyzes several scenarios over the 50‐year period required by SGMA to address potential future water supply conditions, changes in land use, and implementation of water management projects including source substitution and new water supply projects. Climate change conditions were considered in all of these scenarios. Future climate change was simulated similar to the observed conditions over the last 25 years, a period marked with recurring drought and below average rainfall. While all scenarios assume 45 percent reliability of SWP supplies, the climate change scenarios assume an additional 1.5 percent reduction in SWP reliability by year 2045. To account for the potential effects of future climate change, the projections assume CVWD will contribute water to California’s Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan allotment for Colorado River water. Under this plan, CVWD is obligated to contribute approximately 14,000 to 24,500 AFY, which equals about 7 percent of California’s total contribution, to prevent Lake Mead water levels reaching critically low levels. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐25 February 2022 The modeling of these scenarios shows that implementation of water management projects that are already planned and CVWD’s ongoing management actions can maintain the water balance in the Indio Subbasin, even with the expected effects of future climate change in the Colorado River Basin and on the SWP. Figure ES‐6, reproduced below, shows the inflows to the basin in the upper portion of this chart and outflows in the lower portion. As shown in the Figure, projected inflows are greater than outflows for each of the five scenarios considered. For ex ample, the baseline with climate change scenario shows inflows to the basin of 379,459 AFY and outflows of 366,959 AFY, indicating outflows will not exceed inflows. These scenarios include 5 projection scenarios: 1. a baseline scenario, which is based on hydrologic conditions in the Whitewater River watershed from 1970 to 2019; 2. a baseline scenario considering the effects of climate change (indicated by “CC”); 3. a 5 year scenario reflecting planned and funded water supply projects and actions and the effects of climate change; 4. a future scenario reflecting additional water supply projects and actions over the full 25 year planning period and the effects of climate change; and 5. a scenario that considers the expansion of agriculture with the effects of climate change. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐26 February 2022 Figure ES‐6: Model Inflows and Outflows by Scenario The projected change in groundwater storage in the basin for each of these scenarios is shown in the graph below, which is Figure ES‐8 in the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, as provided by CVWD in its revised September 27, 2021 Errata document. In the Future Projects with Climate Change scenario, decreased pumping and similar levels of inflow to the other climate change scenarios result in an increase in groundwater storage of 1,394,000 AF at the end of the 50‐year simulation. The Baseline with Climate Change is the only scenario that shows a negative change in storage after the 50‐year simulation – approximately 542,000 AF is expected to be removed from storage over the 50‐year period. All scenarios show a net increase in storage at the end of the 25‐year planning horizon, followed by declining storage through 2069 for the Baseline with Climate Change scenario only; net stable storage for the 5‐Year Plan with Climate Change projects scenario; and increasing storage for the Future Projects with Climate Change and Expanded Agriculture with Climate Change scenarios. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐27 February 2022 Figure ES‐8: Cumulative Change in Storage for Future Scenarios Conclusion Based on both the project‐specific WSA/WSV and the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, therefore, CVWD has correctly calculated for, and demonstrated that it can supply the water demand generated by the proposed project, as well as all other existing and projected future demands. CVWD and the other GSAs responsible for management of groundwater in the Indio Subbasin are managing the basin in full compliance with the SGMA. The recently completed Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update considers the anticipated effects of climate change and all planned groundwater supply and management projects and actions over the next 50 years. This update demonstrates that the water balance will be maintained in the basin. Of note, the projections in this update include four projects with water features such as surf parks with a total projected demand of 500 AFY and for which CVWD has approved WSAs, inclusive of the 120 AFY demand for the Wave Basin in the Coral Mountain project. Accordingly, this information supports the conclusions in the DEIR that the project (i) will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the Indio Subbasin; and 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐28 February 2022 (ii) will have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and therefore, will not have any significant adverse effects relating to water use. 2.2.4 Noise Comments were received related to the potential effects of the proposed project relating to noise generated by project construction and operations, including questioning whether noise measurements taken of the existing Wave Basin operations in Lemoore, California are appropriate to analyze noise impacts at the project site, and questioning whether the proposed special events at the Wave Basin would have significant noise impacts. A Noise Impact Analysis (“Noise Study”) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. in March 2021, included as Appendix K.1 in the Draft EIR, analyzed the potential for noise impacts from construction and use of the project, including the proposed Wave Basin. As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR, these potential impacts are (1) generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of the standards established in the City’s General Plan, noise ordinance, or other applicable standards; and (2) generation of excessive ground‐borne vibration or noise levels. The noise related comments on the Draft EIR focused on the first of these potential impacts, so this topical response will also focus on the project’s potential to generate a substantial increase in noise in violation of applicable standards. As analyzed in the Draft EIR, the project will generate short‐term construction noise and long‐term increases in traffic noise and operational noise, including from the proposed Wave Basin. The development of any project on a vacant site increases noise levels. That increase, however, is not significant if it is within established City standards. To constitute a significant impact, these noise increases would need to exceed the City’s General Plan or Municipal Code standards. The City General Plan includes land use compatibility standards for new projects (see Table 4.11‐1 in the Draft EIR, at p. 4.11‐8), as well as Policy N‐1.2, which requires a noise study and appropriate mitigation for projects along roadways where noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL. Section 9.100.210 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes a daytime exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL near sensitive receptors, including residential communities. Based on these General Plan and Municipal Coode standards, the City adopted an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL as the applicable threshold of significance when analyzing noise for any development project, including the project‐specific noise study. (See Draft EIR at p. 4.11‐9). As explained in detail on pages 4.11‐17 through 4.11‐21, increases in noise caused by the project would also be considered significant if existing noise levels increase substantially, which is defined to include increases of 1.5 dBA or more where the ambient noise level already exceeds 65 dBA, 3 dBA or more where ambient noise levels are between 60 and 65 dBA, and increases of 5 dBA or more where ambient noise levels are less than 60 dBA. This standard is consistent with guidance from both the Federal Interagency 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐29 February 2022 Committee on Noise (FICON) and the California Department of Health Services and is broadly used in noise studies under CEQA. For construction noise, which is limited to daytime hours, the City has established a significance threshold of 85 dBA Leq, consistent with the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety. (See Draft EIR at pp. 4.11‐18 – 4.11‐21). As summarized on pages 4.11‐49 and 4.11‐50 of the Draft EIR, the noise study concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant construction or operational noise increases, taking into account the proposed configuration of the low density residential, tourist commercial, general commercial, and open space uses as reflected in the proposed land use plan in the specific plan. The Noise Study analyzed the potential effects of project‐related construction activities and operational activities. To determine the existing noise environment, hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24‐hour period at sensitive receptors (i.e., residential uses, schools, libraries, hospitals, and nursing homes) within the vicinity of the project site. According to these noise measurements, average noise levels between the 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. period range from a low of 43.8 dBA Laeq (A‐weighted Leq) at the western end of Avenue 60, south of an existing single‐family residential home at 80800 Avenue 60 (Location 8), to a high of 62.5 dBA Laeq, south of a single‐family residential home at 57925 Barristo Circle (Location 2). Between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., average noise levels ranged from a low of 39.9 dBA Laeq at Location 8, to a high of 60.7 dBA Laeq at Location 2. 24‐hour noise levels ranged from a low of 47.3 dBA CNEL at Location 8 to a high of 67.6 dBA CNEL at Location 2. Please refer to Table 4, 24‐Hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements, and Figure 4, Noise Monitoring Locations, in the Noise Study for descriptions and illustrations of the various locations. Construction activities associated with the project were determined to result in less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures, provided in the Draft EIR as NOI‐1 through NOI‐4. It was determined that the noise impacts associated with cons truction of the proposed project are expected to create temporarily high noise levels at the nearby receiver locations. However, based on the findings, onsite construction noise will not exceed the standard established by the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) identified by the City in the Draft EIR as the threshold of significance for noise impacts from construction activities. The highest onsite noise level during construction is 83.2 dBA at receiver location P7, which is located within the project property, and the highest offsite construction noise level is 76.5 dBA at receiver location R8, which is located along the southern boundary of the project on 60th Avenue. Both are below the 85 dBA NIOSH standard. In addition, these noise levels decrease by approximately 6 dBA at 100 feet and with every doubling of distance thereafter. Although the project will not result in significant construction noise impacts, the project will be required to implement Mitigation Measures NOI‐1 through NOI‐4, as outlined in Section 4.11, Noise, to further reduce construction noise to the maximum extent feasible. The Noise Study analyzed operational noise generated by the proposed project, including off‐site and on‐site traffic noise generated by project‐related increases in vehicular traffic, noise generated by the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐30 February 2022 proposed special events, and noise generated by the Wave Basin. Measurements of existing noise levels at various locations were conducted in proximity to the proposed project. The ten locations where measurements were collected were chosen to represent noise sensitive areas, such as nearby residential properties. Offsite traffic noise levels on streets in the area, with the addition of traffic from the project and projected increases in traffic volumes from development of other projects, will range from 60.5 to 73.9 dBA CNEL at these ten locations considered in the analysis. The project will generate a noise level increase of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL in all study area roadway se gments except for segment 27 (Avenue 60 west of Madison Street), which will experience and increase of up to 3.2 dBA CNEL, from the current 57.3 dBA to a projected 60.5 dBA. Based on the thresholds of significance established in the Draft EIR, the project‐related noise level increases are considered less than significant under existing, plus ambient growth, plus cumulative development in buildout year 2026 (EAC 2026) with project conditions at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic, because all but one segment experience increases of less than 3.0 dBA CNEL, and because segment 27 does not currently experience 65 dBA noise levels, and project traffic will not increase levels to 65 dBA. Therefore, offsite traffic would result in less than significant impacts. Noise generated by off‐site traffic during the proposed special events was also analyzed in the Noise Study. As stated throughout the Draft EIR, the project applicant anticipates the potential occurrence of special events at the project site. The Noise Study anticipates that off‐site roadway noise levels during special event conditions will range from 60.5 to 73.9 dBA CNEL and will generate a noise level increase of up to 3.2 dBA CNEL on the study area roadway segments. Based on the thresholds of significance established in the Draft EIR, the project‐related roadway noise level increases are considered to be less than significant under the project with special events condition at the land uses adjacent to roadways conveying project traffic because the project will not increase ambient noise levels on any of the roadway segments by an amount that exceeds the applicable threshold. In fact, the projected noise increases range from 0.0 to 1.0 dBA in 25 of the 27 locations and have a maximum increase of 3.2 dBA on Avenue 60 west of Madison Street. See Table 4.11‐8 of Section 4.11 in the Draft EIR for thresholds utilized in the Noise Study, and Table 4.11‐20 of Section 4.11 for the projected noise levels with and without the project during special events. In addition to construction noise and off‐site traffic noise, the Draft EIR (and the Noise Study and supplemental Noise Memo prepared by Urban Crossroads attached as Appendix K.1 and K.2 to the DEIR) analyzed operational noise impacts generated by the proposed project. Operational activities analyzed included activities associated with use of the Wave Basin, outdoor pool/spa activities, outdoor activities, and activities at the neighborhood commercial center. Worst‐case noise environments were assumed to generate the most conservative value for analysis. However, these noise level impacts will likely vary throughout the day and will be limited to the daytime and evening 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐31 February 2022 hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Per Mitigation Measure NOI‐6, the operation of the Wave Basin will conclude at 10:00 p.m. In order to capture potential noise levels generated by the Wave Basin and associated machinery, Urban Crossroads collected noise samples at eight different locations at the existing Kelly Slater Surf Ranch in Lemoore, California. The Wave Basin proposed in the project will use the same technology and equipment and, for this reason, noise measurements were collected at the Wave Basin in Lemoore and used in the analysis of the noise levels that would be generated by the Wave Basin included in the project. These measurements included ten wave events, measured at eight different locations, over a period of 53 minutes. The reference noise levels indicate that during peak wave events, the Wave Basin generates noise levels ranging from 62.6 dBA Leq at the end of the Wave Basin, 73.8 dBA Leq in the lifeguard tower and 75.7 dBA Leq twelve feet from the cable roller system. To describe the worst‐case reference noise level conditions, the highest reference noise level describing each peak wave noise event of 75.7 dBA Leq at a distance of 12 feet was used in the analysis. The reference noise level measurements included all sources of noise associated with the Wave Basin in Lemoore, including loudspeaker announcements, as well as noise generated from the waves and associated machinery. In addition, further noise level measurements were taken at the Lemoore facility in August 2021 to evaluate improvements to the Wave machine cable roller system, and to ensure that the measurements were taken while the waves were being actively used by surfers with the rescue jet ski in operation. These measurements showed a slight decrease in peak noise levels from 75.7 dBA to 73.5 dBA at a location 12 feet from the noise source (see Appendix K.3 in this Final EIR). This reference noise level likely overstates the expected noise levels from the Wave Basin/wave machine activity at the project since it only reflects noise levels when a wave is being generated, while noise levels will vary throughout the day, with quieter periods when waves are not being generated. As shown in Tables 4.11‐25 and 4.11‐26 of the Draft EIR, the project’s operational noise levels will not exceed 65 dBA at any off‐site locations, and will not significantly increase existing noise levels at any off‐site locations. Concerns regarding the accuracy of comparing noise measurements of the Kelly Slater Surf Ranch in Lemoore to the proposed project were introduced by the public during the project’s scoping meeting on March 30, 2021. For context, the area surrounding the Kelly Slater Surf Ranch in Lemoore is characterized by agricultural fields, whereas the proposed project is located on the desert floor and adjacent to Coral Mountain. The public expressed concerns that sound propagation and attenuation would vary between the different land types. However, the only noise measurements taken at the Lemoore facility were taken in the immediate vicinity of the noise source; measurements of noise at distances comparable to the receptor locations analyzed in the Noise Study were not used to analyze noise impacts. Rather, these noise levels at the source were input into the noise modelling software used by Urban Crossroads. Specifically, the Urban Crossroads Noise Study utilized the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA is a three‐dimensional noise model that analyzes multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate project site plan, 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐32 February 2022 georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels at the selected receptor locations. Following the completion of the Noise Study, Urban Crossroads provided a supplemental Noise Memo, dated April 20, 2021 (included as Appendix K.2 in the Draft EIR), to address residents’ concerns regarding the difference between the topography in Lemoore and at the project site. The Noise Memo states that agricultural fields and desert floors are considered soft surfaces for the purposes of sound propagation. On the specific issue of whether significant noise levels will be amplified by bouncing off Coral Mountain, the noise expert explained that based on Federal Highway Administration studies and guidance, if all noise striking a hard surface were reflected back to a given receiving point, the maximum increase in noise would be limited to 3dBA. However, not all acoustical energy is reflected back to the same point, and accordingly, FHWA measurements show that reflective noise increases do not exceed 1‐2 dBA, which is not perceptible to the human ear (see Urban Crossroads Memo dated 4/20/21, attached as Appendix K.2 to the DIER). In addition, the worst‐case reference noise level conditions were taken during peak wave noise events at 12 feet, as stated above, whereas Coral Mountain is located approximately 650 feet from the Wave Basin, separated by desert floor and vegetation that are considered soft surfaces that will absorb sound. The reference noise level measurements themselves do not include any sound attenuation for the agricultural fields. Therefore, although the proposed project is located on the desert floor and adjacent to Coral Mountain, the noise measurements from the Lemoore site provide an accurate comparison of noise levels to occur at the project site (page 4.11‐46 of the Draft EIR). The Noise Study, Noise Memo, and Draft EIR concluded that noise generated by the operation of the proposed Wave Basin and associated machines, commercial uses, and outdoor activities would not result in noise levels that exceed the significance thresholds or result in significant increases in noise levels. Please refer to pages 4.11‐44 to 4.11‐49 in the Draft EIR for full analysis of the project operational noise impacts. 2.2.5 Traffic During the public review period, area residents expressed concerns with project‐generated traffic, specifically due to the proposed tourist commercial use (including hotel and Wave Basin) and during the proposed special events. Traffic related to project activities (both construction and operational) were thoroughly analyzed in the project‐specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (included as Appendix L.1 and L.2 in the Draft EIR). Project‐generated traffic is also discussed and analyzed in Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR and mitigation measures are identified to re duce impacts to less than significant levels. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐33 February 2022 The project‐specific TIA was based upon an analysis of existing roadway conditions in the project vicinity, a variety of traffic count sources (including peak hour counts collected by the consulting traffic engineers), the General Plan Circulation Element, planned roadway improvements, and other data and information. In addition to the existing traffic conditions, the TIA provides documentation and analysis of trips generated by the project, distribution of the project trips to roadways outside the project, and projected future traffic conditions. The TIA was prepared in accordance with the City of La Quinta’s Traffic Study Guidelines (Engineering Bulletin #06‐13, dated October 13, 2017) and Engineering Bulletin #10‐01, dated August 9, 2010, the City General Plan, and a traffic study scope reviewed and approved by City staff during the scoping process. The project will be gated and private, with the exception of the neighborhood commercial project at the northeast corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, so reasonable assumptions regarding trip reductions due to internal interactions between these uses are included in the trip generation calculations. As shown on Table 4‐1 through 4‐3 of the TIA, the total number of external trips were adjusted for each land use based on its anticipated interactions with the other internal uses, and those adjustments are shown on Tables 4‐1 through 4‐3. For example, of the 41 AM peak hour trips anticipated to be generated by the resort hotel during Phase 1, 10 of those trips were assumed to be internal to other areas within the project and 31 were assumed to leave the project site. (See Table 4‐1 of TIA, on p. 41). The Wave Basin facility will be utilized by hotel guests and project residents only, but outside trip generation was also included for employee trips at the hotel, resort commercial, and Wave Basin. Area residents and visitors from outside the project will use the commercial retail area located in the northeast corner of the project, as will project residents and hotel guests. As explained above and shown on Tables 4‐1 through 4‐3 of the TIA, the total internal/pass‐by trip ends were appropriately adjusted to ensure that no “double counting” occurs before assigning the project trips to the roadway network. As indicated in Table 4.13‐13, in the Draft EIR, at project buildout, the site is anticipated to generate a net total of 6,994 external trip‐ends per day on a typical weekday with 447 external vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday AM peak hour and 638 external VPH during the weekday PM peak hour. Project trips were generated based on the rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017, with the exception of the Wave Basin, which was estimated using the SANDAG trip generation estimates for a developed 12‐acre recreational park because the ITE Manual did not have any applicable trip generation rates for this unique recreational feature. Under 2026 project build out conditions, nine study area intersections will operate at unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) without the development of the project. The addition of the project will result in a total of ten impacted intersections under build out (“Phase 3”) conditions. Therefore, the project will reduce the LOS at the intersection of Madison St. and 58th Avenue from an acceptable PM level 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐34 February 2022 of service C, to an unacceptable level of F without any intersection improvements. Eight of these impacted intersections are anticipated to require installation of a traffic signal in order to maintain acceptable level of service (LOS). These intersection improvements are currently included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). As indicated in Table 4.13‐23 in the Draft EIR, project and CIP improvements will result in acceptable LOS for all intersections. For the other two intersections physical improvements to the lane configurations are necessary to achieve acceptable LOS. With the installation of these improvements, all ten impacted intersections will operate at LOS D or better at project build out. Further, all study roadway segments analyzed are anticipated to operate at acceptable volume‐to‐capacity ratio of 0.90 or less, and at buildout impacts will not be significant. Special Events The project proposes the potential occurrence of up to 4 multi‐day special events per year involving attendance of up to 2.500 guests per day. Events will be restricted to 4 days, with peak trips anticipated between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Saturday. (See Table 8‐3 of TIA, which shows 274 peak hour trips and 2,084 daily trips generated by the 2,500 special event guests). The Weekend Project Trip generation during a special event was based on 2,500 guests per day at the Wave Basin and approximately 25 percent of the guests arriving or departing during the arrival and departure peak hours. Discussions with City staff resulted in the selection of the Saturday peak hour between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. As indicated in the TIA, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a net total of 8,932 trip‐ends per day on Saturday during a special event with 906 vehicles per hours (VPH) during the arrival peak hour and 844 VPH during the departure peak hour. For each special event, a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) would be required. The traffic analysis shows that nine of the study area intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS without improvements to those intersections (see Table 8‐4 of TIA). However, with completion of the intersection improvements required for Phase 3 of the project, all study are intersections will operate at an acceptable LOS. Implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA‐9 through TRA‐14 will reduce traffic impacts of special events to less than significant levels. If special events occur prior to completion of all Phase 3 improvements, TRA‐9 requires the applicant to provide a focused traffic analysis with the Temporary Use Permit that identifies any improvements that are necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at study intersections during special events. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. TRA‐10 requires a special event traffic and parking plan to be submitted with a TUP to ensure that special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. TRA‐11 requires Traffic Management Plans to be submitted to the City and Police Department for review and approval prior to special events. TRA‐12 through TRA‐14 require traffic control, which typically includes special event flaggers, law enforcement personnel, online or transmitted event information (suggested routes, parking, etc.) 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐35 February 2022 and portable changeable message signs (CMS) located at critical locations identified by the La Quinta Police Department. TRA‐12 through TRA‐14 will be included in TUP applications and would be added as conditions of approval for each occurrence. Therefore, the Draft EIR concluded that traffic impacts associated with special events will be reduced to less than significant levels. Please consult pages 4.13‐42 to 4.13‐47 of the Draft EIR for full discussion and analysis. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) The Urban Crossroads VMT Evaluation calculated project VMT using the most current version of the Riverside County Transportation Analysis Model (RIVTAM). Adjustments in socioeconomic data (SED) (i.e., employment) were made to a separate Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) within the RIVTAM model to reflect the project’s proposed population and employment uses. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,698 project residents and 19,773 Home‐Based VMT for baseline (2020) conditions. This results in approximately 11.64 home‐based VMT/Capita for the 2020 Baseline with project conditions. In addition, the cumulative (2040) project scenario results in approximately 12.14 VMT/Service Population. Because the project exceeds the City’s VMT/Capita threshold of 11.03, impacts would be considered potentially significant. However, the project incorporates design features and attributes promoting trip reduction which reduce residential VMT from 11.64 VMT/resident to 10.94 VMT/resident, including the placement of different land use types near one another as well as elements of the project that enhance walkability and connectivity between the mix of use types such as sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings and the presence of street trees. Implementation of the project design features will reduce potential impacts to below the City’s established threshold for a significant VMT impact, and therefore, the residential portion of the project would have a less than significant VMT impact. The project Development Agreement and/or conditions of approval will ensure that the project design features identified in the Draft EIR are enforceable by the City. Trip reduction project design features are listed on pages 4.13‐54 and 4.13‐55 in the Draft EIR. The VMT analysis methodology for retail uses (including hotels) focuses on the net increase in the total existing VMT for the region. The project consists of appr oximately 674 employees. Travel activity associated with total link‐level VMT was extracted from the “without project” and “with non‐ residential project” RIVTAM model run for 2012 and 2040 conditions, then interpolated for baseline (2020) conditions. This methodology is referred to as “boundary method,” and evaluates hotel occupants, Wave Basin visitors and retail patrons. Using the boundary method, the Coachella Valley Association of Government’s (CVAG) area VMT with project employment is compared to without project conditions to determine whether there is a significant impact. The CVAG subregion VMT/SP without project is estimated at 21.56, whereas with the project employment, the CVAG subregion VMT is estimated at 21.53. Therefore, it was determined that the project’s effect on VMT (for non‐ residential uses) is not significant because it results in a cumulative link‐level boundary decrease 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐36 February 2022 under the plus project condition compared to the no project condition (see pages 4.13‐55 and 4.13‐ 56 of the Draft EIR). Impacts were determined to be less than significant. Overall, project related impacts associated with traffic during project construction, normal operation, and during special events were determined to result in less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures. 2.2.6 Length of Draft EIR The length of the Draft EIR was a concern for some commenters. The State CEQA Guidelines provide recommendations in order to guide CEQA practitioners when writing environmental documents, such as EIRs or Negative Declarations. Section 15141 of the CEQA Guidelines, recommends EIRs to normally be limited to 300 pages. This recommendation is not a mandate, and in this case, due to the project’s complexity, project history, the various project components, and environmental setting in which the project site is located, the Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR exceeded the recommended 300 pages. The CEQA Guidelines recommendations are taken into consideration when writing the Draft EIR, however, in order to provide a document that thoroughly disclosed all of the project components, technical methodologies, analysis, discussion, and findings of each environmental topic, the document exceeded 300 pages. The EIR’s exceedance of 300 pages does not invalidate the document and does provide any cause for replacement or recirculation of the document. 2.2.7 Ability to Comprehend Draft EIR The inability to comprehend the Draft EIR was also a concern amongst some area residents. Technical reports were generated for the project in order to analyze project impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, paleontological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology, noise, and traffic. In order to appropriately analyze the environmental topics and determine whether the project would result in significant impacts, there is a level of technicality and understanding that is required by experts in these fields to provide reports that satisfy all requirements under CEQA. It is the responsibility of the CEQA practitioner to translate this technical data and covey the conclusions regarding the significance of potential impacts to the public, which is set forth in the Draft EIR, and further explained where necessary in the response to comments provided in this Final EIR. The Draft EIR is not overly technical and uses explanations of technical concepts and terms wherever appropriate. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐37 February 2022 2.3 Public Agency & Area Residents Comment Letters & Responses Public Agencies 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐38 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 1: Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Name: Paul Rull, ALUC Director Date: June 22, 2021 Affiliation: Airport Land Use Commission Address: 4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor Riverside CA, 92501 Comment 1‐a: This project is outside of the airport influence area, and ther efore ALUC has no comments at this time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Response 1‐a: The City thanks the ALUC for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. Since the comment did not raise any questions or concerns with the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐39 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 2: Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Name: Daniel Zerda, Student Intern Date: June 22, 2021 Affiliation: Airport Land Use Commission Address: 4080 Lemon Street, 14th Floor Riverside CA, 92501 Comment 2‐a: Thank you for the transmittal. Please note that the project is not located within an Airport Influence area, and as a result, ALUC review will not be required at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Response 2‐a: The City thanks the ALUC for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. Since the comment did not raise any questions or concerns with the Draft EIR, no further response is warranted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐40 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 3: Cal Fire Name: Kohl Hetrick, Fire Safety Specialist/Office of the Fire Marshall Date: June 28, 2021 Affiliation: Cal Fire/Riverside County Fire Department Address: 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta CA, 92253 Comment 3‐a: Yes, I should be routed for these reviews and will ensure that they are sent to the appropriate Fire Strategic Planning Representative in our Riverside Office. Which case in Trakit is being utilized for documenting this review? Response 3‐a: The City thanks Cal Fire for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐41 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 4: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Name: Annaleigh Ekman, Assistant Regional Planner Date: June 29, 2021 Affiliation: SCAG Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Program Address: 900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Comment 4‐a: Thank you for sending this NOA for the Coral Mountain Resort DEIR. I have a couple of follow‐up questions related to the incorporation of SCAG’s comments on the NOP (starting page 66 in Appendix A) and I’m wondering if we can chat over the phone in the coming weeks. I’m out of the office next week, but my schedule is open this Friday, July 2nd and in the morning and afternoon on Tuesday, July 13th. Let me know if any of these times work for you. Response 4‐a: The City arranged a phone call with Ms. Ekman on July 13, 2021 to discuss the follow‐up questions mentioned in Comment 4‐a. Ms. Ekman wanted to confirm that SCAG’s letter was received during the NOP comment period. The City confirmed that the letter was received. Ms. Ekman also asked that future EIR projects include a Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) policy analysis. The City thanks SCAG for participating in the public review period and it has been noted to include the RTP/SCS policy analysis in future EIR projects. In addition, an analysis confirming the project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS policies has been added to the EIR and included in Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR, in this Final EIR. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐42 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 5: Cal Fire Name: Kohl Hetrick, Fire Safety Specialist/Office of the Fire Marshall Date: June 30, 2021 Affiliation: Cal Fire/Riverside County Fire Department Address: 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta CA, 92253 Comment 5‐a: The Draft Environment Impact Report for the Coral Mountain Resort (The Wave Development, LLC) is now available for review. The documents may be accessed at the following link: haps://www.laquintaca.gov/ourcity/city‐departments/design‐and‐development/planning‐ division/the‐wave‐at‐coral‐mountain This Draft EIR is available for a 45‐day public review period beginning on June 22, 2021, and ending on August 6, 2021. To provide comments in response to this notice (please include “Coral Mountain Resort DEIR” in the subject line in writing, by August 6, 2021, to: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner, City of La Quinta, 78‐495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253, or consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov. Please include your name, address, and other contact information in your response. Please let me know if you have any questions. Response 5‐a: The City thanks Cal Fire and the Strategic Planning Team for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐43 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 6: Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Name: Deborah De Chambeau, Engineering Project Manager Date: August 3, 2021 Affiliation: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC) Address: 1995 Market Street Riverside, CA 92501 Comment 6‐a: The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. Response 6‐a: The City thanks the District for participating in the review of the Draft EIR, and acknowledges the District’s role in the CEQA process. Comment 6‐b: The District’s review is based on the above‐referenced project transmittal, received June 23, 2021. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue: ☒ This project would not be impacted by the District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. ☐ This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, . The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. ☐ An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, ________________. For further information, contact the District’s Encroachment Permit section at 951.955.1266. ☒ The Districts previous comments are still valid (see attached letter dated 03/09/21). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐44 February 2022 Response 6‐b: Comment noted. The District attached its letter dated March 9, 2021 in response to the Notice of Preparation for the Coral Mountain Resort EIR. The City acknowledges that it received the District’s March 9 letter (please see Appendix A of the Draft EIR), and that the District’s comments in that let ter were considered in the research and documentation undertaken to complete the Draft EIR. Comment 6‐c: GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Response 6‐c: Comments noted. The City will require compliance with all applicable federal and state permitting requirements as noted above. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐45 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 7: Imperial Irrigation District Name: Donald Vargas, Compliance Administrator II Date: August 4, 2021 Affiliation: Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Address: P.O. Box 937 Imperial, CA 92253 Comment 7‐a: On June 28, 2021, the Imperial Irrigation District received from the City of La Quinta, the Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Coral Mountain Resort project. The project proposes to develop a 386‐acre site with a mix of uses including up to 600 dwelling units of varying product types, a resort facility with up to 150 rooms, 57,000 sq. ft. of tourist commercial uses, a 16.62‐ acre artificial wave basin for recreational purposes, 60,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial uses and 23.6 acres of open space recreational uses. The project includes the installation of an off‐site transformer bank at an existing IID substation (Ave. 58 Substation) as part of the proposed upgrades. The 386‐acre site is generally bounded by Avenue 58 to the north; Madison Street to the east; the extension of Avenue 60 to the south; and Coral Mountain to the west in La Quinta, CA. The IID has reviewed the project information and found that the comments provided in their letter dated March 18, 2021 (see attached letter) continue to apply. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (760) 482‐3609 or at dvargas@iid.com. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Response 7‐a: The City thanks IID for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. Comment 7‐b: This comment is the March 18, 2021 letter submitted by IID during the NOP public review period. In this letter, IID provided comments related to project electricity infrastructure and usage. Response 7‐b: The City acknowledges that it received the District’s March 18 letter (please see Appendix A of the Draft EIR), and that the District’s comments in that letter were considered in the research and documentation undertaken to complete the Draft EIR. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐46 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 8: CactusToCloud Name: Sendy Barrows Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: CactusToCloud Address: www.CactusToCloud.org Comment 8‐a: CactusToCloud values the opportunity to submit comments for the project above referenced, and we respectfully request you please share our comments with the La Quinta City Council. CactusToCloud is a group of desert advocates collaborating on community science and environmental education projects in the Coachella Valley, and our goal is to celebrate and protect our desert home. We represent diverse backgrounds and life experiences, and we are all UCR‐Palm Desert California Naturalists and Climate Stewards. As it happens, we are also all homeowners in the City of La Quinta. As concerned La Quinta residents, and given our training and time spent in our community, we consider it imperative that we, CactusToCloud, oppose this project, and we ask that the DEIR be revised to address the concerns contained in this letter, and other letters of concerned residents and conservation organizations. Response 8‐a: The City thanks CactusToClouds for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. The commenter’s opposition to the project is noted. The commenter’s concerns are addressed in the comments below, and responses are included as Response 8‐b through 8‐d. Comment 8‐b: This project threatens to negatively impact the existing cultural, ecological, and recreational features in this area. Coral Mountain itself is a culturally and historically rich space, where Native American petroglyphs, intact honey mesquite hummocks, and the ancient Lake Cahuilla Shoreline are visible and accessible to our community. We are concerned irresponsible development of this area would damage these irreplaceable assets in our beautiful city, and that access to public lands will be limited. Response 8‐b: A project‐specific Cultural Report was conducted for the project site in order to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or around the project area. The Cultural Report is provided in Appendix E of the Draft EIR, and summarized in Section 4.4 of the Draft EIR. As described in these documents, existing petroglyphs are known to occur adjacent to the site, at the base of Coral Mountain. As disclosed in the Draft EIR, at page 4.4‐14 – 4‐15 and 4.14‐11 – 4.14‐14, impacts to these historic features would be significant. As 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐47 February 2022 a result, the Drat EIR includes Mitigation Measure CUL‐2, CUL‐3, TCR‐4, TCR‐5, and TCR‐6, which assure that these resources will be avoided and protected in situ. In addition, the project applicant has agreed to provide a trail linkage across the open space in the southwestern portion of the site, in cooperation with the Desert Recreation District, which will also be located and fenced to protect the tribal cultural resources (rock art panels and bedrock milling features) located at the base of Coral Mountain. Please see pages 4.14‐11 – 4.14‐12, and Mitigation Measures TCR‐4 and TCR‐5, which require both avoidance of this resource and a Rock Art Management Plan that is subject to review and approval by the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office. Therefore, the petroglyphs identified by the commenter have been protected by required mitigation and impacts to these cultural resources will be less than significant, as identified in the Draft EIR. A project‐specific Biological Report was also conducted for the project site in order to determine the existence or potential occurrence of special‐interest plant and animal species within the study area and in the project vicinity. The Biology Report is provided as Appendix D.1 in the Draft EIR, and summarized in Section 4.3. As explained on page 4.3‐21, the removal of the mesquite hummock on the project site does not conflict with any local plan or policy and is not a significant effect. With respect to the ancient Lake Cahuilla shoreline that is visible along a portion of Coral Mountain, no development is proposed or allowed on any portion of Coral Mountain. As explained in the Topical Response on Biological Resources in Section 2.2.2, a sheep barrier will be installed on the project site that will separate the project development from Coral Mountain itself and the surrounding BLM open space. In addition, as described in Response No. 13‐j below, t he project is cooperating with the Desert Recreation District in providing a public trail connection through the southwestern portion of the project site, near the base of Coral Mountain, that will be on the project side of the sheep barrier. The ancient shoreline will remain visible to the public from this location. Comment 8‐c: It is common knowledge that we are in the middle of one of the worst droughts in the history of our state. The use of our ever‐diminishing water resources to fill and maintain a 20‐acre basin would be short‐sighted and does not consider reduced water availability during an unprecedented drought, or uncertain future conditions due to a changing climate. We fear the DEIR has not properly addressed this, and if this project is approved our community risks water shortages and similar water restrictions to those now in effect in other parts of our state. California’s water board recently unanimously approved emergency regulations to temporarily stop thousands of landowners, residents and farmers alike, from using water from Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta watershed. Consumers are now living with a 55 gallon per day per person per day allowance, and face penalties up to $1000 per day, plus $2500 per acre‐foot, for illegally diverting water. Only through responsible use of water, both imported and from our underground aquifer, can we avoid similar restriction in La Quinta. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐48 February 2022 Response 8‐c: Please see the Topical Response, Water Resources, in Section 2.2.3 relating to the availability of water. A project‐specific Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) was completed for the proposed project and uses. Per the WSA/WSV, the proposed project is expected to consume approximately 958.63‐acre feet per year (AFY) based on the residential indoor demand, non‐residential indoor demand, and outdoor demands of the project at buildout. Additionally, the project is required to implement measures to conserve water as required by CVWD. Water conservation methods implemented by the project site include the installation and maintenance of efficient and drip irrigation systems for project landscape, the use of native plant materials and other drought tolerant plants, and the use of low‐flush toilets and water‐conserving showerheads and faucets. These methods will reduce indoor and outdoor water consumption by the project and the land uses that consume the bulk of the project’s calculated water demand. The project is also subject to all existing and future water use restrictions imposed by the California State Water Resources Control Board or CVWD. Comment 8‐d: While we oppose this specific project as presented, we support the responsible development of this site in general. Indeed, smart development around Coral Mountain has the potential to fulfill important community needs such as affordable housing, equitable access to public lands, and climate resilience planning (as required of city governments by SB 379). Any development should incorporate resilience best practices, such as community input and consideration of environmental justice, sustainable water use, native plant landscaping, and outdoor recreational access to Coral Mountain, Boo Hoff Trail, and the Santa Rosa Wilderness. Response 8‐d: Please see Response 8‐c. The project site will remain private property throughout the development and operation of the site. However, a public trail associated with the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by the Desert Recreation District Master Plan and future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center has been incorporated into project plans, as described on page 4.13‐4 of the Draft EIR , and is documented in a letter agreement between the developer, CM Wave Development, LLC, and the Desert Recreation District, dated July 29, 2021, which is attached to this Final EIR as Appendix P. Accommodations for this trail shall be located along the approximate toe of Coral Mountain, within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property and on the project side of the proposed sheep barrier to avoid inviting threats to Peninsular bighorn sheep onto Coral Mountain. Assurance for public access is also provided in Mitigation Measure TRA‐15 in the Draft EIR. Public access to the Boo Hoff Trail and the Santa Rosa Wilderness will not be impacted by the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐49 February 2022 proposed project, as neither the Boo Hoff Trail nor the Wilderness area are on or adjacent to the project site, which is private property. The commenter’s position on resilience best practices, such as community input and consideration of environmental justice is noted. Community input has been sought and obtained throughout the planning process, including the public comment period provided for the Notice of Preparation, the public scoping meeting held for this EIR on March 30, 2021, circulation of the Draft EIR for public comment and the joint City Council/Planning Commission study session held on September 28, 2021. Environmental justice is a policy consideration but not a topic under CEQA. Comment 8‐e: Instead of a surf park which is out of character with our desert, a development that not only preserves but enhances the natural and cultural heritage of our City would be an asset to the community. The CactusToCloud team is ready and interested in working with the City and developers to assist in the implementation of these features, and working together to build a resilient and inclusive community for people and wild plants and animals to thrive in the Coachella Valley. Response 8‐e: The City of La Quinta thanks the CactusToCloud organization for participating in the EIR process. The project is proposed by private property owners, and the City will consider the proposal based on the goals and policies of the General Plan, and the information detailed in the EIR. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐50 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 9: Cal Fire Name: Adria Reinertson, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Cal Fire – Riverside Unit Address: 2300 Market Street Suite #150 Riverside, CA 92501 Comment 9‐a: The Riverside County Fire Department Strategic Planning Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Coral Mountain Resort. Response 9‐a: The City thanks Cal Fire for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. Comment 9‐b: Section 3.5.3 Project Components makes mention of the potential of up to four special events per year with no more than 2,500 guests at each event. We are requesting further information on these events as well as clarification on the daily operation of the Wave in respect to anticipated daily attendance, hours of operation, whether the venue is open to the public, etc. Clarification of these items will assist the Riverside County Fire Department in determining the anticipated need for service and if additional mitigations will be needed to provide service to the proposed development. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR and comment. Should you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at (951) 955‐5272 or via email at adria.reinertson@fire.ca.gov. Response 9‐b: The Draft EIR provides extensive descriptions regarding special events, including within the Project Description in Chapter 3.0, Sections 4.11, Noise, and 4.13, Transportation. As stated in the Draft EIR, the project will be private, and the Wave Basin will be open to only residents and their guests, and hotel guests (see, e.g., page 3‐8). As stated on page 4.1‐73, the Wave Basin will be operated from 7 am to 10 pm daily. Additional information regarding the special events provided in the EIR: Special events will have a maximum of 2,500 people in attendance and will require issuance of a temporary use permit from the City to ensure that the events will not have any significant traffic or safety impacts. Further details on special events have not been developed at this time and will be determined in connection with the temporary use permit process as required under the LQMC. A thorough analysis of the impacts to fire services is provided in Section 4.12 of the Draft EIR, under Public Services. As described in that section The project would be required to implement all applicable fire safety requirements, to include installation of fire hydrants and sprinkler systems. Moreover, the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐51 February 2022 project would be required to pay the City’s Development Impact Fees (DIF) in place at the time of construction. The current DIF for detached single‐family residential is $9,380, which the City has documented is adequate to mitigate any significant impacts to public services from new development. Payment of these fees goes towards the funding of public facilities including but not limited to fire stations, park and recreation facilities, major thoroughfares and bridges and traffic signalization, public safety facilities and other public buildings. The development of the future fire station, whose location is being established by the Riverside County Fire Department and the City, will be funded via the fire facilities component of the City’s adopted DIF and the County’s development impact fees. The City’s DIF ensures that the project will participate in the funding of the fire station in proportion to its impact on fire facilities. As a result, and as correctly determined in the Draft EIR, impacts to the Fire Department will be less than significant. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐52 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 10: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Name: William Patterson, Environmental Supervisor Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Address: 2300 Market Street Suite #150 Riverside, CA 92501 Comment 10‐a: Please also include the following comment: Pages 88, 89 (Section 3.8), 609, and 617 (Section 4.15) of the pdf refer to and/or depict the proposed water infrastructure through the project. CVWD will require an offsite pipeline in Ave. 60 in accordance with the existing Agreement. In addition, there are changes to other portions of the onsite pipeline that will be needed. We suggest the project proponent meet with CVWD to discuss these requirements. Response 10‐a: The City thanks CVWD for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. The District’s requirement for an offsite pipeline in Avenue 60, from Madison Street westerly to the southeast corner of the project, is noted and has been added to page 3‐29 of the EIR (see Chapter 3.0 of this Final EIR). This clarification will not have any new or more significant environmental effects than disclosed in the Draft EIR because this improvement will be installed in the existing, disturbed portion of the Avenue 60 right‐of‐way. In addition, this pipeline in Avenue 60 is a requirement of an existing service agreement made as part of previous project approvals for the site, including the City of La Quinta approval of the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03‐067, which was also the subject of approved Environmental Assessment No. 2003‐483 (See Draft EIR at p. 3‐6). This condition will be satisfied in accordance with the existing agreement as it may be modified per the West Tract‐Partial Assignment and Assumption of Domestic Water Agmt‐Inst No. 2019‐0158543 recorded 5‐8‐19. Changes to onsite water systems will be reviewed and approved by CVWD throughout the development process, as entitlements are proposed for various portions of the project. The City will continue to provide CVWD with development plans as part of the entitlement review process. Comment 10‐b: CVWD would like to submit the following comments in response to the Public review period for the Coral Mountain Resort Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Coachella Valley Water district (CVWD) received notice that the 45‐day public review period would begin on June 22, 2021 and end on August 6, 2021. CVWD has the following comments for your consideration in the document. Response 10‐b: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐53 February 2022 The City thanks CVWD for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. CVWD’s comments are addressed in Comment 10‐c through 10‐e. Comment 10‐c Location: Pages 3‐5; Comment: Draft EIR “CVWD Levees” be changed to “USBR Levees”. Response 10‐c: The EIR has been revised to reflect CVWD’s comment. Please see Chapter 3.0, page 3‐1. Comment 10‐d: Project is adjacent to USBR lands managed by CVWD; any impacts to these lands will require CVWD’s review. Response 10‐d: Comment is noted. The project proponent shall engage CVWD if USBR lands managed by CVWD are proposed to be impacted. Comment 10‐e: The project’s footprint is within CVWD’s irrigation lateral system. Project will require review by CVWD. Response 10‐e: Comment is noted. As described on page 4.15‐17 of the Draft EIR, non‐potable water will be used for irrigation and further review by CVWD will be required. As noted in this comment, and as required of all projects which affect CVWD facilities, any modifications to CVWD’s irrigation lateral system will require CVWD review. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐54 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 11: Center for Biological Diversity Name: Ross Middlemiss, Staff Attorney Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Center for Biological Diversity Address: 660 S. Figeroa Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Comment 11‐a: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) regarding the Coral Mountain Resort Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) drafted and released by the City of La Quinta (the “City”). The Center has reviewed the Coral Mountain Resort (the “Project”) DEIR closely and is concerned that the DEIR fails to adequately assess the project’s impacts on biological resources and water supply, among other impacts. The Center urges the City to address deficiencies identified in this letter and recirculate a new DEIR for public comment prior to preparing a final EIR for the project. The Center is a non‐profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in and around La Quinta. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines impose numerous requirements on public agencies proposing to approve or carry out projects. Among other things, CEQA mandates that significant environmental effects be avoided or substantially lessened where feasible. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126(d).) Unfortunately, the DEIR for the Project fails to comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in numerous respects. Response 11‐a: The City thanks the Center for Biological Diversity for participating in the review of the Draft EIR and providing a description of its organization, mission, and citations of several sections of the CEQA Guidelines. The organization’s concerns are listed in the comments below, and responses are included as Response 11‐b through 11‐i. As demonstrated in the responses below, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required or appropriate here because no significant new information has been added to the Draft EIR in the comment letter or responses that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, which is the standard for recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Examples of such “significant new information” would include a new or substantially more severe adverse environmental effect 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐55 February 2022 than previously disclosed in the Draft EIR, which is not the case here, where additional information is provided in response to the comments to clarify or amplify the information provided in the Draft EIR with further detail or discussion. Comment 11‐b: I. Biological Issues While we recognize that the project area is within the “take” boundary of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, concerns still remain about the absence of mechanisms to prevent Peninsular bighorn sheep from being attracted to the wave pool feature and non‐native plantings. We also have concerns about the night lighting as described below. Response 11‐b: Please see the Topical Response on Biological Resources at Section 2.2.2, above, for a discussion of the proposed sheep barrier along the western project boundaries and the project’s avoidance of plantings that could be harmful to Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS). Also, as noted on Page 4.3‐15 of the DEIR, the site does not provide suitable habitat for PBS. The proposed project does not incorporate any proposed land uses on the Coral Mountain topographic feature, the majority of which occurs on land holdings owned by the United States Department of the Interior, managed by the Bureaus of Land Management and Reclamation. Active land uses are separated from the mountain slopes by a proposed open space area that will include a combination of conservation and low‐impact recreation activities (DEIR Exhibit 3.5). As described in the project description (DEIR Page 3‐11) the project will utilize a combination of fences and walls with gated access points. The Specific Plan provides a thorough list of compatible trees, shrubs, and ground covers that are consistent with CVMSHCP requirements and would be subject to Site Development Permit Review and Final Landscaping Plan permits. The commenter’s concerns are addressed in greater detail in Responses 11‐c and 11‐d, and have been comprehensively addressed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. With respect to night lighting, the light orientation and visor cut‐ offs ensure that there is no light overspill onto Coral Mountain. This is required by Mitigation Measure BIO‐4. BIO‐4 which requires that a supplemental light study be performed to collect nighttime lighting measurements and confirm that no light trespass onto Coral Mountain is occurring. The supplemental light study must be completed prior to issuance of any permit for occupancy or use of the Wave Basin. Also see the Topical Response on Light and Glare at Section 2.2.1, above. Comment 11‐c: A. Peninsular bighorn sheep The Center has worked for years trying to protect and recover the Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally endangered species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act and state‐listed and fully protected species under State law. Nearby projects in La Quinta have been responsible for 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐56 February 2022 numerous Peninsular bighorn sheep deaths (Hurt 2016). At the city‐owned SilverRock golf course, fences have been erected to preclude bighorn from coming onto the golf course and associated facilities, helping to keep bighorn out of harm’s way (KESQ News Team 2019). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan (2000) recommends the following measures be implemented to help in the recovery of Peninsular bighorn, which is particularly important in the La Quinta area where mortalities of bighorn continue. 1.2.1.1 Construct fences to exclude bighorn sheep from urban areas where they have begun or may begin using urban sources of food and water. Fences serve several functions including: (1) separating bighorn sheep from potential threats of urbanization (e.g., toxic plants, parasites, accidents, vector‐borne diseases, traffic, herbicides, pesticides, behavioral habituation), (2) controlling human and pet access to remaining bighorn sheep habitat, (3) preventing bighorn sheep from becoming habituated to and dependent upon artificial sources of food and water, and (4) modifying habituated behaviors and redirection into remaining native habitat. In the northern Santa Rosa Mountains, ongoing coordination with cities and landowners on a regional fencing strategy will be critical to the long‐term health and maintenance of this ewe group… cooperation by residential landowners will be critical to the success of excluding the northern Santa Rosa Mountains ewe group from urban habitats. Along the remainder of the urban interface, where sheep have not yet shown indications of habituation to human habitats, future behavioral habituation also may occur. Although fencing may be viewed as a last resort to other potential forms of aversive conditioning, prudent planning dictates that mitigation be required to offset the likelihood of future adverse effects (behavioral habituation and increased mortality rates) when new projects are approved along the urban interface. Though actual fence construction could be contingent upon future use by sheep and the ineffectiveness of other potential deterrents, the wherewithal, responsibilities, and easements for fences should be determined and secured at the time of project approval. (emphasis added) Fences should be 2.4 meters (8 feet) high, or functionally equivalent, and should not contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. Gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. This fence design should only be used at the urban interface.” 1.2.1.2 Avoid non‐native vegetation along unfenced habitat interfaces where it may attract or concentrate bighorn sheep. Along fenced sections of the urban interface, ornamental and toxic plants should not extend over or through fences where they may be accessible to browsing bighorn sheep. 1.2.1.4 Prohibit the use of any known toxic plants where they may be accessible to bighorn sheep or potentially invade bighorn sheep habitat. A list of known toxic plants should be provided to all developers, landscapers, and homeowners. 1.2.1.5 Discourage the use of plants known to invade and degrade bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., tamarisk, fountain grass). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐57 February 2022 1.2.1.6 Prohibit intentional enticement of bighorn sheep onto private property. This item includes, but is not limited to, vegetation, mineral licks, or unfenced swimming pools, ponds, or fountains upon which bighorn sheep may become dependent for water. 1.2.1.9 Prohibit the construction of water bodies in developed areas adjoining sheep habitat that may promote the breeding of midges (Culicoides sp.) and monitor/control vectors in existing problematic ponds. Water features should be designed to eliminate blue‐tongue and other vector‐ borne diseases by providing deeper water (over 0.9 meters [3 feet]), steeper slopes (greater than 30 degrees), and if possible, rapidly fluctuating water levels (see Mullens 1989, Mullens and Rodriquez 1990). Landowners and managers should coordinate with local mosquito and vector control districts to ensure management of existing water bodies that harbor vector species. 1.2.1.10 Discourage the artificial feeding of coyotes because of the potential for increasing predator abundance and consequent predation on bighorn sheep. USFWS at 80‐83. We request that these recommendations be incorporated into the conditions for approval for the proposed project. Response 11‐c: Please see the Biological Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.2, above, and Responses 13‐d through 13‐m. In response to concerns relative to impacts to PBS in the area from several commenters, a supplemental Biological Assessment Memorandum (“Memo”) was completed by Dr. Tom McGill, with ELMT Consulting, to assess the suitability of the project site to support Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS) and the potential for the project to directly or indirectly affect the PBS. Dr. McGill’s Biological Assessment Memo was completed for the site due to its adjacency to Coral Mountain and proximity to US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) federally managed lands. The Biological Assessment Memo is included in this Final EIR as Appendix D.5. The Draft EIR correctly determined that the project site is not within critical habitat for the PBS. However, development in the vicinity of the Santa Rosa Mountains has the potential to add water and vegetation to the desert floor that can attract PBS out of their established habitat. Therefore, Dr. McGill identified the following Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines from the CVMSHCP, and recommended that all applicable requirements be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval to ensure compliance with the CVMSHCP and avoid or minimize indirect impacts to PBS. These requirements include: ‐ New projects within or adjacent to conservation areas shall not use toxic or invasive plant species in landscaping. Table 4‐112 in the CVMSHCP provides a list of acceptable plant species, while Table 4‐113 lists out prohibited plant species. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐58 February 2022 ‐ Land Use Adjacency Guidelines require that projects adjacent to a Conservation Area adhere to the following guidelines: Drainage; Toxics; Lighting; Noise; Barriers; and Grading/Land Development. Please see Appendix D.5 for a description of these guidelines, which are also discussed in detail below in Response No. 13‐e. With incorporation of these measures, the project fully complies with the avoidance and minimization measures specified in the CVMSHCP for PBS and other protected species, as well as the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines. As described in the Biological Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.2, above, and Responses 13‐ d through 13‐m, the project as modified will avoid impacts to PBS because the Specific Plan has been modified to include a requirement to construct a sheep barrier/perimeter fence along its southern and western boundaries that will be designed to exclude PBS from the project site and includes a landscape plant palette that is consistent with CVMSHCP guidance, directly addressing the commenter’s concerns. The sheep barrier is to consist of 8‐foot‐high fencing as shown in approved Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) “PBS Barrier Project” or an equivalent combination of 6‐foot CMU and 2‐foot decorative wrought iron or tubular steel view fence as appropriate. The balance of the project boundaries fronting on perimeter roadways will be surrounded by 6‐foot block walls along the northern, eastern, and southeastern boundaries, consistent with City standards. Please see the Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan (page 2‐15) in the Biological Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.2, above. These measures ensure that the project will not have any significant Impacts on Peninsular bighorn sheep, as concluded in the DEIR. Even though the project site is located approximately 0.6 miles from the nearest portion of the PBS Conservation Area, the project is being required by the City to comply with Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, as recommended by Dr. McGIll, because PBS have been tracked on Coral Mountain. These Land Use Adjacency Guidelines address the avoidance of non‐native vegetation along unfenced area as recommended in USFWS Measure 1.2.1.2, the prohibition of known toxic plants as recommended in USFWS Measure 1.2.1.4. and the avoidance of plants known to invade and degrade bighorn sheep habitat as recommended in USFWS Measure 1.2.1.5 quoted in this comment. The Specific Plan has been modified to include a landscape plant palette that is consistent with CVMSHCP guidance for the 25 foot buffer area adjacent to the proposed sheep barrier. These modifications are consistent with Table 4‐112 in the CVMSHCP, which provides a list of acceptable plant species, and Table 4‐113 which lists prohibited plant species. The proposed sheep barrier will also avoid the impact of enticing PBS onto private property by creating an effective barrier to separate PBS from humans and their pets, as recommended in USFWS Measure 1.2.1.6. The proposed trail to be located through the property as part of the Desert Recreation District (DRD) trail system, and all other recreational activities in Planning Area IV of the Specific Plan, will occur east of the barrier. The modifications to the project will effectively discourage the artificial feeding of coyotes as recommended in Measure 1.2.1.10 because the sheep barrier will 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐59 February 2022 also help keep project residents and guests from accessing Coral Mountain and other adjacent BLM open space where they could encounter coyotes, as well as help keep coyotes from accessing the project site. Finally, Mitigation Measure BIO‐9 has been added to the Draft EIR to require that all water features be designed and maintained to eliminate the potential for arboviral disease vectors, as recommended in USFWS Measure 1.2.1.9 (please see Section 3.1 of this Final EIR). The changes in the Specific Plan described in this response will be made enforceable by the City through the Project Development Agreement and/or conditions of approval. In addition, the measures will also be made enforceable for the life of the project through the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) that will be recorded against all applicable properties within the project site. Comment 11‐d: B. Light Study Needed in the DEIR Review While Mitigation Measure BIO‐4 requires a Light Study to be performed in the future in order to evaluate how the proposed lighting plan will affect Coral Mountain, this type of study should have been provided in the DEIR. The detrimental effects of artificial night lighting on wildlife are scientifically well documented (Longcore and Rich 2004, Gaston et al. 2013, Gaston and Bennie 2014). While the proposed shielded lighting is likely to be helpful to offset impacts, until the Light Study is actually implemented and the results are identified, it may be insufficient to offset impacts to the plants and animals that reside on Coral Mountain. The results of the Light Study should be included in a revised DEIR for public review. Response 11‐d: Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, light studies have already been performed and described in the DEIR at page 4.1‐60 – 4.1‐70. The future light study required by Mitigation Measure BIO‐4 can only be performed once the lighting at the Wave Basin is installed, to confirm that the lighting will not create any overspill of light onto Coral Mountain. As explained in the DEIR, the lighting for the Wave Basin includes shielded, directional energy efficient LED light fixtures that prevent significant light spillage outside of the Wave Basin planning area (see DEIR pp. 4.1‐60 – 4.1‐63). The DEIR also includes a lighting analysis in Appendix B that shows the light from the Wave Basin system will drop below 1 foot candle within 50 feet of the Wave Basin on all sid es. Adjacent to Coral Mountain, exhibit on page 2‐10 above demonstrates that the light levels will be drop to the imperceptible level of 0.01 footcandles in the immediate vicinity of the Wave Basin planning area, and approximately 375 feet away from the nearest portion of Coral Mountain. Please also see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1, above and Appendix B.2 to this Final EIR. In order to assure that the analysis completed for the Draft EIR is consistent with conditions on the ground when the project is construction, additional protection is provided by Mitigation Measure 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐60 February 2022 BIO‐4, which requires all project lighting to be shielded and directed to avoid light spillage onto Coral Mountain, and requires a supplemental analysis be completed to measure actual light from the constructed Wave Basin lighting to confirm that there is no overspill of light onto Coral Mountain. This confirmation study cannot be performed until the lighting system has been constructed, and thus has not been improperly deferred. Comment 11‐e: II. the DEIR’s Analysis of Water Supply Impacts is Inadequate California, and much of the western United States, is suffering the effects of a historic drought, the end of which is not predicted any time soon. The majority of Riverside County is experiencing either “severe”, or “extreme” drought conditions, with a small portion in the most dire, “exceptional” drought category. (U.S. Drought Monitor.) As the frequency and intensity of droughts in California increase due to climate change, it is critical that land use decision‐making be made based on robust and thorough water supply analyses. Unfortunately, the DEIR completely ignores the reality in which the proposed project would operate, and fails to include a lega lly adequate discussion of the project’s demand for water, the available supply, nor the environmental consequences of providing the needed supply. Response 11‐e: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3, above. It is noted that La Quinta is shown as being in drought conditions, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor. As regards the commenter’s assertion that the Draft EIR “ignores” drought conditions, the comment is incorrect. As described in the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3, the CVWD, the site’s and the City’s water provider, has thoroughly and comprehensively researched and documented water demand and supply, including the effects of climate change, in its Urban Water Management Plan and Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan. As described above, the CVWD’s documentation shows that both short‐term and long‐term impacts of climate change have been assessed, and that the management techniques, water supplementation measures and other strategies implemented by CVWD and its sister agencies within the Subbasin will assure a balanced and positive long term water supply. Finally, as relates to the assertion that the Draft EIR does no t contain an adequate discussion of water demand and supply, the comment is mistaken. The Draft EIR and Appendix M, the project’s approved Water Supply Assessment were reviewed, investigated and ultimately approved by the expert in this area, the CVWD. The City has correctly relied on their expertise, deep understanding and management responsibilities as they relate to water supply within the City and region. Comment 11‐f: A. the DEIR’s Presentation of Project Water Demand is Misleading 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐61 February 2022 The DEIR attempts to frame the project’s water use as an improvement compared to what could be used under different plans for the site. It’s a false comparison that distracts from the project’s astronomically high per capita water use. The DEIR presents the project’s water use in comparison to uses approved under the current Specific Plan, which would use a total of 1,058.4 acre‐feet per year (“AFY”), compared with the project’s water demand of 958.63 AFY. (DEIR at 4.15‐28‐29.) The project site is currently undeveloped (DEIR at 3‐5), and not currently receiving any water from the Coachella Valley Water District (“CVWD”), who will serve the project. The DEIR must describe the project’s existing conditions so that the public and decision‐makers are adequately informed of the impacts of supplying this project with water. (See Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4 th 683, 709‐10 [“[i]n assessing the impacts of a project proposed for an undeveloped piece of property, agencies should compare project impacts against the existing environment, rather than some hypothetical, impacted future environment that might occur without the project under existing general plan and/or zoning designations” (internal quotations omitted)].) The project is a standalone land use proposal for a site that is not developed, the water supply impacts of the project must be presented as such, without any misleading comparisons to irrelevant preexisting land use designations. A wave park may be a more conservative use of water compared to a hypothetical golf course, but a wave park where once was parched desert earth is a different consideration all together. Response 11‐f: The Draft EIR clearly states the project’s existing vacant condition throughout the document, and again specifically as it relates to water resources on page 4.15‐1 and 4.15‐2. The Draft EIR also states on page 4.15‐26 that “development of the project would result in an overall increase in water demand from the project site during operation” (Draft EIR page 4.15‐2). Both the Draft EIR and the WSA/WSV analyzed project water consumption, and determined that water provided by the local water purveyor (CVWD) could support development and operation of the proposed project as well as all other existing and planned future uses. Contrary to the assertion in this comment, this analysis properly used the current baseline of no water use in evaluating the potential impact of the project. The fact that the project’s anticipated water demand is already accounted for in CVWD’s long‐range plans is an appropriate consideration as it relates to CVWD’s long range planning and conclusion that it has adequate water supplies for the project and all other projected demand. A comparison of the project’s water demand versus what CVWD has included in its long range land use assumptions, which include residential, golf course, and neighborhood commercial, is provided to demonstrate consistency with CVWD planning documents, and not instead of analyzing the anticipated increase in water demand over existing conditions. This comparison indicates that the proposed project would consume less water than would be require d based on CVWD’s future demand assumptions. Likewise, as shown in Appendix O of the Draft EIR, the project would consume approximately 100 acre‐feet per year less than if developed under the existing entitlements. Since it 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐62 February 2022 is unlikely that the project site would remain vacant, this analysis provides relevant information to City decision‐makers and the public, while in no way undermining the valid water supply and demand analysis set forth in the WSA/WSV and Draft EIR. Please also see subsection 4.15.5, Cumulative Impacts, of Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, in the Draft EIR (page 4.15‐34) and the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3. Overall, the WSA/WSV and the Draft EIR analyze project‐ related water consumption in compliance with CVWD standards and CEQA standards. Comment 11‐g: The DEIR fails to adequately describe the project’s water use in terms of per capita use. The DEIR notes that CVWD’s per capita use is dropping so that in 2015 users within the CVWD service area used 383 gallons per day per capita (“gpdc”). (DEIR at 4.15‐30.) As a threshold matter, this is an astonishing amount of water use, especially compared to the statewide average in 2016 of 85 gpdc. After noting CVWD’s purportedly positive achievement of recent reductions meaning per capita use is now only 4 times the state average of water per person, the DEIR fails to disclose what the project’s per capita water use will be. Instead, the DEIR presents the project’s water use in terms of AF/acre, without any explanation of why this metric is used, or what an acceptable threshold is compared to other development within CVWD’s service area. (See DEIR at 4.15‐31.) The project would include 600 residential dwelling units, with 2.63 persons per units. (DEIR App. M [hereinafter “Water Supply Assessment (WSA)” at 21.) Should the public presume that the project’s 958.63 AFY of use will be attributed to these 1,578 new residents, such that per capita use is approximately 532 gpdc? The DEIR must be revised to present the project’s per capita water use, and it must present this information using metrics consistent with other CVWD planning documents so that the public and decision‐ makers can properly judge the project’s water supply impacts. Response 11‐g: As stated in Response 11‐f, a project‐specific Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) was completed for the proposed project. Per the WSA/WSV, the proposed project is expected to consume approximately 958.63‐acre feet per year (AFY) based on the residential indoor demand, non‐residential indoor demand, and outdoor demands of the project at buildout. Measuring project water use in acre‐feet per year is consistent with the method and metrics used to account for water resource availability. The commenter cites the State’s Legislative Analyst’s Office for the figure of 85 gallons per person per day, but fails to mention that this metric is only for average indoor residential water use. The approved WSA, as described on page 20, uses a residential rate of 55 gallons per day (gpd) per person based on CVWD guidelines and California Water Code Section 10608.20 for indoor use only). Therefore, CVWD’s customers use substantially less water than the State average on the basis of per capita indoor use. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐63 February 2022 As discussed on page 4.15‐30 of the Draft EIR, CVWD’s 2016 CVWMP Update estimates total water demand of 383 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), which factors outdoor uses in addition to the residential indoor factor of 55 gallons per day per person to determine per capita use. As a result, the district‐wide per capita values are inherently larger than those solely attributed to indoor residential uses. The commenter’s assertion that CVWD’s per capita water use is 4 times the state average is therefore incorrect. At the project level, the WSA/WSV must aggregate, quantify and disclose the total project use, which was correctly undertaken by calculating all indoor and outdoor uses, as shown in Table 4.15‐7 on page 4.15‐29 of the Draft EIR. CVWD’s standard practice is to do aggregate demand in terms of AFY to match its method for calculating and analyzing regional water supplies, thereby providing an “apples to apples” analysis. Furthermore, the commenter’s assertion that the project’s water use is not compared to other development is incorrect. As described on page 4.14‐31 of the Draft EIR, CVWD assigns a MAWA to all development projects to limit total outdoor water use. For design purposes, the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscape area as specified in Division 2, Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 7, Section 702, is based upon the area’s reference evapotranspiration, ET adjustment factor, and the size of the landscaped area. The estimated applied outdoor water use shall not exceed the MAWA. The MAWA reflects the maximum amount of outdoor water use that a proposed project may use under the CVWD and City of La Quinta Landscape Ordinances. This also ensures compliance with applicable state law restrictions on outdoor water use. The WSA/WSV approved by CVWD calculates this maximum water allocation and assumes that all of it will be used. The WSA/WSV also evaluates and confirms that there are adequate water supplies to provide this amount of water, along with all other existing and planned future water uses. For this project, the MAWA is 962 AFY and the project as designed will use 801.47 AFY. Also see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3, above. The suggestion in the comment that the project’s per capita water use would exceed CVWD’s estimated average per capita use of 383 gallons is not accurate because only a portion of the project’s total water demand is for indoor and outdoor residential use. The calculation described in this comment ignores the water use for the hotel, commercial and recreational uses. A detailed breakdown of the outdoor water use (which constitutes approximately 801 AFY out of the project’s total 958 AFY water demands) is provided in Table 2.0‐3 of the WSA/WSV, and duplicated on page 2‐ 17 above. Finally, contrary to the comment’s closing sentence, the Draft EIR does, as described above, calculate residential water use on a per capita basis, and does use the metrics that CVWD uses to calculate water demand and supply in its Urban Water Management Plan and other documents, which is in AFY. Comment 11‐h: B. the Draft EIR Fails to Assess the Environmental Impacts Associated Providing Project Water 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐64 February 2022 Beyond its muddled presentation of the Project’s exceedingly high water demands, the DEIR fails to address the impacts associated with acquiring the water supplies needed for the project and other users in the CVWD service area. CEQA requires lead agencies both to demonstrate that an adequate water supply is available for the lifespan of a project, and to analyze the environmental impacts associated with providing that supply. (See Vineyard Area Citizens v. Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 434.) A majority of the high per capita use within the CVWD service area is supplied by groundwater from the Indio Subbasin. (WSA at 29.) The Indio Subbasin has experienced historical overdraft, which CVWD has been addressing with artificial recharge using imported surface water supplies. (See WSA at 35.) The imported surface water used to replenish the historically over‐taxed groundwater basin comes from the Colorado River, with annual CVWD diversions totaling more than 335,000 AF. (WSA at 41.) The WSA states that this supply will increase in the future to well over 400,000 AFY, which will be used to meet increased demand within the CVWD service area so that reliance on groundwater is lessened. (Id.) This discussion ignores the reality that the Colorado River is in a state of crisis, with the major water supply reservoirs at historically low levels. The level of Lake Mead has dropped to below the 1,075 feet mean sea level (“feet msl”) threshold where mandatory cuts to water sent to Arizona and Nevada will occur. If the Lake Mead levels drop further, which is predicted to occur, California will see its deliveries curtailed. The DEIR is silent when it comes to whether CVWD will be able to receive its full allocation of Colorado River water into the future, nor does it address what continued extraction to supplement CVWD’s groundwater use will mean to the environment. Response 11‐h: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3. As described in the Topical Response, both the WSA/WSV and CVWD’s Indio SMGA Update consider the potential for extended drought conditions. In addition, the Indio SMGA Update specifically considers the impact of climate change and examines multiple scenarios for its effect on the subbasin groundwater levels for the 50‐ year period 2020 – 2070, taking into account both cumulative water demand and CVWD’s groundwater management efforts. In total, several alternative scenarios are addressed in the SGMA Update that account for all projected growth, expanded agricultural water use, and climate change/drought effects, including the potential need for CVWD to contribute water to California’s Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan allotment for Colorado River Water. Based on this detailed analysis, CVWD projects a substantial increase in future subbasin groundwater storage, not an overdraft condition, due to its ongoing groundwater management efforts and future planned CVWD projects that will reduce the net demands on the Subbasin. (See, e.g., Indio SMGA Update2, pp. ES‐9 – ES‐12, and p. 7‐89). Contrary to the comment’s assertion, it is not the responsibility of the project‐ specific EIR to analyze the environmental impacts of the CVWD’s water management plans or the 2 The Indio SGMA Update can be accessed here: http://www.indiosubbasinsgma.org/wp‐content/uploads/2021/12/Indio‐ SGMA‐AlternativePlan‐vol1‐Alternative‐Plan‐FINAL‐to‐be‐Adopted‐Nov‐2021v3.pdf. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐65 February 2022 regional SMGA Update. The responsibility of the City is to assure that the water supplies required for the project will not impact the environment. That analysis has been completed in the Draft EIR, and supplemented in this Final EIR. Comment 11‐i: The DEIR creates further uncertainty to its future supply, and the impacts associated therewith, when discussing the amount of State Water Project (“SWP”) water it will import to facilitate an exchange agreement with Metropolitan Water District (“MWD”). (WSA at 42‐43.) The projected SWP deliveries provided in the DEIR are misleading, as these totals represent nothing more than “paper water” allocations, not what will actually be delivered. The DEIR only lists the actual allocations up until 2018. (WSA at 43.) Table A allocation for 2020 was 20%, and only 5% for 2021.3 Existing constraints on deliveries from the SWP will only increase as climate change alters precipitation patterns and droughts intensify. The DEIR should properly recognize this reality, and revise its discussion to present how much SWP is actually received by CVWD, so that the public is adequately informed of the potential to serve the project. Response 11‐i: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3. First, the commenter’s inference that the project will result in additional SWP water demand is incorrect. CVWD’s SWP deliveries are not tied to any project, and its allocation is not project‐dependent. The WSA/WSV provides the actual annual deliveries of SWP exchange water in Table 3.0‐9, which included deliveries as low as 5% in a critical dry year. In addition, the various threats to the reliability of SWP exchange water, including climate change and further regulatory restrictions to protect endangered species, are described on page 45 of the WSA.WSV. The Draft EIR and WSA/WSV properly disclosed the actual amounts of SWP exchange water delivered and disclosed the future risks to those supplies. In addition, CVWD’s analysis and projections for future water supplies take into account the potential reductions in water deliveries from SWP exchange water and the Colorado River due to extended drought conditions in its SMGA Update scenario analysis (described in Topical Response 2.2.3). As described above on page 2‐23 of the Topical Responses, all future water supply scenarios in the SGMA Update assume only 45% of the SWP allocations will actually be delivered, consistent with historical SWP deliveries since 2007. For the climate change scenarios, further reductions in deliveries from the SWP exchange and the Colorado River were assumed, also as described in the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3. Comment 11‐j: III. Conclusion Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue appropriate legal remedies in order to ensure enforcement of CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its duty to maintain and preserve 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐66 February 2022 all documents and communications that may constitute part of the “administrative record.” As you may know, the administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications which relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with CEQA . . . .” (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further contains all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees, which relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees and the project proponent’s representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project. The Center is deeply concerned by the significant environmental and social impacts of the proposed Project. The DEIR fails to meet CEQA’s requirements for thorough, transparent and evidence‐based environmental review, and is thus legally deficient. We ask the City to address and correct the deficiencies we have identified above and recirculate an updated Draft EIR for public review and comment. Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below. Response 11‐j: The City thanks the Center for Biological Diversity for participating in the Draft EIR public review process. The comment regarding preservation of the administrative record is noted. The City has and will continue to maintain a complete record of the project’s proceedings. The commenter’s opinions regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR and the request for recirculation are noted. However, recirculation is not required or appropriate here because the responses to comments and additional information added in the Final EIR elaborate and clarify the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIR. As the conclusions in the Draft EIR have not changed and no significant new information has been added that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required under CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐67 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 12: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Name: Heather A. Pert, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor) Date: August 9, 2021 Affiliation: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Address: 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C‐220 Ontario, CA 91764 Comment 12‐a: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is requesting an extension to submit comments to 8/13/21 on the draft EIR for Coral Mountain Resort DEIR. We had some staffing changes around the time of release for this document and in combination with a heavy workload were not aware of the release of the draft EIR. Response 12‐a: The City accepted the CDFW request for an extension to provide written comments to August 13, 2021. Comment 12‐b: Our specific concerns are that the draft EIR does not adequately address the documented presence of Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS) on the project site, PBS are a California fully‐protected species and a covered species under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The draft EIR states “this species [Peninsular Bighorn Sheep] is not present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat” (EIR page 231), however, CDFW wildlife biologist have documented use of the area by PBS. It appears that CDFW wildlife biologist were not consulted in preparation of the Draft EIR. In addition, this project is adjacent to the east side of the mountain (map on EIR page 16) where sheep are present. If the project moves forward, CDFW recommends fencing around the property to keep both sheep and people in their respective areas. However, our initial request is consultation with CDFW staff to discuss presence of PBS and develop appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. Given the adjacency of the project site to PBS habitat, avoidance and minimization measures should be included in the Draft EIR that are consistent with the Coachella Valley MSHCP. We would appreciate the additional time to provide a more detailed response. Response 12‐b: The commenter’s concerns are noted. However, the commenter’s assertion that CDFW was not consulted in preparation of the Draft EIR is incorrect. As required by Guidelines Section 15082, the City transmitted the Notice of Preparation for the Coral Mountain Resort EIR to CDFW on February 11, 2021. It was received on February 17, 2021. In addition, the NOP was sent to CDFW by the Office 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐68 February 2022 of Planning and Research on February 11. Please consult Comment Letter No. 13 for letter from CDFW, which expands discussion of agency concern for PBS at the project site. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐69 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 13: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Name: Heather A. Pert, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor) Date: August 13, 2021 Affiliation: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Address: 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C‐220 Ontario, CA 91764 Comment 13‐a: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of La Quinta for Coral Mountain Resort (Project), State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310, pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute and guidelines1. Thank you for the opportunity and extension of August 13, 2021 to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats. Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may need to exercise its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code (Fish & G. Code). Response 13‐a: The City thanks the CDFW for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. In response to this comment letter, and as requested by the commenter, the City scheduled a conference call between CDFW biologists, City representatives, Dr. Tom McGill (a biologist with extensive experience with bighorn sheep who was hired by the applicant to ensure that all potential impacts to bighorn sheep are properly addressed), and other representatives of the applicant. During the September 29, 2021 call, the comments raised in the CDFW letter were discussed, and the applicant agreed to (1) include an 8‐foot high sheep barrier along the western boundary of the project as requested by CDFW, and (2) to provide a draft of the responses to this letter to CDFW prior to finalizing and publishing the Final EIR. A second conference call was held on January 25, 2022, to discuss CDFW’s review of the draft responses to comments made in CDFW’s comment letter on the Draft EIR and revisions to the Draft EIR and to discuss any additional comments and recommendations from CDFW. CDFW thanked the City and project applicant for the commitments to (1) install the proposed sheep barrier, and (2) continue to consult with CDFW on the final design, location, and construction of the barrier. Based on that meeting, the City agreed to make certain additional clarifications to the mitigation measures for biological resources and certain clarifications to the responses to CDFW’s comments to fully address the issues raised by CDFW in their comment letter. These responses have been revised to clarify that Coral Mountain has been identified as essential habitat for PBS and, for this reason, the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐70 February 2022 project has been designed to be consistent with the conservation objectives for PBS in Section 9.8.4 of the CVMSHCP and the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in Section 4.5 of the CVMSHCP. Comment 13‐b: CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Fish & G. Code, § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW provides, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. CDFW may also act as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish & G. Code Sections 1600 et seq.), a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (Fish & G. Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1), and/or for administering the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP). CDFW also administers the Native Plant Protection Act, Natural Community Conservation Program, and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to California’s fish and wildlife resources. CDFW issued Natural Community Conservation Plan Approval and Take Authorization in 2008 for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), as per Section 2800, et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code. The CVMSHCP established a multiple species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the Incidental Take of Covered Species in association with activities covered under the permit. CDFW is providing the following comments as they relate to the Project’s consistency with the CVMSHCP and the CEQA. Response 13‐b: This introductory comment describing the role of CDFW role as a trustee agency does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided. Comment 13‐c: Project Location The Project site encompasses an area of approximately 929 acres in the southeastern portion of the City of La Quinta. The local area is characterized as a developing area with a number of golf course and residential communities to the north, west, east, and southeast, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐71 February 2022 west and south, and open space and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) percolation ponds to the south. The Santa Rosa Mountains are to the west and south and Coral Mountain is within the southwest portion of the Project property. The approximately 386‐acre portion of the Project site, to be developed under SP 2020‐0002, is bounded by vacant land and Avenue 58 to the north; Madison Street to the east; residential estates, vacant land, and the Avenue 60 alignment to the south; and Coral Mountain, and vacant land to the west. Project Description The Project area consists of 929 acres in total. Of that, 543 acres occur on the east side of Madison Street, and will continue to develop as provided under SP 03‐067, as a residential and golf country club. The western portion of the Project, on the west side of Madison Street, proposes the development of the approximately 386‐acre area and is the focus of the DEIR. This portion of the Project would be developed under a new Specific Plan (SP 2020‐0002) with up to 496 low density residential units on 232.3 acres; tourist and commercial land uses including a resort hotel with up to 150 rooms, a 16.62‐acre recreational Wave Basin facility, 104 resort residential units, and 57,000 square feet of commercial development on approximately 120.8 acres; 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses on approximately 7.7 acres; and open space recreational uses on approximately 23.6 acres adjacent to Coral Mountain. Within the 386 acres west of Madison Street, the Project also requests approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019‐0002), Zone Change (ZC 2019‐0004), Specific Plan Amendment (SP 03‐067), Specific Plan (SP 2020‐0002), Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2019‐0005), Site Development Permit (SDP 2021‐0001), and Development Agreement (DA 2021‐0002), as detailed below. 1. General Plan Amendment The General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019‐0002) will amend the current General Plan land use designations from General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Open Space – Recreation to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space – Recreation. 2. Zone Change The proposed Zone Change (ZC 2019‐0004) will revise the existing zoning of the Specific Plan Area from Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Golf Course, to Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Low Density Residential (RL), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Tourist Commercial (CT). 3. Specific Plan Amendment The Specific Plan Amendment (Amendment V of Specific Plan 03‐067) is being processed to remove the area west of Madison Street from Specific Plan 03‐067, thus , creating two separate and distinct communities, “Coral Mountain Resort”, west of Madison Street, and “Andalusia Country Club”, 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐72 February 2022 east of Madison Street. The Specific Plan Amendment will result in only the deletion of the westerly 386 acres. No changes to land use designations, densities or intensities, development standards or guidelines are proposed for the lands east of Madison Street. It is expected that Andalusia will continue to build out under the requirements of the SPA. 4. Specific Plan Approval of the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan (SP 2020‐0002) will establish a new master plan governing the allowable land uses, design guidelines, and development standards for the 386‐ acre property west of Madison Street, to allow creation of a boutique resort and master‐planned community. The Project will result in a variety of land uses on the westerly 386 acres, as shown in Exhibit 3‐5 of the DEIR. Low Density Residential land uses will occupy approximately 232.3 acres and result in a maximum of 496 dwelling units. Tourist Commercial land uses will result in 104 dwelling units, 150 hotel rooms, and 57,000 square feet of private resort‐serving commercial uses available to residents and hotel guests, on approximately 120.8 acres. General Commercial land uses will occupy approximately 7.7 acres, with up to 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses available to the general public. Open Space Recreation land uses will occur on approximately 23.6 acres in the southwest portion of the site. The Project proposes four planning areas, identified as Planning Areas (PA) I, II, III, and IV, on the 386‐ acre property. PA I is designated for Neighborhood Commercial; PA II is designated for Low Density Residential; PA III is designated for Tourist Commercial; and PA IV is designated for open space Parks and Recreation located adjacent to Coral Mountain. Response 13‐c: This comment provides a summary of the project and does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided. Comment 13‐d: CDFW’s comments and recommendations on the DEIR are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW has concerns regarding the completeness of the DEIR and finds the conclusion in the DEIR that Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS; Sheep; Ovis canadensis nelsoni) are not on the Project site inaccurate, and the corresponding lack of avoidance and minimization measures inadequate to protect fish and wildlife resources, specifically Peninsular bighorn sheep. Specific comments include that there is: no discussion or analysis that addresses the presence of sheep on and directly adjacent to the Project site; inadequate avoidance and minimization measures for Peninsular bighorn sheep, burrowing owl, bats, and nesting birds; questions about land ownership and adjacency to the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Area; and concerns about the adequacy and enforceability of mitigation measures proposed by the City of La Quinta (the CEQA lead agency). CDFW is concerned that the DEIR fails to adequately address Peninsular bighorn sheep and requests 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐73 February 2022 that the DEIR be revised and recirculated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a). The revised DEIR should include: biological surveys to assess Peninsular bighorn sheep use of the site and the areas immediately adjacent to the Project site; clear identification of any proposed avoidance and minimization measures to avoid take of Peninsular bighorn sheep; discussion and analysis based on documented sheep use of the Coral Mountain which demonstrates the reduction or elimination of potential impacts; and discussion on land ownership for the Coral Mountain area, specifically regarding Bureau of Land Management owned property; additional analysis of light and noise‐related impacts on Coral Mountain, among other items included in the discussion below. Additional details on these comments are provided below. Response 13‐d: As addressed in more detail in the responses to the specific comments below, the Draft EIR concluded that the project would not result in any significant impacts on PBS because the project is not located within the CVMSHCP designated conservation area and does not have suitable habitat for the PBS (see DEIR at p. 4.3‐15, and Appendix D.1 at p. 4). In order to clarify the Draft EIR, Section 4.3 has been amended to read: Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsonii) (peninsula Distinct Population Segment): This species occurs on open desert slopes below 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) elevation from San Gorgonio Pass south into Mexico. Optimal habitats include steep‐walled canyons and ridges bisected by rocky or sandy washes, with available water. This species is not present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat. This species is not present on the development portion of the site due to the absence of suitable habitat. While a small portion of the project site includes the northeastern most edge of Coral Mountain and PBS have been tracked by monitoring devices on Coral Mountain itself, no development activities of any kind are proposed or allowed on that portion of the property, which will be separated from all development by an 8‐foot‐high sheep barrier. This clarification to page 4.3‐15 is consistent with the Draft EIR’s findings and does not provide substantial new information. The development site is located approximately 0.62 miles to the east of the PBS conservation area designated in the CVMSHCP. As confirmed in the Memorandum from Dr. Tom McGill, an expert in PBS habitat and conservation, the portion of the project site that will be disturbed in connection with the project (the “Development Site”) does not contain suitable habitat for PBS because all development will occur on the valley floor, and no development will occur on Coral Mountain. The Dr. McGill Report is attached in Appendix D.5 to the Final EIR. It is acknowledged by the City that development in the vicinity of the Santa Rosa Mountains has the potential to add water and vegetation to the desert floor that can attract PBS out of their established habitat. The project will avoid this potential impact because the Specific Plan has been modified to include a requirement to construct an 8‐foot‐high sheep barrier/perimeter fence that will be designed 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐74 February 2022 to exclude PBS from the project site, and to include a landscape plant palette that prohibits the plants listed in Table 4‐113 of the MSHCP in all areas adjacent to Coral Mountain or other BLM open space (see Specific Plan Section 2.5.2 and Figure 13). At the request of CDFW, and to assure that plans are reviewed by CDFW prior to issuance of any earth moving or grading permit for the project, the City shall apply a condition of approval on the Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Permit 2021‐0001 that the sheep barrier plan shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of the first earth moving or grading permit on the project site, for review and consultation with CDFW on the final location, design and long‐term maintenance of the sheep barrier, and that following completion of such consultation, the plan shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of any earth moving or grading permit for any aspect of the project. As explained in greater detail in the responses below, the project fully complies with the avoidance and minimization measures specified in the CVMSHCP for PBS and other protected species, as well as the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, which is also confirmed in the Memorandum from Dr. McGill attached in Appendix D.5. Please also see the Biological Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.2 of this Final EIR, which further explains the conclusion that the project will not have any significant effects on PBS. This additional information elaborates and clarifies the conclusion in the Draft EIR. As the conclusions in the Draft EIR have not changed and no significant new information has been added that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required under CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. Comment 13‐e: The proposed Project occurs within the CVMSHCP area and is subject to the provisions and policies of the CVMSHCP. To be considered a covered activity, Permittees need to demonstrate that proposed actions are consistent with the CVMSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency and is signatory to the Implementing Agreement of the CVMSHCP. To demonstrate consistency with the CVMSHCP, the DEIR should address, at a minimum, the City’s obligations as follows: a. Addressing the collection of fees as set forth in Section 8.5 of the CVMSHCP. b. Demonstrating how the Project complies with the CVMSHCP requirements and policies, including: 1) compliance with relevant processes to ensure application of the Conservation Area requirements set forth in Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP and thus, satisfaction of the local acquisition obligation; 2) compliance with the applicable Land Use Adjacency Guidelines set forth in Section 4.5 of the CVMSHCP; 3) compliance with the Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures in Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP; and 4) implementation consistent with the Species Conservation Goals and Objectives in Section 9 of the CVMSHCP. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐75 February 2022 Thus, CDFW would like to make a clarification to the following statement within the DEIR: “The construction of the proposed project will change the physical environment of the project site, which is currently vacant and undeveloped. The site is surrounded by development to the north, east, and south, and vacant land to the north, west, and south. Although the proposed project will result in the permanent loss of approximately 386 acres of vacant land, the project will be required to pay fees to assure the off‐site conservation of habitat lands for sensitive species covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Therefore, the loss of biological resources will be less than significant with the payment of fees to avoid impacts on special status species. Additionally, the project is required to conduct burrowing owl, bat, and nesting bird surveys to determine whether roosting or nesting is occurring at the site. If roosting or nesting is discovered at the project site during the surveys, the mitigation measures include performance standards to ensure construction of the project does not significant impact biological resources (see Section 4.3, Biological Resources).” This statement is inaccurate. Demonstrating implementation of the CVMSHCP is not simply paying the required development fee; it requires demonstrating consistency with all the CVMSHCP’s requirements that provides a permittee’s project with Take coverage through the CVMSHCP for project impacts to Covered Species and covered natural communities classified by the CVMSHCP as ‘adequately conserved’ by the overall CVMSHCP. Please revise the DEIR to include a complete analysis of how the City ensures the Project fully implements the required terms and conditions of the CVMSHCP. Response 13‐e: The Draft EIR accurately concluded that the project is consistent with the CVMSHCP. On page 4.3‐7, it notes that a “review of the Final Recirculated CVMSHCP (CVAG 2016) was also conducted in order to determine CVMSHCP consistency and conservation measures that apply to the proposed project.” The project’s consistency with the CVMSHCP is addressed on page 4.3‐21, and in Appendix D.1 (Biological Resources Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis), which concluded that the project is consistent with the CVMSHCP because the project is not located in any conservation area, will pay the CVMSHCP development fee, and will not remove trees or habitat that are subject to any CVMSHCP conservation policies. The project area is located in the portion of the CVMSHCP plan area designated for future development, rather than conservation, and this site was approved for development by the County of Riverside more than 20 years ago, prior to the property being annexed into the City of La Quinta. As a result, the project is required to pay the CVMSHCP impact fee, which has been adopted by the City of La Quinta to help fund CVCC’s acquisition of additional high‐quality habitat within the conservation areas designated in the CVMSHCP. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐76 February 2022 The project is also required to implement all applicable avoidance and minimization measures set forth in Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP. As described in the Draft EIR (see Mitigation Measure BIO‐1), the project is required to conduct burrowing owl surveys in accordance with the protocols set forth in Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4‐166 – 4‐167). Section 4.4 also prohibits construction activities within the PBS conservation area during the lambing season, but as the project site is located outside of the designated conservation areas, this provision is inapplicable. As indicated in the comment, compliance with the CVMSHCP also requires compliance with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines specified in Section 4.5 of the plan. The CVMSHCP defines “adjacent” as “sharing a common boundary with any parcel in a Conservation Area” (see p. 4‐176). No part of the project satisfies this definition because the project is located approximately 0.62 miles to the east of the nearest designated Conservation Area (see Figure 4‐26(b) in the CVMSHCP). However, in response to the CDFW comment letter, the City and applicant have agreed that the project will comply with all provisions of those Guidelines for all areas adjacent to Coral Mountain or other BLM open space, and this requirement is being made enforceable through the project Development Agreement. As stated on page ES‐12 of the CVMSHCP, “[t]he purpose of the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines is to avoid or minimize indirect effects from Development adjacent to or within the Conservation Areas. Such indirect effects are commonly referred to as edge effects, and may include noise, lighting, drainage, intrusion of people into the adjacent Conservation Area, and the introduction of non‐native plants and non‐native predators such as dogs and cats.” Here, all project lighting will be required to be shielded and directed to avoid light spillage onto Coral Mountain (see Mitigation Measure BIO‐4). In addition, the lighting system analysis conducted for the project demonstrates that there will be no light spillage outside the Wave Basin planning area, including toward Coral Mountain or other BLM open space. This is described in more detail in the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1 of this Final EIR and is further demonstrated by the lighting cut‐off contour exhibit within that topical response, which shows the contours for where light emissions will drop to 0.5 foot candles and 0.01 foot candles, which occurs in the immediate vicinity of the Wave Basin itself and at least 375 feet away from Coral Mountain. The Draft EIR also analyzed potential construction and operational noise impacts. As explained on pages 4.11‐32 – 4.11‐35, construction noise can range from approximately 68 dBA to in excess of 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet from the source, with a reduction of 6 dBA for every doubling of distance. The closest project construction will be the Wave Basin in Phase 1, and the highest projected noise level is 76.5 dBA (see Table 4.11‐15). Therefore, based on the noise attenuation caused by distance, construction noise will not exceed 75dBA at 100 feet from the location of construction activities. The closest any construction activity will be to Coral Mountain is approximately 100 feet at the northwest corner of the project site. Based on the configuration of the project site and the project, most construction activity will be located at least 300‐400 feet from Coral Mountain. The highest projected operational noise level is 64.5 dBA at location P‐10 in the tourist commercial portion 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐77 February 2022 of the site next to the hotel and Wave Basin (see Table 4.11‐25 and Exhibit 4.11‐2). Accordingly, the project will not exceed the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines for noise levels at Coral Mountain or in any designated Conservation Areas. This information from Section 4.11, Noise, of the DEIR will also be added to Section 4.3, Biological Resources. The Land Use Adjacency Guidelines also prohibit planting invasive, non‐native plant species in and adjacent to Conservation Areas, and includes tables of recommended and prohibited species (see CVMSHCP p. 4‐177 and Tables 4‐112 and 4‐113). Section 2.5.2 has been added to the Specific Plan to prohibit all species listed on Table 4‐113 in all portions of the project adjacent to Coral Mountain and the other BLM open space (see Specific Plan pp. 35‐36 and Figure 13). This requirement will be made enforceable through the project Development Agreement, and will be enforceable for the life of the project through the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) that will be recorded against all portions of the project site that are subject to the enhanced plant palette restrictions. The Draft EIR has been revised to include this discussion (page 4.3‐22) as follows: “The Land Use Adjacency Guidelines also prohibit planting invasive, non‐native plant species in and adjacent to Conservation Areas, and include tables of recommended and prohibited species (see CVMSHCP p. 4‐177 and Tables 4‐112 and 4‐113). Section 2.5.2 has been added to the Specific Plan to prohibit all species listed on Table 4‐113 in all portions of the project adjacent to Coral Mountain and the other BLM open space (see Specific Plan pp. 35‐36 and Figure 13). This requirement will be made enforceable through the project Development Agreement and will be enforceable for the life of the project through the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) that will be recorded against all portions of the project site that are subject to the plant palette restrictions.” Finally, Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines requires the incorporation of barriers to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, and dumping in a Conservation Area. The Specific Plan has been revised to expressly include a protective sheep barrier which complies to the requirements for PBS barriers in the CVMSHCP along the western boundary (covering all areas adjacent to Coral Mountain and other BLM open space property). The protective sheep barrier will be 8‐feet high, with the final design and location subject to City approval in consultation with CDFW. In response to the CDFW request for this sheep barrier, the City and applicant have agreed to include the sheep barrier in the Specific Plan and as a requirement under the project development agreement. Comment 13‐f: The proposed Project occurs in or immediately adjacent to Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000) and has the potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally endangered species (Fed. Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, 1998) and a State endangered and California Fully Protected species (Calif. Dep. Fish and Game 1992), and a Covered Species under CVMSHCP. Fully Protected Mammals may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their Take except for necessary scientific research, including efforts to 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐78 February 2022 recover fully protected species (Fish & G. Code Section 4700). All Covered Activities of the CVMSHCP must avoid actions that will result in violations of the fully protected species provisions (NCCP Permit # 2835‐2008‐001‐06). Take cannot be provided under the CVMSHCP for Peninsular bighorn sheep, however, CDFW has acknowledged and agreed that if the measures set forth in the CVMSHCP are fully complied with, the Covered Activities are not likely to result in Take of these species. It is critical that to receive coverage for potential Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat that the Project properly implements the CVMSHCP. CDFW requests that the DEIR is modified to include a discussion of State Fully Protected Mammals which should clearly state that no Take is allowed of Peninsular bighorn sheep including under the CVMSHCP. Response 13‐f: The proposed project development does not occur in the CVMSHCP designated conservation area for PBS, but Coral Mountain and other adjacent BLM land were identified as Essential Habitat for the PBS in the USFW Recovery Plan (2000) that preceded the CVMSHCP. The proposed project occurs 0.62 miles, at its closest point, from the designated conservation area for PBS as established in the CVMSHCP, as shown in Exhibit 1 to the Dr. McGill report attached as Appendix D.5. The Draft EIR acknowledges that Peninsular bighorn sheep is an endangered and fully‐protected species (see p, 4.3‐ 8). As explained above, the project has been modified to avoid any take of PBS, as ensured by full compliance with CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, including the construction of an 8‐foot high sheep barrier as requested by CDFW. As requested in this comment, a statement has been added to the EIR (at p. 4.3‐8) confirming that “no take of the Peninsular bighorn sheep is allowed because the species is a federally endangered species and a California Fully Protected Species.” Comment 13‐g: The proposed Project occurs in Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000) and has the potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally endangered species (Fed. Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, 1998) and a State endangered and California Fully Protected species (Calif. Dep. Fish and Game 1992), and a Covered Species under CVMSHCP. The DEIR incorrectly identifies that “this species [PBS] is not present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat” (page 231). This statement is inaccurate. CDFW has monitored PBS movement in the Santa Rosa and Santa Jacinto mountains since 2009 with GPS collars and direct observation. CDFW’s GPS data documents current and historic sheep use of Coral Mountain (Figure 1; CDFW 2020). An exhibit of historical Peninsular Bighorn Sheep use of the project site and surrounding area is provided in this comment. Response 13‐g: See response to comment 13‐f above. In order to assure clarity, the Draft EIR, at page 4.3‐15, will be modified to read: “This species is not present on the development portion of the site due to the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐79 February 2022 absence of suitable habitat. While a small portion of the project site includes the northeastern most edge of Coral Mountain and PBS have been tracked by monitoring devices on Coral Mountain itself, no development activities of any kind are proposed or allowed on that portion of the property, which will be separated from all development by an 8‐foot‐high sheep barrier.” Comment 13‐h: CDFW research on sheep movement, based on GPS data and direct observation, shows a trend of ewes spending a greater portion of their time in low‐elevation habitat particularly during the lamb‐ rearing season (CDFW 2020). This temporal shift to lower elevations may be a response to long‐term drought conditions. Alluvial fans and washes, where more productive soils support greater plant growth than steeper, rockier soils, tend to have more concentrated, nutritious forage (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Following lambing, ewes have high energy needs for lactation and the time‐ period surrounding lambing and nursing is very demanding in terms of the energy and protein required by bighorn ewes. A wide range of forage resources and vegetation associations is needed to meet annual and drought related variations in forage quality and availability. Lower elevation habitat can include alluvial fans, washes, and desert flats that provide more abundant and high‐quality vegetation, such as water‐rich cactus, than steeper terrain, and are crucial to the viability of bighorn sheep populations during times of drought (FWS 2000), and provide an important source of nutrition and water during lactation (Hansen and Deming 1980) and lamb‐rearing (Hines 2019). CDFW is concerned that the proposed development will introduce forage and water sources that will attract rams, ewes, and lambs, where they may become at risk to injury and death from drowning in swimming pools, toxic plants poisoning, vehicle strikes, the effects of ingesting intestinal parasites present among watered lawns and grasses, and other potential urban hazards. In the City of La Quinta, existing developments (including SilverRock, PGA West, and The Quarry at La Quinta) along the wildland‐urban interface have become attractive nuisances for sheep because of artificial features that attract sheep, for example grass and artificial water sources. This results in sheep habituated to urban environments, and can lead to increased mortality risk through transmission of disease, ingestion of toxic materials, vehicle strikes, and drowning in artificial water sources. These developments are adjacent to Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. As a result of these issues, the MSHCP requirement for building a fence at this interface was triggered and the City of La Quinta is currently working with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission to build a sheep fence. CDFW is concerned that this Project will create similar conditions and become an attractive nuisance to sheep that currently use Coral Mountain. Further, once the fence is built to exclude sheep in other areas of La Quinta the sheep may migrate to this Project site if it has attractive features. The revised DEIR should identify and implement specific measures, such as fencing, to keep sheep out of urban areas and prevent trespass of humans and domestic animals into adjacent sheep habitat. Response 13‐h: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐80 February 2022 The commenter’s concerns are noted. The project occurs 0.6 mile east of the approved sheep fence to be erected along the southern boundary of The Quarry development. In addition, two approved development projects closer to the PBS essential habitat in the Santa Rosa Mountains, Coral Canyon and Travertine, have or will have provisions that an approved sheep fence will be erected post‐ development if sheep are found to be attracted to these developments. The CVCC/City fence construction is imminent, but the schedule for the construction of the southern extension is not yet known. As a result, and in order to assure that the proposed project does not impact PBS, since the receipt of the CDFW letter, the City and the applicant have conferred with CDFW, and developed a plan for an on‐site barrier, an approved 8‐foot fence, that will provide protection from the attraction created by landscaping and water sources on the project site and preclude sheep access. This requirement has been added to the Specific Plan (at pp. 35‐36) and also made enforceable through the project Development Agreement. This barrier fence will be designed to meet established MSHCP standards, with the final design and location approved by the City in consultation with CDFW. The project also proposes a plant palette in the western open space portions of the project and long the western perimeter that is consistent with MSHCP Tables 4‐112 and 4‐113 with respect to native and prohibited plants. Comment 13‐i: Prior to the adoption of the DEIR, CDFW requests completion surveys and a habitat use assessment of Peninsular bighorn sheep, a California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected. The surveys and assessment should address seasonal variations in use of the Pro ject area. Focused speci es‐specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species‐specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one‐year period, and assessments for rare plants to be valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought. Survey information and results in coordination with CDFW staff should be used to develop avoidance and minimization measures to avoid Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep . Based on the survey results and historic use of the Project site, Project modifications may be required to avoid Take of sheep. Response 13‐i: The EIR has been modified to read that PBS that may be present on Coral Mountain but will not be able to access the project development site due to the construction of the 8‐foot high sheep barrier discussed in Response 13‐h above (also see Draft EIR at p. 4.3‐15). In addition, an assessment of habitat has been completed by Dr. T. McGill (Appendix D.5), which confirms that habitat for PBS does 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐81 February 2022 not occur within the development site and that the proposed sheep barrier is an effective method to avoid impacts to PBS. Specifically, the perimeter fencing along Coral Mountain and the rest of the western project boundary will be eight feet (8’) high and will be designed and located to prevent PBS from accessing the development and to avoid any risk of PBS entanglement. This perimeter fencing will ensure that the project does not become an attractive nuisance to PBS. Please also see the Biological Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.2 of this Final EIR for a further discussion of the proposed sheep barrier. Comment 13‐j: Recreational Effects on Peninsular Bighorn Sheep CDFW is concerned that the impacts of the increased human activity on Peninsular bighorn sheep and other sensitive resources was not adequately addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR assumes no presence of Peninsular bighorn sheep and therefore does not address edge effects on Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep. In the CVMSHCP, Species Objective 1d for Peninsular bighorn sheep is “Ensure that any Development allowed does not fragment Essential Habitat, and that edge effects from such Development are minimized.” The Project is adjacent to Essential Habitat and the Santa Rosa Mountains Habitat Wildlife Area. Addressing edge effects is a CVMSHCP requirement that has not been adequately addressed and therefore the Permittee has not ensured that the Project demonstrates compliance with the CVMSHCP. The CEQA document describes Plan Area IV as 23.6 acres of natural open space for low‐impact active and passive recreational activities, including hiking, biking and rope and zipline courses. This open space area is located adjacent to Coral Mountain, which has rock outcrops known to be used as roosting habitat for several species of bats. Coral Mountain is also known to be used by Peninsular bighorn sheep. Limited details are provided in the CEQA document on the types and locations of proposed recreational infrastructure, e.g., multi‐use trails, restroom facilities, trail and other recreational lightning, etc., or the permitted recreational uses within the open space areas, and enforcement plans. Unauthorized public recreational use off trails by people, bikes, and dogs in sheep habitat within the Santa Rosa mountains may impact sheep use of the habitat. The current lack of enforcement of trail use and trail development in the adjacent conservation areas is creating undesirable conditions for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Colby and Botta 2016). Potential issues include startling of ewes and lambs foraging in washes by mountain bikes; off‐leash dogs and dogs in areas that don’t allow dogs potentially chasing and harassing sheep; and creation of unauthorized trespass trails by user groups that intrude into sensitive sheep habitat. While some recreationists observe the trail rules and keep their dogs on leash, many people are observed not complying with the trail use regulations. The Project should provide clear measures to avoid contributing to trespass issues and ensure a safe 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐82 February 2022 environment for PBS. CDFW recommends that inclusion of biological mitigation measures for sheep that identify funding and resources for enforcing trail use rules which could include signage, enforcement, public education, and removal of unauthorized trails. Most of these measures will require enforcement to ensure they are enacted and properly followed throughout the life of the Project. The trails, rope courses, and zipline may create an easy and tempting access point for the residents into the open space areas. Without enforcement of trail use rules within the Project’s open space the adjacent habitat, Coral Mountain could become saturated with unauthorized trails. Measures such as leash laws, Covenants, Conditions and Restriction for invasive plants and pets, trail regulations, and fencing requirements require constant enforcement. Response 13‐j: As described in Response 13‐h, the project includes a barrier/perimeter fence that will separate the PBS and other wildlife species from the project residents and pets. To ensure that the perimeter fencing fully protects the PBS, the final design and location of the fencing along the western boundary will be subject to City review and approval in consultation with CDFW. All project recreational areas, including the segment of the public Desert Recreation District trail that will cross the open space in the southwest portion of the project (Planning Area IV), will be located on the development side of the sheep barrier, thus protecting any PBS or other wildlife using Coral Mountain from predation or other threats from dogs and persons using the trail or the recreational amenities within the project. The project is also required under the terms of the project Development Agreement to fully comply with all CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, even though no portion of the project occurs in or adjacent to any CVMSHCP conservation area. In addition, the Specific Plan has been modified to establish a restricted plan palette along the western portion of the project consistent with the CVMSHCP restrictions, and the project Development Agreement requires that Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) be recorded against all affected portions of the project site to ensure that these plant palette restrictions are fully enforceable in perpetuity by the property owners’ association. Comment 13‐k: CDFW requests that the City revise and recirculate the DEIR to analyze impacts to sheep, burrowing owl, and bats prior to Project implementation and final approval. The level of significance should be revised from “Less than significant” to “Significant” for biological resources unless the City provides adequate analysis to the contrary. The Lead agency must commit itself to mitigation and either adopt performance standard for future approval or analyze alternatives in detail. The strategy for identifying and evaluating the mitigation should be identified and in place before the Project is initiated. Response 13‐k: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐83 February 2022 The potential for impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep, burrowing owl and bats have been fully analyzed in the EIR, with the analysis contained in these Responses to Comments and the modifications made to the project. All potential impacts to PBS will be avoided, and the addition of the 8‐foot‐high sheep barrier to the perimeter fencing does not constitute significant new information that was not included in the Draft EIR. The modifications provided in the text, along with the addition of project design features (the sheep barrier/fence and compliance with adjacency guidelines), will assure that impacts to PBS are fully disclosed to the public, Planning Commission and City Council prior to any decision being made on the project, and assure that no significant impacts to PBS will occur as a result of the project. The conclusions of the Draft EIR have not changed and re‐circulation of the Draft EIR is not required or appropriate under CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a). As regards impacts to burrowing owl and bats, please see Responses 13‐o through 13‐r below. Comment 13‐l: The revised DEIR should provide clear details on recreational infrastructure and permitted recreational activities; control of access to areas outside of the development; and enforcement methods to ensure trespass, lighting, and noise does not affect adjacent sheep and bat roosting habitat. The revised DEIR should identify who will be responsible for this enforcement and funding to support enforcement of the land use adjacency mitigation measures to ensure they are properly implemented throughout the life of the project. The CVMSHCP identifies a simple barrier fence as a mitigation concept to separate PBS from lethal threats in urban environments. We request coordination with CDFW to identify suitable locations for trails and fencing surrounding the property, to keep both sheep and people in their respective areas. CDFW further requests that the City add a mitigation measure for fencing along the boundaries of the property accessible to sheep to minimize potential impacts to PBS from the project development. Response 13‐l: As described in Responses 13‐h and 13‐j above, the project now includes a sheep barrier/perimeter fence that will prevent PBS from entering the development and will prevent trespass from the project site onto Coral Mountain and adjacent BLM open space from project residents and their pets, as well as visitors using the public Desert Recreation District trial proposed to cross the s outhwestern portion of the project. Also as explained in the Draft EIR and further explained in the Final EIR, the project’s lighting has been designed to avoid any light spillage off the project site, including onto Coral Mountain, which has been confirmed with both computer modeling and an on‐site lighting test (see Appendices B.1 and B.2 to this EIR). In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO‐4 requires a post‐ construction lighting analysis to confirm that the actual Wave Basin lighting does not spill onto Coral Mountain, before a certificate of occupancy for the Wave Basin will be issued. The Draft EIR also confirms that the project will not generate construction or operational noise impacts to Coral Mountain or other off‐site locations (see, e.g., pp. 4.11‐24 and 4.11‐25). Potential noise impacts are addressed further below, in response to Comment No. 13‐q. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐84 February 2022 Comment 13‐m: The Recovery Plan for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep identifies that fences should be constructed to exclude bighorn sheep from urban areas where they may begin using urban sources of food and water. Fences serve several functions including: “(1) separating bighorn sheep from potential threats of urbanization (e.g., toxic plants, parasites, accidents, vector‐borne diseases, traffic, herbicides, pesticides, behavioral habituation), (2) controlling human and pet access to remaining bighorn sheep habitat, (3) preventing bighorn sheep from becoming habituated to and dependent upon artificial sources of food and water, and (4) modifying habituated behaviors and redirection into remaining native habitat. Although fencing may be viewed as a last resort to other potential forms of aversive conditioning, prudent planning dictates that mitigation be required to offset the likelihood of future adverse effects (behavioral habituation and increased mortality rates) when new projects are approved along the urban interface. Though actual fence construction could be contingent upon future use by sheep and the ineffectiveness of other potential deterrents, the wherewithal, responsibilities, and easements for fences should be determined and secured at the time of project approval”. CDFW requests the incorporation of eight additional measures to help protect bighorn sheep from development effects: BIO‐[XX]: Project activities and infrastructure should be designed to avoid Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep, a State fully protected species, which has the potential to be present within or adjacent to the Project area. Peninsular bighorn sheep use Coral Mountain and the surrounding conserved habitat within the Santa Rosa Wildlife Area for roaming, foraging, and lambing. To ensure no Incidental Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep, the following measures are required: 1. A biological survey and assessment of year‐round habitat use by Peninsular sheep will be conducted by a qualified biologist, pre‐approved by CDFW, prior to Project approval. 2. All recreational infrastructure and activities such as trails, rope courses, and zipline(s) shall be contained within the development footprint. Trails and other recreational activities will not lead into or encourage use of adjacent natural areas. 3. No plant species toxic to bighorn sheep, such as oleander (Nerium oleander), lantana (Lantana sp.) and laurel cherry (Prunus sp.), shall be used for landscaping within or around the development. Control and do not plant non‐native vegetation, including grass, in the development where it may attract or concentrate bighorn sheep or invade and degrade bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., tamarisk, fountain grass). Use native vegetation in the development landscaping. Along fenced sections of the urban interface, ornamental and toxic plants should not extend over or through fences where they may be accessible to browsing bighorn sheep. The Project will use Table 4‐112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping of the CVMSHCP as guidance on a landscaping planting palette. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐85 February 2022 4. To prevent sheep from entering the Project site or human intrusion into sheep habitat, fences will be placed along the western boundary of PA II and PA III including III‐G (DEIR Exhibit 1.2, pg. 1‐8), and PA IV; and the southern edge of PA II, PA III, and PA IV development site (Figure 2). A fencing plan and further avoidance and minimization measure shall be developed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Fences should be functionally equivalent or better than fencing designs in the Recovery Plan, which are describes as 2.4 meters (8 feet) high and should not contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. Gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. 5. Intentional enticement of bighorn sheep onto private property shall be prohibited and enforced using fines if necessary, including vegetation, mineral licks, or unfenced swimming pools, ponds, or fountains upon which bighorn sheep may become dependent for water. 6. Construction of water bodies that may promote the breeding of midges (Culicoides sp.) shall be prohibited. Water features should be designed to eliminate blue‐tongue and other vector‐borne diseases by providing deeper water (over 0.9 meters [3 feet]), steeper slopes (greater than 30 degrees), and if possible, rapidly fluctuating water levels, or other current best practices. As needed, coordinate with local mosquito and vector control district to ensure management of existing water bodies that may harbor vector species. 7. An educational program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the resort, open space, and low‐density community programs through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged. 8. Ensure funding for implementation, enforcement, and effectiveness assessment of the above measures, for the life of the development, to help ensure protection of sheep and to prevent trespass from the Project site into adjacent sheep habitat. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐86 February 2022 Figure 2. Proposed Sheep fencing plan shown in blue outline on the edge of Project site. Response 13‐m: Please see Responses 13‐e through 13‐l above for a thorough discussion of the project features and restrictions that assure that the project will not have any direct or indirect impacts on PBS. The additional measures requested by the commenter are addressed individually below: (1) Dr. Tom McGill, a qualified biologist with substantial expertise concerning PBS, completed a further PBS habitat assessment of the Project site and surrounding area, and confirmed that the Project development site itself contains no suitable habitat for PBS, and also confirmed that PBS have been tracked on Coral Mountain at times during the year because even though it is not designated as a conservation area for PBS under the CVMSHCP, it does provide limited foraging habitat and escape cover. See Dr. McGill Memo dated November 3, 2021, attached in Appendix D.5 to the Final EIR, at p. 2. Dr. McGill also recommends including the following CVMSHCP Avoidance and Minimization Measures and Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in the project conditions of approval: (i) Avoid use of the toxic or invasive plants listed in Table 4‐113 of the CVMSHCP along the western boundary of the project, adjacent to Coral Mountain and other BLM open space; 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐87 February 2022 (ii) Stormwater systems and project features that use chemicals or other toxic substances shall be designed to prevent the release into conservation areas of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant material or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources; (iii) Lighting shall be shielded and directed toward developed areas to minimize the effect of lighting adjacent to or on conservation areas; (iv) Development adjacent to conservation areas that generate noise in excess of 75 dBA shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on conservation areas; (v) The project shall incorporate barriers to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animals, predators, illegal trespass or dumping in a conservation area, which is accomplished by the Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan attached as Exhibit 2 to the Dr. McGill Memo; and (vi) Land development activities, including manufactured slopes, shall not extend into conservation areas. Based on this habitat assessment, and the project’s incorporation of the additional recommendations from Dr. McGill summarized above and discussed in Response Nos. 13‐e through 13‐l above, and Nos. 13‐q and 13‐r below, no further surveys or habitat assessments are warranted or necessary to determine the potential for impacts to PBS or appropriate mitigation to avoid potential impacts. (2) As explained in more detail in Response 13‐j above, all recreational infrastructure and activities, including the on‐site portion of the regional trail connection that Desert Recreation District intends to construct in the area, will all be located on the development side of the sheep barrier, thus satisfying CDFW’s request. These requirements will be incorporated into, and made enforceable through, the project Development Agreement and/or conditions of approval. (3) As discussed in Response 13‐d above, and in Dr. McGill’s recommendations, the Specific Plan has been revised to incorporate a restricted plant palette along the western boundary of the project in full compliance with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in the CVMSHCP. This restricted plant palette will be enforceable through both the Development Agreement and the CC&Rs recorded against the property to ensure compliance for the life of the project. (4) Please see Responses 13‐e and 13‐h, above. The project is incorporating a sheep barrier/perimeter fence along the boundaries cited by the commenter, that is consistent with the fencing design specified in the Recovery Plan and CVMSHCP, including a height of 8 feet and containing no gaps in excess of 4.3 inches to avoid sheep entanglement, with the final location and design to be approved by the City in consultation with CDFW. This requirement will be incorporated into the Specific Plan and made enforceable through the project Development Agreement and/or conditions of approval. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐88 February 2022 (5) Please see Responses 13‐e and 13‐h, above. The implementation of the sheep barrier along the west and south property lines will preclude sheep enticement. (6) To address any concerns regarding mosquitos and vector‐borne diseases, Mitigation Measure BIO‐9 has been added to the EIR, which provides as follows: BIO‐9: Onsite lakes will be designed and constructed by industry professionals and will incorporate proper aeration, circulation and filtration to maintain a balanced lake ecosystem. Lakes will be stocked with beneficial fish and plant species. Limited chemical applications will be utilized as necessary. Ongoing maintenance will ensure that onsite lakes function properly to control any invasive species or other nuisance conditions. (7) The applicant is working with the Desert Recreation District on developing an educational program in connection with the regional trail connection within the project site. To ensure implementation of the intended educational programming, the EIR is being revised to incorporate the requested measure as Mitigation Measure BIO‐10. (8) Please see Responses 13‐e and 13‐h above, as well as the preceding portions of this Response 13‐m. The Development Agreement and CC&Rs will be recorded against all private property in the project to ensure that the plant palette and other restrictions are fully enforceable for the life of the project. Additional mitigation is not required. Comment 13‐n: Fuel Modification The DEIR states that the Project is not within an area mapped as “very high, high, or moderate fire hazard severity zones, therefore, no impacts are anticipated” by the development. While CDFW recognizes that the area is not classified as being within a fi re hazard area, we are concerned that the Project’s design puts an additional burden on public lands to operate as defensible space rather than include the defensible space within the development footprint. According to Public Resource Code 4291 the development should include a minimum of 100 feet of defensible space within the development footprint. Additionally, County of Riverside Ordinance NO. 695, Section 3, states that: “(1) a one hundred (100) foot wide strip of land at the boundary of an unimproved parcel adjacent to a roadway; and/or (2) a one hundred (100) foot wide strip of land around structure(s) located on an adjacent improved parcel (some or all of this clearance may be required on the unimproved parcel depending upon the location of the structure on the improved parcel). The County Fire Chief or his or her designee may require more than a one hundred (100) foot width or less than a one hundred (100) foot width for the protection of public health, safety or welfare or the environment.” 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐89 February 2022 As development increases within the area near or adjacent to conservation or public natural lands, the risk of wildfire increases and the need for defensible space rises. Additionally, climate change has increased the frequency and duration in which wildfire season occurs (Li and Banerjee, 2021). As the climate continues to change and development continues to encroach upon natural resources, wildfires will continue to increase even in areas not designated as high fire risk. Thus, CDFW requests the incorporation of the following measure to help protect natural resources on public open space and conservation lands from development effects: BIO‐[XX]: With respect to defensible space and impacts to biological resources, the Project shall consult with the Riverside County Fire Department and fully describe and identify the location, acreage, and composition of defensible space within the proposed Project footprint. Base on the consultation the Project shall be designed so that impacts associated with defensible space (fuel modification, fire breaks, etc.) shall not be transferred to adjacent open space or conservation lands. Response 13‐n: The project is subject to Riverside County Ordinance No. 695. The Notice of Preparation and Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR were distributed to the Riverside County Fire Department, and they will continue to be consulted through the development process. No brush clearance requirements have been requested or imposed on the project because it is not in a fire hazard area. On‐site fire hazards are low, because of the lack of substantial vegetation on the site. The development of landscaped areas and homes will reduce the potential for on‐site fire hazards, especially since homes will be sprinklered, consistent with the requirements of the Building Code. No significant impact occurs, and no mitigation measure is required. However, at the request of CDFW, the City will impose a condition of approval stating that if any brush clearance obligation is imposed on any implementing project approvals in the future, such brush clearance will not be permitted on BLM property. Comment 13‐o: Burrowing Owls A project‐specific biology report in the DEIR identifies suitable burrowing habitat within the Project area. To increase the probability of detecting burrows occupied by burrowing owls, multiple surveys should be conducted depending on the proposed start of construction activities and how it coincides with the burrowing owl breeding or non‐breeding seasons. To minimize the chance of Project activities resulting in Take of nesting burrowing owls, CDFW recommends that the City revise MM BIO‐1 and condition the measure to include the following (edits are in bold and strikethrough): BIO‐1: A bBurrowing owl clearance surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist, pre‐ approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, not more than 30 days prior to any site disturbance activities (grubbing, grading, and construction). A minimum of two 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐90 February 2022 surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre‐ construction survey shall be conducted following guidelines in the CDFW 2012, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Is required to use accepted protocol (as determined CDFW). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to 500 feet 150 meters outside the Project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160‐foot 200‐meter diameter buffer will be established during non‐breeding season or a 250‐foot 500‐ meter diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. A list of avoidance and minimization measures such as, but not limited to, the use of hay bales, daily biological monitoring, and trail cameras shall be provided to CDFW for review prior to any ground disturbance. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. ForIf the burrows isfound to be unoccupied, the qualified biologist will coordinate with CDFW on the methods to make the burrows will be made inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied and impacts to the owl(s) cannot be avoided, a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan will be developed and reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies prior to the relocation of owls. Owls shall be relocated pursuant to accepted Wildlife Agency protocols. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrow within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed with the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures for CDFW to review. Response 13‐o: This comment requests revisions to the mitigation measure requiring pre‐construction burrowing owl surveys in excess of the requirements of the CVMSHCP. The requirements of the CVMSCP are those to which the City has committed as a permittee of the CVMSHCP. As a result, the mitigation measure has been amended consistent with those requirements, as follows: Mitigation Measure BIO‐1: Burrowing owl surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist approved by the City prior to any site disturbance activities. A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐91 February 2022 shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre‐construction survey shall be conducted following accepted protocol and the requirements specified in the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4‐166 & 4‐167). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area 500 feet outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160‐foot diameter buffer will be established during non‐breeding season or a 250‐foot diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. If the burrow is found to be unoccupied, the burrow will be made inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied, owls shall be relocated pursuant to accepted Wildlife Agency protocols. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP. The amendment to the mitigation measure is provided for clarification of CVMSHCP requirements, and does not represent new information, as the DEIR described the requirements of the CVMSHCP and the City’s responsibilities in implementing its provisions. The modification also does not represent any increase in the significance of the impacts on burrowing owls, as these potential impacts were fully disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the modification of the mitigation measure does not change the findings and conclusions of the DEIR, and does not provide new information which requires review by the public or the City’s decision makers, and recirculation is not required. Comment 13‐p: Nesting Birds Regarding the protection of nesting birds, it is the Project proponent’s responsibility to avoid Take of all nesting birds. The timing of birds starting and finishing nesting activities is variable from year to year based on the species, rainfall conditions, shifts in local climate conditions, and other factors. CDFW recommends that qualified biologist(s) are pre‐approved by CDFW to confirm they have the experience necessary to fulfill their biological monitoring responsibilities. Additionally, biological monitoring activities are required for the duration of construction activities. CDFW recommends that at minimum, the City revise MM BIO‐6 and conditions the Project to include the following (edits are in bold and strikethrough): 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐92 February 2022 BIO‐6: To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation removal and ground‐disturbing activities shall be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31). Any vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and/or construction activities that occur during the nesting season will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist that is pre‐approved by CDFW. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 days prior to ground disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. The buffer may be modified and/or other recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by the biologist to minimize impacts. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment, or as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgement as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies to avoid Take of nesting birds. Response 13‐p: The commenter’s concerns are noted. The revisions to the mitigation measure provide clarification to the requirements of the MBTA. Mitigation Measure BIO‐6 will be revised as requested. The amendment to the mitigation measure is provided for clarification of the applicable requirements of the MBTA and the California Fish & Game Code, and does not represent new information, as the DEIR described these requirements and the City’s and applicant’s responsibilities. The modification also does not represent any increase in the significance of the impacts on nesting birds, as these potential impacts were fully disclosed in the DEIR. As a result, the modification of the mitigation measure does not change the findings and conclusions of the DEIR, and does not provide new information which requires review by the public or the City’s decision makers, and recirculation is not required. Comment 13‐q: Noise The noise study in the CEQA document identifies a significant noise threshold of 85 dBH and finds that noise levels associated with the construction and operations of the Project would be close to, but not exceed, the noise threshold. CDFW requests the incorporation of the following measure to help protect wildlife from development impacts: BIO‐[XX]: To reduce noise‐related impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, the Project shall continue taking noise level measurements during both Project construction and post‐ 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐93 February 2022 construction operations to determine if noise levels exceed thresholds outlined in the CEQA document and inform if additional avoidance and minimization measures are required. To protect wildlife using Coral Mountain, the noise threshold affecting this area shall be reduced to 75 dBA as determined appropriate in the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in CVMSHCP Section 4.5. If noise levels exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt other minimization measures to reduce noise impacts below 75 dBA to minimize noise‐related impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain. Response 13‐q: The noise study conducted for the EIR determined that highest construction noise levels on‐site in the location nearest Coral Mountain (P3) could reach 82.3 dBA and could reach up to 68.6 dBA at the nearest off‐site location. See Draft EIR at pp. 4.11‐32 through 4.11‐35. The distance from Coral Mountain to the nearest construction area is approximately 100 feet. Construction noise will therefore not exceed 70 dBA at Coral Mountain. As described in the noise study (Appendices K‐1 and K.2 of the DEIR), and on pages 4.11‐44 through 4.11‐49 and Table 4.11‐25 of the DEIR, operational noise impacts are not expected to exceed 62 dBA at the on‐site location nearest Coral Mountain, which is Receiver P3, located approximately 400‐500 feet away. Based on standard noise attenuation principles related to noise and distance, as described on page 4.11‐33 of the DEIR, the noise level will not exceed 60 dBA at any of the offsite receiver locations (see Table 4.11‐25 on page 4.11‐48 of the Draft EIR) or at Coral Mountain at its nearest point to project activities. Therefore, the project’s operations will be well below the CVMSHCP’s 75 dBA threshold at Coral Mountain. Although the DEIR demonstrates that noise levels during construction will also be below this threshold, in order to assure that no impact to wildlife utilizing Coral Mountain occurs during the construction period, Mitigation Measure BIO‐7 is added, as follows: Mitigation Measure BIO‐7: To ensure that the project will avoid any significant construction noise impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain, noise monitoring will occur for all construction activities using heavy equipment within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction operational changes or other project modifications shall be made, as directed by the project biologist to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA. Comment 13‐r: Lighting The CEQA document includes an analysis of lighting with a focus on impacts to aesthetics. A significant source of artificial nighttime lighting with the potential to impact wildlife using Coral Mountain (e.g., PBS, bats, etc.) comes from lighting associated with the Wave Basin, which includes seventeen, 80‐ foot‐high light poles. Further, onsite lightning is planned within PA IV, the open space area adjacent 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐94 February 2022 to Coral Mountain. Although the CEQA document indicates that all lightning will be shielded and directed away from wildlife areas, CDFW recommends that additional lightning analysis during Project construction and operations is needed to determine that lightning impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain will be less than significant. To determine if artificial nighttime lighting associated with Project construction and operations will result in minimal to no glare (500 or less candela) to all areas of Coral Mountain, CDFW recommends that lighting and glare impacts continue to be evaluated during both Project construction and operations. CDFW requests the inclusion of the following new measures in the DEIR: BIO‐[XX]: To reduce nighttime artificial lighting‐related impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, the Project shall continue taking lightning measurements during both Project construction and post‐construction operations to determine impacts of nighttime artificial lightning on Coral Mountain and the wildlife it supports. To protect wildlife using Coral Mountain, project construction and operations shall result in no to minimal glare (500 or less candela) to all areas of Coral Mountain. If light or glare impacts to Coral Mountain exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt landscape shielding, dimming, lighting curfews or other appropriate measures that result in the Project causing minimal to no glare to all areas of Coral Mountain. Response 13‐r: In addition to the lighting impacts that were addressed in the aesthetics discussion of the DEIR, an analysis of the potential impacts of lighting on wildlife was conducted by the project biologist (please see Appendix D.1 at p. 11 and pages 4.3‐18 and 4.3‐23) who included a mitigation measure to ensure that project lighting would not impact bats roosting in Coral Mountain. Mitigation Measure BIO‐4 requires a post‐construction lighting study be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Wave Basin to ensure no overspill of light or glare onto Coral Mountain. Clarifying edits to Mitigation Measure BIO‐4 have been recommended by the project biologist and the revised measure provides as follows: Mitigation Measure BIO‐4: To avoid impacts to roosting bats from the installation of new light fixtures associated with the proposed development, all lighting fixtures shall have light shields or similar devices (i.e., dark sky compliant lighting) installed to ensure that there is no light trespass onto Coral Mountain and surrounding open space. A supplemental light study will be performed to collect nighttime lighting measurements and confirm that no light trespass onto Coral Mountain is occurring; this will be submitted for City approval prior to issuance of any permit for occupancy or use of the Wave Basin. In addition, the lighting study completed for the proposed Wave Basin lighting system determined that light levels are cut‐off in the immediate vicinity of the Wave Basin planning area, and that light 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐95 February 2022 levels will drop to 0.01 foot candles or below at least 375 feet from the nearest portion of Coral Mountain. Please see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1, above, including the lighting contour exhibit. Comment 13‐s: Land Ownership A portion of the property appears to be owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and is a part of the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area which is jointly managed by BLM and CDFW (BLM and CDFG 1980). This is an area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a management plan for the preservation of the wildlife resources and their habitats. The Santa Rosa Mountains Habitat Management Plan was developed and implemented under the Sikes Act of October 18, 1974 (PL 93‐452). Please clarify in the DEIR if a portion of the Project is on or adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area, owned by BLM, and identify what mitigation measures will be implemented to maintain the natural conditions of the area for wildlife resources. Please provide information in the DEIR on any coordination with BLM and CDFW on use of the Project site and how that may affect the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area. State Regulatory Environment In the State Regulatory Environment section (p. 4.3‐3), the DEIR fails to identify state regulations that are applicable to the Project including: Natural Community Conservation Protection Act (Fish & G. Code Sections 2800 et seq.), Lake and Streambed Agreements (Fish & G. Code Section 1600 et seq.); Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code Section 4700), and CEQA. Please revise the DEIR to identify the above regulations and how they apply to this Project. Response 13‐s: No portion of the project extends onto the adjacent BLM land, and all BLM land will be separated from the project site by the sheep barrier/perimeter fence described in Responses 13‐e and 13‐h. Because the project occurs entirely on privately held land, and the project will be physically separated from federal lands by a barrier fence, and the DEIR requires that the project comply with CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines, the impacts associated with federal land remain, as described in the DEIR, less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO‐2 through BIO‐6. Those impacts have been thoroughly analyzed, and no additional impacts have been identified by the commenter. Comment 13‐t: Drought‐tolerant Landscaping 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐96 February 2022 California is experiencing one of the most severe droughts on record. To ameliorate the water demands of this Project, CDFW recommends incorporation of water‐wise concepts in project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species, and installing water‐efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Local water agencies/districts, and resource conservation districts in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought‐ tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought‐tolerant landscaping and water‐efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website: http://saveourwater.com/what‐you‐can‐do/tips/landscaping/ Response 13‐t: The commenter’s concerns regarding water efficiency are noted. As shown in the plant palette set forth in the Specific Plan, the project makes extensive use of native, drought‐tolerant landscaping, consistent with the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines (compare Specific Plan plant palette (attached to Dr. McGill Memo in Appendix D.5 to this Final EIR) with the recommended species in CVMSHCP Table 4‐112). In addition, the project is subject to the water use restrictions in the applicable landscape ordinances adopted by CVWD (Ordinance No. 1302.5) and the City of La Quinta (see Chapter 8.13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code). Comment 13‐u: Environmental Data CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special‐status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting‐Data. The completed form can be submitted online or mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: CNDDB@wildlife.ca.gov. Response 13‐u: The City thanks the Department for this information, and will continue to encourage project biologists to comply with reporting requirements under PRC 21003(e). Comment 13‐v: CDFW Conclusions and Further Coordination CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Coral Mountain Resort Project to assist in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. Our review and analysis of the DEIR identified a number of significant new Project impacts and provides corresponding mitigation and 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐97 February 2022 minimization measures, as described above, which would clearly lessen significant project impacts on the biological resources in the area. Therefore, CDFW requests that the City of La Quinta revise and recirculate the DEIR, for disclosure to the public, once the requested additional analyses have been prepared and the additional mitigation and minimization measures have been added to the Project, and all of these substantial modifications have been documented in the revised Draft EIR for review and comment by the citizens of California and interested public agencies. CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts. We request a meeting to discuss our comments at your earliest convenience. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Carly Beck at carly.beck@wildlife.ca.gov. Response 13‐v: The City, CDFW and Dr. McGill met on September 29, 2021 and again on January 25, 2022, and discussed the issues raised in this letter, the analysis conducted by Dr. McGill, and the measures described above to address those issues. These measures include installation of a sheep barrier/perimeter fence in conformance with the standards specified in the CVMSHCP, and the project’s compliance with the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines even though the project is not adjacent to a conservation area and thus would not otherwise be subject those requirements. With implementation of these measures, and the inclusion of a sheep barrier in the Specific Plan document, impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant levels, consistent with the findings of the DEIR. As explained above, re‐circulation of the Draft EIR is not required because the project revisions and clarifications made to the EIR to address the CDFW comments do not contain any significant new information as that phrase is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Specifically, none of the information added to the Final EIR “deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect” nor does it show any new or substantially more severe environmental effects than were disclosed in the Draft EIR. Rather, the CDFW comments, and the responses and Draft EIR revisions discussed above, demonstrate that the Draft EIR adequately disclosed the project’s potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep, and that the project will not have any significant adverse effect on this federally endangered and California Fully Protected Species. At the request of CDFW, the applicant has agreed to modify the project to include additional measures to ensure that there will be no impacts to this species, including an 8‐foot‐high sheep barrier along the western boundary of the project site to separate all project development and activities from Coral Mountain and other adjacent BLM open space. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐98 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 14: Bighorn Institute Name: James R. DeForge, Executive Director Date: August 3, 2021 Affiliation: Bighorn Institute Address: P.O. Box 262 Palm Desert CA, 92261 Comment 14‐a: We are providing comments for the Draft EIR for Coral Mountain Resort (SCH#2021020310), as it pertains to the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis nelsonii). We are primarily concerned with the likelihood of bighorn sheep being attracted to and accessing Coral Mountain Resort as a means of artificial food and water if the project is built. Bighorn Institute has documented 35 known urban‐related Peninsular bighorn deaths on or near four La Quinta golf courses (Traditions, SilverRock, PGA West and The Quarry) and Lake Cahuilla since 2012. These bighorn deaths are a result of sheep being attracted down to the grass and water features (i.e., artificial food and water sources). Despite the DEIR declaring the project location as non‐habitat for bighorn sheep, there is a real potential for attracting bighorn sheep from adjacent areas, particularly if and when the required La Quinta fence is constructed and the sheep are pushed back into their natural habitat. As such, we [Bighorn Institute] strongly recommend this project be fenced prior to construction with fencing approved in the Recovery Plan for bighorn in Peninsular Ranges (i.e., an 8‐foot chain‐link fence). The City of Rancho Mirage had similar urban‐related bighorn issues and in 2002, a 4 ½ mile long, 8ft high chain‐link fence was built there. It was completely eliminated urban‐related bighorn deaths and is promoting recovery of this species. Response 14‐a: The City thanks the Bighorn Institute for participating in the review of the Draft EIR. Please see the Biological Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.2. The project has been modified to include an 8‐foot sheep barrier to be located along the western and southwestern property boundary, in addition to the 6‐foot perimeter wall which will surround the project. The sheep barrier is to consist of 8‐foot‐high fencing as shown in the approved Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC) “PBS Barrier Project”. Please see Figure 13 in the Specific Plan, Conceptual PBS Barrier Plan, which is copied above at page 2‐15. The final design and location of the 8‐foot‐high sheep barrier fencing will be subject to approval by the City, in consultation with CDFW. Comment 14‐b: We also recommend no vegetation be planted near the project fence to attract the sheep. Response 14‐b: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐99 February 2022 The project proposes desert landscape throughout the site. Areas adjacent to Coral Mountain (southwest portions of the site) will be maintained as open space with native landscaping that is consistent with the recommended plant species shown in Table 4‐112 of the CVMSHCP. Poisonous or toxic plants (such as dwarf Nerium oleander) have been removed from the landscape palette for the proposed project. Additionally, “Prohibited Invasive Ornamental Plants” are excluded from use along the western boundary. These areas will be subject to landscape palette restrictions consistent with the CVMSHCP Adjacency Guidelines (See Tables 4‐112 for recommended species and Table 4‐113 for prohibited species). Consistency with the CVMSHCP Adjacency Requirements will avoid harm to any bighorn sheep in the area. Project landscape plans will be reviewed by the City of La Quinta prior to development, and will be enforceable for the life of the project through the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) that will be recorded against the common areas and private lots. Comment 14‐c: Finally, we are concerned about the water usage for this projec t, particularly the wave pool and other water features. We are in the grips of another drought year so it seems irresponsible and unnecessary to build a project so focused on using such a valuable resource. Wildlife, such as Peninsular bighorn, struggle to have enough available water to survive during droughts and this project could contribute to the water shortage. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this project. Response 14‐c: Please see the topical response on water resource provided in the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 of this Final EIR above (at pp. 2‐16 – 2‐27) for a discussion of the project’s proposed water use and the adequacy of water supplies. Additional analysis of water resources is also discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. Please refer to Sections 4.9 and 4.15 for full analysis of project‐related water consumption. Specifically as it relates to bighorn sheep, water sources are found in the mountain ranges up gradient and to the west of the property. These sources include natural and manmade sources and are located primarily outside of the Indio Subbasin that serves the project. These water sources will remain unaffected by the proposed project, and other projects on the valley floor. This project is also required to contribute fees for groundwater recharge for the Indio Subbasin. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐100 February 2022 Public Comments – Area Residents 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐101 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 15: Anne and Ron Smith Date: June 21, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 15‐a: I am writing to urge you to please DENY approval of the Wave Park. We moved here just a year ago because we were impressed by the beauty of La Quinta, and the tranquility of the neighborhood of Trilogy. We love being able to enjoy the quiet here, and especially enjoy stargazing from our backyard at night as we have so little light pollution. Response 15‐a: The commenter’s objection to the project is noted. Responses to Comments 15‐b through 15‐d address specific environmental issues below. Comment 15‐b: The Wave Park, with its constant noise and blaring stadium lights at night, threaten to destroy the very reason we moved to La Quinta. We are already discussing the possibility of putting our home on the market because of this proposed project. We did not move here to live next to an amusement park for the very rich that would destroy the reason we moved from a high density area. And we do feel it would be terrible for our home value. Response 15‐b: Please see Topical Response Section 2.2.4, Noise, and Section 2.2.1, Light and Glare, above. In addition, the Draft EIR discusses and analyzed the potential impacts of project‐generated noise and lights in Section 4.11, Noise, and Section 4.1, Aesthetics, respectively. Within Section 4.11, noise impacts associated with project‐related construction and operational activities were discussed. Findings within this section were based on technical reports completed for the project by a noise engineer (see Noise Study and Noise Memo), which analyzed the actual noise levels that will be generated by Wave Basin operations as well as comparable noise levels at other existing resort pool, recreational park, and commercial uses. Per the findings of the technical reports and Draft EIR, project‐related construction and operational impacts to noise were concluded to be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. As described above, the project will not exceed noise thresholds established by the City in its General Plan and Municipal Code. The Draft EIR correctly determined that impacts of project operation would not exceed those thresholds, as shown in Tables 4.11‐16 (construction noise), 4.11‐17 – 4.11‐20 (traffic noise), 4.11‐23 (interior noise levels), and 4.11‐25 – 4.11‐26 (operational noise). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐102 February 2022 Section 4.1 (discussion d.) analyzed the lighting proposed for the project, including the 80‐foot light fixtures proposed surrounding the Wave Basin. In order to analyze whether these light fixtures would impact the surrounding area, a photometric plan, which illustrates the foot‐candles associated with the fixtures, was provided by Musco Lighting. As described on page 4.1‐62, the lights associated with the Wave Basin would be limited to the evening hours of dusk to 10:00 p.m., consistent with La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.100.150 for sports facilities. This is Mitigation Measure AES‐3 in the Draft EIR. No nighttime activity would occur. The Draft EIR concluded that impacts associated with the light fixtures are reduced to less than significant levels. The commenter’s concerns regarding changes in the area of their residence is noted. However, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e), economic and social changes resulting from a project are not part of the effects on the environment studied in an environmental document. Comment 15‐c: Even more important than anything else, though, is the unmistakable, overwhelming evidence of serious unprecedented drought in the west. It is too scary and serious to ignore. All the lakes and reservoirs in the state are at disastrously low levels. This proposed man made lake would steal from our drinking water. It's just a ridiculous and incredibly harmful idea at this time in history. The heat and winds will evaporate huge amounts of potable water. I know that if I voted to approve something like this, I would not be able to sleep at night knowing the harm I'd be doing to our environment, and endangering people ‐‐ farmers, animals ‐‐ who desperately need that water for real life needs. Response 15‐c: Please consult the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3, as well as Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) approved the project‐specific Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) determining that sufficient water supplies exist, or will exist based on current water planning assumptions, to meet the projected demands of the proposed project as well as the current and future projected water demands within CVWD’s service area, including changes in supply associated with long term drought and climate change. To address the commenter’s concern regarding evaporation of water used for the project, evapotranspiration (Eto) was taken into account when calculating the outdoor water demand for the project (please see Section 2.2.3 above, pages 22‐23 of the WSA/WSV attached to the Draft EIR as Appendix M. The analysis in the EIR correctly calculated the Eto, and evapotranspiration has been accurately disclosed. Operation of the Wave Basin will account for approximately 14.9 percent of the project’s total annual outdoor water, and 12.47 percent of total project water demand. Water conservation methods implemented by the project include the installation and maintenance of efficient and drip irrigation systems for project landscape, the use of native plant materials and other drought tolerant plants, 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐103 February 2022 and the use of low‐flush toilets and water‐conserving showerheads and faucets. These methods will reduce indoor and outdoor water consumption by the project. This comment also asserts that the project would “steal from our drinking water,” but in fact, the water necessary for the Wave Basin operations, and the other uses proposed for the project, are already included in CVWD’s plans to serve future development. CVWD's long‐range planning documents confirm that it has adequate water supplies for all current and planned future uses, as discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.3, Water Resources Topical Response, above. Comment 15‐d: I have read that 4 wave parks are in various processes of approval in the Coachella Valley. It seems preposterous that there would be this much demand for this kind of project. And if there is, why put it in an area zone for residential development? And what will happen if this project is abandoned mid project for lack of funds? What an awful eyesore will remain. There’s only ever been one other wave park in the area, and it failed. Four wave parks?!? Please, please, listen to concerned citizens. Listen to your conscience and do the right thing and DO NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT. Response 15‐d: The commenter’s concern regarding 4 potential wave parks is noted. The proposed Wave Basin is not currently permitted on the project site. In order to allow such a facility, a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone have been requested to allow the Wave Basin and other tourist commercial uses on a portion of the project site, which are policy decisions for the City Council. The proposed General Plan Amendment and zone change are analyzed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, which concluded that the land use and zone changes proposed for the project would result in less than significant impacts, in part because the proposed tourist commercial uses are located in the interior of the project site, surrounded by low‐density residential uses, perimeter walls and landscaping, consistent with the surrounding communities. The commenter’s concern regarding completion of the project is noted but is not an issue under CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines 15064 and 15131, stating that “economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment”.) The Planning Commission and City Council will consider the policy‐related issues associated with the project, including assurances regarding the completion of the project, as part of their deliberations on the project. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐104 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 16: Dina Stuart Date: June 21, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 16‐a: The County report that states Significant effect projected to be less than zero refer to topics like land use planning, public services etc…. That has nothing to do with the Significant effects on neighbors and nearby residents! The effect on us and our lifestyle is very Significant!!!!! Is there a place in the desert for a surf resort?…. Absolutely!!!!! But it is NOT across the street from Andalusia and Trilogy, nor nearby The Quarry and PGA West developments…. Head out by the Thermal Airport and beyond…. Plenty of locations! Better yet, improve the Salton Sea and put it out there and make it a destination resort once again!!!! Response 16‐a: The commenter’s concerns regarding land use compatibility are noted. However, according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(e), economic and social changes resulting from a project are not part of the effects on the environment studied in an environmental document. An alternative location for the proposed project was discussed in Chapter 7.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. As described on page 7‐4 of the Draft EIR, “CEQA Guidelines requires examination of an alternative location for the project if such locations would result in the avoidance of or lessening of significant impacts. The project objectives specifically relate to the existing Coral Mountain Resort property, which is currently undeveloped and vacant. Additionally, the project applicant has not been able to locate a suitable alternative location of at least 380 acres that is available for purchase and that would substantially reduce any of the significant impacts of the proposed project.” As a result, and consistent with CEQA, the alternative location alternative was not further considered. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐105 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 17: Monica Harrington Date: June 22, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 17‐a: Eighty‐foot light poles are incompatible with City Code under the approved use of the proposed site for the Coral Mountain Surf Park, which is now zoned as low density residential, which is the same zoning that applies to surrounding properties. And yet, in the EIS report, we learn that the illumination of outdoor recreational facilities is exempt from the requirements of this section and that passage is slipped in as though it's reasonable to think that the zoning should be easily transformed into Recreational Use, which is the zoning that applies to amphitheaters, ball parks, etc. Why doesn’t this section just come out and say: "The use of 80‐foot light poles is ILLEGAL under the current zoning of the property, so one way to get around this and to accommodate 80‐foot light poles is to quietly change the designation to "Recreational" and thus get the same lighting requirements that might apply to a huge outdoor stadium or arena. And by the way, by doing this, you can ensure that the outdoor lights can stay on EVERY DAY until 10:00." The authors of this study didn’t write it that way because they wanted people to come away thinking that it's reasonable that 80‐foot lights operating until 10:00 pm every night in a low density residential area is somehow acceptable. It's not. Response 17‐a: Please see Response 15‐d. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would remove the golf course zoning designation from the project and allow for a resort, associated resort amenities, a Wave Basin facility by assigning these lands a Tourist Commercial (CT) designation. In addition, the project proposes a Specific Plan, which will apply site‐specific standards to the site, as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.240.010 and California Government Code Sections 65450 et seq. An analysis of the proposed changes is included in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. For analysis of the project’s impact resulting from the Zone Change, Title 9, Zoning, of the La Quinta Municipal Code was consulted in order to compare the development standard s proposed for the Coral Mountain Resort project with the existing standards established for the City of La Quinta. Section 4.10 determined that impacts would be less than significant, in part because the proposed tourist commercial uses are located in the interior of the project site, surrounded by low‐density residential uses, perimeter walls and landscaping, consistent with the surrounding communities. The requested changes in City standards, including the General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone and Specific Plan, are part of the allowable changes that can be requested by a property owner or developer, and must be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. These policy decisions are not CEQA issues, but will be considered when the project is considered by these City officials. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐106 February 2022 The Wave Basin facility and associated light fixtures would be located in the CT zone, situated in the southwest portion of the project. Currently, the La Quinta Municipal Code allows 8‐foot pole heights in this use. The 80‐foot light poles in PA III‐B are proposed to surround the 16.62‐acre Wave Basin feature. The light fixtures will be downward‐facing, and oriented to illuminate only the Wave Basin. For a detailed description of lighting on the property, please see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1, above, and pages 4.1‐60 – 4.1‐70 of the Draft EIR. As it relates to lighting impacts, please see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1, which summarizes the findings of the Draft EIR, references specific exhibits and page numbers in the Draft EIR, provides a summary of the Lighting Memo, and addresses the concerns of commenters regarding proposed light. Comment 17‐b: Sometimes, people agree to tradeoffs on sound/light because the recreational benefits available to all are perceived to be worth it. E.g., in some municipalities, outdoor summer concerts are allowed a few times a year in close proximity to residential users, so lo ng as the concerts end before 10:00. The idea is that for a few nights a year, the tradeoff in noise and light in an otherwise quiet residential area might be worth it to add to the cultural attractiveness of an area. Here, there is NO benefit to surrounding communities of 80‐foot light poles or of an event venue that is active EVERY evening until 10:00 p.m. Surrounding communities get all of the light and noise intrusion, all of the time, with no benefit. Response 17‐b: The commenter’s opinion regarding the lack of community benefit associated with the project is noted. As it relates to light and noise, please see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1, and Section 4.1, Aesthetics, pages 4.1‐60 – 4.1‐70 of the Draft EIR, relating to lighting; and the Noise Topical Response in Section 2.2.4, and Section 4.11, Noise, pages 4.11‐44 – 4.11‐50 of the Draft EIR relating to operation noise. The commenter’s concern regarding the appropriateness of the Change of Zone request is noted. Please also see Response 15‐d. Comment 17‐c: Viewed in this way, the conversion of the existing zoning for the property does not satisfy the zoning change requirements embedded in La Quinta Municipal Law: Required Findings: The following findings shall be made by the city council prior to the approval of any zone map change: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The zone map change is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the general plan. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐107 February 2022 2. Public Welfare. Approval of the zone map change will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare. 3. Land Use Compatibility. The new zoning is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties. 4. Property Suitability. The new zoning is suitable and appropriate for the subject property. 5. Change in Circumstances. Approval of the zone map change is warranted because the situation and the general conditions of the property have substantially changed since the existing zoning was imposed. Response 17‐c: The La Quinta Planning Commission and City Council will review the Draft EIR and its findings, as well as the findings necessary for all of the entitlements associated with the proposed project. These findings, however, are policy decisions which will be considered in conjunction with, but separate from, the CEQA documentation. To the extent that land use compatibility is required to be analyzed under CEQA, the Draft EIR discussed and analyzed these issues in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning. The Draft EIR determined that the proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐108 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 18: Connie Glavin Date: June 23, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 18‐a: Please do not allow this development, it will spoil the area as far as lights noise traffic. Animals will be disturbed also. We have big horn sheep and Bob cats ion the area and we enjoy them. We purchased our home out here for our retirement for the quiet area and enjoy sitting out at night and seeing the stars afraid the added traffic and lights will interfere with this nice quiet area please let us know that this will not occur this was zoned residential correct? Why change it now, we like to bike and with the added traffic will be hard to exit our development and ride into old town la Quinta. With drivers coming back here for the wave park development. Response 18‐a: The commenter’s concerns are noted. However, the commenter does not provide specific or substantial evidence regarding the issues of lighting, noise, traffic or biological resources. As it relates to light and noise, please see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1, and Section 4.1, Aesthetics, pages 4.1‐60 – 4.1‐70 of the Draft EIR, relating to lighting; and the Noise Topical Response in Section 2.2.4, and Section 4.11, Noise, pages 4.11‐44 – 4.11‐50 of the Draft EIR relating to operational noise. As it relates to traffic, please see the Traffic Topical Response in Section 2.2.5 and pages 4.13‐17 – 4.13‐51 of the Draft EIR, and as it relates to biological resources, please see the Biological Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.2 and pages 4.3‐15 – 4.3‐24 Within these sections of the Draft EIR, the impacts of lights proposed at the project; project impacts to local wildlife; noise generated from the project; and traffic and safety (i.e., bike safety) related to the proposed project are analyzed. All topics were determined to result in less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures. As it relates to the commenter’s question regarding land use designations, please see Response 15‐ d. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐109 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 19: Sarah Zappas Date: July 1, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 19‐a: I want to reach out to you as a resident of Andalusia, 58194 Aracena in La Quinta for the last 8 years. The proposed plan to put a water park “wave pool” across the street in a zoned residential neighborhood, seems like the city has sold out in favor of commercial tax revenues. My husband and I chose this development for its quiet, and remote location. We were not naive to think that one day this area around us would not be built up, certainly it would be developed. However the issues that this project brings to the neighborhood are unacceptable. Response 19‐a: Comment noted. Please see Response 15‐d. Comment 19‐b: First the water that this park (wave pool) will be using on a daily basis is counter to water conservation efforts here in the Coachella Valley. The fact that recycled water can’t be used and that every day the “wave pool” will be utilizing our drinking water is negligent at best. I read this finding that designates this issue as insignificant is ridiculous. I understand it is insignificant to the developers that want this project to move forward, but greed is what their motivation is. Response 19‐b: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3, as well as Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems of the Draft EIR. As it relates to the use of recycled water from CVWD’s wastewater treatment plants, recycled water is not presently available in the project vicinity, and it is unknown if or when recycled water will be available. Nevertheless, the project is designed to utilize non‐potable water for outdoor common area irrigation, including the installation of purple piping and one or more on‐site storage ponds. These facilities will support the use of non‐potable water for outdoor irrigation purposes and can also support the use of recycled water if and when it becomes available from CVWD. As stated on page 4.15‐16 of the Draft EIR, the use of recycled water will be evaluated in the future if such water becomes available. As discussed in the water supply projections portion of the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3 above, including Figure ES‐6 copied from CVWD’s Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, recycled water is projected to account for approximately 5% of CVWD’s available water over the next 25 years (approximately 20,000 AFY out of 380,000 AFY). Comment 19‐c: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐110 February 2022 The second was the zoning change that allows the project to develop 60,000 square feet for commercial purposes in a residential neighborhood that was originally zoned residential. In addition to that is the 23.6 acres of Recreational Open Space what is that? What will be allowed to be developed under that designation, the ability to bring in off road vehicles? Response 19‐c: The 60,000 square feet of commercial uses are located in the northeast corner of the project site. This area is currently zoned for Neighborhood Commercial uses in the General Plan and Zoning maps. This designation is not changing, but the area is reduced from approximately 8.4 acres to 7.7 acres. Under both the current and the proposed Neighborhood Commercial designations, up to 60,000 square feet of commercial development could occur on this portion of the project site The existing and proposed zones are displayed in Exhibit 4.10‐2, Existing and Proposed Zoning, in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. The 23.6‐acre recreational open space area is proposed for low‐intensity passive and active recreational uses, such as hiking, biking and a ropes course, as described on pages 3‐22 and 3‐23 of the Draft EIR, and page 57 of the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan. Off‐road vehicles are not permitted, and Section 3.4 of the Specific Plan has been revised to expressly prohibit any motorized off‐road vehicles. Comment 19‐d: The third issue of the lighting poles, 80 feet high that will illuminate the night sky, every evening 365 days a year. It will be like living next to a football stadium but instead of a couple of months out of the year, it will be every evening. I beg to differ that this is insignificant, who’s says that, obviously they aren’t living across the street. Response 19‐d: Please see Topical Response on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1, as well as Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. Project‐related operational impacts relating to lights were determined to be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures, not insignificant. The lights associated with the Wave Basin would be limited to the evening hours of dusk to 10:00 p.m., consistent with the La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.100.150 for sports lighting. This is indicated as Mitigation Measure AES‐3 in the Draft EIR. As it relates to the lighting orientation and the commenter’s characterization of a football field, please see the discussion under Topical Response Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1, relating to orientation and control of fixtures, as well as Appendices B.1 and B.2 of this Final EIR. Comment 19‐e: I would ask that the city of La Quinta, the City Council and the Mayor reconsider the scope of this water park, after all you represent us the people who live in the city of La Quinta. I’m sure with the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐111 February 2022 demographic of this city that the population here will not be using this “Wave Pool” but a tourist population coming to this quiet part of town to party and increase the traffic and above all destroy the land around this beautiful city. Response 19‐e: The comment is noted. Please see Response 17‐c as it relates to the review of the project by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐112 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 20: Kristina Dailey Date: July 1, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 20‐a: This email is being written in opposition to the proposed surf park at Coral Mountain. It truly dismays me how money hungry and dollar driven this counsel has become. Response 20‐a: The comment is noted. As it relates to the approval process for the project, please see Response 17‐ c. Comment 20‐b: Have you read any of the latest articles in the Desert Sun about the water crisis in the west? Research Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Damn. I was there recently. The damn is one to two years away from being declared a “dry” damn. If that happens not only will our water supplies for the Colorado River and the states that depend upon it be depleted but our electrical grid will be compromised as well. The proposed water park will depend on under ground water tables and supposedly will use less water then a golf course which is also the LAST thing this desert community needs. Build your homes if you must but do it responsibly and sustainably. Response 20‐b: Please see Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3, as well as Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has determined that sufficient water supplies exist, or will exist based on current water planning assumptions, to meet the projected demands of the proposed project as well as the current and future projected water demands within CVWD’s service area, including under long term drought and climate change conditions. Comment 20‐c: Why would anyone in their right mind want to purchase a 2.5 million dollar home next to a surf club especially if there are no member benefits included? The Coral Mountain area is a beautiful, pristine and sacred area of this valley. Let’s treat it as such and be more responsible in our choices for the future. Response 20‐c: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐113 February 2022 The comment is noted. The comment does not address a CEQA issue. As it relates to the approval process for the project, please see Response 17‐c. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐114 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 21: Diane Rebryna Date: July 2, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 21‐a: Please see the following email regarding the DEIR for Coral Mountain Resort. A PDF of this letter is also attached for your reference, should the contents of the email distort during transmission. Response 21‐a: The comment is noted. Comment 21‐b: We, the La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development, are sending this letter to express our concerns regarding the Draft EIR that was released for Coral Mountain Resort. At the outset, we wish to say that this document is beyond comprehension for the average resident of La Quinta. The DRAFT EIR (DEIR) is not in keeping with the 2021 CEQA Statute and Guidelines https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf, particularly those laid out in Article 10. Considerations in Preparing EIRs and Negative Declarations: The text that follows in black refers to direct excerpts from Article 10. Our concerns are laid out in RED. Response 21‐b: Please see Topical Response on Length of the Draft EIR in Section 2.2.6, and Topical Response on Ability to Comprehend Draft EIR in Section 2.2.7. Comment 21‐c: 15140, Writing EIRs should be written in plain language and may use appropriate graphics so that decision makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents. This document is replete with redundancy ‐ paragraphs and statements, obviously boilerplate, are inserted and re‐inserted throughout the document into various categories, where not necessary or where summaries might have been acceptable. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐115 February 2022 We do see the summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures TABLE 1‐3. While this summary is useful, the background information regarding each section MUST be presented in a manner that a reader can understand. The DEIR fails in this regard. Response 21‐c: Please see Topical Response on Ability to Comprehend the EIR in Section 2.2.7. The Draft EIR has was written to disclose all of the project components and technical methodologies utilized in order to comply with CEQA standards. As stated on page 1‐14 of the Draft EIR (the page prior to Table 1‐3), the Table “identifies the potentially significant effects of the proposed project, mitigation measures, project features and/or requirements identified to avoid or reduce the identified potentially significant effects to the maximum extent feasible, and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, project features and/or requirements to reduce the potentially significant effects to a level of less than significant.” The purpose of the table, and the Executive Summary Chapter, is to include the summary of each environmental topic. Additional discussion, analysis, and conclusions are located in the individual issue area chapters and sections, consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Comment 21‐d: 15141, Page Limits The text of draft EIRs should normally be less than 150 pages and for proposals of unusual scope or complexity should normally be less than 300 pages. This statement speaks for itself. The DRAFT EIR is well over 700 pages, not including Appendices. The document is unnecessarily LARGE, primarily as a result of the way it is written – we refer you back to 15140 above. Response 21‐d: Please see Topical Response on Length of the Draft EIR in Section 2.2.6, above. Comment 21‐e: 15145, Speculation If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. The intrusiveness on the surrounding residential communities with, by way of example but not limited to, the: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐116 February 2022 Lights (including multiple 80‐foot towers and commercial glare from buildings and parking lots) Noise (during operation, and that associated with Special Events), and Aesthetics (impacts on the views of Coral Mountain) As presented in the DEIR with the pretext of supportive “scientific studies/analysis”, is difficult to even read let alone understand, and therefore to allow for our interpretation. We are of the opinion that the declared “negative” impacts of the above in particular are essentially speculative and should be acknowledged as such. The failure to do this greatly concerns us and many residents that we have talked with regarding the DEIR. The phrase that comes to mind, no disrespect intended, is “smoke and mirrors”. This speaks to our concerns about the credibility of the some of the information presented in the document. Response 21‐e: The commenter’s opinions are noted. As it relates to comprehension of the EIR, please see Topical Response on the Ability to Comprehend the EIR in Section 2.2.7. As it relates to lighting, the Draft EIR addressed lighting impacts in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, pages 4.1‐60 – 4.1‐70, and Appendix B. In order to clarify and expand that discussion, the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1 is provided above, to further explain the lighting technology associated with the project. These analyses are not speculative, but based on established professional standards and thresholds of significance. As described above and in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, the analysis correctly concluded that the impacts associated with lighting will be less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. The project’s potential operational noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR, pages 4.11‐44 through 4.11‐50, and in Appendices K.1 and K.2. In order to clarify and expand that discussion, Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 is provided above to further explain how the operational noise impacts were properly analyzed, including the determinations that the project will not have any significant operational noise impacts with implementation of mitigation measures. As it relates to the impacts to views of Coral Mountain, this is analyzed in discussion a) of Section 4.1 in the Draft EIR, pages 4.1‐22 – 4.1‐45. Additionally, Exhibits 4.1‐4 through 4.1‐13 provide visual simulations to demonstrate the project’s impact when observed from public viewpoints. The Draft EIR correctly determined that development on the project site would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to views of Coral Mountain, even within the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Also as correctly determined in the Draft EIR, Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required should the City Council determine that the impacts associated with the views of Coral Mountain are outweighed by the benefits of the project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐117 February 2022 To conclude, the technical reports, photometric plans and visual simulations provided by the technical experts are not speculative, but rather utilize established methodologies to analyze the project impacts in compliance with applicable CEQA standards and requirements. Comment 21‐f: 15146, Degree of Specificity The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow. We are of the opinion that the “details” of the DEIR obscure the focus on the secondary effects of the Project – in other words, we as the readers, cannot see the “forest for the trees” and therefore have trouble understanding exactly what it is that the DEIR is trying to say. Every attempt should have been made in the DRAFT EIR to ensure, going back to 15140 above, to ensure that the information contained is “rapidly understood” by the reader. We would have liked to stand back upon receipt of the EIR and, after reading, say “WE MAY NOT AGREE… BUT WE DO UNDERSTAND THE SECONDARY EFFECTS”. As the EIR stands now, we are making it known to you that we are unable to do this. Response 21‐f: The commenter’s opinions regarding the specificity and clarity of the Draft EIR are noted. Please see Topical Response on Ability to Comprehend Draft EIR in Section 2.2.7 and Response 21‐c, above. This is a project level EIR, and not a zoning ordinance or General Plan EIR, and accordingly, the quoted discussion of secondary effects in CEQA Guideline 15146 is inapplicable. Comment 21‐g: 15147, Technical Detail The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public. Placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐118 February 2022 Again, to our points noted. The technical data presented in the body of the DEIR is not summarized or organized in such a manner as to allow for the understanding of the general reader. Response 21‐g: The commenter’s opinions regarding the clarity of the technical data in the Draft EIR are noted. Please see Topical Response on Ability to Comprehend Draft EIR in Section 2.2.7, and Response 21‐c, above. Comment 21‐h: In summary, from the CEQA Guidelines... “The DEIR serves as a p ublic disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the Project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects”. This is the framework that we looked forward to and expected to receive when the DEIR was released, nearly two weeks ago. In essence, the proclamation of “no negative effects” is evident throughout the document, but the information that is provided within the document to support those conclusions regarding the DEIR categories is virtually undecipherable to us. This is not fair. There is a timed “Process” underway and we are the residents who will be impacted by this Project. We require transparency please. We require a complete understanding of exactly what is impacting us and how. Any mitigation measures presented must make sense. If we, the general public, cannot understand the DEIR, how can we possibly respond accordingly in the manner required of us? Conjecture and opinions will carry no weight. We respectfully request that this DRAFT EIR be retracted and replaced. The replacement document should be created with the following in mind ‐ it should be reasonable in length, with clear and concise language, and without unnecessary repetition. This would allow for “rapid” understanding by readers, and thus it would be in alignment with the CEQA guidelines. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Response 21‐h: The commenter’s concerns are noted. Responses have been provided in Responses 21‐b through 21‐ g, above. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐119 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 22: Derek Wong/Bridgette & Phil Novak Date: July 3, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Please note that this comment letter was originally addressed to members of the City Council, in response to a newspaper article in the Desert Sun. However, because the letter was received during the EIR comment period, it has been treated as a comment on the EIR, and a response is provided below. Please also note that the allegations and accusations made by the commenter regarding the professionalism of project consultants and the applicant are not a subject for this Response to Comments, and will not be addressed here. Comment 22‐a: As concerned Andalusia homeowners, we were very disappointed in the July 1 Desert Sun article by Sherry Barkas, “Study: Surf park would have little noise impact”. Response 22‐a: The comment is noted. The commenter’s additional comments are addressed in the following responses. Comment 22‐b: Please consider these concerns and plan future articles accordingly. 1. Please do not state one side’s opinion as a headline (it misleads readers...who will think it is a conclusion...instead of a self‐promoting opinion based on highly questionable information by the developers and their consultants). Response 22‐b: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see Response 19‐b as it relates to recycled water use. Comment 22‐c: 2. We have concerns about the neutrality of the firm – MSA Consulting in Rancho Mirage – hired to conduct the EIR. They seem to have an extremely close relationship with Meriweather, the developers of the proposed Coral Mountain project. Shouldn't the Sun be certain that there is no conflict of interest going on here before becoming an unwitting spreader of their biased, profit‐motivated position? Please research MSA to see if they have ever produced EIRs with findings unfavorable to the developer’s side. Response 22‐c: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐120 February 2022 The Draft EIR analyses and findings are based on technical studies prepared by technical experts. The methodologies used in the technical reports and EIR analysis are based on established professional standards and thresholds established to satisfy CEQA requirements. The Draft EIR was prepared under the direction of the City of La Quinta which is the Lead Agency. The EIR has been prepared to meet the City’s requirements, regardless of the preparer. Comment 22‐d: 3. The “findings” your reporter cites from the EIR are curiously similar to/almost mirror reflections of Meriweather's pro‐development, pre‐EIR claims. Therefore, we suggest you (or a Sun reporter) ask the City Planner Nicole Sauviat Criste for copies of the incredibly well‐researched and well‐informed complaints about the project that dozens of local citizens have submitted. These letters should help you gain a more critical, less naive stance toward the EIR's contentions and expose you to the seriousness of many of the issues surrounding this project. The letters will also provide you with the names of some local citizen experts you can contact for further elucidation. Response 22‐d: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Public comments, both opposing and supporting the project, are included in the Notice of Preparation (NOP) as Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Letters received by the City during the EIR comment period are presented herein, along responses as required by CEQA. Comment 22‐e: 4. PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS whenever Meriweather or MSA make claims (don’t just take their word for everything). For instance: a. Meriweather/MSA claims the project will use “less water than a golf course”. Really? Most desert golf courses use recycled or gray water. A surfpark/wave basin must use fresh water since human beings will be swimming in it. And are they honestly including the amount of water that will be used by the project’s planned single‐family homes, villas/hotel rooms, restaurants, planned grocery store, spa/fitness facilities, showers/stalls for surfers, landscaping, continuously needing to refill the wave basin, etc.? We have NOT seen any of those figures. So their “comparisons” of their project vs. a golf‐ course/home project should not be trusted. Response 22‐e: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3. Contrary to the commenter’s assertions, Section 2.0, Water Demands, on pages 20 to 24 of the WSA/WSV provides a full discussion and associated tables listing the water use for all project components. The WSA/WSV is included as Appendix M of the Draft EIR. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐121 February 2022 Additional analysis of water resources is also provided in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. Sections 4.9 and 4.15 provide a complete and thorough analysis of project‐related water consumption. Comment 22‐f: b. Meriweather/MSA claims that the project will have “less than significant” impacts on water quality, usage and depletion of groundwater supplies. DID YOU ASK ABOUT EVAPORATION...from an 18‐ million gallon wave basin sitting in the desert sun...and how much water they will have to use to continuously refill it? Response 22‐f: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3, and Response 15.c, above. Comment 22‐g: c. Meriweather/MSA claims the wave basin’s LIGHTS will “only impact a small area of the scenic vista”. Really? Have you seen the video from one of the night events held at Kelly Slater’s Surfpark in Leemore? Look here ‐ BEST Wave Pool Experience EVER! Kelly Slater Surf Ranch w/ Casey Neistat– (START AT 34:25) ‐ and then tell us that Coral Mountain’s seventeen 80‐foot‐tall light towers will not be intrusive! PLEASE GET SERIOUS ABOUT THE LIGHT POLLUTION THIS PROJECT WILL CREATE. They’ve already admitted the wave basin will operate until 10pm year‐round...and probably later during their special events. How would you like that kind of lit‐up amusement feature in your backyard...every day...from 7am to 10pm?!?!? It will be a MAJOR DISRUPTOR to all the nearby residents...who bought homes in surrounding communities for the peace and quiet currently afforded here. La Quinta prides itself on its starry, desert night sky!!! These outrageous light poles will create too much light...and negatively impact the night sky... for all the surrounding communities. And will be a MAJOR blight against the nearby mountains! Response 22‐g: The commenter’s opinions are noted. The discussion on pages 4.1‐22 – 4.1‐44 and 4.1‐60 – 4.1‐70 (Section 4.1, Aesthetics) of the Draft EIR analyzes the impacts of the proposed 80‐foot light fixtures. In addition, please see the Topical Response on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1. Comment 22‐h: d. Local experts claim that the proposed development – specifically the carving out of an 18‐million gallon wave basin and the constant shaking created by the wave‐making motors and the continuous hard pounding into the earth of the waves as they crash ‐‐ could have geologically and seismologically negative effects on the soil around Coral Mountain. There are also concerns about the damage an earthquake could cause to an 18‐million gallon wave basin and the surrounding communities. PLEASE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐122 February 2022 COVER THIS ANGLE. You will see scientific data about these concerns in the letters submitted to the City that we referenced above. We can also provide you with experts to talk to about these issues. Response 22‐h: The commenter’s concerns are noted. The commenter does not, however, provide any substantial evidence that the proposed project will result in either a greater number of earthquakes or geological impacts. The commenter defers evidence to unnamed experts. As stated in the Draft EIR, page 4.6‐ 16, the proposed Wave Basin will be constructed to meet all seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code in force at the time that building permits are secured. These impacts are analyzed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, and include specific discussion of a number of seismic hazards and soils hazards, including groundshaking, subsidence, lateral spreading, ground failure (including liquefaction), soil erosion, unstable soils, and expansive soils. The Draft EIR also analyzed the potential hazards associated with seismically induced tsunami or seiche in Section 4.6. This analysis, supported by a comprehensive analysis by a registered geologist provided in Appendix G of the Draft EIR, resulted in a determination that impacts associated with geological hazards will be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO‐1 through GEO‐3. Impacts associated with earthquakes are correctly analyzed in the Draft EIR to be less than significant with the implementation of these mitigation measures. Comment 22‐i: e. Meriweather claims NOISE impacts will be “less than significant during construction...and once the project is completed and the wave basin is operating”. Oh really?!? Ask any resident of Andalusia about the amount of noise that is heard from minor construction projects at the IID building on Avenue 58 – e.g., repaving their parking lot, putting on a new roof. All their projects reverberate and are heard loudly...along with the back‐up beeping of all the trucks involved...throughout the Andalusia community. And these are MINOR projects – nothing like the building of homes, restaurants, a hotel, a huge wave basin, and surrounding support facilities. GET SERIOUS PLEASE! f. And what about NOISE once the project is completed? How was “less than significant” determined? This is crazy! The wave basin will operate NON‐STOP from 7am to 10pm DAILY! LOUD MECHANICAL NOISE is part of the wave‐producing machines...along with the constant back & forth of jet skis to transport surfer‐customers... and the PA system announcing the next waves and playing music. GET SERIOUS PLEASE! This project will be a MAJOR NOISE PRODUCER! g. Another consultant obviously in cahoots with Meriweather is called Urban Crossroads. They submitted this ludicrous claim to the EIR – “The mountain is more likely to absorb rather than deflect sounds from the wave basin during normal use and special events”. Again...ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Coral Mountain is a natural rock amphitheater...sounds that are made in its environs bounce off its walls and echo into surrounding communities. JUST ASK THE HOMEOWNER who lives at Avenue 60 and Madison. She can hear hikers at the base of Coral Mountain...and you don’t think noises created 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐123 February 2022 by a major machinery‐driven wave‐pounding water‐sports basin...with loudspeakers all around...and jet skis revving... will be heard? This has not been studied properly!!! And again...we ask...since you are the community’s journalistic outlet…to investigate Urban Crossroads. ALL of its clients are cities and homebuilders. They are NOT going to say anything that would derail the development or upset their clients. WHO IS WORKING on behalf of the surrounding taxpaying homeowners? Clearly not the City... which obviously wants this development! Response 22‐i: The commenter’s questions are noted. The commenter, however, provides opinion and not substantial evidence that the project will result in substantially greater noise impacts than those analyzed. Please see the Noise Topical Response in Section 2.2.4. Discussion a. in Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR analyzes the impacts of construction‐related and operational noise generated by the proposed project. Impacts of project‐generated noise was analyzed by a professional noise engineer, and the findings are thoroughly discussed in Section 4.11. The level of impact has been correctly identified, and mitigation measures provided to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Comment 22‐j: h. Meriweather says it will hold four events per year attracting approx. 2,500 attendees each. And they have the chutzpah to say that the project will have “no significant impact on surrounding intersections”?!? Really?? So they do not plan to make any changes to the existing intersections...which are rural/low‐density/residential...at Avenue 58 and Madison...or Avenue 60 and Madison? There are just Stop signs at all these surrounding intersections. And the developer is not planning to make any contributions to improving traffic control or noise issues that will result from the project or their large events? We repeat...this is a LOW‐DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL neighborhood...which should NOT be changed. Response 22‐j: The comment is incorrect. As provided in Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR, pages 4.13‐ 29 – 4.13‐38, a number of intersection improvements are required at each phase of development to address deficits in acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) both with and without the project. As correctly identified in the Draft EIR, at pages 4.13‐42 – 4.13‐49, the traffic impacts associated with special events are fully disclosed, and mitigation measures included to assure that the impacts of special events are reduced to less than significant levels. It is also noted, on Tables 4.13‐19, 4.13‐21, and 4.13‐ 23 and pages 4.13‐28 through 4.13‐42 of Section 4.13, that a number of intersections currently or in the future will operate at unacceptable LOS without the project, indicating that current development and planned future development other than the proposed project have impacted and will continue to impact area roadways, regardless of whether the proposed project is constructed. The needed improvements are provided in the City’s Capital Improvement Program, as discussed on page 4.13‐ 50, which is the appropriate mechanism used by cities throughout California to plan for and 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐124 February 2022 implement traffic improvement. Finally, and consistent with professional practices in the analysis of traffic impacts associated with specific projects, the Draft EIR analyzes and discloses that the project will be directly responsible for: Phase 1 Improvements: Improvements to Avenue 58, Madison Street, Avenue 60, and project access points, and the project’s fair share contributions toward planned traffic signals and related improvements at 5 area intersections as identified in Table 4.13‐20 (see pages 4.13‐29 – 4.13‐33 of Draft EIR). Phase 2 Improvements: Same physical improvements as specified for Phase 1, plus increased fair share contributions toward planned traffic signals and related improvements at 6 area intersections as identified in Table 4.13‐22 (see pages 4.13‐34 – 4.13‐37 of Draft EIR). Phase 3 Improvements: Same physical improvements as specified for Phase 1, plus installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Madison St. and Avenue 58, and increased fair share contributions toward planned traffic signals at nine other intersections as identified in table 4,13‐24 (see pages 4.13‐37 – 4.13‐41 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, the Draft EIR has analyzed and identified intersection improvements required with and without the proposed project, quantified the level of impact, and proposed mitigation measures which will effectively mitigate those impacts, whether these measures are the City’s or the project’s responsibility. Comment 22‐k: Once again, the Coral Mountain property is zoned for “neighborhood commercial, low‐density residential and golf course” for a reason. And this zoning is part of the La Quinta General Plan...so any change should require much broader buy‐in...from taxpaying homeowners and businesses...instead of just Meriweather and its consultants! Please do your due diligence for ALL future stories on this topic! Response 22‐k: This commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see Responses 15‐d, 17‐a and 17‐c. Comment 22‐l: You should also push back when told...or when you come across language...that refers to something as “less than significant”... or “more likely”. Meriweather/MSA/Urban Crossroads use incredibly VAGUE language. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE when discussing such serious, life‐changing concerns for those of us who live next door to this property! And the City/citizens/journalistic outlets should NOT let them get away with it! What do those terms mean? Compared to what? Show us the numbers/actual measurements! Response 22‐l: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐125 February 2022 The commenter’s opinions are noted. He does not, however, provide substantial evidence of a deficiency in the EIR’s analysis or conclusions in any environmental issue area. Comment 22‐m: And while you’re at it… please talk to Air, Noise, Water, Planning experts about the ridiculousness of FOUR Water/surf parks being constructed in the middle of the desert! These are incredibly non‐ sustainable projects ‐ in an era of water restrictions, air‐health quality concerns, traffic issues, etc! Please start covering this issue more seriously. The Coachella Valley does NOT need four of these parks! And shouldn’t the desert cities get together to support the one or two that will be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC and provide income to all the communities...instead of supporting one that will be highly exclusive/private and JUST benefit the developer (as Coral Mountain would)!! Response 22‐m: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Discussions regarding cumulative impacts are provided in the Draft EIR on pages 4.2‐41 – 4.2‐42 as they relate to air quality, pages 4.15‐34 – 4.15‐35 as they relate to water supplies, pages 4.10‐30 – 4.10‐31 as they relate to planning, pages 4.11‐51 – 4.11‐54 as they relate to noise, and pages 4.13‐57 – 4.13‐61 as they relate to traffic. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐126 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 23: Bobbie Fleury Date: July 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 23‐a: Contrary to what some may believe, I am not anti‐development concerning the Coral Mt. Resort. In fact, I have no issues with this parcel of land being approved for homes, a hotel and restaurant, hiking and biking trails, and perhaps even have the developer throw in a 9 hole putt‐putt course for fun ‐ on fake grass! Response 23‐a: Comment noted. Comment 23‐b: However, I am extremely opposed to the current request for a zoning change to accommodate what amounts to an amusement park for out‐of‐towners in the middle of residential communities, and especially a park whose main feature is an 18 million gallon water guzzling ditch that will continuously be draining our fresh water from the aquifer due to evaporation in our hot, dry, climate. I also have to wonder if anyone at Meriwether realizes that the water in the wave pool will be uncomfortably hot for about 4 months out of the year and therefore not much fun to surf in. It's why many don't use their pools in the summer. Response 23‐b: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Regarding water consumption, please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3, as well as Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. Project‐related water consumption is determined to result in less than significant impacts as stated in the Draft EIR because there are adequate water supplies available for the project and all other existing and planned future uses in the subbasin area, and because the project will not interfere with CVWD’s ongoing groundwater management efforts. These conclusions were made pursuant to the project‐specific Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) approved by CVWD, as required by the State law. The WSA/WSV is included in the Draft EIR as Appendix M. The commenter’s opinion regarding the temperature of the water in the summer months is noted. Comment 23‐c: This According to the recently released draft EIR, most of what is planned for the site won't have any "significant" impact on the surrounding environment. That's like saying someone is "slightly" 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐127 February 2022 pregnant! The developer ‐ Meriwether Co. ‐ hired the people who did the DEIR. Are we supposed to believe that their report is totally OBJECTIVE? Response 23‐c: The commenter’s opinion is noted. The Draft EIR is a document prepared by the City of La Quinta, since they are the lead agency under CEQA. It is based on professionally prepared technical reports and analyses which meet the requirements of CEQA. Please also see Response 22‐c. Comment 23‐d: The developer continues to cite that the wave won't use more water than a golf course, while ignoring the fact that more and more courses have now gone to non‐potable water, something that cannot be done with the surf park. For our City Council to approve the rezoning so this can proceed is unconscionable especially in light of La Quinta's own land and water use guidelines. Just like Slater did in Lemoore, where the wave park is in the middle of empty land, that's where this should go ‐ and not in our desert where water use is of critical importance. Considering that California is back into a drought situation, if the developer has a conscious, or any inkling of being environmentally sensitive, they should pull back their request for the wave portion of their plans. Response 23‐d: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3, as well as Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. Also see Response 19‐b as it relates to the use on potable vs. non‐potable water. As it relates to the proposed change of zone, please see Responses 15‐d, 17‐a and 17‐c. The commenter’s opinion regarding the location and components of the project is noted. Comment 23‐e: And I would hope, that when it comes before you for a vote, your answer will be "no." Thank you for your consideration. Response 23‐d: This comment is noted. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐128 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 24: Agnes Collins Date: July 7, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 24‐a: We, the La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development, are sending this letter to express our concerns regarding the Draft EIR that was released for Coral Mountain Resort. At the outset, we wish to say that this document is beyond comprehension for the average resident of La Quinta. The DRAFT EIR (DEIR) is not in keeping with the 2021 CEQA Statute and Guidelines https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf, particularly those laid out in Article 10. Considerations in Preparing EIRs and Negative Declarations, as laid out here: Response 24‐a: The comment is noted. The contents of the letter are virtually identical to comment letter number 21. Where the letters are the same, reference is made to the appropriate Response in comment letter 21. Comment 24‐b: 15140. Writing EIRs shall be written in plain language and may use appropriate graphics so that decision makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents. This document is replete with redundancy ‐ paragraphs and statements, obviously boilerplate, are inserted and reinserted throughout the document into various categories, where not necessary or where summaries might have been acceptable. We do see the summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures TABLE 1‐3. While this summary is useful, the background Information regarding each Section MUST be presented in a manner that a reader can understand. The DEIR fails in this regard. Response 24‐b: Please see Response 21‐c. Comment 24‐c: 15141. Page Limits 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐129 February 2022 The text of draft EIRs should normally be less than 150 pages and for proposals of unusual scope or complexity should normally be less than 300 pages. This statement speaks for itself. The DRAFT EIR is well over 700 pages, not including Appendices. This document is unnecessarily LARGE, primarily as a result of the way it is written ‐ we refer you back to 15140 above. Response 24‐c: Please see Response 21‐d. Comment 24‐d: 15145. Speculation If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should not its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. The intrusiveness on the surrounding residential communities with, by way of example but not limited to, the: Lights (including multiple 80‐foot towers and commercial glare from buildings and parking lots) Noise (during operation, and that associated with Special Events), and Aesthetics (impacts on the views of Coral Mountain) As presented in the DEIR with the pretext of supportive “scientific studies/analysis”, is difficult to even read let alone understand, and therefore to allow for our interpretation. We are of the opinion that the declared “negative” impacts of the above in particular are essentially speculative and should be acknowledged as such. The failure to do this greatly concerns us and many residents that we have talked with regarding the DEIR. The phrase that comes to mind, no disrespect intended, is “smoke and mirrors”. This speaks to our concern about the credibility of the some of the information presented in the document. Response 24‐d: Please see Response 21‐e. Comment 24‐e: 15146. Degree of Specificity The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐130 February 2022 An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow. We are of the opinion that the “details” of the DEIR obscure the focus on the secondary effects of the Project – in other words, we as the readers, cannot see the “forest for the trees” and therefore have trouble understanding exactly what it is that the DEIR is trying to say. Every attempt should have been made in the DRAFT EIR to ensure, going back to 15140 above, to ensure that the information contained is “rapidly understood” by the reader. We would have liked to stand back upon receipt of the EIR and, after reading, say “WE MAY NOT AGREE... BUT WE DO UNDERSTAND THE SECONDARY EFFECTS”. As the EIR stands now, we are making it known to you that we are unable to do this. Response 24‐e: Please see Response 21‐f. Comment 24‐f: 15147. Technical Detail The information contained in the EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public. Placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR. Again, to our points noted. The technical data presented in the body of the DEIR is not summarized or organized in such a manner as to allow for the understanding of the general reader. Response 24‐f: Please see Responses 21‐g. Comment 24‐g: In summary, from the CEQA Guidelines... “The DEIR serves as a p ublic disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the Project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects”. This is the framework that we looked forward to and expected to receive when the DEIR was released, nearly two weeks ago. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐131 February 2022 In essence, the proclamation of “no negative effects “ is evident throughout the document, but the information that is provided within the document to support those conclusions regarding the DEIR categories is virtually undecipherable to us. This is not fair. There is a Imed “Process” underway and we are the residents who will be impacted by this Project. We require transparency please. We require a complete understanding of exactly what is impacting us and how. Any mitigation measures presented must make sense. If we, the general public, cannot understand the DEIR, how can we possibly respond accordingly in the manner required of us? Conjecture and opinions will carry no weight. We respectfully request that this DRAFT EIR be retracted and replaced. The replacement document should be created with the following in mind ‐ it should be reasonable in length, with clear and concise language, and without unnecessary repetition. This would allow for “rapid” understanding by readers, and thus it would be in alignment with the CEQA guidelines. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Response 24‐g: Please see Response 21‐h. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐132 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 25: Maggie Hamilton Date: July 8, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 25‐a: I am a concerned citizen of the desert and am opposed to building the Coral Mountain Resort. We are in a drought emergency and not only will water be necessary to build this Resort, but adding an 18 million gallon wave pool, too? Water evaporates. Where is this water coming from—the underground aquifer? We are in the middle of climate change. Temperatures are getting hotter every year. The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act—SGMA was adopted during California’s last drought. The law states that groundwater is a shared resource. I don’t believe sharing a finite resource with more million dollar homes, a four story hotel, and another wave pool in the desert is sustainable. I conserve water but yet see projects like these springing up all over the desert and wonder why I should do my part? Response 25‐a: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3, as well as Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR for discussion of project‐related water consumption. Information on evaporation is provided on pages 22‐24 of the WSA/WSV, attached as Appendix M to the Draft EIR. Information on the source of water for the project is provided on page 26 of the WSA/WSV and pages 2‐22 – 2‐23 of the Topical Responses above. Information on climate change planning is provided in the Topical Response on pages 2‐23 – 2‐26, which is directly taken from the document that CVWD prepared in response and as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The commenter’s concerns are noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐133 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 26: Ilona Sala Date: July 8, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 26‐a: I concur with the letter written to the planning committee of the ridiculous length and unfriendly wording in the Coral Mountain proposal. If the people cannot who are going to be most affected by this super project are not given a document that can be understood by them, it ought not be written as such. Don’t make this similar to what the Washington bourgeoisie do and write a book size document filled with legaleze and vote before the document has been decimated and understood by the proletariats who pay taxes but stand to lose. Response 26‐a: Please see the Topical Response on the Ability to Comprehend Draft EIR in Section 2.2.7. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐134 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 27: Judy Carey Date: July 9, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 27‐a: I am a full time desert and La Quinta city resident, and have been here 37 years. I am Opposed to the building of the Coral Mountain Resort with it's proposed 18 million gallon wave pool, 4 story hotel, and many new homes. We are living in a drought Again, and with climate change happening it seems irresponsible to think that such a project which would require so much of an Important resource would even be considered. According to the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, groundwater is a "shared resource", and therefore this finite resource needs to be used appropriately. Water from our aquifer needs to be used in a sustainable and justifiable manner. Drinking water, water for crops, plants and gardens seems more important than a wave pool! Think of the evaporation factor alone. I do my part with water conservation, shouldn't we ALL be doing the same? Response 27‐a: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3, and Response 25‐a. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐135 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 28: Kelly Welton Date: July 10, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 28‐a: My name is Kelly Welton and my fiancé and I live in Trilogy. We moved here in Feb 2020. Tired of Los Angeles and Orange counties’ traffic and noise, we were lured to La Quinta by the open mountains, sightings of Bighorn sheep, and the quiet beauty of all the visible stars. Response 28‐a: The comment is noted. Comment 28‐b: We are VERY opposed to the proposed “Coral Mountain" wave park. We strongly urge you not to approve any zoning variances that would allow this project to go forward. The proposed variances effectively allow the equivalent of commercial‐scale traffic, noise, lights, and pollution in a high density residential area. We understand the property will be developed someday, but when we considered and ultimately purchased our retirement home, we never dreamed the zoning could change from residential with golf course to amusement park so quickly and so quietly. Response 28‐b: The commenter incorrectly characterizes the proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone as variances. No variances are proposed. As it relates to the processing of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, please see Responses 15‐d, 17‐a and 17‐c. The comments opinion regarding additional lights, noise and traffic, are noted, but not supported by evidence or fact. However, it is correct that when compared to the existing condition of the site, which is undeveloped and vacant, the proposed project will introduce light, noise, and vehicular traffic into the area. The Draft EIR analyzes project‐related impacts to lights, noise, and traffic, in compliance with CEQA. These topics are discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Section 4.11, Noise, and Section 4.13, Transportation, (respectively) in the Draft EIR. Findings and conclusions regarding project impacts were based on technical studies and plans prepared by topic experts. Please also see the Topical Responses on Light and Glare at Section 2.2.1, Noise at Section 2.2.4, and Traffic at Section 2.2.5, above. Comment 28‐c: Why jeopardize our “Gem of the Desert” reputation? 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐136 February 2022 And, to be frank, the Environmental Impact Report seems to have been prepared by the developers rather than by neutral third parties. This truly is the wrong project in the wrong place. I believe you have a responsibility to the residents of La Quinta, at the very least to acknowledge our efforts and listen to our concerns. We seem to have been ‘brushed aside’ whenever voicing our concerns for this project. Please, we urge you to fully consider the impact this development will have on La Quinta, all of La Quinta, to the ends of the city limits. Response 28‐c: The commenter’s concerns are noted. Please see Response 22‐c as it relates to the preparation of the EIR, and Responses 15‐d, 17‐a and 17‐c as it relates to the approval process for the project. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐137 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 29: Mike Charles Date: July 11, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 29‐a: Please make MSA redo the Draft EIR so we can all understand what is being said as it pertains to the Wavepark proposal. Personally, I have spent hours trying to come to some understanding of what is being said or referenced. I simple cannot understand their research or early conclusions. I have given up as well as many others who have sought out help for same reason. The general public has a right to understand this document. The city has a similar obligation per Ca statute to make this document readable and understandable to the average resident. I personally have asked two land use attorneys for help in the matter and they have reached the same conclusion. If the goal by MSA is to complicate and confuse the general public then they have succeeded. In order to move forward this document needs to be understood. Unbelievable that this even needs to be brought forward. Response 29‐a: Please see the Topical Response on the Ability to Comprehend Draft EIR in Section 2.2.7. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐138 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 30: Dorothy Dupree Date: July 12, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 30‐a: I am writing to let you know my objection to the proposed development of the Coral Mountain Resort. I have lived in La Quinta since 1972 and have seen some good development in La Quinta and some bad. Unfortunately highway 111 has some terrible and unnecessary development, ie car lots and big box stores. Response 30‐a: Comment noted. Comment 30‐b: There are many things to consider when planning a city. It is extremely important to consider the environmental impact of a development. With global warming and droughts in California it is responsible for the city to consider how a development would impact our water resources. The idea of having an 18 million gallon wave pool, a four story hotel and million dollar homes is not environmentally responsible. Please deny the application of this development and save our water resources. Response 30‐b: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3, as well as Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems in the Draft EIR. Climate change and drought is addressed in Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3, which describes the CVWD’s long range planning in conformance to SGMA. That analysis shows that CVWD has included both climate change and drought in its water planning, and has concluded that it has sufficient resources under these conditions. As it relates to the City’s review and approval or denial of the project, please see Responses 15‐d, 17‐ a and 17‐c. The commenter’s opinions are noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐139 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 31: Kenneth Jones Date: July 12, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 31‐a: I send this letter to express significant objections regarding the Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR. Response 31‐a: Comment noted. Comment 31‐b: In brief, the subject document fails to comport with CEQA 2021 Guidelines: https://www.califaep.org/statuteandguidelines.php The subject document is 5x the volume stated in CEQA guidelines. As such the purpose and intent of the guidelines are rendered impossible of performance. Response 31‐b: Please see the Topical Response on Length of Draft EIR at Section 2.2.6. Comment 31‐c: The current document is ‐ in my opinion ‐ an affront to the audience for which it is intended. A reasonable person may ask why the developer and its agents sought to avalanche the audience with such a grossly over‐written, unnecessarily complicated document. Response 31‐c: Please see the Ability to Comprehend Draft EIR Topical Response in Section 2.2.7. The Draft EIR was written to disclose all of the project components and technical methodologies utilized in order to comply with CEQA standards. Comment 31‐d: Redundancies are pervasive throughout the document. Such writing techniques are experience‐ proven methods to confuse, obfuscate and discourage the audience from accomplishing a complete read. One wonders why the developer and its agents would adopt this communications approach for a project they know to be controversial and objectionable to many. Response 31‐d: The Draft EIR is a document published by the City of La Quinta, as the CEQA Lead Agency, for public review. The purpose of the Draft EIR is not meant to confuse, obfuscate, or discourage the public. The 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐140 February 2022 purpose of the Draft EIR is to provide the public with project components, facts, and analysis of the proposed project and its potential impacts on the environment, per CEQA Guideline thresholds. Redundant language throughout the Draft EIR is required to comply with formatting suggested by CEQA and to ensure that all potentially significant impacts and measures to reduce or avoid those impacts are fully analyzed and disclosed to the public. Comment 31‐e: I respectfully request the subject DRAFT EIR be withdrawn. Further, I ask that the City of La Quinta respect and observe CEQA guidelines in publishing a replacement DRAFT EIR. In doing so, readers would have opportunity to absorb and comprehend contents presented in clear, concise, everyday terms ‐ as intended by CEQA. A corollary benefit would accrue to the City of La Quinta in the form of reader audience appreciation for transparency. Your consideration of my request is appreciated. Thank you. Response 31‐e: The commenter’s request is noted. However, as described in the Length of the Draft EIR Topical Response in Section 2.2.6, and the Ability to Comprehend the EIR Topical Response in Section 2.2.7, the document is correctly written and its length is required to address all of the potential impacts associated with a complex project. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐141 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 32: Brenda Vatland Date: July 12, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 32‐a: I am sending this letter to express my concerns regarding the Draft EIR that was released for Coral Mountain Resort. Response 32‐a: Comment noted. Comment 32‐b: This document is not in keeping with the CEQA 2021 Guidelines https://www.califaep.org/statute_and_guidelines.php It is too long. The CEQA guidelines stipulate that the document for a project should be no more than 300 pages. Response 32‐b: Please see the Length of the Draft EIR Topical Response in Section 2.2.6. Comment 32‐c: It is not “rapidly understood” as required by the CEQA guidelines, again due in part to its length, but particularly due to redundancy and repetition. Response 32‐c: Please see the Ability to Comprehend the Draft EIR Topical Response in Section 2.2.7. Comment 32‐d: I respectfully request that this DRAFT EIR be retracted and reissued. The replacement document should be created with the following in mind ‐ it should be reasonable in length, with clear and concise language, and without unnecessary repetition. This would allow for “rapid” understanding by readers, and thus it would be in alignment with the CEQA guidelines. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Response 32‐d: Please see Response 31‐e. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐142 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 33: Dave Wiezel Date: July 12, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 33‐a: We are sending this email to express our concerns regarding the Draft EIR that was submitted for Coral Mountain Resort recently. Response 33‐a: Comment noted. Comment 33‐b: The document, as currently submitted, is not in keeping with the CEQA 2021 Guidelines, as specified at: https://www.califep.org/statute_and_guidelines.php. Most significantly: ‐It is too long. The CEQA guidelines stipulate that the document for a project should be no more than 300 pages. Response 33‐b: Please see the Length of Draft EIR Topical Response in Section 2.2.6. Comment 33‐c: ‐It is not "rapidly understood" as required by the CEQA guidelines, again due in part to its length, but particularly due to redundancy and repetition. Response 33‐c: Please see the Ability to Comprehend the Draft EIR Topical Response in Section 2.2.7. Comment 33‐d: We respectfully request that this DRAFT EIR be retracted and reissued in compliance with the CEQA 2021 Guidelines. Additionally, the consultants and report preparers should be required to provide clear and verifiable supporting data for every issue of concern. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Response 33‐d: Please see Response 31‐e. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐143 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 34: Diane Rebryna (2) Date: July 13, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 34‐a: Thank you for your email of this morning, July 13, 2021 with your explanation as to why the current DEIR (also “the Document”) will not be retracted and reissued, and advising us that accordingly there would be NO extension beyond the August 6, 2021 date for comments. Perhaps the City has “carefully and thoroughly reviewed the proposed Project”, but I believe that you are missing the point of my request. Please understand that while a complex Project such as this requires analysis from the City’s perspective, it must also be presented in such a manner to allow for a detailed analysis by the public and also allow for “rapid understanding”. I would again like to state that the document in its present format does not provide for this, mostly due to its length, repetitiveness and redundancy. I will not repeat again the reasoning behind our initial request of July 2, 2021. I gather from your email that you feel that the document is “not unduly scientific or complex”. For reasons that I will not go into, I respectfully disagree; however the purpose of my response herein is not to argue. Response 34‐a: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see the Ability to Comprehend the Draft EIR Topical Response in Section 2.2.7. Comment 34‐b: I do propose a compromise please, particularly with respect to the Sections in Chapter 4. Environmental Impact Analysis. I would like to see the 5 following items considered: Response 34‐b: Comment noted. Please see Responses 34‐c through 34‐h, which directly address the commenter’s individual requests. Comment 34‐c: 1. An expanded Table of Contents for Chapter 4. ***These 15 Sections are essential the “meat and potatoes” of the DRAFT EIR As the document stands, the Table of Contents for a 700 plus page Document is not at all helpful. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐144 February 2022 By way of example, in the Section regarding Aesthetics (4.1) wh ich comprises 73 pages (4.1.1‐ 4.1.72), I note 6 Subsections. These are: 4.1.1 Introduction, 4.1.2 Existing Conditions, 4.1.3 Regulatory Setting, 4.1.4 Project Impact Analysis 4.1.5 Cumulative Impacts, and 4.1.6 Mitigation Measures However, when I go to the Table of Contents, I see ONLY “4.1 Aesthetics” referencing the entire 73 page. I ask please ‐ why would the Sections relevant to each Chapter not be included? ‐ please see 2. below. Response 34‐c: The commenter’s suggestion is noted. Including the subsection page numbers in the Table of Contents is not required under CEQA, nor would it change the findings within the Draft EIR. Comment 34‐d: 2. Inclusion of the Subsections and Tables in the Table of Contents ‐ with numbers, letters and bullets as appropriate and appropriately cross referenced to pages in the Document. It is the subsections that pose an issue for the average reader such as myself. For instance, when I proceed to go through Section 4.1.4 Project Impact Analysis, I note the following “Subsections” Thresholds of Significance Methodology Proposed Project Character and Development Standards PAI PA II PA III PA IV Circulation Design Guidelines Planning Area I ‐ Neighborhood Commercial Materials Planning Area II ‐ Low Density Residential Materials Massing and Scale 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐145 February 2022 Architecture Planning Area III ‐ Tourist Commercial Materials Massing and Scale Architecture Planning Area III ‐ Tourist Commercial Offsite Infrastructure Project Impacts a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Location “A” Location “B” ….. all in different fonts, different sizes, some italics, some not, non indented, etc.; and these are in only the first 25 pages of the 73 for this Section! I believe that you can see where I am going with this “illustration” above. This is not an easily readable document, but in particular it is not an easy document to reference and therefore understand. My example refers to just Section 4.1.4 ‐ the layout therein is the same throughout the entire Document. From my particular perspective as I conduct my review, I found that I am required create my own “table of contents” for my ability to cross reference to allow for my understanding. Additionally, an expanded Table of Contents might allow me to gather data on a particular item ‐ for instance, the lighting. In one sub ‐ section, its says that towers are 80 feet high, in another it says that they will be lit from 7 AM ‐ 10 PM, in another it says that there will be 17 ‐ 80 foot towers. etc. If this data is NOT provided in one sub‐ section, then at least a Table of Contents as requested might be of help going forward. I can assure you that this is no easy task to begin to gather and assimilate this data ‐ as I attempt to provide an intelligent response to the Draft EIR. An expanded table of Contents with corresponding “lists” within the document itself would go a long way to helping me do this. Response 34‐d: The commenter’s opinions regarding the document format are noted. Please see Response 34‐c, as well as the Ability to Comprehend the Draft EIR Topical Response in Section 2.2.7. Comment 34‐e: 3. If it is possible, I would like the Document re‐issued as a “searchable” PDF with hyperlinks as required to the Appendices. Modern technology easily allows for this. Response 34‐e: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐146 February 2022 The commenter’s opinions are noted. The documents are searchable. All of the Appendices, as well as the Draft EIR, were available on the City’s website, at: https://www.laquintaca.gov/our‐city/city‐departments/design‐and‐development/planning‐ division/the‐wave‐at‐coral‐mountain Comment 34‐f: 4. I would like to see the entire Document proof read with respect to page numbers please. For instance, I see that Section 4.1 has pages marked 4.1 … whereas 4.2 has pages also marked 4.1, … ‐ instead of 4.2.X.… Simple proof reading would have caught this error ‐ I’m asking please that you have someone do this. That way, when I make my own notes to refer to, I am not going back through the document and unable able to find what I am looking for because I am dealing with errors in the page numbering system. Response 34‐f: Section 4.2, Air Quality, in the Draft EIR was incorrectly paginated. The commenter is correct, and the City apologizes for the error. The pagination of Section 4.2 is hereby corrected – please see Chapter 3.0, Revisions to the Draft EIR. This revision does not result in changes to the findings of the Draft EIR. Comment 34‐g: 5. I would like to see sub‐sections entitled CONCLUSIONS limited to ONE per Section, please. Too many of these have lead to my confusion on the topics therein. Response 34‐g: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Sections within the Draft EIR may include multiple conclusions due to the various components within the threshold discussion. For example, analysis of threshold c) in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, includes discussions of each Planning Area proposed for the project and their impact on scenic quality in the area. For this discussion topic, analysis of each Planning Area’s impact requires a conclusion to summarize the level of impact for that Planning Area. Therefore, this discussion results in multiple “conclusion” discussions, as do other topics with multiple components within a threshold discussion. The structure is appropriate and consistent with the requirements of CEQA for thorough analysis. Comment 34‐h: In closing, I wish to say that this Project is very complex and potentially impactful to the residents around it on so many levels. There are many aging residents who reside in retirement communities near this proposed Project. Many have invested their life savings in their forever homes and feel very afraid because they cannot fully understand what this Project entails. Many can no longer concentrate to the extent that they 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐147 February 2022 once could and are easily overwhelmed. Many are not computer savvy. Some have told me that they feel inadequate and even “stupid” when they admit that they cannot “understand” the DEIR when they try to read it. My reply to them as been that “I feel inadequate as well” when faced with such a lengthy and redundant document. You have indicated in your email today that redundancy “is required” for the completeness of the document. Thank you for this explanation as I now understand and accept that. However, and to that I would say … there should be extra attention on the City’s part then to ensure that as much detail is provided for the benefit of all readers in such a manner as to allow for complete understanding. The acknowledgement and implementation of my 5 comments above would go a long way to providing for this. Thank you for your kind consideration of my request. I look forward to hearing back from you. Response 34‐h: The commenter’s opinions and characterizations are noted. Please see the Ability to Comprehend the Draft EIR Topical Response at Section 2.2.7, and the Length of the Draft EIR Topical Response at Section 2.2.6. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐148 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 35: George Koenig Date: July 14, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 35‐a: 18 years ago my wife and I moved to La Quinta and have been delighted over these years for the move. During this time La Quinta has developed its commercial base in a logical and geographic manner and has maintained a wonderful residential environment. I was surprised at the proposed project of a water park at Coral Mountain, as discussed nicely in a recent article in the Desert Sun. I read the article, perused the project on‐line, obtained a bigger printout at City Hall, and drove to the site to view it. I was left with a number of questions. Response 35‐a: Comment noted. The commenter’s questions are addressed in Responses 35‐b through 35‐g below. Comment 35‐b: I believe the site was once part of the initial plans for Andalusia but was spun off as economically unfeasible. In fact I understand the developer – Drummond, a corporation with enormous financial reserves – has subsequently sold Andalusia as well. The site is roughly six miles from Citrus Plaza (Jefferson and 50) at the very end of Madison, a long way if one has forgotten a grocery item. If Andalusia failed to flourish one must wonder about the new proposal. The rationale for a new development of expensive homes is puzzling. Response 35‐b: The commenter’s opinions are noted. The comment does not raise any questions or concerns regarding environmental effects of the project, and for that reason, no further response is provided. Comment 35‐c: The entire length of Madison Avenue is full of high‐end residential developments. A major resort would be in sharp contrast to the environment surrounding it. Independent of the wave a hotel of any viable size would be completely out of place; issues to include building height and traffic. Response 35‐c: Please see Responses 15‐d, 17‐a and 17‐c. Project consistency with the General Plan is analyzed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR analyzed the project’s impacts on the surrounding scenic vistas when viewed from public viewpoints. For this discussion, line of sight exhibits and visual 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐149 February 2022 simulations were generated in order to determine the project components that may impact the public’s views of scenic resources. As shown on Exhibits 4.1‐4 through 4.1‐13, on pages 4.1‐29 through 4.1.38, and analyzed on pages 4.1‐22 through 4.1‐28, it was determined that the proposed hotel would not be visible from outside the project site. Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR fully analyzes project‐related traffic impacts of the proposed project, and provides mitigation measures proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Findings were generated based on technical studies performed by professional traffic engineers, and are included as Appendix L.1 and L.2 in the Draft EIR. Please also refer to the Topical Response on Traffic at Section 2.2.5. The commenter does not provide further detail regarding his traffic concerns, so it is not possible to provide additional detail in response to the comment. Comment 35‐d: This plan calls for a golf course. I think a number of golf courses are experiencing a decrease in use. The area is also surrounded by a number of courses – PGA, Silver Rock, and others. Who would be the market target for a new distant course is unclear. Response 35‐d: The commenter’s opinion is noted. The project allows potential use of golf facilities (e.g., par 3 course or putting green), however, the development of a full‐size golf course is not proposed for the project. Comment 35‐e: Although the proposal for WAVE phenomenon’s sound abatement is discussed, it seems likely that such a feature is likely to be noisy – whatever good intentions of the builder. Since it is unlikely that the immediate neighborhood would use the structure, one must assume that the users would not be local, more likely a youthful and loud group. How this would sit with the owners of expensive homes immediately adjacent would surely affect their sales prospects. Response 35‐e: The commenter’s opinions regarding the users of the Wave Basin and the marketability of the project are noted. Please see the Topical Response on Noise at Section 2.2.4, and Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR. In addition, a Noise Study was complete for the proposed project by a professional noise engineer using state and local methodologies to determine whether project development and operation would result in significant impacts. The findings concluded that impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. As described on pages 4.11‐47 to 4.11‐50, the noise levels during operation of the Wave Basin are estimated at 64.5 dBA at receptor location P10, located immediately adjacent to the Wave Basin in the Tourist Commercial planning area. The combined noise level from the project and ambient noise levels at the off‐site location nearest the Wave Basin (location R7) are estimated at 58.2 dBA, which reflects an increase of 0.3 dBA over existing ambient noise levels (see Table 4.11‐26 on page 4.11‐49 of the Draft EIR). These noise levels will not exceed 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐150 February 2022 City standards or the thresholds of significance described on pages 4.11‐47 through 4.11‐49, and shown on Tables 4.11‐25 and 4.11‐26, and explained in greater detail in Section 4 of the Noise Study attached as Appendix K.1 of the Draft EIR. The conclusion of the Draft EIR that the noise impacts of daily operations will be less than significant are correctly characterized in the Draft EIR. Comment 35‐f: The Desert Sun noted 3 other water park developments underway or about to begin development. All three would not only compete for a limited market but would be located in far more convenient locations for prospective customers – remembering the really isolated site under consideration. How the Coral Mountain wave would attract customers is surely unclear. Response 35‐f: The commenter’s opinions are noted. The comment does not raise any questions or concerns regarding environmental effects of the project, and for that reason, no further response is provided. Comment 35‐g: If one considers all the headaches and frustrations with Silver Rock, certainly a better conceived and eventually successful undertaking I would understand if the City would approve what looks like an even less viable undertaking with profound concern. If it were to proceed and then fail who would be left holding the bag? The City? Who would want to acquire an isolated development with a water park? The “Wrong Project in the Wrong Place” certainly seems an appropriate comment. Personally I would not invest my money in it. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Response 35‐g: The commenter’s opinions are noted. As it relates to the approval or denial of the project, please see Response 15‐d, 17‐a and 17‐c. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐151 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 36: Sandra Stratton Date: July 15, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 36‐a: WATER SUPPLIES: Please take into serious consideration the Mega Drought that the Western US is experiencing. I do not believe that the reports on water available from our aquifer accurately address the water sources to replenish our aquifer to keep it at safe levels for the foreseeable future. I am a resident of Trilogy La Quinta and a California native. The drought is severely impacting farmers and ranchers here and the western US. One newspaper article in Oregon highlights forward thinking errors. "It was predicted that Prineville Reservoir would fill. It was predicted there would be natural flow for us with our water right in the Crooked River. It was predicted there would be natural flow for us in the Deschutes (river). NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENED." ‐ Marty Richards, board chair for North Unit, said the drought conditions this spring and summer forced the irrigation district to reevaluate its water supplies." Farmers/ranchers are losing their water supplies. The Wickiup Reservoir will be empty by August 18. My point being, why are we relying on the Colorado River without question for our precious water supply here in the desert. "The Colorado River is drying up faster than federal officials can keep tract. Mandatory water cuts are looming. Plummeting reservoir levels at Mead and Powell solidify Arizona cutbacks next year and near‐future threats to all Compact states from Colorado to California" (source: The Colorado Sun) Response 36‐a: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources at Section 2.2.3, as well as Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems in the Draft EIR. As explained in more detail in the Water Resources Topical Response discussion in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter, CVWD’s long‐range planning and groundwater management efforts take into account the risks associated with climate change, including extended drought conditions and potential reductions in water deliveries from the Colorado River and State Water Project exchange. Even taking into account these risks, CVWD has projected that groundwater storage in the Indio subbasin will increase by a cumulative total of 1,394,000 acre‐feet over the 50‐year period it modeled, taking into account both climate change and future CVWD planned projects, and projects an increase of more than 600,000 acre‐feet of groundwater storage by 2045 (see Topical Response on Water Resources 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐152 February 2022 at Section 2.2.3, at pages 2‐23 – 2‐26 and Figure ES‐6). As also described in the Water Resources Topical Response at Section 2.2.3 and the Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update (Chapter 11), CVWD has considered the challenges to long‐term reliability of Colorado River and State Water Project allocations, including climate change and extended periods of drought, and has identified a combination of source substitution and improved conveyance and storage projects, as well as conservation measures, to ensure the long‐range successful management of the Indio Subbasin without causing overdraft conditions. Based on the foregoing, CVWD determined that there are adequate supplies of water to serve the proposed project and all other existing and planned future uses in the area, as confirmed in the project‐specific WSA/WSV approved by CVWD. Comment 36‐b: LIGHT POLUTION: Every morning and evening I sit outside and enjoy the beautiful Coral Mountain and it's changing colors at sunrise and sunset. Seventeen 80 foot tall light towers will permanently ruin everyone's views of the Coral Mountain. Response 36‐b: Please see the Topical Response on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1, as well as Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. As analyzed on pages 4.1‐60 through 4.1‐70, t he potential impacts of the light fixtures were demonstrated to have potential impacts (please see also the specific discussion of light levels surrounding the lights in the Light and Glare Topical Response above). As shown in these two documents, light levels will conform to the City’s standards, and no light will be generated at the property line. Further, the lighting demonstration results described on pages 2‐9 and 2‐10 above, shows that no light from the proposed Wave Basin lighting will reach Coral Mountain (see light contour exhibit on page 2‐10 above, which shows that light levels drop to the imperceptible level of 0.01 foot candles at approximately 375 feet from the nearest portion of Coral Mountain. The Draft EIR provides mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Section 4.1 also analyzed the line‐of‐site and visual simulations of the light poles at the Wave Basin. As demonstrated in Exhibits 4.1‐4 through 4.1‐13, and in the text on pages 4.1‐22 through 4.1‐18, the poles will not be visible from most off‐site locations and will not block views of Coral Mountain. From Trilogy, where the commenter lives, line‐of‐sight E on Exhibits 4.1‐12 and 4.1‐13, and the discussion on pages 4.1‐27 and 4.1‐28 provides analysis of the views from the southeast. As described in that discussion the light poles will not significantly disrupt views toward Coral Mountain from this location due to the distance from the poles, the limited scale of the poles and light fixtur es, and existing off‐site trees that obstruct views from this location. Comment 36‐c: STVR's: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐153 February 2022 The city of La Quinta has suspended permits for STVR's in residential zones. The impact of 600 STVR's will impact the surrounding communities far more that[than] allowing them in residential zones. Response 36‐c: The commenter’s opinion on short‐term vacation rentals (STVR) is noted. However, he does not provide substantial evidence to indicate how STVRs would impact the communities more than residential communities. All short‐term rentals will be centrally managed within the project, and will be subject to the City’s noise ordinance and the Short‐Term Vacation Rental restrictions set forth in Chapter 3.25 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Please also see Response 52‐g. Comment 36‐d: ZONING CHANGE: This area is not appropriate for Tourist Zoning. Having special events will cause more traffic, noise, rowdy parties at the STVR's. This will turn 58th and 60th and Madison into major traffic arteries. We already have car races on 60th and cars doing doughnuts at the corner of Madison and 60th. Look at the tire marks! Was this in a report? This will only encourage more traffic problems. To call this project a PRIVATE COMMUNITY is a joke. Only a small amount of lots, roughly 24, are private. 24 private homes vs 600 STVR's? That proportion makes absolutely no sense. The few private lots are just a way to make the whole project look private. It's a PUBLIC VENUE!! Response 36‐d: Project consistency with the General Plan is analyzed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. Please also see Responses 15‐d, 17‐a and 17‐d as they relate to the required change of zone, and the review process for the project. To address traffic concerns, please consult the Traffic Topical Response at Section 2.2.5, above, and Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR. Potential traffic impacts from Special Events are analyzed on pages 4.13‐42 through 4.13‐46. As shown in Table 4.13‐27, a traffic signal is required at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 58 to maintain acceptable levels of service, while an all‐way stop intersection is sufficient at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 60. As confirmed on page 4.13‐41 of the Draft EIR, the project is required to install the traffic signal at the intersection at Madison/Avenue 58, and pursuant to Mitigation Measure TRA‐9, if any special events are proposed prior to installation of this signal, the required temporary use permit will be denied unless the City finds that the event‐specific traffic and parking plan demonstrates that the event will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts (see Draft EIR p. 4.13‐62). Please also see the Noise Topical Response at Section 2.2.4, above, for a description of the noise analysis completed for the project which determined that noise levels will not exceed the City’s established limits and will not have any significant impacts on the surrounding communities, including from special events. Compliance with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code will further assure that the proposed zone 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐154 February 2022 change and special events at the project will not impact the surrounding communities, including from noisy or rowdy parties. The comment does not include any substantial evidence of any potential impacts that could result from the proposed zone change to allow tourist commercial uses on a portion of the site or from the proposed special events. As it relates to the commenter’s description of the project, the project could result in up to 600 privately owned residential units. As shown in Table 2 of the Specific Plan, up to 104 privately owned residential units will be located in the Tourist Commercial portion of the project (Planning Area III), and the remaining 496 residential units will be located in the low‐density residential areas (Planning Area II). As it relates to the project being private, as stated on page 3.5.3 of the Draft EIR project description, the project will be private (with the exception of the 60,000 square feet of neighborhood serving commercial near Madison St. and Avenue 58), with access to the homes, the hotel and its amenities, and the Wave Basin open only to residents, their guests and hotel guests (also see Section 1.2 of the Specific Plan, confirming same). Comment 36‐e: This entire project is totally irresponsible. This is California with 700+ miles of coastline. A surfing venue does not belong in the desert! This would be a permanent disruption to our quiet life in the desert, ruin our views, destroy our quiet evenings, just so promoters and surfers can make money on Special Events. Response 36‐e: The commenter’s opinion regarding the location of the project is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐155 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 37: Connie Glavin Date: July 16, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 37‐a: Wave park please no attached photos are a big horn crossing 58 where would he go if not killed by a car coming to a wave park where he lives. Response 37‐a: The photo provided by the commenter is acknowledged, and assumed to be of Avenue 58 west of Madison Street. As described in the Topical Response on Biological Resources at Section 2.2.2, the project has been modified to provide a barrier on its west boundary to protect PBS from the site. In addition, a 6‐foot wall will surround the project. Finally, the CVCC, as described in Comment and Response 13‐h, is currently planning a barrier along the eastern toe of the Santa Rosa Mountains extending south from the existing sheep barrier along the Silve r Rock property (also see Response 13‐ d above and Appendix D.5 to this Final EIR). The barrier is designed to prevent the current access by PBS onto private property in this part of La Quinta. Together, these measures will provide protection from human activity, and prevent sheep from accessing local streets. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐156 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 38: Dan Rendino Date: July 18, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 38‐a: Who came up with this insane idea to turn our town into a Disneyland in the middle of a drought. The traffic and noise will be an Eyesore in the desert. Send this proposal down. Response 38‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. He does not, however, provide substantial evidence or facts regarding his objections. As it relates to traffic concerns, Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR analyzed traffic generated by the project. Impacts resulting from the project as well as the proposed special events are discussed and analyzed, and mitigation measures are provided on pages 4.13‐61 – 4.13‐63 to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As it relates to noise concerns, Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR address impacts resulting from the project as well as the proposed special events. Additionally, mitigation measures are provided on pages 4.11‐54 – 4.11‐55 to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. As it relates to the review process required for the project, please see Responses 15‐d, 17‐a and 17‐ c. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐157 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 39: JoAnne Thompson Date: July 18, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 39‐a: We will make this short and sweet. Please do the right thing about the proposed Wave Park in La Quinta. We are in the worst drought in 1000 years. Do you think this Wave Park makes sense on any level? We strongly oppose this development and hope you will hear our voices. Response 39‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Analysis of water supply is provided in the Topical Response on Water Resources at Section 2.2.3, as well as Sections 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR. These sections contain a thorough analysis and explanation of the project’s projected water use and the available water supplies to serve the project and other existing and planned uses in the short and long term. CVWD, as the water supplier of the project evaluated and approved water use for the project based on compliance with its standards and requirements, and consistent with California Water Code Section 10910. The EIR and WSA/WSV clearly demonstrate that CVWD has adequate water supplies to meet the needs of the project and all other existing and planned future uses, including under extended drought conditions. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐158 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 40: Carol and Richard Strop Date: July 19, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 40‐a: Let me start by saying my husband, Richard, and I love everything about La Quinta, how is was designed and how it is managed. Of course we know that additional growth leading to increased revenue is important for any city. When the builder first introduced this Coral Mountain project to the homeowners at Trilogy La Quinta las February I thought, as presented, it sounded reasonable. The La Quinta city planners obviously thought so, too. Videos were shown to the residents of the Wave in Lemoore, CA and each was conveniently orchestrated with music overlays as are all videos on the Surf Ranch website. There are various resident complaints and concerns on many fronts in all the surrounding communities. I would like to focus mine on the Wave, its level of noise, water usage and proposed popularity, I think the most important things I learned in my internet research are these: Response 40‐a: The comment is noted. Specific responses to the commenter’s concerns are addressed individually below. Comment 40‐b: 1. Kelly Slater’s Wave in Lemoore (now owned by WLS Holdings) is in the middle of nowhere, set in wide open farmland of cows and agricultural fields in Central California. And that is where it belongs, not in an upscale residential community where the residents who moved to this end of the Coachella Valley came for a quiet, peaceful lifestyle. Many are retired and home all day, with no escape from the sounds of the wave. 2. The wave is pulled by a locomotive engine. This will not be the sound of an occasional train passing through, but a constant sound throughout the day and evening. My husband and I have lived in the mountains and know firsthand how the sound bounces off them. Months ago I read reviews by surfers related to noise of the Wave but those reviews have magically disappeared from the Internet. Response 40‐b: The commenter’s opinion of the location of the Wave Basin is noted. As it relates to noise levels, the Draft EIR provided a complete analysis of the daily noise levels in Section 4.11, Noise. As described in Table 4.11‐26 and in the analysis on pages 4.11‐44 – 4.11‐50, noise levels at the boundary of the project will range from 48.7 dBA to 62.6 dBA, including existing ambient noise, which is consistent 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐159 February 2022 with the City’s noise standards for residential areas (please also see the Topical Response on Noise at Section 2.2.4, which further describes the noise standards upon which the analysis was based). Based on the findings of the technical study and the Draft EIR, noise levels at the Wave machine would range from 62.6 dBA to 75.7 dBA at 212 feet from the wave machinery. With distance, this will be reduced to 63.3 dBA at 50 feet, and 59.3 dBA at the nearest off‐site location, which is well within the City’s standards (see Draft EIR pages 4.11‐23 and 4.11‐45 – 4.11‐46). Impacts associated with the Wave Basin and associated machinery would be less than significant when compared to the City’s established thresholds, which is consistent with the requirements of CEQA. In addition, to reduce impacts of noise levels to the greatest extent feasible mitigation was included to restrict the operational hours of the proposed Wave Basin to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., compliant with the La Quinta Municipal Code (NOI‐6) for sports facilities. The Noise Memo provided by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Appendix K.2 of the Draft EIR) addressed the concern regarding noise of the Wave Basin echoing off of Coral Mountain. The noise engineer explained that based on Federal Highway Administration guidance and studies, noise bouncing off a hard surface can cause noise increases of no more than 1‐2 dBA, which is not perceptible to the human ear. Given the distance between the Wave Basin and Coral Mountain (approximately 650 feet), the soft surfaces over that distance that absorb sound, and the maximum, worst‐case noise levels generated at the Wave Basin (75.7 dBA), the Wave Basin will not cause significant noise levels or noise impacts at Coral Mountain or in the surrounding communities. Again, as explained above, the noise levels will not exceed the City’s standards, and impacts were correctly determined to be less than significant. Comment 40‐c: 3. The Wave Pools require enormous amount of water to pump out artificial waves. According to Wired, the Surf Ranch in Lemoore is filled with 15 million gallons of UV‐and chlorine‐treated water – 250,000 of which can evaporate form the lagoon on an extremely hot day. Really, here in the desert? And on June 21, 2021 a major water tank exploded in Lemoore – just mentioning it… Response 40‐c: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources at Section 2.2.3, as well as Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems in the Draft EIR. As described on pages 2‐16 through 2‐18 above, and taking into account evapotranspiration factors specific to the Coachella Valley and established based on CVWD data and criteria, the Wave Basin will use approximately 120 AFY, which amounts to approximately 14.9 percent of the project’s total annual outdoor water demand, and 12.47 of total project water demand. CVWD has established a formula for calculating water lost to evaporation based on an established evapotranspiration rate for the project area (64.22 inches per year for this portion of La Quinta), an evapotranspiration factor of 1.2 for a moving body of water to account for the increased evaporation rate over a lake in the area, 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐160 February 2022 and the surface area of the water body. In this case, the calculations assumed the entire Wave Basin of 18.72 acres would contain water. However, the water body itself occupies only approximately 12.5 acres, thus resulting in a conservative calculation of evaporation from the Wave Basin (see page 2‐18 above and pages 3‐19 and 3‐20 of the Draft EIR). The Draft EIR correctly analyzed that CVWD has determined that there are adequate supplies of water to serve the proposed project and all other existing and planned future uses in the area, as confirmed in the project‐specific WSA/WSV approved by CVWD. Finally, in response to the reference to an explosion at a water tank in Lemoore, that water tank was a public works project having nothing to do with the Kelly Slat er wave basin in Lemoore, California. It raises no environmental or safety issues relating to the proposed project. (Also see https://www.msn.com/en‐us/news/us/massive‐lemoore‐blast‐why‐was‐there‐gas‐in‐water‐tank‐ before‐deadly‐explosion/ar‐AALrFo8.) Comment 40‐d: 4. Last year the quarantine prevented me finding many surfer reviews but just today I found that there had been a Jeep Surf Ranch contest in Lemoore in June, 2021. The Wave may not be the economic boom the city hopes for. Here is an excerpt regarding that contest – https://beachgrit.com/2021/06/why‐did‐surf‐ranch‐fail‐as‐wave‐pool‐tech‐and‐as‐a‐contest‐so‐ The gap between the rhetoric, that tubs were going to loose a tsunami of radical innovative surfing, and the reality, conservative surfing, is becoming clearer every day. It’s become what Orwell termed the “inadmissible fact.” It’s put us in upside down world, where Chris Cote, when he hears the train says, “This never gets old” means “there’s something deeply wrong here but I can’t dare acknowledge it. On a recent post featuring the seven‐time world champion Stephanie Gilmore at the tank, World Surf League fans wrote, Snooze, Throw in the air section. Most uninteresting event on tour. Every time I see this wave I keep scrolling. Good for training, horrible for contest. RIP WSL. Sooooooooo booooring. Same commentary on every wave… stick to mother ocean. And so on. 5. Attendance at the Wave is costly. Who is really the market for it and how large can it be to support this? From site December 27, 2018 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐161 February 2022 This autumn Big Dog got an invite from a group of friends pitching in to buy a day at the Kelly Slater Surf Ranch. For $32,000 off‐season rate (peak season is $50K), surfers get 15 waves per hour during an 8‐hour day to share. This means the glorious locomotive wave‐maker will run along the tracks 120 times during your session. So for example, if you bring 16 surfers for an off‐season day, that works out to $2,000 a surfer. Each one will get 7‐to‐8 priority waves. Response 40‐d: The comment is noted. The popularity of the project is not a topic relevant under CEQA. Comment 40‐e: The La Quinta draft Environmental Impact Report for the Coral Mountain Resort considered noise to be “less than significant with mitigation measures”. Below is an excerpt from the operational noise impact report prepared by Urban Crossroads. Quoted from section recreational pool (wave basin) EIR Urban crossroads. OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS Using reference noise levels to represent the expected noise sources from the Coral Mountain Specific Plan site, this analysis estimates the Project‐related stationary‐ source noise levels at nearby sensitive receiver locations. The normal activities associated with the proposed Coral Mountain Specific Plan are anticipated to include wave basin/wave machine activity, outdoor pool/spa activity, outdoor activity, and neighborhood commercial land use activity. The operational noise analysis shows that the Project‐related stationary‐source noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations will satisfy the City of La Quinta daytime exterior noise level standards, with no planned nighttime activities. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant at all existing off‐site receiver locations. What are the mitigation procedures to which you refer to in the EIR? And what about nighttime noise? The advertising includes evening hours. Has someone from the City of La Quinta actually visited Lemoore to assess the level of noise? Maybe this is a big deal about nothing! But the utilization of energy and water resources needed to run this Wave is not. Response 40‐e: Please see Response 40‐b. As it relates to nighttime hours, and as described on page 4.11‐9 of the Draft EIR and page 14 of the Noise technical report (Appendix K.1), nighttime hours are defined as the period 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. by the City of La Quinta, based on well‐established federal and state standards. The mitigation referenced in the EIR is provided to limit operations so that there will be no Wave Basin activity between 10 PM and 7 AM (Mitigation Measure NOI‐6 on page 4.11‐55). As operation of the Wave Basin will not be permitted during nighttime hours, it will not contribute to noise levels during nighttime hours., and the Draft EIR correctly determined that impacts will be less than significant. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐162 February 2022 City staff have not made any formal visits to the Lemoore site to assess the level of noise; however, technical noise experts from Urban Crossroads, Inc. visited the Lemoore site on April 13, 2020 to measure noise at various locations for their analysis of operational noise at the proposed project. Please see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4, Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR, and the Noise Study and Noise Memo (Appendix K.1 and K.2 of the Draft EIR) for further discussion of their visit to the Lemoore site. Finally, the energy required to operate the Wave Basin is analyzed and discussed on pages 4.5‐25 and 4.5‐28, which determined that while the project will result in a long‐term increase in demand for electricity, the project will comply with Title 24 and CALGreen energy efficiency requirements and will not have any significant environmental effects. Comment 40‐f: We hope you and the builder will consider one of the other scenarios that exclude the Wave as shown in the Urban Crossroads appendix SCH# 2021020310 for trip generation comparison. I have to say, the traffic analysis report, in itself, is mind‐boggling. Hotel revenues are great for the City, but there two exclusive hotels already being built just up the road across from PGA West. Please take care of your year round residents; there are more and more of us. And in an economic downturn, we are your revenue base. The builder will be long gone, along with the hotel guests. Response 40‐f: The commenter’s concerns are noted. The commenter, however, does not provide sufficient information regarding the traffic study to provide a response. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐163 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 41: Alena Callimanis Date: July 20, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident This comment is referring to a PowerPoint presentation to be presented at the City Council meeting held on July 20, 2021. Comment 41‐a: Monika, I created this file ‘without video’ so it is very small. This way I respectfully request that it can be now distributed to the Council and staff. I still hope we can show my version with the videos. [This comment is referring to a PowerPoint presentation to be presented at the City Council meeting held on July 20, 2021.] “Impact of Coral Mountain Surf Resort.” [Presentation by Alena Callimanis] Response 41‐a: Comment noted. The presentation was made by the commenter at the Council meeting. Comment 41‐b: Right after Sunset Looking at Coral Mountain from Lisa Castro’s house on 60th. Night sky panorama on 60th from Guillermo’s house across Coral Mountain to Lisa’s House July 19 at 8:38 pm. Video of Night Sky and sound: Coral Mountain from Guillermo’s house to Lisa’s house. Video removed due to size. This video shows the dark Coral Mountain and features only the sound of crickets. Request copy of video from acallimanis@gmail.com. Video removed due to size. This video shows the dark Coral Mountain area and the sound of a car on Madison. Madison is further from this point than from this point to the Wave Basin. Request copy of video from acallimanis@gmail.com. Picture from the 58th St near Madison – what is that light? Bagdouma Park in Coachella – Light is always diffused and visible due to particulates in our air (the light on the right is 60 feet). Please don’t let the developer insult us by saying there will be no light and noise impact to the surrounding developments. This will be physically impossible considering the location with quiet nights in this area of the desert, plus the proximity to Coral Mountain with sound echoing and reverberation off the mountain and light reflection and dispersion. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐164 February 2022 Response 41‐b: The Draft EIR does not state that there will be no impacts from lights and noise as a result of the project. Please refer to Section 4.1, Aesthetics, and Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR and the Topical Response on Light and Glare at Section 2.2.1, above. Due to the vacant condition of the site, the project property does not currently contribute to the existing light in the City or to the existing noise environment. Any development on this site would introduce light and noise to the area. The existing condition of the site is stated throughout the Draft EIR. As discussed on pages 2‐5 through 2‐ 11 in the Topical Response on Light and Glare above demonstrates that the project will not have any significant light or glare impacts on the surrounding communities because the lights are shielded and oriented to effectively light the Wave Basin while avoiding any light spillage off the project site. Please see lighting contour exhibit on page 2‐10 that shows the outer extent of any perceptible light from the Wave Basin lighting system. Likewise, the noise analysis summarized on pages 2‐27 through 2‐31 of the Topical Responses above demonstrates that the project will not generate any significant noise impacts on the surrounding communities. In addition, mitigation measures are presented in the Draft EIR, on pages 4.1‐72 – 4.1‐73 for light and on pages 4.11‐54 and 4.11‐55 for noise to reduce impacts to the greatest extent feasible. The Draft EIR correctly analyzed these impacts and whether the impacts required mitigation. As it relates to noise echoing or reverberating off Coral Mountain, please see pages 2‐30 and 2‐31 in the Topical Responses above, and Appendix K.2 in the Draft EIR. Comment 41‐c: Excerpts from La Quinta General Plan 2035 – Land Use Policy LU‐3.1 Encourage the preservation of neighborhood character and assure a consistent and compatible land use pattern. GOAL LU‐4 Maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods. Policy LU‐4.1 Encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. GOAL SC‐1: A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. GOAL OS‐3: Preservation of scenic resources as vital contributors to the City’s economic health and overall quality of life. Response 41‐c: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐165 February 2022 The Draft EIR analyzes project compliance and consistency with the City General Plan in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, which concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the City of La Quinta’s goals and policies established for the City in the La Quinta General Plan. Per Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR (page 4.10‐17), the implementation of the Tourist Commercial land use designation and the associated development of a recreational facility and hotel will promote the continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in La Quinta by providing resort, recreational, commercial, and residential land uses on the 386‐acre property. Additionally, the residential uses will incrementally increase demand for commercial goods and services in the region, thus enhancing the economy. This is consistent with Policy LU‐5.2, Goal LU‐6, and Policy LU‐6.3 of the General Plan. With respect to the specific General Plan policies and goals identified in the comment, the project is considered consistent with these policies for the following reasons: Policy LU‐3.1: the project preserves the neighborhood character and assures a consistent and compatible land use pattern by maintaining low‐density residential development on approximately 232 acres around the northern, eastern and western perimeters of the site where similar residential and golf resort communities already occur, and by requiring perimeter walls and landscaping that are consistent with the surrounding communities and will screen the tourist commercial uses in the internal portion of the site. Goal LU‐4: the project does not interfere with the maintenance and protection of any existing communities, and as discussed in the Topical Responses above, will not cause any light, glare, noise or traffic impacts that would affect existing neighborhoods in the area. Policy LU‐4.1: the project encourages compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure for the reasons described above under Policy LU‐3.1. The project site is surrounded on two sides by existing arterial roads with utilities in place, as well as residential communities. Goal SC‐1: the project promotes the quality of life for all residents of the City by providing needed sales and transient occupancy tax revenues to the City to fund police, fire and other public facilities, which is particularly important in this portion of the City because the City will not receive property tax revenue from the land in this area until 2035. Goal OS‐3: the project preserves the City’s scenic resources by requiring substantial setbacks from Madison Street and Avenue 58 for the perimeter walls and residential structures, in excess of the City’s existing requirements, to further reduce impacts on views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains, as required under Mitigation Measures AES‐1 and AES‐2. Please also see Responses 83‐w through 83‐hh, below, for a detailed discussion of the project’s consistency with the General Plan’s goals and policies. Comment 41‐d: We want Low Density Residential at this site and not 100 percent STVRs and a Wave. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐166 February 2022 Preserve this beauty and serenity for the five developments around Coral Mountain and for the new 100% low density residential development that should be on this magnificent this property. Please no Zoning Change! Response 41‐d: The commenter’s preferences and request are noted. As they relate to the City’s review of the project, please see Responses 15‐d, 17‐a and 17‐c. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐167 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 42: Lisa Castro (sent by Alena Callimanis) Date: July 20, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 42‐a: Here is the document that Lisa Castro will be using while speaking during the public comment period at today’s City Council meeting at 4pm. Lisa will be in person. Thank you very much. Response 42‐a: The comments included in this presentation and responses to these comments are provided below. Comment 42‐b: Good Afternoon Honorable Mayor Evan, Council Members and Staff. My name is Lisa Castro and I am a resident at [removed for privacy]. First I would like to thank Alena for the pictures and videos she showed you from my house. The videos just record the lack of noise from my house and that you can slightly hear a car on Madison. Think of HOW many cars will come and go through the night in a rezoned area. Response 42‐b: The project‐specific Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and VMT Evaluation prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., calculated trips generated by the proposed project, and determined that the project will not have any significant traffic impacts to the surrounding roads and intersections. Specifically, traffic levels at Madison Street and Avenue 60, near the commenter’s residence, are shown in Table 4.13‐ 23, page 4.13.39, to be at LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hour at build out of the project. See Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR and Appendices L.1 and L.2. The traffic analysis is also summarized in the Traffic Topical Response in Section 2.2.5 of this Chapter. Increases in noise levels generated by traffic on streets in the vicinity of the project site, including Madison Avenue, are analyzed in Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR, at pp. 4.11‐35 – 4.11‐41. The projected increase in noise at adjacent land uses generated by traffic on Madison Street north of Avenue 60, as shown in Table 4.11‐19, EAC 2026 Off‐Site Project‐Related Traffic Noise Impacts, in the Draft EIR, is 0.6 dBA, an increase in noise that is small and would not be perceptible. The noise generated by traffic would increase from 65.2 dBA to 65.8 dBA with the project at the portion of Madison Street closest to the commenter’s residence. As shown on Table 4.11‐8 on page 4.11‐21, increases in off‐ site traffic noise of less than 1.5 dBA are not considered significant and are not audible to the human ear. Please also see the Topical Response on Noise, in Section 2.2.4, above. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐168 February 2022 Comment 42‐c: The point is that the Wave Basin is closer to me than Madison so if I can hear the car, just think of the noise every night ‐ not just the waves crashing as the promo for the developer says and the noise of the wave machinery, but the people noise ‐ surfing, jet skis, music etc, etc. … the “people noise” that a rezoning change will allow. And the people noise at night will increase exponentially in the summer because it will be too hot for them to “surf” during the day!! Response 42‐c: Noise generated from the operation of the Wave Basin, associated machinery, and outdoor activities was analyzed in the project‐specific Noise Study (Appendix K.1 of the Draft EIR). Operational noise generated from the project was determined to result in less than significant impacts. Noise levels at sensitive land uses in the project vicinity were studied, including location R7, which is the residential home located north of Avenue 60 about 37 feet to the east of the project (see Draft EIR pp. 4.11‐22 – 4.11‐23). As shown in Table 4.11‐25, noise levels from project operations at this location are projected to be 46.0 dBA, which is substantially below the City’s significant noise threshold of 65 dBA (see p.4.11‐48). As shown in Table 4.11‐26, the ambient noise level at location R7 is 57.9 dBA, and the addition of project noise will raise this noise level to 58.2 dBA, or an increase of 0.3 dBA, which is well below the threshold of significance. In fact, as noted on page 4.11‐13 of the Draft EIR, noise increases of 1dBA cannot be perceived in normal conditions, and increases of 3 dBA are considered “barely perceptible.” The findings of the project‐specific Noise Study are discussed and analyzed in Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR, and summarized in the Noise Topical Response in Section 2.2.4 of this Chapter. Comment 42‐d: Also, water will be so hot during the summer months because it is only six feet deep at its maximum on a concrete pool. And the evaporation alone is enormous. Response 42‐d: With regard to the temperature of the water in the Wave Basin, the opinion is noted, but not substantiated. The water in the basin will circulate regularly and, for this reason, water in the shallower portion of the basin will remain substantially below ambient air temperatures and will not be harmful to surfers (see Appendix M.2 of this Final EIR). Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources, in Section 2.2.3of this Chapter, as well as Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR for analysis of the project’s water use and hydrology impacts. Evapotranspiration was analyzed in the project‐specific WSA, using a factor established by CVWD for moving water bodies, as described above in Section 2.2.3, and on pages 20 ‐24 of the WSA/WSV included as Appendix M to the Draft EIR. Please also see Response 65‐d regarding water evaporation. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐169 February 2022 Comment 42‐e: I am a little more than halfway up the unpaved Avenue 60 toward Coral Mountain. I have lived there for 30 years. Guillermo and I are the closest houses to this development. It is fair to say the driveway into the development as well as parking areas are right next to my house. Response 42‐e: This location of the commenter’s home in relation to the project site is noted, but the comment misstates the location of the nearest project access, which is a secondary access to the project located approximately 280 feet to the west of the adjacent residential property line (see Draft EIR Exhibit 3.9, Vehicular Circulation Plan, showing the 24‐foot‐wide secondary access entrance on Avenue 60, and the description of project vehicular access on page 3‐25, which states that a secondary entrance is provided from Avenue 60). The project area closest to the adjacent residence is part of PA III‐G – Back of House, which will be graded as level, largely open land south of the Wave Basin. While parking may be permitted in this area, no permanent parking lots or other improvements are proposed for the area adjacent to this property line. Comment 42‐f: I have spoken to Garrett Simon, the developer, many times at my house. During the latest meeting he told me that I will not be impacted by light and noise. I asked Garrett to please sign a document to that effect and he said no. I told him that I would be severely impacted by the dust and dirt during construction, that I have asthma, and that my pool and air conditioners would get clogged with dust and dirt. His colleague with him told me to move away during construction. How insulting is that! Garrett told me that the grading on the property would be done in six weeks. I know that it is closer to six months. My family was in the grading business. Is he thinking he can push me around because I am alone? Response 42‐f: The Draft EIR, including its analysis of construction‐related air quality impacts, assumed that the grading for all of Phase 1 would take 110 days, or 5 months (see pp. 4.2‐20 ‐ 4.2‐21, which were inadvertently misnumbered pages 4.1‐20 and 4.1‐21 but appear in Section 4.2 – Air Quality). As shown in Table 4.2‐6, the SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance will not be exceeded for any criteria pollutants including PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter. In addition, the potential for localized air quality impacts at the commenter’s residence were analyzed (location R7 was specifically analyzed because it is the nearest sensitive receptor to grading activities), and with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐2, no SCAQMD localized significance threshold will be exceeded at the commenter’s residence (see Draft EIR pp. 4.2‐36 – 4.2‐39). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐170 February 2022 The City of La Quinta has adopted a Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance in the City Municipal Code (Chapter 6.16). This Chapter establishes the minimum requirements for construction and demolition activities and other specified sources in order to reduce man‐made fugitive dust and the corresponding PM10 emissions. Under the City’s dust control regulations, a Local Air Quality Management Plan (LAQMP) must be prepared and approved by the City for all phases of the project, prior to any grading, earth‐moving, demolition, or building operation. The Plan must include methods to prevent sediment track‐out onto public roads, prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding a 20 percent opacity, and prevent visible dust emissions from extending more than 100 feet (vertically or horizontally from the origin of a source) or crossing any property line, thus avoiding any fugitive dust impacts on off‐site properties. In addition, all project construction activities will be required to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules 403 and 403.1, which are enacted to reduce or prevent man‐made fugitive dust sources with their associated PM10 (particulate matter 10 micrograms) emissions. The Final 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) establishes updated planning assumptions, fugitive dust source emissions estimates, mobile source emissions estimates, and attainment modeling with control strategies and measure commitments. The CVSIP established the controls needed to demonstrate expeditious attainment of the standards such as those listed below: ‐ Additional stabilizing or paving of unpaved surfaces, including parking lots; ‐ A prohibition on building new unpaved roads; ‐ Requiring detailed dust control plans from builders in the valley that specify the use of more aggressive and frequent watering, soil stabilization, wind screens, and phased development (as opposed to mass grading) to minimize fugitive dust; ‐ Designating a worker to monitor dust control at construction sites; and ‐ Testing requirements for soil and road surfaces. As stated in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the project is required to adhere to applicable measures contained in Rule 403. This requirement is included as Best Available Control Measures (BACM) AQ‐1, which requires adherence to all rules specified in Table 1 of Rule 403, including watering disturbed areas at least three times per day during dry weather and ceasing all grading activities if winds exceed 25 mph. With the implementation of BACM AQ‐1, the Draft EIR determined that project‐related impacts from dust during construction activities are reduced to less than significant levels. Please consult Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR for additional discussion regarding air quality, fugitive dust, and project compliance with state and local requirements for dust control. Please see the Topical Response Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1, for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for significant light and glare impacts from the proposed Wave Basin. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐171 February 2022 As shown on the Exhibit on page 2‐10 above, the light levels at the commenter’s residence will be below 0.01 footcandles. This analysis determined the project will not result in significant light and glare at the commenter’s location. As it relates to noise impac ts at the commenter’s residence, please see Response 42‐b. Comment 42‐g: I am also concerned about the constant vibrations caused by the waves due to the tremendous weight and force of 18 million gallons of water. I am only around 600 feet from the wave pool. All the seismic records were done at the wave pool at Lemoore California which has totally different soil composition. We are above the aquifer on sandy soil. So the developer has no idea of the impact of the wave motion to our area. Response 42‐g: As explained on page 4.6‐17 of the Draft EIR, the Wave Basin will incorporate the necessary structural concrete design features to address the pressure and drainage associated with the wave generation. In addition, Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 requires the Wave Basin designs to be prepared by a qualified engineer in compliance with all seismic requirements and to incorporate all recommendations of a qualified soils engineer. Finally, the proposed Wave Basin will be constructed to meet all engineering standards of the Uniform Building Code in force at the time that building permits are secured. These measures will ensure that seismic activity will not cause any structural failures in the Wave Basin and will also ensure that the Wave Bason operations do not cause any vibration or other off‐site effects. In addition, an accelerometer test for seismic force was conducted at the Lemoore facility, which confirmed that at the edge of the Basin, changes in seismic force during wave activity varied by less than 0.0001g (levels below .0017 cannot be felt). Please see Appendix M.2 of this Final EIR for additional information. Comment 42‐h: I can attest to the fact that I am in a wind tunnel. The wind whips around from the Quarry and I have clocked the wind at 60 mph. When I mentioned this to Garrett he acted like he didn’t believe me. That will also add to extreme evaporation. Response 42‐h: Please refer to Response 42‐d for a discussion on how local climate conditions that could affect evapotranspiration were accounted for in the water supply analysis conducted by CVWD. As summarized in Response 42‐d, the WSA/WSV prepared by CVWD takes into account local climate conditions, including wind, that will affect evapotranspiration. Comment 42‐i: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐172 February 2022 Maintenance and construction trucks will be lined up outside my house because of the restrictions that they can’t start working until 7AM. Since the wave is operating from 7AM to 10PM every day, 365 days a year, they will probably need to do maintenance during the night. And what about the heavy chlorination they will need to do during the heat? I will be exposed to chlorine in the air everyday. Response 42‐i: Mitigation Measure TRA‐8 requires submission and City approval of Construction Traffic Control Plans prior to any construction activities to ensure that construction trips will not cause traffic or staging problems (see Draft EIR p. 4.13‐62). Although construction access will need to be finalized and approved in the Construction Traffic Control Plans, it is anticipated that construction access will occur on Madison Street to avoid existing residences on Avenue 60. This plan will require compliance with the construction‐related noise mitigation measures identified in Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR. These mitigation measures ensure project construction activities comply with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code requirements (NOI‐1); locate construction equipment and staging areas at the greatest distance from sensitive receivers (NOI‐2 and NOI‐3); additionally, the contractor is required to design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwelling to delivery truck‐related noise (NOI‐4). These measures were established to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Maintenance of the Wave Basin will occur during normal operational hours of the Wave Basin and will not occur after 10 PM, consistent with the City’s requirements under Municipal Code Section 6.08.050. Maintenance of the Wave Basin is not projected to result in impacts to surrounding properties. As it relates to the use of chlorine, the operation and maintenance of the Wave Basin will comply with applicable State and County standards for the transport, storage and use of hazardous materials, including obtaining a permit from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and submitting a business emergency plan to the Statewide Informational Management System in compliance with Chapter 6.95 of the Health & Safety Code (see Draft EIR at pages 4.8‐18 and ‐19). Compliance with applicable state laws and County health regulations precludes the emission of hazardous levels of chlorine or other chemicals, and the comment does not include any substantial evidence to the contrary. The analysis in the Draft EIR correctly characterizes the use of disinfectants for the Wave Basin, including sodium hypochlorite and sulfuric acid, and correctly determines that impacts will be less than significant. Comment 42‐j: This project is a disaster for me as well as for our neighbors. Please do not approve the zoning change that will allow all of this to happen. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐173 February 2022 Response 42‐j: The commenter’s opinion and request are noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐174 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 43: Catherine Giles Date: July 20, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 43‐a: As a resident of Andalusia, next to the proposed wave park, I am concerned about the noise and light that the proposed development would bring to our community. I don’t think it should be tourist zoned and really don’t want the disruption that a wave park will bring to our peaceful community. Response 43‐a: The commenter’s concern is noted. Please see the Topical Responses on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1, and Noise in Section 2.2.4 in Section 2.2 of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for significant light and glare and noise impacts from the proposed Wave Basin and other components of the project. This analysis determined the project will not result in significant light, glare, or noise impacts on existing and planned land uses located in the vicinity of the project site, including the Andalusia community. The comment does not raise any specific questions or concerns regarding the proposed zone change, but the zone change and the project’s consistency with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan are analyzed in detail in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, in the Draft EIR. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. Please also see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a, above. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐175 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 44: Richard Holub Date: July 20, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 44‐a: I have been a LQ resident for over 15 years. My letter to you regarding the proposed Coral Mountain Resort development is based upon over 20 years of successful real estate development experience in the Temecula Valley – an area very similar to the economic and social environment found in La Quinta. Response 44‐a: This comment is included for public record. Comment 44‐b: The proposed Coral Mountain Resort with its massive wave feature and disruptive presence (lighting, overall use, traffic impacts, etc.) are ill‐suited for that specific area and this community. Not to mention the grossly abusive water use. The mere appearance of that issue alone should be off‐putting and give Counsel pause in the re‐zoning of that area. Considering all those factors, and in my professional opinion, this proposed development is not in the best interest of the La Quinta community – in fact, it is “irresponsible development” personified. Please, listen to your constituents from the LQRRD and acquiesce to their demands. Thank you for reading and for your consideration of my opinion. Response 44‐b: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see the Topical Responses on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1, and Traffic in Section 2.2.5 of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for significant light, glare and traffic impacts from the project. The amount of water needed for the project and the WSA/WSV prepared by CVWD are addressed in the Topical Responses Section 2.2.3, Water Resources. These analyses determined the project will not result in significant light and glare; that traffic impacts on existing and planned land uses located around and near the project site can be mitigated to less than significant levels, and that sufficient water supplies exist to meet the project’s water demands and all other existing and planned future water demands in the basin. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐176 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 45: Rob Michiels (1) Date: July 20, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 45‐a: I would like to voice my strong opposition to the wave park project at Coral Mountain. 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. Response 45‐a: The comment is included for public record. Comment 45‐b: 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? Response 45‐b: The comment is incorrect, insofar as the City has not permitted the zone change. The applicant has filed applications with the City and City Staff has been processing those applications as required by the City Municipal Code and State law. Please see Responses 17‐a and 17‐c for additional information related to the processing of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Comment 45‐c: Do our city leaders really want to tie their political legacy to the desecration of one of the 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? 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐177 February 2022 Response 45‐c: This comment is included for public record. However, it does not raise any specific environmental issues or concerns, and therefore, no further response is provided. Comment 45‐d: Why waste millions of gallons of drinking water when we are in the midst of a drought? Response 45‐d: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter, as well as Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems in the Draft EIR. As explained in detail in the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3, CVWD’s long‐range planning and groundwater management efforts take into account the risks associated with extended drought conditions and potential reductions in water deliveries from the Colorado River and State Water Project exchange. CVWD has determined that there are adequate supplies of water to serve the proposed project and all other existing and planned future uses in the area, as confirmed in the WSA/WSV approved by CVWD. Comment 45‐e: 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. They should be refused and refuted. Response 45‐e: The commenter’s opinions regarding the technical studies included in the Draft EIR are noted, but those opinions have not been substantiated with any substantial evidence of inaccurate assumptions or technical inadequacies. Contrary to the stated opinions, the technical studies included in the Draft EIR were prepared by experts in their fields in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Comment 45‐f: Is the only underlying agenda that wants to allow this permitting process change the pursuit of a few extra dollars promised for your city coffers? As my grandmother rightly said: beware of promises! If you go forward, I believe future generations will not look kindly on your legacy. Thank you for your consideration. Response 45‐f: The commenter’s opinions are noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐178 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 46: Rob Michiels (2) Date: July 20, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 46‐a: 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 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? Response 46‐a: This letter is a duplicated of Comment Letter No. 45. Per CEQA, this comment letter is included for public record. Please see Comment Letter No. 45 responses. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐179 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 47: Eva Parker Date: July 20, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 47‐a: We want to express our strong opposition to the planned Coral Mountain Development and Wave Park. My husband and I moved to La Quinta and purchased our retirement home here in a 55 and over community so we could enjoy our final years in peace and quiet. We specifically purchased in Trilogy La Quinta as it was far away from the hustle and bustle and traffic of the downtown area. We anticipated other housing developments and hotels would eventually be built in the surrounding open spaces, but we never imagined a Tourist/Commercially‐zoned mega resort with a Wave Machine, professional competitions, and entertainment stages would be built a few blocks from our quiet retirement community. This is so unfair to the surrounding homeowners who moved here expecting a quiet and peaceful environment. We ask that you please put yourself in our place and recommend against this project. Thank you for your consideration. Response 47‐a: This comment does not include an accurate description of the proposed Project. Please see Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR for a complete description of the project components. The project will include 600 low density residential units and 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial component, as currently permitted. The project also proposes a 150‐room boutique resort, with up to 57,000 square feet of associated resort commercial amenities, as well as an approximately 16‐acre Wave Basin, and 23.6 acres of open space which will permit active and passive recreation. Impacts of the proposed project, including impacts of special events proposed for the project are discussed in the Draft EIR, and, where necessary, mitigation measures are provided to ensure project impacts are reduced to less than significant levels to the greatest extent feasible. Special events with professional surfers are contemplated at the Wave Basin up to four times per year, but these events are limited to a total of 2,500 guests per day and are subject to issuance by the City of a temporary use permit to ensure compliance with the City’s noise ordinance and to avoid creating a nuisance to residents in the Coral Mountain community and the surrounding residential communities. Neither entertainment stages nor amplified music are proposed. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐180 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 48: Robert Stowe Date: July 20, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 48‐a: I built a home directly across the street from this proposed pr oject in 2004 and have lived in the desert full time for 28 years. I have 5 Surf boards hanging in my garage right across the street waiting for me to pull one down to make the 6 hour round trip to San Onofre just to surf for 2 hours. One might think I would be the greatest proponent of the surf park, but no I am not. I must admit I was super excited when I heard the news about the surf park. Kelly Slater is one of my hero’s and I actually had the chance to meet him in Hawaii not to long ago. I will probably become a member of one of the surf parks in the desert for sure. But This is definitely not the area for one. The impact on the beautiful environment nestled up against the BLM Santa Rosa Range is much more important than an Amusement Park aka Surf Park. Whenever I get a chance, I tell all my friends and visitors about the Ancient Lake Cahuilla and the Waterline. I show them proof with all the tiny sea shells I have collected that I found in my yard. I tell them about the story of the misnomer of Conchilla Valley vs Coachella Valley (www.coachella.org/about‐us/history). I remember when there was talk about a nature park slated next to Lake Cahuilla, I was so excited. I am sorry that never transpired. People from all over come up here to hike and camp at Lake Cahuilla to enjoy the serenity we offer. Clients, Visitors and Residents all tell me how nice it is to come here and actually see the stars, something they do not see anymore where they come from. Some local homeowners speculate it will increase property values other think it will decrease. I believe the values will increase either way with or with out the amusement park. I didn’t build here, raise my family, and stay here because of property values. I bought and built here because of the beauty and serenity. So did everyone else. Response 48‐a: This comment is noted but does not include any specific comments regarding the information and analysis in the Draft EIR. Comment 48‐b: La Quinta does not need the money that bad. We (The City, Business Owners, and Residents) do not need this development bad enough to destroy such a historic and serene area. Another country club, resort home community with minor commercial at this location would be ideal, not an Amusement Park aka Surf Park. I raised two children in La Quinta, right across the street. I have owned a business in the desert for 31 years. I know there is not much for young people to do here other than Golf or 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐181 February 2022 Tennis. A surf park is a great idea, just not next to the waterline and Multi Million Dollar Homes, really? Response 48‐b: The commenter’s opinions regarding the project and the City’s finances are noted. As explained on pages 4.4‐12 – 4.4‐13, the project will not have any significant impacts to historical resources. Although the remains of a partially collapsed adobe house on the project site have been identified as eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources and considered a historic resource because it may be a remnant of one of the earliest settlements in the area, Mitigation Measure CUL‐ 1 requires preparation of a comprehensive recordation program and preservation of the remaining adobe structure, which will avoid any significant impacts to historic resources. Please also see Section 4.1, Aesthetics, as well as Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR for a further discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed project’s impacts on historic resources. All project‐related impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. The commenter’s opinion regarding an alternative location is noted. An alternative location for the proposed project was considered, as described in Chapter 7.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, was determined infeasible, and was therefore not considered for further analysis, as allowed under CEQA. Comment 48‐c: There is plenty of vacant land around the desert. Just because they got a good deal on the land doesn’t make it right. They do not have the right to destroy our scenic night skies and bring thousands of daily visitors to a quiet neighborhood. Response 48‐c: Please see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1 of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for significant Light and Glare impacts from the project. Based on the analysis of the proposed lighting plan for the Wave Basin, no significant light and glare impacts on surrounding and nearby uses are identified. Full buildout of the project would permit construction of up to 600 total dwelling units and 150 hotel rooms, along with 60,000 square feet of neighborhood serving commercial uses that will be open to the general public, and 57,000 of private resort‐serving commercial uses that would only be available to residents and hotel guests (see Table 3‐2 on page 3‐10 of the Draft EIR). Assuming 4 persons per home and 2 persons in each hotel room would generate a total of 2,700 people on the project site, in addition to visitors of the neighborhood serving commercial development at the corner of Madison St. and Avenue 58. In addition, there may be up to four special events at the Wave Basin per year which could bring up to 2,500 additional people to the project site. Table 4.13‐26 on page 4.13‐43 of the Draft EIR shows the total and peak hour estimated daily trips to and from the project site during 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐182 February 2022 a special event. Traffic and noise generated by development and operation of the proposed project are discussed in Section 4.13 and Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR. Please also see Topical Responses on Noise in Section 2.2.4, and on Traffic in Section 2.2.5, of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for significant noise and traffic impacts from the project. Comment 48‐d: You at the city are our last defense. You must make a difficult decision I know. You cannot let these developers snowball you to think this is a good idea, it’s not! Let them move over to the other side of Monroe and let Indio have this one. Indio needs this more than La Quinta. It will be just like the Festivals, they will visit the Amusement Park then dine and stay in all of our nice restaurants, hotels and rentals. We do not need this in La Quinta. It is not good for La Quinta. It will change the neighborhood in a very negative way. After the excitement of the new project wears off it would go down as one of the worst decisions the City La Quinta has ever made. Attached you will see a painting I have hanging in my foyer right across the street from the proposed project. Feel free to zoom and take a close look at it. I had this commissioned back in 2004. I asked the painter to paint that land/ waterline like it looked years ago so my grandchildren would know what it looked like knowing it would be developed someday. Let it be a responsible development please. I never thought it would end up being a surf park! Really? Please do not let this happen. Thank you! Response 48‐d: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 48‐e: This letter is a duplicate of Comment 48, resubmitted shortly after the original submittal. Response 48‐e: This comment letter is included for public record. Please see Responses 48‐a through ‐d. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐183 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 49: Sheila Warren (sent by Alena Callimanis) Date: July 20, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 49‐a: Here is the document that Sheila Warren will be using during today’s City Council meeting. Sheila will be at City Hall in person. Thank you very much. Response 49‐a: This comment is noted. Please see the responses to specific comments below. Comment 49‐b: Good day Honorable Mayor Evans, Council Members and Staff. My name is Sheila Warren and I am a Trilogy Resident. I have two quick things to cover with you today. The first is that we are getting tired of the developer justifying his water use for the Wave Basin by saying that he will use only 25% of the water used by a golf course. What he fails to mention is that golf courses can use gray or recycled water and that he must used potable water from our aquifer. If you haven’t read it, there was an excellent article in the July 18 Desert Sun, Golf Courses prepare for water shortages. I would like to highlight just a few of the key points of that article: There is a 15% voluntary request in reduction of water use across the state, New level of drought emergency declaration will be coming by 2022. Unlike many golf courses elsewhere in the State which rely heavily on groundwater, Coachella Valley golf courses have sought to reduce reliance on the local aquifer. Protecting that groundwater, the main source of water for households and businesses in the desert is a focus of the Golf and Water Task Force. “Because the aquifer is literally the lifeblood of everything that happens in the desert, as important as it is reducing the overall water usage footprint over time, we do put more emphasis on the health of the aquifer. Desert courses have been moving away from aquifer water in the last decade. Desert courses have been removing turf. “We have to recognize that we are in a desert and the aquifer isn’t endless. So how will the wave pool move away from use of the aquifer? It can’t. How can a wave pool cut water use by 15%? It can’t because it will not be able to operate. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐184 February 2022 And what about evaporation? When we asked the developer, they tried to compare evaporation at the Kelly Slater pool in Lemoore California with this one. Once we reminded them that Lemoore had 40 days over 100 in 2020 and we have 143 days over 100, that their high was 107 and our high was 124, that their lows were mostly in the 60s with a few 70s during those hot days, and our nights were always in the 100s, or high 90s and 80s, they stopped comparing evaporations. Response 49‐b: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the amount of water needed for the project and the water supply analysis prepared by CVWD and additional information related to the analysis of these topics. The water demand estimate for the project, including the proposed Wave Basin, takes into account the local climate. As explained in the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3, CVWD’s water demand calculations for the project include the local area’s evapotranspiration rate (64.22 inches per year). Accordingly, the water demand calculations in the WSA/WSV are specific to the project site conditions and considered more accurate than comparisons to the Wave Basin in Lemoore. Concerning climate change and drought conditions, CVWD’s long‐range planning and groundwater management efforts take into account climate change, including extended drought conditions and potential reductions in water deliveries from the Colorado River and State Water Project, as explained in detail in the Topical Responses, Section 2.2.3 above. With respect to the availability and use of tertiary treated wastewater, such recycled water is not available in the project area and is not being used on the golf courses in the project vicinity. However, the project is planning to use non‐potable canal water for all outdoor landscaping in commercial and common areas, and those irrigation systems will be constructed to use recycled water if and when such water becomes available in the future. As shown in Table 2.0‐3 on page 2‐17 above, the Wave Basin itself only uses approximately 15% of the project’s total outdoor water use, so the use of recycled and other non‐potable water sources for outdoor landscaping will substantially reduce the project’s total demand on groundwater resources. Comment 49‐c: And finally, I would just like to mention about the 7AM to 10PM operation of the Wave Basin, 365 days of the year. Up to and including our face to face meeting with the developer on June 16, when asked, the developer always told us that it would be 12 hours of operation, 7AM to 7PM so we had nothing to worry about with noise or light at night. Two days later on June 18, the draft of environmental impact report that had the hours of 7AM to 10PM, 365 days of the year. Seems awfully strange they did not know that two days earlier… But who is going to be surfing during the day in this heat? With water temperatures in the 90s and air temperatures in the 100s, that is a recipe for heat stroke. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐185 February 2022 This project is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Response 49‐c: The Draft EIR analyzed the maximum hours of operation for the Wave Basin allowed under the City’s Municipal Code for a recreational facility to ensure that the worst‐case scenario for potential impacts like light, glare and noise was fully analyzed and disclosed. Please see Topical Responses Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1, and Noise in Section 2.2.4 of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for significant light and glare and noise and impacts from use of the Wave Basin during evening hours. This analysis determined use of the Wave Basin will not result in significant light and glare or noise impacts on existing and planned land uses. The commenter’s opinions regarding summer daytime use are noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐186 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 50: Carolyn Winnor (sent by Alena Callimanis) Date: July 20, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 50‐a: Carolyn Winnor, Trilogy resident at 81134 Barrel Cactus Road, LQ will be speaking over Zoom about Coral Mountain Resort during the public comment session. This is Carolyn’s document. Thank you very much. Response 50‐a: This comment is noted. The comments and responses associated with the presentation are provided below. Comment 50‐b: Good Afternoon Honorable Mayor Evans, Council Members & Staff. My name is Carolyn Winnor, I live in Trilogy La Quinta moved here in August 2005. I am opposed to the Coral Mountain Wave Project and the Re Zoning of this property for many reasons: Response 50‐b: This comment is noted. Please see the responses to Comments 50‐c through 50‐f. Comment 50‐c: Water Usage – Couple of weeks ago on the news I heard a representative from Coachella Valley Water District, speak regarding the water they currently have in reserve. I believe it was 6 billion gallons. How did CVW get this large reserve? From homeowners and businesses, conserving water since last drought that affected the Coachella Valley. Also due to water efficient toilets, faucets & appliances. The residents of the Coachella Valley is the reason CVWD has a large reserve and I am against using the reserve to fill a Wave Pool with 18 Million Gallons of Drinking Water, for People to surf on. We changed our habits to be assured the residents of the Coachella Valley would have water for the future. Response 50‐c: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the amount of water needed for the project and the water 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐187 February 2022 supply Analysis prepared by CVWD and additional information related to the analysis of these topics. As described on page 15 of the WSA, CVWD estimates that the aquifer contains approximately 39.2 million acre‐feet water, which is capable of meeting the long‐term water demands of the Coachella Valley. Further, as described in the Topical Responses, Section 2.2.3 above, CVWD and the other water agencies in the Coachella Valley actively manage the basin’s groundwater supplies, and project that through conservation, source substitution and replenishment efforts, the basin will have more water, not less, in 2045, even taking into account the project and other planned growth. Since 2009, the groundwater stored in the Indio subbasin alone has increased by approximately 840,000 acre‐ feet (see page 2‐20 above and see the 2022 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, adopted in December 2021, at page ES‐4). Consistent with the requirements of the City of La Quinta’s water‐efficient landscape ordinance (LQMQ Chapt. 8.31), CVWD’s Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4, and the California Building Code and Green Building Code, the Project includes both indoor and outdoor water conservation measures, including a drought tolerant and native plant palette, efficient outdoor irrigation systems utilizing drip irrigation and moisture detection, and low‐flush toilets and water‐conserving showerheads (see WSA/WSV in Appendix M of the Draft EIR at p. 25). Comment 50‐d: Lights/Lighting – 17 80’ Poles with 70 fixtures on each Pole. Be like living next to LQ High School football field or the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, the lights will be on until 10 pm, 365 days a year. Response 50‐d: Please see the Topical Response on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1 of this Chapter. The Wave Basin lighting system has a total of 17 poles with 2‐4 shielded and directed light fixtures on each pole (for a total of 70 fixtures) to effectively illuminate the Wave Basin itself while avoiding light spillage onto adjacent properties. This analysis determined that the project will not result in significant light and glare impacts on existing and planned land uses located around and near the project site, as demonstrated by the lighting contours shown on page 2‐10 above, which shows that light levels from the Basin will be less than 0.01 footcandles in the immediate vicinity of the Wave Basin. The Exhibit on page 2‐7 above also shows the stark contrast between the TLC for LED lighting system designed for the Wave Basin and the typical outdoor lighting historically used at stadiums and the Indian Wells Tennis Garden. Comment 50‐e: Noise, Traffic ‐ If La Quinta City Council approves the Coral Mountain Wave Project, the residents of South East L Q will be living near or next door to an amusement park. Response 50‐e: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐188 February 2022 The commenter’s opinion is noted, but no substantial information regarding noise or traffic impacts are provided. Please see Topical Responses on Noise in Section 2.2.4, and Traffic in Section 2.2.5. As described in detail in the Project Description Section in the Draft EIR, at pages 3‐19 – 3‐22, Planning Area III allows for the construction of a private resort including the Wave Basin, a boutique hotel, a residential village, a low‐intensity recreation and fitness complex, and a private community clubhouse. These private facilities are available only to residents and hotel guests and function like a private country club, not an amusement park. The project may also hold up to four special events per year, which are limited to a maximum of 2,500 guests and require issuance of a temporary use permit from the City. These special events are a tiny fraction of the approximately 75,000 daily guests at Disneyland/California Adventure (according to TEA/AECOM estimates). Comment 50‐f: My biggest fear: in 3 to 5 years no one is interested in surfing in a Wave Pool and the Wave will close down. What will the City of La Quinta and the neighbors near Coral Mountain be left with a BIG HOLE, measuring in length over 12 football fields? Response 50‐f: The commenter’s opinion is noted. This comment addresses the economic characteristics of the project and does not address any potential impacts of the project on the environment. Section 15131 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines preclude the analysis of economic effects unless that economic effect would have a physical impact on the environment. This comment does not provide any information or evidence on how the long‐term economic viability of the proposed Wave Basin could result in physical changes that would constitute significant environmental impacts. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐189 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 51: July 20th City Council Meeting Transcribed Presentations Date: July 20, 2021 Transcribed presentations at the July 20th City Council Meeting Comment 51‐a: This comment letter compiles and transcribes presentations made during the July 20th City Council Meeting at La Quinta City Hall. The meeting consisted of both in‐person comments and a comment over teleconference (i.e., Zoom). The comments were under the meeting’s “public comment on matters not on the agenda”. The link to the video recording is included in this comment, as well as the commenter’s name and time that the presentation appears in the video. Some of the speakers also submitted the same presentations to the City via email, and those are presented above as Comment Nos. 41 (Callimanis), 42 (Castro), 49 (Warren), and Winnor (50). Where the comments transcribed below are the same as the comments submitted via email, the responses will refer back to those prior responses. Speakers discussing the Coral Mountain Resort Project and time of appearance in video linked above. In‐Person Comments Alena Callimanis (Transcribed); 0:45 – 6:25 minutes Lisa Castro (Transcribed); 6:40 – 9:00 minutes Sheila Warren (Transcribed); 9:00 – 13:36 minutes Francine Roy (Transcribed); 13:40 – 15:00 minutes Verbal Comments via Teleconference Carolyn Winnor (Transcribed); 19:50 – 22:10 minutes Response 51‐a: This comment is noted. Responses to the comments in the individual presentations are provided below. Comment 51‐b: City Council Meeting 7‐20‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/b8db2190‐d39c‐4f0d‐b9ad‐ cd3b449dc821 Located at: 0:45 – 6:25 minutes Speaker: Alena Callimanis 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐190 February 2022 Callimanis: Honorable Mayor Evans I am vaccinated may I take this [indicating mask] off? Mayor: You may. Callimanis: Thank you. So um, Mayor Evans, Council members. I especially want to, and staff, I especially want to thank Monika and Nicole who helped me get my presentation up and going because I have videos in this presentation. So, I’m very excited. And of course, I am speaking about the Coral Mountain surf resort if you haven’t figured that out yet. So, the first – Mayor: You should have your own clicker there, right? Response 51‐b: This comment is noted. Responses to the comments in the individual presentations are provided below. Comment 51‐c: Callimanis: Yes, yes. Hopefully I will do it better this time. So, this is a picture that is right after sunset last night, I took these pictures from Lisa Castro’s house which is on 60th, on the um, on the single lane, dirt, 60th road. So um, with beautiful dark sky. This is hard to see [indicating new slide with photo], but what I tried to do here is do a panorama on my iPhone from the left is Guillermo’s house, I went across Coral Mountain and the right side where the light is back to Lisa’s house. So just to show you what the night sky and what it looks like at night. So um, this and, will you folks get this going? Great. So um, be very quiet. [Plays video]. You hear the crickets? Okay, that’s Lisa’s house, so it started from Guillermo’s to Lisa’s house again. And this second one is after I heard a car going on Madison. So, this might be more difficult to hear. [Plays second video]. So, the significance of that video is, there was the car on Mad ison and that’s what we heard. Madison is further from where I took this than the surf pool. So that was the sound that we heard. So um, and I guess you can hear, you can see that it really was very, very quiet there. Uh this next one was as I was at 58th right by Coral Mountain, I saw that light, and I said oh what is that light? So, I followed the light. I went in and out of tra‐ you know the roads, and this is what I came to, Bagdouma Park in Coachella, those were the lights I saw from 58th from Coral Mountain. And the light pole on the right is 60 feet. The light pole that are going to be at this development will be, excuse me, 80 feet. So, they will be 20 feet higher than the one on the right. Like, I can’t even imagine lights being held up on a pole that high. So that’s what going to be surrounding that. And if I go back to the prior picture, oops, oh I’m not going backwards. Oh, this way, sorry. If I go back to this picture here, the reason we see that is because the particles in our air, there’s dust and sand, all these small particles diffusing the light and they will be doing the same thing by Coral Mountain. So that light will be seen. So, what I wanted to say is please don’t let the developer keep insulting us, and you, by saying there will be no light and no noise impact to the surrounding developments. This will be physically impossible considering the fact that the location has quiet nights in this area, the proximity to Coral Mountain, 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐191 February 2022 sound echoing and reverberation off the mountain, and the light reflection and dispersion. I think these prior charts show that very clearly. Response 51‐c: This comment is noted. Please consult Comment and Response 41‐b for comments related to light and noise made during Callimanis’s presentation at City Council and the responses thereto. As it relates specifically to the lighting at Bagdouma Park, please see Appendix B.1 to this Final EIR, which explains and shows the difference between the TLC for LED lights proposed for the Wave Basin and the lights at Bagdouma Park. As explained in that memo from Musco Lighting (who also provided the lights for Bagdouma Park), the Wave Basin lights will have almost no direct light (7 candela) at 100 feet from the edge of the Basin, whereas the lights at Bagdouma have candela ratings at that distance of 11,858 (for the 2005 lights) and 21,400 (for the older 1989 lights). Accordingly, the lighting at Bagdouma Park give off more than 1,000 times more light to the surrounding area and provide no meaningful information on the proposed Wave Basin lighting. However, a physical test of the actual lights that are proposed for the Wave Basin was conducted at the project site in November 2021 following requests to do so by members of the City Council and the public. The results of that test are described in another technical memorandum from Musco Lighting and the Kelly Slater Wave Company, which is attached as Appendix B.2 to this Final EIR. As described and shown in Appendix B.2, the lighting proposed for the Wave Basin is directed and shielded to light only the intended area with virtually no illumination outside the immediate vicinity of the Wave Basin (see, e.g., the lighting contour exhibit included in Appendix B.2 and also on page 2‐10 of the Topical Responses above). Comment 51‐d: Now this is your City of La Quinta General map, and I circled the land use areas where we are and it’s very compatible to the developments that are around. And on the next page, I wanted to say these are excerpts from the La Quinta General Plan 2035 Land Use. Policy LU‐3.1, encourage the preservation of neighborhood character and assure a consistent and compatible land use pattern. Next one, maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods. Next one, encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. And preservation of scenic resources as vital contributors to the City’s economic health and overall quality of life. So that’s from the master plan. We want Low Density Residential at this site. We want development. We’re not saying no development. And we’re ‐ but we’re saying not 100% STVRs and a Wave. Preserve the beauty and serenity for the five developments around Coral Mountain, and for the new 100% low density residential development that should be on this magnificent property. Please do not approve, when it comes up, a zoning change that will take away all of that. Thank you very much. Response 51‐d: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐192 February 2022 Please see Response 41‐c above for a detailed response to this comment and the project’s consistency with the General Plan policies and goals described in this comment. Comment 51‐e: New Speaker: Lisa Castro Yes, I am the neighbor; I am closer to this wave park than anybody. I’ve been there 30 years, um, first of all, thank you for hearing this, thank you for the video and everything that Alena did. Mr. Garrett and I have met several times in my home, and he’s a wonderful gentleman, but I’m just not sure that things he tells me, every time he tells me something, things change. Response 51‐e: This comment letter has been transcribed from the City Council meeting. Video recording from this meeting is located at the City website. The link is also provided on the comment letter. In addition, a written version of Ms. Castro’s comments were emailed to the City and included in this Chapter as Comment Letter 42. This comment is noted. Responses to the comments in this presentation are provided in the Responses to Comment Letter 42 above and are augmented in the responses below because the oral comments are not exactly the same. Where appropriate, references to the specific responses are provided below. Comment 51‐f: But um, I’m worried about the water evaporation, I’m worried about our aquifer, you know, every day on the news all we hear about is the drought. Response 51‐f: Please see Response No. 42‐d above, the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter, as well as Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR for analysis of the project’s water use and hydrology impacts. Comment 51‐g: I’m worried about the light and the noise. I’m worried about traffic. I am going to be right next door to the secondary entrance, and I don’t believe they are even aware of the 7 am entrance that most of our country clubs have. People are going to be lining up down the street even after development, after its completed to get in. I don’t think they’re going to a llow me to get in and out of my own home. Response 51‐g: See Responses 42‐c, 42‐d, and 42‐f above. Comment 51‐h: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐193 February 2022 So um, I’m worried about, like I said, the light, and the noise and the wave impact, the motion of that water. Is that going to have ‐ create cracks in my foundation? I’m east to it. I’m going to be closest to the end. Is that going to affect my home? My pool? Um, I’m concerned, very concerned. Response 51‐h: With respect to light and glare, please see Response 42‐b and the last paragraph of Response 42‐f, and also see Response 41‐b. With respect to the concern that the Wave Basin will cause vibration‐ related harm to the commenter’s property, please see Response 42‐g above. This analysis, supported by a comprehensive analysis by a registered geologist, resulted in a determination that no significant impacts related to geology or soils will result from the project, inclusive of the proposed Wave Basin. In addition, Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, addresses the design characteristics of the Wave Basin. As discussed on pages 4.9‐27 and 28 of the Draft EIR, the mechanical waves generated in the Wave Basin may be 6 feet tall or greater and the dissipation of the energy generated by theses waves is calculated into the design of the sloped edges of the Wave Basin. The facility will include sufficient freeboard such that no water will escape the edges of the Wave Basin. As the energy generated by the waves will be dissipated and contained in the Wave Basin, the waves will not generate a level of energy outside the basin that will result in vibrations that will have any effect on uses around the project site, as described on page 4.9‐27 of the Draft EIR. Comment 51‐i: I’ve been there forever, before anything else was out there, and I know the quality of life that I have now will be destroyed. That quiet is why we built out there. And with a surf park, a private community that no one else can access to, is going to destroy that. So please consider, reconsider, or consider not changing the zoning. Response 51‐i: The commenter’s opinions are noted. As it relates to the approval process for the Zone Change, please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a above. Comment 51‐j: New Speaker: Sheila Warren Good afternoon Mayor Evans, City Council Members and Staff. My name is Sheila Warren and I’m a resident of Trilogy in La Quinta. I have two things to cover with you today. The first is, we’re getting tired of the developer justifying the water use for the Wave Basin by saying that he‐it will use only 25% of the water used by golf courses. What he fails to mention is that golf courses use gray water or recycled water, and that the Wave Basin must use potable water from our aquifer. If you haven’t read it, there was an excellent article in the July 18th Desert Sun, stating that golf courses are preparing for water shortages. I would like to highlight just a few of the points: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐194 February 2022 ‐ There is a 15% voluntary request in reduction of water use across the state; ‐ A new level of drought emergency declaration will be coming in 2022. Unlike many golf courses elsewhere in the State which rely heavily on groundwater, Coachella Valley golf courses have sought to reduce reliance on the local aquifer. Protecting that groundwater, the main source of water for households and businesses in the desert is a focus of the Golf and Water Task Force. Quote: “Because the aquifer is literally the lifeblood of everything that happens in the desert, as important as it is reducing the overall water usage footprint over time, we do put more emphasis on the health of the aquifer. Desert courses have been moving away from aquifer water in the last decade.” Desert courses have been removing turf. We have to recognize that we are in a desert and the aquifer is not endless. So how will the wave pool move away from use of the aquifer? It can’t. How can a wave pool cut water usage by 15%? It can’t because it will not be able to operate. And what about evaporation? When we asked the developer, they tried to compare evaporation at the Kelly Slater pool in Lemoore California with this one. Once we reminded them that Lemoore had 40 days over 100 degrees in 2020 and we had 143 days over 100; that their high was 107 and our high was 124; that their lows were mostly in the 60s with a few 70s during those hot days, and our nights were always in the 100s, or high 90s and 80s, they stopped comparing evaporation. And finally, I would just like to mention about the 7AM to 10PM operation of the Wave Basin, 365 days of the year. Up to and including our face‐to‐face meeting with the developer on June 16, when asked, the developer always told us that it would be 12 hours of operation, 7AM to 7PM so we had nothing to worry about with noise at night or light at night. Two days later on June 18, the draft of environmental impact report listed hours of operation as 7AM to 10PM, 365 days of the year. Seems awfully strange they did not know that two days earlier… But who is going to be surfing during the day in this heat? With water temperatures in the 90s and air temperatures in the 100s, that is a recipe for heat stroke. This project is the wrong place and the wrong time. Thank you very much. Response 51‐j: This comment is noted. Please see Responses 49‐b and 49‐c for responses addressing Warren’s presentation at City Council. Comment 51‐k: New Speaker: Francine Roy 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐195 February 2022 Hello, I just had some general questions. I am kind of new to this project and I just moved here a year ago. One question is when was the current zoning established for this parcel? Mayor: So, this is the part of public comment where you are able to address, but we will not respond per se to every question. So, you can rattle off your questions, you’re welcome to do that and probably a lot of that is covered in the EIR or it could be in the General Plan that’s available on our website. But feel free. I would like to hear your questions, so we have an understanding. Roy: And exactly what she was talking about was what I was going to mention. And thirdly, I was curious that with all the climate change and drought conditions that are going on and the future I think we can expect this to continue. There’s a lot of emphasis on the aquifer as already discussed. Wouldn’t it be a good time to maybe reconsider a change in the zoning that might not allow a golf course even? Which is taking water. Something to think about. So that’s it. Response 51‐k: This comment letter has been transcribed from the City Council meeting. Video recording from this meeting is located at the City website. The link is also provided on the comment letter. The zoning for the project site has been included in various specific plans for the area, starting in 1988, with the Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan approved by the County of Riverside prior to annexation of the site into the City of Indio. The site is currently included are part of the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan, and the history of the project site is more fully described on page 3‐6 of the Draft EIR. The existing General Plan land use designations and zoning of the project site call for a combination of neighborhood commercial, low density residential and open space‐recreation (golf) uses, and no substantial changes to the proposed uses on the 386‐acre project site have been made since approximately 2003 (see Draft EIR at pp. 3‐6 – 3‐10). With respect to the proposed General Plan and zoning changes proposed for the project, and the comment that the City might consider a change to prohibit golf uses, these are discretionary policy decisions to be made by the City Council, as discussed in more detail in Responses 15‐d and 17‐a above. Comment 51‐l: New Speaker: Carolyn Winnor I am unmuted. Can you hear me? Good afternoon Mayor Evans, Council Members & Staff. My name is Carolyn Winnor, I live in Trilogy La Quinta. My husband and I moved here in August 2005. I am opposed to the Coral Mountain Wave Project and the Re Zoning of this property for many reasons: Water Usage – which you’ve heard multiple times this afternoon. A couple of weeks ago on the news I heard a representative from Coachella Valley Water District, speak regarding the water they currently have in reserve. I believe it was 6 billion gallons. How did Coachella Valley Water get this large reserve? From homeowners and businesses, conserving water since last drought that affected 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐196 February 2022 the Coachella Valley. Also due to water efficient toilets, faucets and appliances. The residents of the Coachella Valley is the reason the Coachella Valley Water District has a large reserve and I am against using the reserve to fill a Wave Pool with 18 million gallons of drinking water, for people to surf on. We changed our habits to be assured the residents of the Coachella Valley would have water for the future. Response 51‐l: Please see Response 50‐c above for the responses to these water use comments to the City Council. Comment 51‐m: Another one of my concerns is the lighting. The project is proposing 17, 80‐foot light poles with 70 fixtures on each pole. Be like living next to La Quinta High School football field or the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, the lights will be on at the Coral Mountain Wave until 10 pm, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Response 51‐m: Please see Response 50‐d for the response to this lighting comment to the City Council. Comment 51‐n: Noise and Traffic ‐ If La Quinta City Council approves the Coral Mountain Wave Project, the residents of southeast La Quinta will be living near or next door to an amusement park. Response 51‐n: Please see Response 50‐e for the response to this noise and traffic comment to the City Council. Comment 51‐o: And what happens in 3 to 5 years that no one is interested in surfing in a Wave Pool in the desert and the Wave would close down. What will the City of La Quinta and the neighbors near Coral Mountain be left with? A big hole, measuring in length over 12 football fields? Thank You. Response 51‐o: Please see Responses 50‐f for the response to this comment to the City Council. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐197 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 52: Rob Michiels (3) Date: July 21, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 52‐a: 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: Response 52‐a: This comment is noted. Responses to the comments in this email are provided below. Comment 52‐b: 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? Response 52‐b: The City is required to accept and process proposed projects for City Council consideration, including any proposed amendments to the City’s General Plan or zoning changes, which is the process occurring with respect to this project now. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a above for a further explanation of this process and the respective roles of City staff and the City Council. Comment 52‐c: b. To clarify the process, the city should provide its residents with a written and public justification of its intent, so there can be no misleading facts, history and responsibilities if the future brings lawsuits. Response 52‐c: In connection with the approval of any amendment to the General Plan, the City Council is required to make certain findings justifying the approval. In addition, to the extent the EIR determines that the project will have any significant and unavoidable impacts, the City Council is required to make specific findings and identify the project benefits that outweigh those unavoidable environmental impacts. These will be prepared for, and available to the public prior to public hearings on the project. Comment 52‐d: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐198 February 2022 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 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? Response 52‐d: In response to item c., the City is required to consider proposed projects, including any proposed amendments to the City’s General Plan or zoning changes. The City Council is required to make certain mandatory findings before approving the General Plan Amendment. This information will be included in the Staff Report and publicly available before the City Council meeting to consider the project. In addition, the project proposes a Development Agreement (DA 2021‐0002) as part of the entitlement process. “Communal benefits” described in proposed DA 2021‐0002 include ensuring that the project has a net positive fiscal impact on the City despite a lack of property tax revenue to the City through 2035, ensuring the timely completion of infrastructure to serve the project and surrounding area, and ensuring that the project design features, and mitigation measures identified in the EIR are enforceable by th e City as project requirements. The net positive fiscal impact generated by the project would provide the City with additional funds for its general fund for police, fire and other City services for the benefit of the entire City. Also see Response 52‐e. In response to items d. and e., the technical reports were prepared by technical experts in their respective fields. All technical reports and information included in the Draft EIR was reviewed by the City of La Quinta prior to release of the Draft EIR to ensure that all information represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City, as required by Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines. Please also see Response 90‐b and Topical Responses 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 above. Comment 52‐e: 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. The proposed amusement park is private. How does that benefit La Quinta residents? Response 52‐e: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐199 February 2022 Page 3‐18 of the Draft EIR contains a portion of the detailed p roject description and does not describe developer promises or an amusement park. The proposed Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space Recreational land uses will be private; however, the project also proposes 7.7 acres of Neighborhood Commercial uses in the northeast corner of the property which will provide public access to goods and services in an area of La Quinta which is underserved for retail and services. Additionally, as stated on page 3‐8 of the Draft EIR, one of the stated project objectives is to “create a private resort community with a variety of interrelated and mutually supportive commercial and recreational land uses that will also generate transient occupancy and sales tax revenues in order to enhance the City’s economic base and long‐term financial stability.” This objective is particularly important here because the project site will not generate property tax revenue to the City until at least 2035 (when certain existing County issued redevelopment bonds expire), which means that developing the site without such tax revenue generating uses will put a significant strain on the City’s General Fund because the residential uses will increase the demands for police, fire and other public services but will not provide any funding to pay for those City services. This is an existing problem facing the City because several of the other residential communities in the project vicinity currently have a negative effect on the City’s General Fund. Comment 52‐f: 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? Response 52‐f: The project’s compatibility with the surrounding land uses is discussed on pages 4.10‐15 – 4.10‐24 of the Draft EIR, which determined that the project is consistent with the surrounding communities because the majority of the project will be developed with low‐density residential uses, with the higher intensity tourist commercial uses concentrated in the southwest portion of the site and away from the adjacent residential communities. In addition, the perimeter streets (Madison Street and Avenue 58) will be improved with perimeter walls, landscaping and sidewalks, consistent with the other communities in the area. Please see Response 41‐c and Responses 83‐w through 83‐hh for a further discussion of General Plan consistency issues. Please also see Response 52‐g regarding STVRs. Comment 52‐g: 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? Response 52‐g: The project proposes to allow short‐term vacation rentals (STVRs) in all tourist commercial and residential areas within the Project. The project Development Agreement will incorporate the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐200 February 2022 extensive restrictions and regulations set forth in Chapter 3.25 of the City’s Municipal Code, including the operational requirements and restrictions in Section 3.25.070, which limits the number of daytime and overnight guests in each unit to ensure that occupancy levels are appropriate for the number of bedrooms and compatible with single‐family residential communities. All STVRs will also be subject to the noise restrictions in Sections 9.100.210 and 11.08.040 of the Municipal Code, as well as the monetary and permit revocation penalties for violating the City’s STVR regulations. With adherence to these extensive requirements and regulations, there is no evidence that allowing STVRs within the tourist commercial and residential portions of the project will cause any significant adverse effects on any of the surrounding communities. The City has also extensively investigated and evaluated the effects of the City’s existing STVRs. On December 7, 2021, City staff provided a report to the City Council detailing its tracking of STVR‐related complaints and City citations. This report shows that with implementation of the amendments to Chapter 3.25 of the Municipal Code adopted in 2020 and 2021, the City is seeing a significant reduction in both complaints and citations relating to STVRs. In addition, the majority of both complaints and citations are for unpermitted STVRs, not STVRs that are participating in the City’s permitting and reporting requirements (see 12/7/21 City Council Staff Report, Figures 7 & 9). For the proposed project, the Development Agreement requires that STVRS be centrally managed to ensure full compliance with the permitting requirements and all operational restrictions, including noise, occupancy and parking restrictions. The commenter’s opinions regarding the impacts of short term vacation rentals are noted, but no evidence has been presented that allowing STVRs in the project will create any significant impact for other project residents, or for the residents of the surrounding communities, and no such impacts are anticipated. Comment 52‐h: d. This proposed development aims to operate 365 days a year from 7 AM to 10 PM 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? 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐201 February 2022 vii. How can the City accept the unrealistic and unscientific argument that a ‘mountain absorbs noise’? Response 52‐h: In response to items i. through iv. in this comment, the Draft EIR and supporting noise study (Appendix K.1) do analyze traffic and operational noise sources separately and also their combined effects. As described on pages 4.11‐22 and shown in Exhibit 4.11‐2 of the Draft EIR, 10 off‐site noise measurement locations were selected as representative of the closest and most‐sensitive receptor locations, identified as locations R1 through R10. These locations are in, or closer to the project than, the existing surrounding residential communities. Existing noise level measurements were taken in all ten locations, and these noise levels are described on pages 22‐24 of the Noise Study (Appendix K.1). As described in Chapter 6 of the Noise Study, off‐site traf fic noise increases were modeled using an industry‐standard computer model that replicates the Federal Highway Association model and is consistent with County of Riverside and City requirements. Project‐related off‐site traffic noise is analyzed in Chapter 7 of the Noise Study (starting on page 35), including projected noise levels with and without the project on all area roadway segments at different time horizons (including opening year and full‐buildout). Traffic noise impacts are discussed on pages 4.11‐35 through 4.11‐43 in the Draft EIR. The Noise Study analyzes the operational noise in Chapter 10, Operational Noise Impacts (starting on page 73 of the Noise Study). Each primary operational noise source was considered separately by taking actual noise measurements at comparable facilities (Wave Basin/wave machine, outdoor pool/spa activity, community park activity, neighborhood commercial activities), and then using the industry‐standard CadnaA noise modelling program to project the individual and cumulative noise level increases at all 10 off‐site receptors R1 – R10 from these noise sources. As stated in Chapter 10 (on page 73 of the Noise Study), “it is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worst‐case noise environment with the Wave Ba sin/wave machine activity, outdoor pool/spa activity, outdoor activity, and neighborhood commercial land use activity all operating simultaneously.” This is also stated on page 4.11‐44 of the Draft EIR. In other words, combining all of the operational noise anticipated at the project site would generate the highest possible noise levels at the site. If the highest noise level at the project site does not exceed the City’s established thresholds of significance, then the project would result in less than significant impacts. Please also see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 for a summary of the noise analysis for all potential noise sources in the Draft EIR. In response to item iii, and explained above, the comment is incorrect in that the noise analysis relies on a combination of actual noise measurements and industry‐standard computer noise modelling. As described in Chapter 6 and on pages 73 – 76 of the Noise Study (Appendix K.1) methodologies utilized and noise models were established by the appropriate state, federal and local agencies to ensure accurate findings that comply with CEQA. As explained in Topical Response 2.2.4, a three dimensional noise model was used to estimate the noise that would be generated by operation of the Wave Basin. Noise modeling was conducted at eight different locations at the existing Kelly Slater Surf Ranch in 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐202 February 2022 Lemoore, California (see pages 73 ‐ 74 of the Noise Study). In addition, supplemental noise measurements were taken at the Lemoore facility in August 2021 to ensure that the measurements were taken while the waves were being actively surfed to capture all sources of noise, including the rescue jet ski. As explained in Appendix K.3 of this Final EIR, these measurements validated the original noise findings and reflected a slight reduction in maximum noise levels due to improvements to the wave machine technologies. The Wave Basin proposed in the project will use the same technology and equipment and, for this reason, noise measurements were collected at the Wave Basin in Lemoore and these monitored noise levels were incorporated into the noise modeling to reflect the noise generated by the equipment and other sources of noise at this existing facility. In response to item v., and as explained above and in the Noise Topical Response (Section 2.2.4), the noise analysis includes real‐world noise measurements taken at 10 sensitive receptor locations around the project, as well as actual noise measurements of the existing Wave Basin in Lemoore and other activities comparable to the uses proposed for the project. Table 4.11‐26 shows the results of this analysis and that project operational noise will not cause a significant increase in noise at any of the 10 sensitive receptor locations (see Draft EIR p. 4.11‐49). In response to item vi., Section 3.6.5, Project Construction in Section 3.0, Project Description, contains a complete description of the timeframes for construction of the project. As stated on page 3‐23 “project construction will occur in eight (8) primary development areas with buildout anticipated to occur in three primary phases over approximately 4‐ to 6‐years. The Noise Study contains a full analysis of potential construction noise impacts in Chapter 11, Construction Impacts (starting on page 81 of the Noise Study) that would occur during this construction period, including potential noise increases at all 10 sensitive receptor locations. As stated on page 85 of the Noise Study, “the construction noise analysis shows that the highest construction noise levels will occur when construction activities take place at the closest point from primary project construction activity to each of the nearby receiver locations. To evaluate whether the project will generate potentially significant short‐term noise levels at nearby receiver locations, a construction‐related noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq (as established by the NIOSH [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health]) is used as an acceptable threshold to assess construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearby receiver locations will not experience noise levels that exceed the 85 dBA Leq significance threshold during project construction activities as shown on Tables 11‐2 and 11‐3 [page 84 of Noise Study]. Therefore, the noise impacts due to project construction noise is considered less than significant at all receiver locations.” Tables 11‐2 and 11‐3 of the Noise Study analyzes construction noise in phases. This information is transposed to pages 4.11‐32 – 4.11‐35 of the Draft EIR, which fully discloses the potential noise levels during construction activities. In response to item vii., please refer to the Noise Topical Response in Section 2.2.4. As explained therein, the technical experts at Urban Crossroads established that noise generated from project 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐203 February 2022 operation will not be amplified by Coral Mountain because, based on FHWA studies and guidance, if all noise striking a hard surface were reflected back to a receiving point, the maximum increase in noise would be limited to 3 dBA. However, not all acoustical energy is reflected back to the same point, and accordingly, FHWA measurements show that reflective noise increases do not exceed 1‐2 dBA, which is not perceptible to the human ear. In addition, the distance between the project noise sources and Coral Mountain, as well as the soft desert landscape between the noise sources and Coral Mountain mean that no significant project noise will reach or bounce off Coral Mountain. Also see Response 14‐q above. Comment 52‐i: e. This proposed development aims to operated 365 days a year from 7 AM to 10 PM with corresponding 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 80 ft 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? Response 52‐i: In response to item i, the proposed residential and commercial uses will include standard lighting, designed in accordance with applicable standards in the City’s Municipal Code, as described in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, at pages 4.1‐60 – 4.1‐61, that will conform to Municipal Code lighting standards and will not result in light levels that exceed City standards. Because high intensity lighting is proposed for the Wave Basin detailed technical analysis of the lighting plan for the Wave Basin was completed, as described in the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1 of this Chapter. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐204 February 2022 In response to item ii – iv, the analysis of the potential for the lighting proposed for the Wave Basin to result in substantial impacts was not based solely on theoretical light pollution models. As explained in the Topical Response on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1, and demonstrated in the lighting contour exhibit on page 4‐10 and Exhibits 4.1‐14 through 4.1‐19 in the Draft EIR. The photometric analysis, which is the standard established throughout California and in the City for lighting analysis, was completed for the proposed lighting plan for the Wave Basin and reflects the specific lighting fixtures proposed for installation and use on the project site. In addition, as described in Topical Response 2.2.1, additional testing was conducted during the lighting demonstration held on November 17, 2021. As described on page 2‐9 above and in Appendix B.2 to this Final EIR, the lighting test validated the computer modeling results and confirmed that at 120 feet behind or next to each light pole, light levels were consistently measured at or below 0.01 foot candles, which represents an imperceptible light level. In addition, as explained in Appendix B.2, the proposed lighting system has been optimized to both minimize any light spillage and also minimize any reflection off the surface of the water. The 80‐foot height of the poles allows for each fixture to be aimed to only light the intended portion Wave Basin itself while minimizing the angle at which the light hits the water surface to minimize any reflection. In addition, each fixture is also fully shielded to provide an effective cut‐ off of the light to avoid any spillage outside the immediate Wave Basin area. In response to item v., the Developer is not seeking an exemption from the City’s Municipal Code limitations on outdoor lighting heights. Pursuant to Section 9.100.150 of that Code, recreational facility lighting is not subject to a height limitation so long as the lighting complies with the allowed recreational lighting cut‐off of 10:00 p.m. (see Draft EIR at p. 4.1‐39). In addition, the visual simulations and line‐of‐sight analysis included on pages 4.1‐22 through 4.1‐39 demonstrate that due to distance and intervening improvements and vegetation, the 80‐foot‐tall poles will be barely visible, or not visible at all from public vantage points, depending on the viewing location. In response to items vi. and vii, as discussed in the Light and Glare Topical Response at Section 2.2.1, and described in detail in Appendix B.2 to this Final EIR, the lighting analysis included highly accurate computer modeling by the lighting engineers who designed the TLC for LED lighting system and analyzed the complete system, and that analysis was subsequently validated by light readings taken during an actual on‐site lighting test using the exactly the lighting fixtures, pole height, location and lighting direction used on the computer model and proposed for the project site. Conducting the actual test with al 17 poles was physically and financially infeasible, but the readings from the two poles and fixtures used for the test provided actual light readings the lighting engineers were able to use to analyze the entire system modeling to ensure its accuracy and validity. In addition, members of City staff attended the lighting test and personally observed the lighting demonstration to confirm that the test, results, and photos of the lighting are accurate. Based on this analysis and Appendix B.2, the lighting study supports the analysis and conclusions in the Draft EIR that the project will not have any significant light or glare impacts on the surrounding communities. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐205 February 2022 Comment 52‐j: 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? Response 52‐j: In response to items i. the Aesthetics chapter of the EIR properly analyzes and discloses the height of the tallest buildings and other structures in each planning area, including where standard zoning code limits are replaced with higher limits in the Specific Plan (see Table 4.1‐5 and accompanying discussion on pages 4.1‐12 – 4.1‐13). The location and height of homes are addressed (32’ vs. 28’ allowed in zoning code), the location and height of the hotel is addressed (45’ vs. 40’ allowed in zoning code), and the location and height of commercial structures within the neighborhood shopping center are addressed (35’ – consistent with zoning code). As demonstrated by the line ‐of‐sight analysis and visual simulations included as Exhibits 4.1‐4 through 4.1‐13, the proposed structures that exceed the standard limits in the zoning code will not cause any significant impact on existing views. In response to item ii, and contrary to the comment’s assertion, the perimeter walls, landscaping and low‐density residential structures were determined to have a significant impact on existing public views of Coral Mountain from the adjacent roadways, as described on pages 4.1‐44 and 4.1‐45 of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR correctly determined that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable, even with a requirement for enhanced setbacks for perimeter walls and residential structures from Madison Street and Avenue 58 (Mitigation Measures AES‐1 and AES‐2), as discussed on pages 4.1‐72 – 4.1‐73. In response to item iii, the comment’s citation could not be found in the Draft EIR. However, contrary to the comment’s assertion, multiple line of sight analyses and visual simulations were prepared to analyze the project’s impacts on views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains from public 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐206 February 2022 viewsheds. The analysis concluded that project landscaping and perimeter block walls, as well as the low density housing properties proposed for the perimeter areas of project, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains when viewed along public rights‐of‐ways. Compared to the existing, unobstructed views of Coral Mountain and Santa Rosa Mountains, any development on the project site would likely result in similar obstructed views of the natural landscape. Therefore, the Draft EIR correctly concluded that impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The impacts on viewsheds from the surrounding communities, therefore, have been fully and correctly analyzed. In response to item iv, the Draft EIR does not state that the significant and unavoidable impact provides an argument for a zoning change. These are two separate issues. As required in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City is required to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its significant and unavoidable environmental effects. In order to approve a proposed project that will have significant and unavoidable impacts, the City Council must first determine if the benefits of the project outweigh its impacts, and then state in writing its basis for doing so in specific findings and a document known as a statement of overriding considerations which, if made, will be attached to a resolution that will be required to certify the EIR. This requirement is separate and in addition to the City’s policy decisions and findings required to amend the General Plan land use designations or zoning for the site, which will also be set forth in any resolutions approving such amendments. Comment 52‐k: 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? Response 52‐k: This comment incorrectly quotes the Draft EIR. Section 4.5, Energy Resources, of the Draft EIR, concludes that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources at pages 4.5‐25 – 4.5‐28. While 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐207 February 2022 the project will use electricity and increase the demands for energy in IID’s service area, the project incorporates numerous energy efficiency measures, will comply with Title 24 and CALGreen requirements, and will constitute a very small portion (approximately 0.19 percent) of IID’s total demands. The Draft EIR conclusions are based on calculations of project‐related construction and operational energy consumption for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. The project will increase demand for energy in the service areas of IID and Southern California Gas Company, since the site is currently vacant and undeveloped but will not have any significant effects on the residents of La Quinta because IID has sufficient electricity generation facilities to meet the project and its other existing and planned future customers (see Draft EIR pp. 4.5‐27 – 4.5‐28). The Draft EIR also analyzed service capacity and infrastructure to support the project, existing communities, and future development in both Section 4.5, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems. The Draft EIR fully evaluated the project’s GHG impacts in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and determined that even with implementation of numerous project design features that reduce GHG emissions, the project will have a significant impact because project implementation would generate GHG emissions totaling 6.46 MTCO2e per service population per year, which exceeds the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e. However, with mitigation, the project GHG emissions are reduced to below the SCAQMD threshold through the purchase of carbon credits. The EIR does not state that such credits make the project “benefically green,” only that such credits are a recognized way to reduce a project’s GHG emissions in California, at least for some types of projects. Although this mitigation measure was identified in the Draft EIR, because the use of carbon credits has not been broadly adopted in the Coachella Valley as acceptable and effective mitigation for residential and resort projects, the EIR concludes that the GHG impacts should be considered significant and unavoidable. See Draft EIR at p. 4.7‐26. As it regards justification, please see the discussion of CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, its allowances, and the process by which these determinations are made in Response 52‐j. Comment 52‐l: 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? 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐208 February 2022  How will the developer specifically mitigate this issue? Response 52‐l: Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR discusses the potential use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with the project in discussions a/b. starting on page 4.8‐16. As discussed on page 4.8‐18 the Wave Basin is anticipated to use approximately 216,000 gallons of sodium hypochlorite and 14,440 gallons of sulfuric acid annually, which are both commonly used chemicals in swimming pools. These chemicals will be stored on site and fed into polyethylene tanks located in a pre‐engineered metal building with a 24‐inch‐high containment wall with chemical resistant coating. As stated in Section 4.8, the project is required by state and local regulations to implement features during project construction and operation that would mitigate release of hazardous materials that would negatively impact the environment or people. Contrary to comment h.(i) above, Page 4.8‐19 discusses the existing regulations that apply to the storage of these materials, including the County of Riverside’s requirements for permitting businesses that handle hazardous materials in conformance with Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. The County’s regulations require the applicant to obtain a permit to store these hazardous materials on the site and electronically submit a business plan in the Statewide Informational Management System. The Draft EIR correctly identified the quantities to be stored, the safety measures to be employed, and the standards by which the project will abide, and determined that these impacts would be less than significant. Comment 52‐m: 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? Response 52‐m: The commenter’s opinion regarding home values is noted, but this does not raise any recognized environmental issues of the project. Section 15131 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines preclude the analysis of economic effects unless that economic effect would have a physical impact on the environment, which is not asserted here. Comment 52‐n: 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 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? 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐209 February 2022 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? Response 52‐n: The proposed Specific Plan would allow 4 special events annually and limit the attendance to 2,500 persons. In response to this comment, it should be noted that, as identified on page 1‐7 of the Draft EIR Temporary Use Permit(s) (TUP) will be required for each event. The City’s process and requirements for Temporary Use Permits is contained in Sections 9.100.130 and 9.210.050 of the City’s Municipal Code. Further, the Draft EIR addresses specific issues to be addressed in each TUP, which include submission of special event traffic and parking plan and/or traffic management plan (Mitigation Measures TRA‐10 through TRA‐11) to avoid any traffic or parking impacts and ensure adequate public safety resources. (see Draft EIR pp. 4.13‐62 – 4.13‐63). In addition, the TUP requires the City to make the specific findings set forth in Section 9.60.170, which include that (a) the event will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community in the area of the proposed event, (b) there is adequate area to accommodate the anticipated attendance, (c) there is sufficient parking for the anticipated attendance, (d) food service, medical facilities, solid waste facilities, sewage disposal facilities, and potable water service are provided, (e) fire protection plans and facilities have been provided to the satisfaction of the fire marshal, (f) security plans and facilities have been provided to the satisfaction of the sheriff, and (g) public roadways are capable of accommodating the anticipated traffic volumes. In response to item a., noise generated during Special Events was analyzed in the Noise Study and discussed in Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR. Noise generated from the proposed Special Events must comply with the City’s noise limits set forth in Section 9.100.210 of the Municipal Code, and was determined to result in less than significant impacts. However, if a noise violation were to occur during a special event, the City’s Code enforcement provisions allow for the imposition of financial penalties and permit revocation, and potentially prosecution of a misdemeanor upon repeated violations (see, e.g., Sections 1.01.200 et seq.). In response to item b, as explained above, the TUP requires adequate security as approved by the sheriff, and any illegal activities would be addressed by on‐site security personnel, and/or the sheriff’s department. In response to item c., please consult the Traffic Topical Response in Section 2.2 of this Chapter, as well as Section 4.13, Transportation, in the Draft EIR. Technical studies, including a Traffic Impact 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐210 February 2022 Analysis, was conducted by traffic experts and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. The Draft EIR correctly identified the trip generation, distribution and impact of special events in Tables 4.13‐26, 4.13‐27, and 4.13‐28b, respectively. Impacts were identified at the intersections identified in Table 4.13‐28a, which are the same intersections and require the same improvements required for Phase 3 of project buildout (see page 4.13‐45). Impacts of special event traffic were identified as potentially significant, and required mitigation, including Mitigation Measures TRA‐9 through TRA‐14. The Draft EIR correctly identified the level of impact, provided mitigation, and demonstrated that the impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels during special events. In response to item d., the conditions of approval on all Temporary Use Permit issued will address how trash is to be handled at each event, including addressing the need for trash pick‐up or clean up in areas located outside of the project site. In response to item e., Temporary Use Permits for events requiring substantial involvement of police and fire services are typically required, in their conditions of approval, to reimburse the Sheriff’s Department and Fire Department, as applicable. In response to item f., the applicant has requested up to 4 special events annually, which is consistent with the City Municipal Code provisions and controlled by the Specific Plan. Comment 52‐o: 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 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐211 February 2022 independently generated information regarding evaporation, specific water usage patterns for individual elements of the project facilities, detailed wave pool maintenance requirements? Response 52‐o: The project’s projected water use and the sufficiency of CVWD’s existing water sources to meet the project water demands and all other existing and planned future water demands are thoroughly discussed in the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3 above, as well as in the WSA/WSV attached as Appendix M of the Draft EIR. In response to comments (a) and (b), the comments misstate the projected water demand and developer’s contractual rights. The developer does not have a contractual right to a specific volume of water, but rather, CVWD has assessed the project’s water demands and its compliance with CVWD’s water allocation limits set forth in its Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4. If the project exceeds the maximum water allowance (MAWA), further landscape plans will be denied until the project is brought into compliance. The existing contract between CVWD and the developer pertains to the developer’s obligation to fund and/or construct sewer and water facilities but does not include any contractual right to receive water from CVWD. In response to comment (c), recycled water is not presently available in the project vicinity and is not being used at the nearby golf courses. Please see Responses 19‐b and 49‐b for additional information on the project’s use of non‐potable water and the availability of recycled water. In response to comments (d) and (e), the commenter’s opinions on the project’s water demands are noted. However, CVWD’s groundwater management plans and long‐range planning account for population growth and increasing water demands. Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3, including Figure ES‐6 and ES‐8 from the 2022 Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update, which show that between 2020 and 2045, even with the project and all other existing and planned future uses, CVWD expects to have a net increase in groundwater storage over that 25‐year period due to a combination of efficiency/water saving measures, source substitution, and replenishment efforts. Finally, the WSA for the project provides, in Tables 2.0‐2 (indoor) and 2.0‐3 (outdoor), a detailed list of the uses proposed and the water demand resulting from these uses. The City requested, as required by California Water Code Section 10910, that the CVWD, the water purveyor and local expert on groundwater resources for the City, prepare a WSA, which analyzed “evaporation, specific water usage patterns for individual elements of the project facilities, detailed wave pool maintenance” and correctly determined that the impacts of the project on water resources would be less than significant. Comment 52‐p: 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). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐212 February 2022 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? Response 52‐p: This comment is incorrect. As stated on page 29 of the Traffic Impact Analysis and page 4.13‐10 in Section 4.13, Transportation, in the Draft EIR, “the intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected on August 15th, 2017, April 9th, 2019, May 7th, 2019, and September 10, 2019 (which were all collected before the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic). Moreover, these counts were adjusted upward in accordance with the City’s Engineering Bulletin # 06‐13 to reflect peak season conditions.” Therefore, traffic counts were taken prior to COVID, and baseline numbers reflect peak season levels. With respect to comment (a), the traffic study was completed by Urban Crossroads, traffic expert consultants hired by the EIR consultant to prepare a traffic study in full compliance with all appliable CEQA requirements and in compliance with a traffic study scope approved by the City. The traffic study was reviewed by the City, as is their practice with all traffic studies, and found to be sufficient to meet its standards and requirements, as established in City policy (Engineering Bulletin #06‐13). With respect to comments (b) and (c), bus service is not presently provided to the project area and is under the control of Sunline Transit Agency, not the City of La Quinta. Detailed analysis of potential locations for private buses or rideshare programs have not been completed at this Specific Plan level of planning, but may be considered during future project implementation in connection with the City’s processing of individual site development permits, or for TUPs provided for special events, as applicable. Comment 52‐q: In this comment, a letter from Michiels, dated July 20th is attached. Response 52‐q: The attached letters are copies of Comment Letters No. 45 and 46, above. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐213 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 53: Dan Rendino Date: July 21, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 53‐a: I attended by a zoom meeting last night a presentation by the developers on the proposed development of the Coral Mountain Resort. My first impression is how in the world did this circus proposal advance to the city council for purposes of trying to get a variance. It is an embarrassment to admit to friends and neighbors that this is even being considered. We moved here because La Quinta was a place that afforded us the opportunity to retire from the hectic city life that we were brought up in. Had this project been known to us when we moved here, we would be living somewhere else. This is exactly what we were trying to get away from when we bought here. These are some of the reasons that this project should be deep ‐ sixed. Response 53‐a: This comment noted. Responses are provided below to the comments in this email message. For clarification, the project does not include any request for a variance but it does seek amendments to the City’s General Plan and zoning for the site, and a Specific Plan whose development standards alter Zoning standards, as allowed by Government Code Sections 65450 et seq. and Municipal Code Chapter 9.240. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a regarding these policy decisions. Comment 53‐b: 1. La Quinta does not need to be a haven for an additional STRV units (600 additional units with an average of 3 bedrooms) at a time the town and its developments (PGA West where we live), are trying to remedy the existing problems that already exist. La Quinta unlike some other valley towns has allowed widespread STRV units to be permitted with the problems associated with them. I do appreciate the effort the town has put in to remedy the situation. Now is not the time to reverse the work done to correct the issues. I personally know people who have not bought property in our town because of the widespread STVR’s. They have chosen other towns that are more strict in this area. Response 53‐b: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see Response 52‐g for a further response regarding STVRs. Comment 53‐c: 2. Traffic is already a problem in La Quinta. There are only 3 entry points into La Quinta (Washington, Jefferson and Madison). Traffic on these streets are already bad in the season. 600 three bedroom apartments means 1800 additional vehicles on our streets 365 days a year. They claim this issue will 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐214 February 2022 be remedied by the town. Putting up additional stop lights does not fix the traffic problem but makes it worse by increasing delays. This is not something that we need. Response 53‐c: The commenter’s opinions are noted. The Draft EIR included a complete assessment of the impacts of the project on local traffic (pages 4.13‐17 – 4.13‐51), based on a technical report prepared to City and professional standards. The analysis concluded that traffic will increase, but within thresholds acceptable to the City, with the implementation of mitigation measures. Comment 53‐d: 3. The proposed plan does not include facts and data but are really just hopes, wishes and suppositions. They only presented “goals”. What happens when these goals are not met. Does the town propose to shut them down? These hopes and dreams are applicable to noise, lighting, traffic, water consumption, electrical overload etc. Pie in the sky! Anyone could see through what they were trying to do, it doesn’t pass the smell test. Throw out a bunch of hopes and wishes with nothing to back it up, and hope that it sticks. Response 53‐d: The commenter’s opinions are noted. This comment does not provide any substantial evidence of invalid data used in any of the technical reports or discussion in the Draft EIR. The technical reports generated for the project were prepared by experts in their respective professional fields and reviewed by the City of La Quinta. The methodologies used for the technical reports are based on applicable local, regional and state thresholds of significance. Comment 53‐e: 4. Do the city officials and these developers realize that all of California is being stressed by a terrible drought which predictions say will only get worse. We are being asked to limit the use of water for household use, golf courses are being forced to find different means of irrigation and these people want to fill a pool with 18 million gallons of precious drinking water so that someone could go surfing 150 miles away from the ocean. Who comes up with these ideas? What city would approve this. The water in this pool in the summer will be almost 100 degrees. In this climate how much evaporation takes place? What happens when the pool repairs are needed and the pool has to be drained? Why should my water rate be raised so that these people can live out their dreams of a Disneyland in the Desert? They claim Imperial Irrigation says out is possible. Because it is possible does not mean it should be done! The entire West is under draught conditions and you have a proposal in from of you to make it worse. Response 53‐e: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐215 February 2022 The commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, evaporation rates, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies. With respect to water temperatures please see Response 42‐d. Regarding repairs to the Wave Basin, both maintenance and repairs can be completed without draining the Basin (see Appendix M.2 to this Final EIR). Comment 53‐f: 5. They also want to be able to have “special events”! Four times a year! 4 days per event! That is 16 Coachellas a year! One thing about the pandemic that was good was that there was no Coachella. Enough said. La Quinta does not need to be another Coachella with the disruption it brings. Response 53‐f: The commenter’s opinion on the special events proposed as part of the project is noted. The special events proposed for the project are limited to a maximum of 2,500 people per day, whereas attendance at the Coachella and Stagecoach music festivals can exceed 100,000 people per day. Comment 53‐g: 6. They “think” that noise will not be an issue because their model tells them so. No independent data just hopes, wishes and dreams. They claim that Coral Mountain will be an absorber of the noise. Really? Having 80 foot light towers and wave machines going off every 3 minutes from 7AM to 10PM is just not something we should allow. Response 53‐g: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see Response 52‐h for a complete response to this comment. Comment 53‐h: 7. Homes will start at $2.5 million. Do you know anyone who would buy a home to live in the middle of a water park? These homes will never be built and sold and the project will have a 16 million gallon pool in a hole in the middle of the desert. The tax revenue you hope to get will not ever happen. Response 53‐h: The commenter’s opinions on the project are noted. Comment 53‐i: I am really surprised that this project has risen to the point where it is even being considered. I would be embarrassed to tell someone that the town of La Quinta is even considering this project. I am 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐216 February 2022 confident that you city officials will put an end to this madness and get on to serious issues facing the town. I thank you for your consideration. Response 53‐h: This comment is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐217 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 54: Carol Welty and Art Stephens Date: July 21, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 54‐a: The drought in the west is well documented one of the worst handful of years since the year 800 A.D. per Park Williams a hydroclimatologist at UCLA. One third of crops in California cannot be planted due to lack of water. The drought is draining reservoirs by 30% like Lake Mead at an alarming rate, including our own Salton Sea. To use precious water in the desert for a water absorbing fun park is beyond measure of lack of insightfulness. Response 54‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see the Topical Response on Water Resource in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter, which provides a detailed explanation of CVWD’s groundwater management of the Indio Subbasin, and how that planning and management accounts for climate change and the potential for extended drought conditions and potential reductions in water deliveries from the Colorado River and State Water Project exchange. After accounting for these conditions, CVWD has determined that there are adequate supplies of water to serve the proposed project and all other existing and planned future uses in the area. The Draft EIR correctly determined that the project will not have any significant adverse effects relating to water use. Comment 54‐b: Not only the water problem but to put a commercial project among planned residential communities does not make sense. We moved to this community in great part because it was a quiet community and area for residential use only. Response 54‐b: The commenter’s opinion on the proposed commercial uses are noted. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to processing of changes in land uses. Comment 54‐c: We strongly urge the city planning department as well as all involved in approving any development to please be aware of all of the negatives involved with allowi ng this project to go through. Thank you for your consideration. Response 54‐c: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐218 February 2022 This comment is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐219 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 55: Fredrick Roth Date: July 26, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 55‐a: I have read the proposed plan and EIR. I oppose the project. I bought my house across Madison from this project in full knowledge that that undeveloped parcel was zoned for golf and low‐density homes. I never would have bought here if I thought that property would become a higher‐density development, with hundreds of short‐term renters coming for events at least four times a year. This project obviously would require rezoning for commercial, hotel, and amusement facilities. There is absolutely no reason why the City of La Quinta should approve such a rezoning. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and it’s a terrible misuse of a wonderful parcel. That parcel should be developed for low‐density properties as planned and promised. Response 55‐a: The commenter’s opinions on the proposed zone change and special events are noted. As it relates to changes in the zoning required for the project, please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a. With regard to short‐term rentals, please see Response 52‐g. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐220 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 56: Derek Wong (2) Date: July 27, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 56‐a: A fundamental shift in how we live our lives is occurring on a magnitude beyond the headlines…the full import of this catastrophic drought has yet to take effect as it continues to unfold daily. There is no way to determine its duration but it is said that a full 10 years of solid seasonal rain will be required before we “return to normal.” Repeat: 10 years! It has been publicized ad nauseam that the reservoirs are at their lowest levels ever, that the Colorado River supply will cease and that wells throughout the state are being over‐pumped, agricultural fields are increasingly fallow, wildlife decimated, wildfires burning without end and towns left dried and barren… …and yet, we continue to discuss the building of Wave pools, golf courses, private lagoons and lakes as if there is no crisis at all. To even consider this project and others like it is irresponsible and borders on deliberate shortsightedness… with profit as the motivator. Slick marketing that promises an economic paradise with hints of environmental concerns tossed in for appeasement. I find it foolish and exceedingly hypocritical for the developer to continue touting the benefits of this playground while ignoring the havoc that encircles us all. The wealthy can go to any beach in the world for water sports, many La Quinta residents live here full time and to betray their peace and serenity for this playground is just wrong. Be responsible citizens, build responsibly, do not rezone Coral Mountain. Response 56‐a: Please see Response 54‐a and Topical Response, 2.2.3, Water Resources in Section 2.2 of this Chapter. As it relates to rezoning of the property, please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a. The commenter’s opinion on the use of water for water features is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐221 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 57: Agnes Collins Date: July 28, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 57‐a: Further to my letter of opposition to the above noted proposal sent to you on March 8, I have reviewed the environmental report and other pertinent information. I remain strongly opposed to a surf park development in our area for the same reasons outlined in my March 8 letter as follows: We have owned our property in Puerta Azul at 57th and Madison for the past 10 years. During that time, we have immensely enjoyed hiking, walking and cycling in our quiet peaceful community. We chose our home in La Quinta because we loved the beautiful natural environment. Response 57‐a: This comment is noted. Comment 57‐b: We have been informed about the proposal to build a surf park just a short distance from us at 58th and Madison. We are stunned to hear that this could actually happen in our quiet neighborhood. Apart from our very serious concerns about the environmental impact of this type of development, this is just the wrong area for a tourist/commercial development of this nature. While some may say it will increase the value of nearby properties, that is not the reason most of us purchased in this area. The proposed development will destroy the character of our quiet tranquil community. A Disney‐like surf park may be desirable to developers, provide recreational opportunities for short term visitors and will no doubt increase the tax base but the increased noise, traffic and pollution will destroy the very reason that we moved to the area. Response 57‐b: The commenter’s opinions on the proposed project are noted. As described in Section 3.0. Project Description in the Draft EIR, the project is a mixed use project that includes low density residential uses, tourist commercial and general commercial uses, and for clarification, the neighborhood‐ serving commercial uses are proposed at the corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, and low density residential is proposed along both Madison Street and Avenue 58. The Wave Basin and other tourist commercial uses are in the southwest portion of the site and away from the perimeter streets and surrounding commercial neighborhoods. This comment does not provide substantial evidence to support the argument that the project will have significant noise, traffic or pollution impacts. As demonstrated in Sections 4.2, Air Quality, 4.11, Noise, and 4.13, Transportation in the Draft EIR, the potential impacts of pollution generated at the project; noise generated from the project; and traffic 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐222 February 2022 related to the proposed project are analyzed and disclosed. The project will result in less than significant impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic with the implementation of mitigation measures, based on the technical studies described in those sections of the Draft EIR. Comment 57‐c: Apart from these issues, we are even more concerned about the environmental sustainability of building such developments in the desert. We have read the developer’s publications attempting to address environmental issues but we are also aware of the dire warnings of experts in the environmental field. Response 57‐c: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Although the comment does not identify any specific environmental or sustainability issues arising out of building developments in the desert, please see Topical Responses 2.2.3 regarding water resources and Sections 4.5 and 4.7 regarding energy resources and greenhouse gas emissions, respectively, which provide a detailed discussion the project’s sustainability features. Comment 57‐d: Now is not a time for excess consumption, economic growth‐seeking or projects disconnected from the environmental issues we face today. The reality of climate change should force us to rethink our growth models to reduce natural resource consumption and reconcile our relationship with nature. Please protect our community and our environment and do not allow this proposal to proceed. Response 57‐d: This comment is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐223 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 58: Duncan Woodfin Date: July 28, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 58‐a: It frightens me to think that there may be a zoning change from residential to commercial that would allow a Wave Machine/Amusement Park Development below the Coral Mountains in La Quinta. This Surf and Wave ride would use millions of gallons of fresh drinking water to fill and refresh the ride in a time of catastrophic drought here in California. The massive amounts of treatment chemicals needed and continual refill of this pool will destroy the ecology of the site. Response 58‐a: Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a in response to the comment’s concerns regarding changes in zoning. Please see Topical Response on Water Resources in Secti on 2.2.3 of this Chapter, and Sections 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems in the Draft EIR for information on the water needed for the project and the water supply analysis prepared by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). With regard to the comment on the chemicals that will be used to treat the water in the Wave Basin, please see Response 52‐l. Comment 58‐b: How could we even be considering such a monster project that would use our precious fresh drinking water and tax an already overburdened electrical grid that would be needed to operate the wave action. Response 58‐b: Please see Response 58‐a regarding the water supply analysis in the Draft EIR, and please also see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3 above. The commenter’s opinion on the electrical service system is noted. As described in Sections 4.5, Energy Resources, and 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, in the Draft EIR, the project will use 8,642,729 kWh annually, after accounting for the 17.25% reduction in energy demand resulting from the project’s energy efficiency and sustainability project design features (see Draft EIR pages 4.5‐25 – 4.5‐28). Section 4.5 determined that the construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (CEQA threshold of significance page 4.5‐20). Please also see Response 52‐k. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐224 February 2022 Comment 58‐c: If this project is approved, it would send the signal that water conservation is no longer needed. That the drought is nothing but fake news spewed by a corrupt government. Is this the message you want to send? Response 58‐c: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for information on the water supply analysis. Comment 58‐d: As an aside, his project also shows extreme disrespect for our residential community by blocking the walking path at the base of the Coral Mountains. The developer representative has emphasized multiple times that they will block this path from neighbors to use; to be used only by their privileged, rich guests......even though the US Bureau of Land Management currently welcomes hikers by multiple signs permanently posted on the pathway. So many of us in La Quinta enjoy this quiet, peaceful walk each day. How can you possibly allow public space to be handed over to private interests. This shows the out of state Developer just doesn't care about being a good neighbor. Response 58‐d: The existing hiking trail located adjacent to Coral Mountain will remain open to the public. As stated on page 4.13‐47 of the Draft EIR (Section 4.13, Transportation), the Desert Recreation District Master Plan includes a proposed trail along the toe of Coral Mountain, associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center. The proposed trail alignment falls within the project boundaries. As shown in Mitigation Measure TRA‐15, project plans will include accommodations for this trail within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property adjacent to Coral Mountain. Please also see Appendix P to this Final EIR for the Desert Recreation District letter agreement regarding this future trail connection. Comment 58‐e: Please Mayor Evans, I beg you, don't turn this quiet neighborhood into a noisy, traffic congested, water wasting theme park. It is truly the wrong development, in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Do not support a change of zoning. Response 58‐d: This comment is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐225 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 59: Martin Brewer Date: July 29, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 59‐a: I am submitting the following comments/concerns about the contents of this document. (1) The DEIR correctly describes the effect of the project on aesthetics as “Significant and Unavoidable” even after mitigation. I agree with this assessment, and as the report notes, there will be adverse effects on scenic vistas, “degradation of the visual character or quality of the site,” and light and glare. Of particular concern to me are the numerous 80’ light poles that will be on from dusk to 10:00 p.m. There are residential communities very nearby, and this issue alone should be of great concern to the City. Response 59‐a: The commenter’s characterization of the Aesthetics section of the Draft EIR is correct. The commenter’s opinions are noted. Comment 59‐b: (2) The report states that there will be a “Less than Significant” impact on energy. With a huge wave pool making waves on a daily and continuous basis, this conclusion seems ridiculous to me. The report states that no mitigation is required pursuant to the criterion of “Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.” In my judgment, the operation of a wave pool in the middle of the desert is the epitome of wasting energy. Response 59‐b: The commenter’s opinion on the energy needed to operate the wave pool are noted. The Draft EIR correctly discloses the energy impacts of the project. Calculations to determine project‐ related energy demand were made through the CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 model. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operations from land use projects. As stated in Section 4.5, page 4.5‐26, the project will generate additional demand for energy at build out of the project of approximately 8,642,729 kW/year, which includes a 17.25% reduction based on the project’s energy efficiency and sustainability project design features. As discussed on pages 4.5‐26 – 4.5‐28, the energy use constitutes approximately 0.19% of IID’s total projected demand in 2031, which is consistent with IID’s long‐term plans for electricity capacity and supplies and does not represent a wasteful use of energy because the project complies with Title 24 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐226 February 2022 and CALGreen energy efficiency requirements. The La Quinta General Plan, General Plan EIR, and La Quinta Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan were also consulted in order to determine whether the project exceeded local standards. The significance thresholds were determined based on state and local thresholds for energy consumption, as shown on page 4.5‐15. Please also see Response 52‐k. Comment 59‐c: (3) The report states that Greenhouse Gas emissions will be “Significant and Unavoidable.” The mitigation recommended is that the “Project Applicant” purchase a large amount of carbon credits as an offset. I would suggest that a better and more environmentally sound solution would be denial of the project. Response 59‐c: The commenter’s opinion on this proposed mitigation measure and the project is noted. The mitigation measure provided in the Draft EIR satisfies CEQA standards for mitigation; however, the Draft EIR also notes that the purchase of carbon credits to offset increases in greenhouse gas emissions does not have a long track record of successful implementation in the Coachella Valley for resort and residential communities, and as a result, conservatively concludes that the impact should be considered significant and unavoidable. Comment 59‐d: (4) Under “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the report states the project’s impact is “Less than Significant.” This section includes, “Deletion of Groundwater Supplies…” I do not understand how a wave pool that will reportedly use millions of gallons of potable water a year is a “Less than Significant” issue. Response 59‐d: Please see Topical Response, 2.2.3, Water Resources in Section 2.2 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, the maximum amount of water the project can use, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies. The Draft EIR, as described on page 4.15‐31, correctly concluded that the project will have a less than significant impact on water supplies. Comment 59‐e: (5) Under noise, the report talks mostly about construction noise, and then states, “The operation of the Wave Basin and associated machines shall be limited to daytime and evening hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., compliant with the recreational operational hours allowed by the City of La Quinta.” This is a “non‐answer” answer, as it does not address the actual amount the wave pool, employee jet skis, any loudspeakers, alarms, music, etc., will make. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐227 February 2022 Response 59‐e: This comment is incorrect. The Draft EIR analyzes all construction‐related and operational noise generated from the proposed project in Section 4.11, Noise. As explained on pages 4.11‐45 and 4.15‐ 46, the noise generated by the wave pool and loudspeakers (ala rms and amplified music are not used at the Wave Basin) were included in the modeling for noise generated by the project, with a peak noise level of 75.7 dBA near the wave machine’s cable roller system. As shown in Tables 4.11‐24 and 4.11‐25, this results in a maximum noise level of 51.4 dBA at the nearest off‐site sensitive receptor location and 64.0 dBA at the nearest on‐site area immediately adjacent to the Wave Basin itself, which do not exceed the thresholds of significance established by the City. In addition, further noise level measurements were taken at the Lemoore facility in August 2021 to evaluate improvements to the wave machine cable roller system , and to ensure that the measurements were taken while the waves were being actively used by surfers with the rescue jet ski in operation. These measurements showed a slight decrease in peak noise levels from 75.7 dBA to 73.5 dBA at a location 12 feet from the noise source (see Appendix K.3 in this Final EIR). In addition, as shown on Table 4.11‐26 (comparing current ambient noise levels to projected total noise levels at project buildout), and explained on pages 4.11‐48 – 4.11‐49, the project will not significantly increase noise levels at any of the off‐site sensitive receiver locations and will not cause total noise levels to exceed the City’s 65 dBA threshold of significance. Please also see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4. Comment 59‐f: (6) The report states the impact of the project on “Transportation” will be “Less than Significant.” This is a very large development, so it is difficult for me to accept this assessment, but it certainly does not appear that will be the case during the minimum of four large “Special Events’ per year. The City should look into this in much more detail. Response 59‐f: The Draft EIR analyzes all traffic that will be generated by the proposed project in Section 4.13, Transportation, including special event traffic (see pages 4.13‐17 – 4.13‐47). The potential impacts from special event traffic are addressed on pages 4.13‐42 – 4.13‐47, including potential intersection delays and turning lane storage capacity, and all such facilities will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the improvements required for buildout of the project. In addition, the Draft EIR identifies Mitigation Measures TRA‐9 though TRA‐13 to further ensure that special events will not cause any significant traffic or safety impacts (see pages 4.13‐46 – 4.13‐47, and 4.13‐62 – 4.13‐ 63). Please also see the Topical Response on Traffic at Section 2.2.5 above. Comment 59‐g: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐228 February 2022 Last, as I understand it, this project would require a change in zoning of the property essentially from residential to tourist commercial. Given the heavily STVR orientation of the project, its hotel, and its commercial components, this is entirely incompatible with the surrounding developments and will forever change the nature of this community. The City should not allow that to occur. Response 59‐g: As described in Section 3.0. Project Description in the Draft EIR, the project is a mixed use project that includes low density residential uses, tourist commercial and general commercial uses. The project will require General Plan and Zoning map amendments to assign a Tourist Commercial designation to the site. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to the proposed Change of Zone, and the process required to undertake these changes. Additionally, the proposed resort is consistent with the City of La Quinta’s goals and policies for the City in the La Quinta General Plan. Project consistency with the General Plan is analyzed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. Per Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR (page 4.10‐17), the implementation of the Tourist Commercial land use designation and the associated development of a recreational facility and hotel will promote the continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in La Quinta by providing resort, recreational, commercial, and residential land uses on the 386‐acre property. Additionally, the residential uses will incrementally increase demand for commercial goods and services in the region, thus enhancing the economy. This is consistent with Policy LU‐5.2, Goal LU‐6, and Policy LU‐6.3 of the General Plan. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐229 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 60: Bridgett Novak (1) Date: August 2, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 60‐a: Please consider this part of the overwhelming opposition to the proposed Wavepark project at Madisonand Avenues 58/60 in La Quinta. Response 60‐a: The commenter’s opinion on the project is noted. Comment 60‐b: The project is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the City of La Quinta’s current Noise Ordinances. The City limits construction hours from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday, and prohibits construction noise entirely on Sunday and Holidays. This means that this Wavepark/Surfamusement Park project will violate the current Noise policies from day one!! Response 60‐b: The comment is incorrect. There is no substantial evidence in the record that the project would be constructed outside of the City’s permitted hours of construction. Please refer to page 4.11‐9 of Section 4.11, Noise, in the Draft EIR for the correct hours stated in the City Municipal Code 6.08.050 (also provided below for reference). The project will be required to comply with these hours, as stated on page 4.11‐35. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐230 February 2022 Comment 60‐c: To exist as currently planned… it has to be considered a ‘Special Event’… and not just for the four times a year they claim they will request… but for every day they operate! Please be serious about this! What they are proposing is to operate a noisy Amusement feature 7 days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m… in total violation of the City’s current regulations. This is another reason why Meriweather’s requested zoning change from residential to commercial should definitely NOT be allowed. Response 60‐c: The project requests a zone change in order to allow the proposed resort component of the project. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as it relates to the process required for changing the Zone on the property. Please also see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 in this Chapter, as well as Response 59‐e. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐231 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 61: Bridgett Novak (2) Date: August 2, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 61‐a: The current Draft EIR for the Coral Mountain Surfamusement Park must be rejected and Meriweather’s request for a zoning change be denied. P.S. Please add the attached to the documents I already submitted via email on 3/31/2021 and 4/2/2021. All should be considered part of the Public record and Official opposition to this project and any related zoning change request. Response 61‐a: This introductory comment is noted. Responses to Novak’s attached letters are provided in Response 61‐b through 61‐i. Comment 61‐b: Please add this submission to the documents I already submitted in writing (via email) on 3/31/2021 and 4/2/2021. I have seen lots of DEIRs and never seen one so devoid of actual measurable data (on which conclusions are supposed to be drawn). This DEIR instead relies on conjecture and vague statements like “no significant issue”. That is NOT acceptable…and the City Council is NOT doing its job if it does not toss this document back to Meriweather and its obviously‐biased consultant MSA. PLEASE TAKE THIS PROJECT AND CITIZENS’ CONCERNS SERIOUSLY. In this document, I will address 3 of my primary concerns (though I’m concerned about many others, too). Response 61‐b: The commenter’s opinion on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR are noted. The Draft EIR includes analyses based on technical studies prepared by technical experts and attached as appendices to the Draft EIR. The methodologies used for the technical reports are based on applicable local, regional and state methodologies and satisfy CEQA criteria for determining significance thresholds (CEQA Guidelines Appendix G). The information in the EIR constitutes substantial evidence, as defined in Section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines, supporting the conclusions in the Draft EIR regarding the significance of the impacts of the project. Comment 61‐c: LIGHT POLLUTION For the developers to casually claim that their 80‐foot light towers will have “directional” lights pointed towards the water is totally insufficient. A study needs to be conducted with actual water 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐232 February 2022 and a backdrop of a rock‐wall mountain (like Coral Mountain) to determine how much deflected light will bounce off the water and the mountains...and from how far away the light towers, their bulbs, their direct and diffused light, and their poles will be visible. Our home is deep within Andalusia and we can see the entire face of Coral Mountain from our backyard. Those light towers and their bulbs will be visible. That is NOT acceptable and not properly addressed in the DEIR. What about other lights throughout the development? There are walking paths, outdoor dining/entertainment areas, bike paths, homes, a hotel, a restaurant, etc. planned for this project. All will have outdoor lighting that has to be measured and evaluated. Response 61‐c: Please see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1 of this Chapter, which describes the lighting demonstration conducted on November 17, 2021. As described, the light poles and light fixtures would emit light levels at or below 0.01‐foot candles (which represents an imperceptible light level) at 120 feet behind or next to each light pole. Lights throughout the development are also analyzed in discussion d. of Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR. Within this section, discussion of lights associated with the various uses are analyzed (pages 4.1‐60 to 4.1‐70). This section demonstrates that outdoor lighting in the project low density residential, open space recreation, and neighborhood commercial planning areas would comply with the standards in La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.100.150. This Code requires all exterior lighting to be fully or partially shielded. Fully shielded means “the fixture shall be shielded in such a manner that light rays emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, are projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest point on the fixture where light is emitted, thus preventing the emission of light above the horizontal.” Partially shielded means “the fixture is shielded in such a manner that the bottom edge of the shield is below the plane centerline of the light source (lamp), minimizing the emission of light rays above the horizontal.” Section 9.100.150 also requires that “[a}ll exterior lighting shall be located and directed so as not to emit light on adjacent properties.” Onsite lighting within PA I, PA II and PA IV will result in lighting levels consistent with those of surrounding developments, will comply with the requirements of the Municipal Code, and will be less than significant. Comment 61‐d: Are there going to be big screens (aka jumbotrons) showing surfers every day the Wave Basin is open and broadcasting big images of entertainers for their special events? Those light emissions have to be evaluated. Response 61‐d: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐233 February 2022 Large digital display screens (i.e., big screens) are not proposed as part of the project. Digital display screens may be proposed for use during special events, however, approval of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) is required for each special event and as part of the rev iew of any TUP application the City would review all aspects of the proposed special event, including the use of digital display screens and include conditions of approval to ensure the special event will not result in any significant effects. Comment 61‐e: The ability to see surrounding mountains, palm trees, the sky, and stars at night is a HUGE part of what makes La Quinta the ‘gem of the desert’. This is a very serious issue and MUST be carefully studied in the DEIR and EIR process, NOT just surmised by Meriweather and MSA (or whoever else they hire to issue ‘expert’ opinions). DEIRs and EIRs are not supposed to be based on opinions...but on measurable facts. Please do your job and demand this be done properly! Response 61‐e: Please consult Section 4.1, Aesthetics, for a full analysis of the proposed project’s impact on aesthetics. Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR analyzed the project’s impacts on surrounding scenic vistas when viewed from public viewpoints. With the exhibits generated in Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR, it was determined that from the public viewpoints, many of the project components, including the proposed hotel and Wave Basin, would not be visible from public rights‐of‐ways. Please consult pages 4.1‐22 through 4.1‐28 for analysis of the proposed project on the various scenic vistas, as well as Exhibits 4.1‐4 through 4.1‐13 for a line‐of‐sight analysis and visual simulations from various viewpoints. Contrary to the assertion that the conclusions regarding aesthetic impacts were “surmised,” they were based on detailed line‐of‐sight analyses that evaluate the distance, viewing angle and intervening obstructions to determine whether and to what extent the project features will be visible from 5 different viewing locations surrounding the project site. This analysis is illustrated in 5 line‐of‐site exhibits (see Exhibits 4.1‐4, 4.1‐6, 4.1‐8, 4.1‐10, and 4.1‐12). In addition, visual simulations were prepared from the same five locations to demonstrate what will be visible from the five locations at project buildout and to compare those views to what exists today (see Exhibits 4.1‐ 5, 4.1‐7, 4.1‐9, 4.1‐11, and 4.1‐13). As shown in these exhibits, the proposed Wave Basin light poles and hotel will not be readily visible from any of the 5 viewing locations due to distance, elevation changes, and intervening vegetation and perimeter features of the project. However, it was determined that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to currently available public views of Coral Mountain due to the change from undeveloped desert land to a developed community with perimeter walls, landscaping and homes that will partially obstruct existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains from some locations (see Draft EIR pages 4.1‐44 and 4.1‐45). Comment 61‐f: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐234 February 2022 We also believe the developer is far too cavalier with regard to NOISE concerns. It is really laughable that the developer points to noise studies that were conducted at Lemoore. As La Quinta resident Kathy Weiss said during the 3/30/2021 Zoom meeting, “that’s apples and oranges”. First of all, Lemoore is surrounded by flat agricultural fields and no residential developments. They apparently intend to build this Wave Basin right up against Coral Mountain. Noises created in that basin will echo off the rock face and reverberate far and wide!!! And what about the grinding sound of the train‐like rail system that moves back and forth or the hydrafoils that help create the waves? All of this needs to be carefully measured and evaluated for this particular site!! And what about the tower where the Public Announcer sits and from where he/she broadcasts upcoming waves, musical choices, safety warnings, etc.? It will be a public announcement system with loud speakers! And what about the jet ski(s)? used to run surfers back to the beginning of the wave experience? A “Travel & Leisure” article says the basin will accommodate 25 surfers at a time...so there will have to be multiple jet skis routinely ferrying surfers back & forth. And there will likely be other jet ski‐type devices in the water to rescue people who are injured and to take photographs of the surfers (since everyone will, no doubt, want a visual memory of their experience...and which will likely be another way for the developers to make money). The DEIR needs to include measurements of the PA and jet ski noise...at this particular location. Response 61‐f: The commenter’s opinion is noted. With respect to the noise concerns regarding the Wave Basin, including all sources of noise (wave machine, public announcement system, jet ski, etc.), please see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 and Responses 52‐h and 59‐e. Comment 61‐g: In addition, this project is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the City of La Quinta’s current Noise Ordinances. The City limits construction hours from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday, and prohibits construction noise entirely on Sunday and Holidays. This means that this Wavepark/Surfamusement Park project will VIOLATE the current Noise policies from day one!! To exist as currently planned… it has to be considered a ‘Special Event’… and not just for the four times a year they claim they will request… but for every day they operate. Please be serious about this! What they are proposing is to operate a noisy Amusement feature 7 days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m… in total violation of the City’s current regulations. This is another reason why Meriweather’s requested zoning change from residential to commercial should definitely NOT be allowed! Response 61‐g: Please see Responses 60‐b and 60‐c. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐235 February 2022 Comment 61‐h: UTILITY OVERLOAD Will the project’s need for huge amounts of continuous power affect the cost, availability and/or dependability of electricity, water, gas, Internet and WiFi in surrounding neighborhoods? Will the current IID facility on Avenue 58 have to be expanded? As local residents, we regularly receive requests from IID to “restrict usage” and get news about “rolling outages”, which occur regularly throughout the summer. This project is likely to put huge amounts of additional stress and draw on our current grid. THIS NEEDS TO BE CAREFULLY MEASURED...which is another reason to REJECT THE CURRENT DEIR and deny the zoning change request. Response 61‐h: The project’s energy demands and IID’s capacity to meet those demands are fully analyzed in Section 4.5, Energy Resources, and 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, in the Draft EIR, which concluded that the project would not have any significant impacts. With respect to the expansion of the IID facility on Avenue 58, the project will be required to install an additional transformer bank at the existing substation and install underground conduit and line extensions in the existing right‐of way in Avenue 58 as described on page 3‐32 and shown on Exhibit 3‐14. As evaluated throughout Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, these project‐related improvements will not cause any significant environmental effects. Please also see Responses 52‐k and 59‐b above. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐236 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 62: Philip Novak Date: August 2, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 62‐a: 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. Response 62‐a: This introductory comment is noted. Responses are provided below to specific comments. Comment 62‐b: 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) Response 62‐b: The citation relates to a description of a hypothetical condition where all project traffic is added to the existing roadways under current conditions, without taking into account actual future traffic conditions or roadway and other planned improvements that will be in place. Section 7.2, Existing Conditions Project Traffic Noise Level Increase, of the Noise Study (page 51) explains that “an analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed project has been included in this [Noise] report for informational purposes. However, the analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed project scenario will not actually occur since the project would not be fully constructed (Phase 1, 2 & 3) and operational until year 2026 cumulative conditions.” The Noise Study continues to state “this scenario is provided solely for analytical 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐237 February 2022 purposes and will not occur, since the project will not be fully developed (Phase 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.” In other words, this comment in the executive summary is describing an artificial and hypothetical condition that will not actually occur. Comment 62‐c: 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 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 that 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.” Response 62‐c: In response to the first, second, and third bullet points in this comment‐ “this scenario” is referring to the potentially significant impacts that were determined to occur at Segments 8 and 27 under a purely hypothetical condition where traffic at full buildout of the project is added to the existing (2019) conditions. This is fully addressed in Response 62‐b above. The commenter’s opinion in the fourth bullet point in this comment is noted. Comment 62‐d: Criticism 3: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐238 February 2022 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. Response 62‐d: Concerns regarding the accuracy of comparing noise measurements of the Kelly Slater Surf Ranch in Lemoore to the proposed project were introduced by the public during the project’s scoping meeting on March 30, 2021. For context, the area surrounding the Kelly Slater Surf Ranch in Lemoore is characterized by agricultural fields, whereas the proposed project is located on the desert floor and adjacent to Coral Mountain. The public expressed concerns that sound propagation and attenuation would vary between the different land types. Urban Crossroads provided a Noise Memo, dated April 20, 2020, to address this concern (included as Appendix K.2 in the Draft EIR). The Noise Memo states that agricultural fields and desert floors are considered soft surfaces for the purposes of sound propagation. Only hard surfaces, such as pavement, would change the sound attenuation characteristics of the project. In addition, the worst‐case reference noise level conditions were taken during peak wave noise events at 12 feet, as stated above, whereas Coral Mountain is located approximately 650 feet from the Wave Basin. The reference noise level measurements themselves do not include any sound attenuation for the agricultural fields. Please see the Noise Topical Response in Section 2.2.4, which describes both the noise sources studied at the Lemoore facility, and how those noise sources were applied to the project site. As it relates to the noise measurement timing (53 minutes) and operation of the project. The assumptions and analysis in the Draft EIR were correctly undertaken, and the conclusions accurately described. Comment 62‐e: 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: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐239 February 2022 “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. Response 62‐e: Noise sensitive receivers are uses that may be sensitive to increased noise levels, including homes located in proximity to the project (page 69 of Noise Study). These noise sensitive receivers primarily included the residential areas and communities surrounding the project site. Urban Crossroads placed noise measuring equipment at these locations, as described on pages 4.11‐23 and 4.11‐24. Based on the measurements taken at these locations, Urban Crossroads was able to model the potential noise level increases as a result of project construction and operation. Urban Crossroads was then able to determine whether the increase in noise would result in significant impacts. Comment 62‐f: 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 ‘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 Le moore 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. Response 62‐f: Contrary to the comment’s assertion, the noise study describes the assumptions for Operational Noise Impacts on page 73. In this section, Urban Crossroads analyzes the potential stationary‐source using reference noise levels from uses similar to what the project proposes. Appendix 10.1 of the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐240 February 2022 Noise Study is referenced in this section. As it relates to the measurements of operational noise levels at the Wave Basin, pages 4.11‐44 and 4.11‐45 of the Draft EIR contain a thorough description of how the measurements were taken of all noise sources at the Wave Basin, including the public announcement system. In addition, further noise readings in Lemoore were taken on August 15, 2021, to ensure that the measurements were taken with surfers on the waves and with the rescue jet ski operating, and to evaluate the current wave machine cable roller system that is planned for the project. As explained in Appendix K.3 of this Final EIR, the noise readings in August showed a slight decrease in peak noise levels from 75.7 dBA to 73.5 dBA, 12 feet from the wave machine activity. Please also see the Noise Topical Response at Section 2.2.4 and Responses 52‐h and 59‐e. Comment 62‐g: 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 peerreviewed 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? Response 62‐g: Section 10.2 of the Noise Study (Appendix K.1) provides a thorough description of the CadnaA computer noise modeling program used for the operational noise analysis and how that program complies with the applicable ISO 9613 protocols. This is a reliable, industry‐standard three‐ dimensional noise modeling program used extensively in the industry to accurately predict noise levels taking into account the site‐specific topography, buildings and other noise barriers, among other factors. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐241 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 63: Sandra Stratton Date: August 2, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 63‐a: 1.2.1 Proposed Project “Meanwhile, the project area west of Madison Street, is the subject of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, new Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Permit, and Development Agreement proposed for the project and discussed in greater detail below.” There are six major changes proposed [referring to the proposed entitlements]. Why did this project make it this far through planning and the City Council? Where is the explanation of when and how this first proposed to amend the City’s General Plan? What was the justification to proceed further? Response 63‐a: The proposed entitlements are discussed in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, and Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning. Project History is included on page 2‐2, Chapter 2.0, Introduction, of the Draft EIR. City Staff have received and processed applications filed by the property owner as required under La Quinta’s Municipal Code and State law. Also see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to the review process for the project. Comment 63‐b: The city council should provide its residents with a written and public justification of its intent, so there can be no misunderstanding of facts, history and responsibilities. In addition the city should certify that THEY PERSONALLY have studied this report and responses from residents. Response 63‐b: The City Council has received the Draft EIR, will receive the Final EIR, will hold a public hearing to consider the EIR and the project entitlement applications, will deliberate in public, and will make its decisions during this public hearing. The City Council will consider the project in full compliance with CEQA. Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, should it wish to approve the project, the City Council must certify the Final EIR. Specifically, the City Council is required to certify that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and that the final EIR reflects the City‘s independent judgment and analysis. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐242 February 2022 Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, Findings, requires that the City Council adopt written findings for each significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. If the project will result in any unavoidable significant effects, approval of a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required by Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines to identify the specific reasons supporting approval of the project action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. Comment 63‐c: “Existing residential communities occur to the north, south, and east. Avenue 58 and residential properties define the project’s northern boundary; Madison Street and the Andalusia community define the eastern boundary; Coral Mountain defines the property’s southwestern boundary; and vacant land and residential properties define the southern and western boundaries.” The residential properties mentioned are not only Andalusia, but Trilogy to the Southeast, PGA West Weiskopf to the Northeast, The Quarry to the West, Santerra to the North, Coral Mountain Estates to the North. These existing communities house a significant population and conform to the current LQ General Plan. All of the residents of these communities along with the single family residential on Avenue 60 should have been advised by mail in 2019 of their opportunity to comment at that time. Response 63‐c: Regarding public notice of the project and the environmental review process, the City has fully complied with all applicable legal requirements including sending the Notice of Preparation of the EIR (NOP) to the Office of Planning and Research and all responsible and trustee agencies, and filed a copy of the NOP with the Riverside County Clerk, in February 2021, as required by State CEQA Guidelines (2021) Section 15082, and advertised in the Desert Sun on February 17, 2021. To facilitate early public involvement in the environmental review process the City also published notice of the NOP in the Desert Sun newspaper, posted a copy of the NOP on its website. Additionally, the City advertised a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR in the Desert Sun Newspaper in June 2021, and posted the NOA on its website and sent notice to NOP commen ters, and all parties who requested notice, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. The effectiveness of the City’s efforts to facilitate early and full public participation in the CEQA process is further evidenced by the numerous emails and other correspondence received in response to the March 2021 NOP, and well as the approximately 80 comments received from the public on the Draft EIR. Comment 63‐d: “Development Agreement (DA 2021‐0002) would vest the applicant’s right to develop the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan area pursuant to the entitlements described above, address short‐term rentals within all planning areas of the project, ensure that the project has a net positive fiscal impact on the City despite the lack of property tax revenue to the City through 2035, and ensure the timely completion of infrastructure to serve the project and surrounding area, and ensure that the project 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐243 February 2022 design features and mitigation measures identified in this EIR are enforceable by the City as project requirements. “ STVR’s will increase the traffic, noise and population. The City will not receive tax revenue through 2035! While approving STVR’s which are being curtailed in the rest of the City, this is insane that it would be allowed with NO TAX REVENUE! What exactly is a “net positive fiscal impact” without revenue? This needs further explanation. Response 63‐d: The commenter’s opinion regarding STVRs is noted. The reference to the City not receiving tax revenue through 2035 refers to property taxes, that will go to the County until 2035 to pay for redevelopment bonds issued by the County prior to City annexation of this area. TOT and sales tax revenue from the proposed project provide a way for development of this property to have a net positive impact on the City’s finances instead if a negative financial impact as would occur if the site is developed under its existing entitlements. Please refer to Response 52‐g for further information regarding the proposed STVRs. Comment 63‐e: ”Zone Change (ZC 2019‐0004) will revise the existing zoning from Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Golf Course, to Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Low Density Residential (RL), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Tourist Commercial (CT).” La Quinta Zoning Code Section 9.240.010 states the following required findings shall be made by the City Council prior to approval of any specific plan or specific plan amendment: 1. Consistency with the General Plan – IT IS NOT 2. Public Welfare – The noise, traffic, light pollution is detrimental to the general welfare. “Significant and Unavoidable” as shown on EIR 3. Land Use Compatibility – IT IS NOT compatible with surrounding low density adjacent communities. 4. Property Sustainability – The existing specific plan for this property is sustainable. It is unknown if a Wave Basin will survive. All of Kelly Slater’s recent Surf Ranch proposals have not come to fruition. He has not exhibited that his business model will survive, much less open. Why should the City of LQ be the test case? What will happen to a dry, abandoned wave pool community? PR and CT zoning is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood. This is nothing more than a glorified amusement park. Response 63‐e: The commenter’s opinions are noted. This comment asserts that the project is not consistent with the General Plan but does not provide and data or evidence to support this assertion. Please see 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐244 February 2022 Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR for analysis of the consistency of the project with the General Plan goals and policies and land use compatibility. Contrary to statement 2 above, the potential noise, traffic and light impacts of the project were found to be less than significant with incorporation of all identified mitigation measures. This is summarized in the Topical Responses for these topics in Sections 2.2.4, 2.2.5, and 2.2.1, respectively, and addressed in detail in Chapters 4.11 (noise), 4.13 (traffic), and 4.1 (aesthetics) in the Draft EIR. Project sustainability features are analyzed in Chapters 4.2 (air quality), 4.5 (energy), 4.7 (GHG emissions), and 4.12 (public services). Ultimately, the decision to approve the requested zone change is a policy decision to be made by the City Council, who will be required to make the findings specified in Zoning Code Section 9.240.010 if it decides to approve the zone change. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a for more information regarding this process. Comment 63‐f: “The Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan (SP 2020‐0002) will establish a new master plan governing the allowable land uses, design guidelines, and development standards to allow creation of a boutique resort and master‐planned community. The Specific Plan includes four Planning Areas which are coterminous to the General Plan and Zoning designation boundaries described above.” This is anything but a BOUTIQUE RESORT AND MASTER‐PLANNED COMMUNITY! It is not private. It cannot be private and generate enough attendance to justify the cost of this wave pool. It is clearly open to the public who reserve a room at the hotel or rent one or two days at the STVRs. Master planned communities do not invite 2,500 people to attend events, four times a year. Response 63‐f: The commenter’s opinions are noted. The project will be gated and private, with the exception of the neighborhood commercial project at the northeast corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, as described on pages 3‐13 – 3‐23 of the Draft EIR. The residential, tourist commercial, and open space uses proposed for the project would only be accessible to the residents and guests of the resort. Gated entry is required for these uses. Public access to these areas will be prohibited. Comment 63‐g: “Planning Area I (PA I) – Neighborhood Commercial is located on 7.7 acres at the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, and allows for the construction of 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible neighborhood commercial building space with affiliated circulation and infrastructure improvements.” The opposite corner of Avenue 58 and Madison has been available for commercial development for the 11 years I have lived in Trilogy. For most of that time it was posted with a sign to attract commercial tenants. Nothing was ever developed. Meriwether must also find commercial tenants in order to build commercial space. It seems unlikely. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐245 February 2022 Response 63‐g: The commenter’s opinions regarding the marketability of the property are noted. Comment 63‐h: “PA IIIG – Back of House: The Back of House subarea contains approximately 26.5 acres that will be graded as level, largely open land south of the Wave Basin. This subarea will provide unprogrammed gathering and staging space for temporary equipment such as port‐a‐potties, shade structures, tenting for inclement weather, and catering equipment that might be used during events.” This area will cause significant traffic on Avenue 60. Andalusia and Trilogy have spent and continue to spend significant funds to landscape and maintain the beauty of this street between our communities. Response 63‐h: The commenter’s opinion is noted. As shown in Exhibit 4.13‐2, approximately 25% of the project’s external trips are anticipated to use the secondary access on Avenue 60, and as shown on Table 4.13‐ 23, the intersection of Avenue 60 and Madison Street will operate at level of service B at full buildout with an all‐way stop sign traffic control. The same is true during special events (see Table 4.13‐27). As explained in Chapter 4.13 of the Draft EIR, and summarized in the Topical Response on Traffic in Section 2.2.5, the project will not have any significant traffic impacts with implementation of the required mitigation measures. Comment 63‐i: It will be a direct conduit for trucks hauling everything for these events. That is unacceptable. The developer is directed to map out a route for all of the construction traffic. Given that Trilogy has not been considered in any evaluation, the route will likely go along 60th from Monroe to the site. Response 63‐i: The commenter’s opinion is noted. With respect to construction traffic, Mitigation Measure TRA‐8 requires City review and approval of a Construction Traffic Control Plan to avoid traffic impacts and protect public safety. Although the construction route and access point have not been selected yet, it is anticipated that a temporary construction access will be established on Madison Street, not Avenue 60, to minimize impacts the existing residents on Avenue 60. With respect to special events, which require City approval of a Temporary Use Permit (TUP), Mitigation Measure TRA‐10 requires a special event traffic and parking plan to be submitted with the TUP application for each proposed special event to ensure that special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. Mitigation Measures TRA‐11 through TRA‐14 identified in the Draft EIR will also reduce impacts of traffic related to special events to less than significant levels. TRA‐11 requires Traffic Management Plans to be 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐246 February 2022 submitted to the City and Police Department for review and approval prior to special events. TRA‐12 through TRA‐14 require traffic control, which typically include special event flaggers, law enforcement personnel, online or transmitted event information (suggested routes, parking, etc.) and portable changeable message signs (CMS) located at critical locations identified by the La Quinta Police Department. TRA‐12 through TRA‐14 will be include in TUP conditions of approval for each occurrence. Please see pages 4.13‐42 to 4.13‐47 of the Draft EIR for full discussion and analysis. The Draft EIR correctly and thoroughly analyzed the potential impacts to Avenue 60. Comment 63‐j: “PA IIIB – The Wave: The Wave subarea contains approximately 31.2 acres containing an artificial surf Wave Basin and associated infrastructure. PA IIIC – Wave Club: The Wave Club subarea contains approximately 3.2 acres fronting the Wave Basin and will function as a private clubhouse with amenities for exclusive use by the Coral Mountain community.” “1.4 Areas of Controversy; the potential for a significant change in the visual character of the area from a single‐story residential and golf environment to a hotel and Wave Basin facility; and the potential impacts of proposed 80‐foot light standards surrounding the Wave Basin on the night sky, light and glare. Visual simulations, line‐of‐sight analyses and photometric analyses were conducted for the project. 4.1 AESTHETICS Table 1‐3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation states the level of Significance and Mitigation clearly is “Significant and Unavoidable”. Page 136 of 738 includes the line of sight analysis. LINE OF SIGHT SECTION ‘E’ FROM AVENUE 60 The viewpoint does not include views from Trilogy. It was taken west of the intersection of 60th and Madison at street level. Many houses along 60th (Barrel Cactus Rd) are elevated above 60th. Detail “A” Wave Basin/Light. The line of sight on Exhibit 4.1‐12 shows that the tops of the 80 foot light poles will be above the line of sight from street level. That does not take into consideration any of the homes in Trilogy which are higher in elevation. Response 63‐j: The location for the Line of Sight Section E was selected to show the potential view impacts from Avenue 60 near the existing residences, which is a view shared by portions of Trilogy from a greater distance. As shown on Exhibit 4.1‐12 and 4.1‐13, the direct line of sight toward the Wave Basin and hotel from that viewing location is partially obstructed by existing landscaping and the proposed project perimeter wall. The distance from the viewing location to the nearest light pole is 1,274 feet. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐247 February 2022 The distance to the nearest portions of Trilogy is substantially further. Accordingly, while the increased elevation of Trilogy may allow the upper portions of the light poles to be in the line of sight from Trilogy, the distance and intervening trees and other vegetation will avoid any significant impacts to Trilogy residents, consistent with the determinations in Chapter 4.1 of the Draft EIR. Please also see the Topical Response on light and glare in Section 2.2.1. Comment 63‐k: To state they will only be on from dusk to 10 pm is absurd! That is not a mitigation. The poles will be visible 24 hours a day. I personally live in Trilogy and my backyard on the golf course faces the southwest corner of this community where the Wave Basin and lights are located. Currently I enjoy every morning and evening looking directly at Coral Mountain and enjoy the change in colors. No six foot fence is going to cure Anything. I already can look over the fences surrounding Andalusia. (Photos attached) Response 63‐k: Mitigation Measure AES‐3 (page 4.1‐73 of the Draft EIR) regarding the hours of operation associated with the 80‐foot light poles is required. This Mitigation Measure acts to reduce impacts of light and glare from the light fixtures, as required by CEQA threshold topic d) in the aesthetics section. Mitigation Measure AES‐3 reduces impacts of light emitted from the 80‐foot poles to less than significant levels because it is consistent with the La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.100.150 for recreational uses of light. Please also see the Topical Response on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1, as well as Appendices B.1 and B.2 of this Final EIR, for additional evidence and analysis regarding the proposed Wave Basin lighting system. As explained and illustrated therein, the lighting system’s directional fixture aiming and light cut‐off visors allow the Wave Basin itself to be illuminated with no light spillage outside of the Wave Basin area. With respect to the visibility of the light poles in the daytime, please review Exhibits 4.1‐12 and 4.1‐ 13 which show what the view will look like from a location on Avenue 60 that is much closer to the poles than any portion of Trilogy. Please also see Response 63‐j. As explained on page 4.1‐39, of Section 4.1, Aesthetics, in the Draft EIR, “Some light poles may be visible to the residential estate lots and Avenue 60; however, due to the distance of the fixtures to adjacent properties and the small mass of the proposed light fixtures, they are not anticipated to significantly impact the scenic vista.” As the properties in Trilogy are substantially further from the light poles than the viewing location on Avenue 60 this conclusion is also applicable to the Trilogy properties. Comment 63‐l: In conclusion the Line of Sight Analysis is inadequate as it does not take into consideration the line of sight from the northern and western boundaries of Trilogy. The City needs an independent analysis. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐248 February 2022 Response 63‐l: The commenter’s opinion is noted. As described above, the Draft EIR accurately and thoroughly analyzed line of sight, and correctly determined that impacts from some locations would be significant and unavoidable. Comment 63‐m: “Coral Mountain Coral Mountain partially lies within the southwest corner of the project property. Coral Mountain extends over 400 feet above sea level and provides a scenic resource for the surrounding area. The Mountain is currently viewed without significant obstructions from the public roadways, Avenue 58 to the north, and Madison Street to the east.” This section of the EIR gives no consideration to views from Trilogy. We have over 1200 homes many of which have excellent views of Coral Mountain. To give our community no consideration is irresponsible. Views from the streets alone is not a thorough a nalysis. A drive‐by view from the street is inadequate. Many views are from homes on the golf course inside the community. The citizens of Trilogy deserve adequate consideration and an accurate analysis of the views and noise. Response 63‐m: As explained in Responses 63‐j and 63‐k above, the line of sight and visual simulations from location E (Exhibits 4.1‐12 and 4.1‐13 adequately address views of the Wave Basin light poles from properties in the Trilogy property. Please also see Response 61‐e. Comment 63‐n: 4.11 Noise The sounds from the waves, wave riding vehicles which accompany the surfers, competition broadcasts/music and the public cheering will all be very disturbing. Viewing platforms on top of the hotel will be visible and add to the light pollution. The sounds will bounce off Coral Mountain. I can hear a car drive along 60th, stop at the Madison corner, turn r ight and continue to a stop at 58th. You cannot tell me that the sounds created by all of the traffic and venue will not be noise pollution. Response 63‐ n: Please see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 and Responses 52‐h, 59‐e, and 62‐f above, which explain how the operational noise analysis was completed and show why the project will not have any significant noise impacts on the surrounding communities. Comment 63‐o: LAND USE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐249 February 2022 • Land use compatibility throughout the City. A WAVE BASIN IS NOT COMPATIBLE. •Changes and variations from the Zoning Ordinance in a Specific Plan will be offset by high quality design, amenities and mix of land uses. A WAVE BASIN AMUSEMENT AND STVR’S DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CHANGE. • A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City. THE RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES DOES NOT BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. A FEW HIGH PR ICED LOTS FOR SFR’S – THERE ARE PLENTY ALREADY IN LA QUINTA. • Consider changes in market demand in residential product type to meet the needs of current and future residents. THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR A TOURIST RESORT FOR NON‐RESIDENTS. •A balanced and varied economic base which provides a broad range of goods and services to the City’s residents and the region. A SMALL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE CORNER OF 58 AND MADISON DOES NOT SATISFY THIS POLICY. •Maintain commercial development standards in the Zoning Ordinance including setbacks, height, pad elevations and other design and performance standards that assure a high quality of development. 17‐80 FOOT LIGHT POLES CREATE LIGHT POLLUTION AND ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. • Support and encourage the expansion of the resort industry as a key component of the City’s economic base. SILVERROCK RESORT HAS BEEN IN PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION FOR MANY YEARS AND IS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY “EXPANSION”. LIVABLE COMMUNITY A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT SEVERAL COMMUNITIES WITH THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Land Use Element shall maintain a balance of land use designations to address economic needs, meet market demand, and assure a wide range of development opportunities. WHERE IS THE MARKET DEMAND FOR A WAVE BASIN FOR SURFERS IN THE DESERT. The continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in the City. THIS IS THE WRONG LOCATION FOR A PUBLIC RESORT. HOUSING Provide housing opportunities that meet the diverse needs of the City’s existing and projected population. Identify adequate sites to accommodate a range of product types, densities, and prices to address the housing needs of all household types, lifestyles, and income levels. Conserve and improve the quality of existing La Quinta neighborhoods and individual properties. MILLION DOLLAR 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐250 February 2022 LOTS FOR SFR’S ARE READILY AVAILABLE IN LQ. STVR’S ARE ALREADY OPPOSED BY THE CITY. THERE IS NO LOW INCOME HOUSING PROPOSED. Response 63‐o: The commenter’s opinions regarding the project’s consistency with General Plan policies are noted. Please see Responses 41c, 52‐f, and 83‐w through 83‐hh for a further explanation of project’s consistency with these General Plan policies. Comment 63‐p: WATER RESOURCES The project promotes water conservation through the use of drought tolerant plant materials and water efficient irrigation techniques. The project will comply with all City and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) regulations and building code s for water conservation. Additionally, recycled water will be used for common area irrigation for landscaping. The Wave Basin provides a recreational amenity to support the proposed resort and residential uses, and does so with substantially less water demand than required for alternatives amenities, such as an 18‐hole golf course. DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS AND IRRIGATION ARE ALREADY USED ALL OVER LA QUINTA. THIS IS NOT A MOTIVATION TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT. RECYCLED WATER FOR IRRIGATION vs THE FRESH WATER TO FILL A WAVE BASIN IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION. MOST GOLF COURSES ALREADY USE RECLAIMED WATER NOT FRESH WATER. One cannot ignore the daily headlines from e‐news, TV reports, newspapers and magazine articles declaring a state‐of‐emergency with the reservoirs servicing the western states all reporting historic lower than normal levels. Drought monitoring maps show most of Riverside County is in the severe drought category but is edging closer to the extreme drought classification which is thought to be inevitable. Whether this summer or next spring, a full state drought declaration could be ordered and restrictions enacted. Response 63‐p: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources at Section 2.2.3 which provides a thorough description of the area’s current water status, and CVWD’s water planning and conservation strategy. Comment 63‐q: How will wave pools or lagoons operate then? How will these Wave Basins and oasis lagoons be replenished factoring in the enormous daily evaporation rates and the heavy winds inherent in our valley? Answer: by drawing ever more potable water from the aquifers of course. Just last year in 2020, the entire Coachella Valley endured 140 confirmed days of 100 degree plus temperatures. Additionally, IID has recently published warnings that rolling brownouts for this summer are likely to 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐251 February 2022 occur which will affect homes, businesses, and wave pools/lagoons equally. However, downtime for surf parks and lagoons is lost revenue. “In order to assure that everyone in the region has sufficient water, it is important that La Quinta, as one of the stewards of the local water supply, manages and conserves this important resource” (quote from Water Resources III‐57). “The City’s goals, policies and programs relating to water resource management are important to the District’s continued ability to provide domestic water to new and existing developments in the City and the Sphere of Influence”. (quote from Water Resources III‐57). “Continued growth in the City and the region has resulted in an increased demand for domestic water. As a result, CVWD extracts more water from the Lower Thermal sub‐area than is naturally recharged into it every year – a condition known as overdraft. "(quote from Water Resources III‐58)." An ”effective manner to reduce overdraft in the aquifer is through water conservation. The City and CVWD have implemented a number of conservation programs in recent years which have reduced consumption of domestic water. It is critical that these programs continue and expand, as possible, through build out of the General Plan”. (quote from Water Resources III‐60 Just because a deemed water usage may have been acceptable in the past, it does not mean that responsible changes need not be made going forward as new environmentally challenging conditions might dictate. It's unacceptable that the residents of La Quinta be required to conserve water with respect to their personal use (which we would willingly comply with in the interest of being good citizens and stewards of our water resources), while a commercial venture such as this wave/surf park continues to draw extraordinarily on our aquifers and power supply for an essentially private recreational outlet. The developer has repeatedly stated that the Coral Mountain Project will use less water than a golf course. It is common knowledge that golf courses, both existing and new, have many water conservation options and measures available, wave pools and lagoons have no such alternatives. Wave Pools must use clean, fresh drinking water from the two sub‐basins servicing our valley. These sub‐basins rely on replenishment from the Colorado River but La Quinta cannot count on that source for our aquifers anymore, especially in a historic drought. Response 63‐q: Please see Topical Response, 2.2.3, Water Resources in Section 2.2 of this Chapter which describes CVWD groundwater basin management efforts and its success in increasing existing storage in the Indio subbasin over the past decade and its plans to continue doing so for the next 25 years through a combination of conservation and efficiency measures, source substitution, and replenishment efforts. Based on CVWD’s detailed studies and analysis, it concluded that it has sufficient water supplies to serve the project and all other existing and planned future growth. Please also see Responses 19‐b and 49‐b regarding the availability and use of recycled water in the project area. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐252 February 2022 Comment 63‐r: Why was there no noise receiver location in Trilogy? Trilogy is closer to the Wave Basin than those residents on 58th. Response 63‐r: The Noise Study analyzed sensitive receiver locations on Avenue 60 at properties closer to the project than Trilogy. These properties would experience a greater noise level (both existing and future) than a location at Trilogy because noise levels decrease by 6 dBA with each doubling of distance from the source (see, e.g., Draft EIR pages 4.1‐11 and 4.1‐25). Sensitive Receptor location R8 in the noise study is located at the nearest residence to the project on Avenue 60 (see p. 4.11‐23 and Exhibit 4.11‐2), and at this location, project operations will have a noise level of 47.0 dBA (see Table 4.11‐25). When combined with ambient noise levels, this location will have a noise level of 48.7 dBA, which is substantially below the City’s threshold of significance of 65 dBA (see Table 4.11‐26). At Trilogy, which is more than twice as far from the Wave Basin as the R8 location, project generated noise would decrease by at least 6 dBA to 41.0 dBA, which is lower than the current ambient noise levels at all of the 10 sensitive receptor locations studied around the project site. In other words, at Trilogy, the current ambient noise level (from traffic, landscaping, etc.) likely already exceeds the maximum noise it could receive from project operations, and therefore, Trilogy residents are not likely to be able to hear any noise generated by project operations. Comment 63‐s: In conclusion I firmly believe that the draft EIR is slighted heavily in favor of the developer and has not considered the residents of Trilogy who are closer to the W ave Basin are and associated structures than any of the communities on 58th. The city council should provide its residents with a written and public justification of its intent, so there can be no misunderstanding of facts, history and responsibilities. In addition the city council should certify that THEY PERSONALLY have studied this report and responses from residents. Unlike many politicians who vote without reading a word of a bill, I trust that our City Council will do its duty and study the draft EIR and all responses from the citizens of La Quinta before voting. Response 63‐s: The commenter’s opinion on the Draft EIR is noted. Please also see Response 63‐b regarding the requested written explanation of any decisions the City Council makes on the project applications. Comment 63‐t: In this comment, Stratton provides two pictures taken from her home. Response 63‐t: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐253 February 2022 Receipt of the photos is acknowledged, and their content considered in the formulation of Responses 63‐j through 63‐m, above. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐254 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 64: Terje Berger Date: August 3, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 64‐a: La Quinta don’t have a lot of recreation space left. It is this space and south of La Quinta Cove. Response 64‐a: This comment is noted. Please note that the project site is privately owned property, and as discussed in Section 2.2, Project History in the Draft EIR, it has been p art of an approved specific plan and zoned for private development for more than 20 years. Accordingly, the project site is not public recreational space now and it is not planned or approved to serve as public recreation space. Comment 64‐b: California suffers from a severe drought which get worse for every year. It doesn’t sound well to put a water park in. Response 64‐b: Please see Topical Response, 2.2.3, Water Resources in Section 2.2 of this Chapter. Comment 64‐c: If the contractor wants land for a water park, there is plenty over by Classic Club and the new sports arena that is planned. Response 64‐c: The commenter’s opinion is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐255 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 65: Alena Callimanis Date: August 3, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 65‐a: I am so sorry this is late. I hope I can still present during the public comments section today in the City Council Meeting. I would also like to get the Council at some point a copy of the presentation. Should I bring copies with me? Thank you for your help. P.S. I did this without a video I wanted. I was slammed at work and did not have enough time this morning to embed it. Lucky you!!! Response 65‐a: This comment is noted. Comment 65‐b: Coral Mountain Surf Resort The Wrong Location in this Heat. Response 65‐b: This comment is noted. Comment 65‐c: WADI Adventure Park in the United Arab Emirates ‐ Only other surfing park in a desert environment ‐ Contacted the operations manager at WADI to get insight into the challenges ‐ 140‐mile pipeline from coast to bring desalinated water at a rate of 1 million gallons a week for a total use at the park ‐ 2.8 Million gallon pool, cooled to 85 degrees in the summer o Pools in the 90s plus hot temperatures create potential for heat stroke. Surfers acknowledge artificial surf wave riding more strenuous due to amount of time riding the waves o Warmer pools can incubate protozoa and viruses (brain‐eating amoeba). o Algae buildup increases significantly in hot water; chlorine requirement increases makes pool use a skin and nasal‐passage irritant o Coral Mountain basing their chlorine needs on their Lemoore Surf Park ‐ 40,000 USG added daily to the surf pool from May to November and 10,000 USG from December to April. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐256 February 2022 Response 65‐c: The information provided regarding the United Arab Emirates facility is acknowledged. As it relates to the temperature of the water, please see Response 42‐d. As it relates to protozoa and viruses, please see Response 77‐u. The operation and maintenance of the Wave Basin will comply with State and County health standards to ensure that people are not exposed to dangerous swimming conditions. As stated on page 4.8‐19 of the Draft EIR, the project will be required to comply with regulations established by the California Department of Public Health and the Riverside County Municipal Code. The project will be required to use pool disinfecting and cleaning supplies, and shall be required to follow the procedures established in the Municipal Code and Chapter 6.95 of the HSC. These standards are designed to prevent contaminants, including protozoa and viruses, from surviving in the water. As it relates to daily additions to the wave pool, please see Response 65‐d below. As it relates to chlorine use, the Wave Basin is anticipated to use approximately 216,000 gallons of sodium hypochlorite and 14,440 gallons of sulfuric acid annually, which are both commonly used chemicals in swimming pools (for maximum accuracy, estimates are based on actual rates at the wave basin in Lemoore, not usage rates at typical swimming pools). These chemicals will be stored on site and fed into polyethylene tanks located in a pre‐engineered metal building with a 24‐inch‐high containment wall with chemical resistant coating (see page 4.8‐18). Please see Appendix M.2 of this Final EIR for additional information on the treatment and filtration system for the Wave Basin. Comment 65‐d: Let’s look at evaporation numbers ‐ In the CVWD Water Assessment Coral Mountain surf pool replenishment is listed at 39 million gallons yearly o Not based on any knowledge of surf pool requirements. Based on standard factor of 1.2 for moving waters and pan evaporation numbers 2005 when we only had 99 days over 100 degrees ‐ The World Surf League, which purchased Kelly Slater wave technology, wrote that on very hot days, the Lemoore Surf Ranch, the pool lost 250,000 gallons a day. They had 27 days over 100 degrees in 2020, with the hottest temperature last year of only 107 degrees. ‐ La Quinta had 143 days over 100 degrees in 2020. 250,000 gallons times 143 days equals 36 million gallons lost to evaporation in 143 days. ‐ We had 56 days over 110 degrees. So how much above 250,000 gallons is the evaporation on those days? What about the rest of the 222 days of the year? We had 51 days over 90 degrees. Plus our very windy days adding to evaporation. ‐ You see very quickly that the 39 million gallons calculated by CVWD is wrong. Response 65‐d: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐257 February 2022 As explained in the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 above, CVWD’s methodology for determining the water needed for the proposed Wave Basin accounts for evaporation based on local climatic conditions and actual size of the site‐specific proposed uses. Specifically, the evaporation and water demand calculations required under CVWD Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4, which are consistent with the requirements of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 7, Section 492.4, require determining a “maximum applied water allowance” (MAWA) for the project. As set forth on page 22 of the WSA/WSV, the MAWA is calculated by multiplying the specific area’s annual evapotranspiration (here 64.22 inches) times an evapotranspiration adjustment factor (here the highest adjustment factor of 1.2 was used for a moving water body) times the square feet of area (815,443 square feet for the Wave Basin area) times 0.62 to convert to gallons, shown as follows: 64.22 x 1.2 x 815,443 x 0.62 = 38,961,606 gallons; or 119.58 acre feet per year. The comment references an anecdotal evaporation figure estimated by the World Surf League, stating that on very hot days the Wave Basin in Lemoore lost 250,000 per day. From this World Surf League estimate, the commenter extrapolates potential evaporation based on comparisons of days in Lemoore with temperatures over 100 degrees and days in La Quinta with temperatures over 100 degrees. However, these inexact comparisons are not sufficient to calculate total estimated evaporation rates or water demand for the proposed Wave Basin because they lack critical information including, most importantly, actual established evaporation rates in Lemoore as compared to La Quinta. Simply comparing daily high temperatures does not allow for accurate evaporation calculations. By way of contrast, CVWD adopts evaporation rates for each of four different climate zones in its service area which take into account several key factors not considered in the comment above, including elevation, wind conditions, and shadow conditions (see Appendix C to Landscape Ordinance 1302.4). To ensure accuracy and consistency with California state requirements, CVWD updates its Landscape Ordinance frequently (most recently in 2019). Accordingly, the water demand calculations used in the WSA/WSA and Draft EIR are based on local evaporation rates established by CVWD in compliance with California state mandated requirements and constitute substantial evidence in support of water demands relied upon in the Draft EIR. These calculations are further validated by U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, calculations of water lost to evaporation in open water bodies within the CVWD service area (see Reclamation Managing Water in the West, Estimates of Evapotranspiration and Evaporation Along the Lower Colorado River – September 2010). As shown in Appendix A, p. A1‐37 of that report, CVWD is estimated to have 5,521 acre‐feet of open water evaporation over 886 acres of open water, or approximately 6.23 acre‐feet of water per acre. Using the full Wave Basin footprint of 18.72 acres, this would amount to 116.63 acre‐feet of evaporation annually, which is very close to the calculations described above from CVWD’s approved WSA/WSV for the project (119.58 acre‐feet per year). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐258 February 2022 Going back to the anecdotal evaporation information supplied in the comment, even assuming, hypothetically, that the evaporation rates stated in this comment are accurate and could be used to calculate higher total evaporation rates than determined by CVWD (or the Bureau of Reclamation), such an increase in evaporation would not materially change the project’s effect on available water supplies. As noted above, the project’s total 958.63 AFY constitutes only 0.49 percent of CVWD’s projected growth in water demand. The commenter has provided no evidence that increased evaporation assumptions for the Wave Basin would materially affect CVWD’s conclusions. Accordingly, the project will not have any significant adverse effects relating to water use because CVWD has confirmed that it has adequate water to serve the project and all other current and future uses, even under extended drought conditions, and because the project will not interfere with CVWD’s groundwater management plans. Comment 65‐e: Golf Courses vs Surf Pool ‐ Please stop believing the developer that the Surf Basin will use 25 % of the water usage of a golf course. ‐ Please remember that golf courses can use recycled and grey water; surf pools cannot. ‐ A local golf course decreased their water usage summer 2020 by 17% no problem. ‐ Surf park can’t decrease their water usage or they close. ‐ Golf courses have new designs that are environmentally friendly. ‐ I am not advocating a golf course at the site. Lots of choices for family‐friendly amenities. o Rock wall climbing; Hiking trails; Miniature Golf; Tennis; Bike trails; Community pool; Playgrounds; Pickleball; etc. ‐ THIS IS THE TYPE OF FAMILY FRIENDLY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LA QUINTA NEEDS Response 65‐e: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3. Please also see Responses 19‐b and 49‐b as it relates to the availability and use of tertiary treated water in this part of La Quinta. Comment 65‐f: How can they say no noise impact. (Power Point Slide showing a Channel 3 News still photo was emailed to City, but no audio or video clip was received). Response 65‐f: The commenter’s opinion is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐259 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 66: Wendy Clarke Date: August 3, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 66‐a: I respectfully request to speak in person during the joint meeting of City Council and the Planning Commission’s public session tomorrow, Aug 3 @ 7 pm. My written presentation is attached for distribution. Thank you for your help. Let me know if there is anything else you need. I look forward to meeting you. Good afternoon Mayor Evans, Council members, Planning Commission, and staff. Thank you for your service. Mayor, it is good to see you and other familiar faces. My name is Wendy Clarke; My Family has lived full‐time in the desert for 34 yrs.; 16 years ago, I moved to Trilogy. Response 66‐a: This comment is noted. Responses to specific comments are provided below. Comment 66‐b: I am here to speak to the Coral Mountain Wave rezoning request. Exempt from pass‐through property tax $$ due to the agreement with The Thermal Redevelopment Project, this undeveloped land provides little revenue. I trust, you, the current city council, might have negotiated something different. If rezoned, LQ gains TOT and South LQ residents’ quality of life is permanently, negatively impacted. John Gamlin, project president, recently shared that he has managed S.LQ, luxury, low‐density residential neighborhoods. The CMWR will not be similar in any way with a massive artificial surf wave, stadium lighting, broadcast system, music, and STVRenters. Response 66‐b: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Comment 66‐c: Beyond the 4 proposed annual events, additional temporary‐use permits are likely. Kelly Slater has made public his support of artificial surf waves for the Ultimate Surfer, for Olympic training and competition. LA is the 2028 Summer Olympic host. What will one special event look like? Chaos for 1,000s of residents. Our neighborhoods are not transient or a tourist destination. We intentionally purchased homes away from the commercial corridor. We relax aft er a busy workday, exercise, retire, 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐260 February 2022 enjoy nature, socialize. When we drive down Madison nearing home, there is a sense of calm. We deserve protection of this paradise. Response 66‐c: The commenter’s views are noted. The proposed specific plan would limit the number of special events to no more that 4 per year, with a maximum attendance of 2,500 persons. Any request for more than that number would require an amendment to the Specific Plan (if approved) and further environmental review, both of which would require Planning Commission review and City Council approval at public hearings. Comment 66‐d: Today, we are environmentally mindful and face a life‐threatening drought: lakes reaching historic lows. Supplying 80% of the world, California’s almonds are no longer being planted due to water shortages. We have been asked to reduce water consumption by 15%. Any governing body approving any project that uses a significant amount of water, is irresponsible. This Surf Wave will deplete drinking water from our Colorado River supplied Aquifer. NPR reports, “The Colorado River is tapped out. Extremely dry conditions like the region is experiencing in 2021, make clear that the Colorado River is unable to meet all the demands communities in the Western U.S. have placed on it, and it's up to its biggest users to decide who has to rely on it less”. What are our mutual responsibilities? Everyone reduces water consumption CVWD transitions remaining golf courses to grey water and denies all nonessential, requests requiring water sourced from the Colorado River. The city supports independent studies that evaluate local evaporation rates, actual site noise, and traffic studies post pandemic. Response 66‐d: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 for information on CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies under drought conditions. As the comment relates to noise and traffic, please see the Topical Responses for these issues in Section 2.2.4 and 2.2.5, respectively, for information on the noise and traffic studies completed for this project and the Draft EIR conclusions that the project will not have any significant environmental effects in these topic areas. Comment 66‐e: The city observes its General Plan 2035 “Livable community” that speaks to “long‐term quality of life of its [the City’s] residents”. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐261 February 2022 Response 66‐e: The commenter’s views are noted. Comment 66‐f: It is great to think big; change is inevitable. Meriwether has spent millions, aligning with Kelly Slater and Michael Schwab. It does not justify their project. Please honor S. La Quinta’s established communities and reject The Wave, rezoning request. It will have permanent, quality‐of‐life consequences for many 1000’s of residents. Response 66‐f: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to the requested zone change and procedures for review. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐262 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 67: Diane Rebryna (City Council Meeting) Date: August 3, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 67‐a: Further to my email of earlier today, please find the written version of our comments to be presented in the Open Session in front of City Council attached. We wish these to be part of the public record. Thank you again for your assistance with this; again, please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments. Response 67‐a: This comment is noted. The previous email referenced in this comment is included in Comment 67‐b. Comment 67‐b: My name is Diane Rebryna My husband’s name is Anast Demitt. We reside at [removed for privacy], La Quinta CA 92253 Our phone number is [removed for privacy]. We wish to address City Council during the open session re the Coral Mountain Resort ‐ Diane would like to speak first using her 3 minutes, and to correlate, Anast would like to follow immediately thereafter with his allotted 3 minutes. Thank you for accommodating our request. If there is anything else that you require at this time, please do not hesitate to reach out. Response 67‐b: This comment is noted. The commenter’s oral presentation is transcribed in the following comments. Comment 67‐c: Thank you for allowing me to speak today regarding Coral Mountain Resort, which I will refer to going forward as “the Project”. My name is Diane Rebryna, and my husband Anast Demitt and I are very blessed to have our winter home here at Trilogy in La Quinta. Please know that we truly lo ve this city, particularly its tranquil and beautiful southeast corner, which is why we chose to settle there. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐263 February 2022 Response 67‐c: This comment is noted. Comment 67‐d: At the outset, I wish to say that we’ve spent an inordinate amount of time reviewing the Draft EIR – which at over 1,500 pages was very challenging and intimidating to the average reader to say the least. There were so many topics, with this and that ‘study’ and these and those ‘mitigating factors’ that were covered. Some of the DEIR was formulated with conjectures as evidenced by the statements such as ‘are not anticipated to’, ‘would not significantly impact,’ etc. I certainly felt overwhelmed as I tried to extrapolate all of the potential impacts of this project on life as we know it in South La Quinta. Response 67‐d: Please see the Topical Response on the Ability to Comprehend Draft EIR at Section 2.2.7, . The term “not anticipated to” is commonly used in the preparation of EIRs, and means that, as substantiated in the text, the subject outcome or effect is not expected to occur. The term “would not significantly impact” is also commonly used to mean that based on the evidence and analysis discussed in the EIR, the subject of the sentence (e.g. traffic noise) is not going to exceed the established threshold of significance for that topic or issue. These terms are used to describe conclusions and evidence‐based projections, rather than conjecture as suggested in the comment. Comment 67‐e: To help me understand the DEIR, I also reviewed the 2021 CEQA guidelines ‐ a reference document based on the CA Environmental Quality Act to which is used to develop Environmental Impact Reports. It was here that I had my “eureka” moment! This document, as part of the DEIR checklist speaks to a topic called “Mandatory Findings of Significance” where the following is asked: “Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly”? That is when it hit me! ‐ this Project, as a result of the request for REZONING to allow for it definitely has many known and potentially unknown environmental domino type effects on the ‘human beings’ – those being us – the residents of the communities nearby. Response 67‐e: Identification of project impacts in relation to defined CEQA thresholds of significance for each topic are provided in each section of the Draft EIR. The findings within the Draft EIR determined whether impacts for each environmental topic would result in less than significant impacts, less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures, or significant and unavoidable impacts in accordance with CEQA. The Draft EIR correctly identified significant impacts and provided mitigation 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐264 February 2022 measures where feasible, and where there were no feasible mitigation measures, correctly identified the impacts as significant and unavoidable. The specific issues of rezoning portions of the property and whether the project is consistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies is addressed in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR. Please also see Responses 15‐d, 17‐a, 41‐c, 52‐f and 83‐w through 83‐ hh. Comment 67‐f: 1. First of all, the Developer has asked for Sub ‐ Phase Development based on “market and consumer demand”. I am overwhelmed as I think of how plans for our lives will be totally predicted on the fact that the waves and phases of construction noise and traffic could go on for years and years. We may never see the completion of this project in our time here. Response 67‐f: Similar to many large developments, the proposed project would be developed in several phases. The Draft EIR correctly analyzed construction impacts over multiple phases in Section 4.11, Noise, and Section 4‐13, Transportation. Mitigation measures for both these issues are included on page 4.11‐ 54 – 4.11‐55 for Noise and pages 4.13‐61 – 4.13‐63 for Transportation. Comment 67‐g: 2. As a result of the rezoning change, Special Events asked for by the Developer could be permitted through the use of TUPs. What’s to prevent the 4 [special events] that are being asked from turning into 8, or more, per year? City noise ordinance will be altered to accommodate these. There will definitely be access and egress challenges to most of the surro unding communities – this could impact our safety and well being, should there be traffic tie ups both during as well as before and after special events to allow for prep and take down days. Response 67‐g: As it relates to the number of special events, please see Response 66‐d. The proposed project does not include any changes to the City’s noise ordinance. Please see Response 52‐n for additional information on the review and approval of the Temporary Use Permits (TUPs) that will be required for each of these events and how temporary traffic conditions during these events will be addressed. Comment 67‐h: 3. Finally, I am totally perplexed as to how this Project with its enormous water usage with 18 million gallons of water to fill it from our aquifers would even be considered in our desert environment with its high temperatures, high evaporation rate and winds, especially during a mega‐drought. I know of no other “recreational activity’ which would even be considered if there was an equivalent current and potential future threat to the environment as a consequence. There is a global movement under way to conserve water, with good reason, and we must think of our children and grandchildren. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐265 February 2022 Response 67‐h: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies during drought conditions. Comment 67‐i: New Speaker: Anast Demitt My name is Anast Demitt and Diane is my wife. Thank you for allowing me to continue on with our presentation. This topic is of such concern to me that I felt I needed to travel here to speak to Council today and express my concerns on this proposed Development. Response 67‐i: This comment is noted. Please see the responses to Comments 67‐j through 67‐n below. Comment 67‐j: 1. Traffic ‐ Once the Tourist Commercial aspect of Coral Mountain Resort is “up and running” there will traffic changes that will significantly impact our day to day lives as we know them. The traffic study included in the DEIR is flawed in my opinion as it was conducted during COVID when many seasonal residents chose not to return to the valley. The base traffic volumes used in the analysis are therefore an underestimation of the actual volumes. The study shows that levels of service in some of the affected areas will be reduced to level F, the lowest possible level of service in traffic engineering. That means long delays at intersections and increased commute times regulating in more GHG emissions. The DEIR recommends that changes be implemented to reduce impacts on the level of service. The developer indicates that they will pay for ‘their proportional share’. This does not seem to be a fair trade off as we the citizens are subsidizing a private development that we will not see any benefit from. Response 67‐j: As explained on page 29 of the Traffic Impact Analysis included as Appendix L.1 in the Draft EIR, and the supplemental memo from Urban Crossroads included as Appendix L.3 in this Final EIR, the traffic counts were taken on four different days in 2019, prior to the start of the COVID‐19 pandemic and were adjusted for seasonality pursuant to the City’s traffic study requirements as set forth in EB #06‐ 13. These adjusted traffic counts accurately reflect the existing traffic conditions in the project vicinity. The Draft EIR, Section 4.13, Transportation, identifies a combination of improvements that will be required to be constructed by the project developer at the time of project development, as well as the project’s fair‐share contribution to other traffic improvem ents that will be constructed by the City under its capital improvement plan, which are funded through the project’s development impact fee 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐266 February 2022 and TUMF obligations. The Draft EIR correctly analyzed the impacts, identified required improvements and their funding sources, and provided mitigation measures (cite by number) to assure that levels of service at affected intersections would remain at the City’s acceptable threshold of LOS D.– Comment 67‐k: 2. Lighting ‐ The Developer proposes seventeen 80 foot tall light towers and lighting with variances in parking lots and visitor areas. The effect of this lighting is another unknown that cannot be qualified at this location. The proposed development will be similar to what I see when I drive by the Indian Wells Tennis Gardens at night. Furthermore, from the proposed project site, the illumination from a public park in Coachella is clearly visible in our skies. This project, with its seventeen light towers and commercial glare, is not the place that I would choose to observe the beautiful dark skies that our desert is known for. We will say good bye to that here as well. Response 67‐k: Please see Topical Response, 2.2.1 Lighting of this Chapter for information on the lighting plan proposed for the Wave Basin. The project does not propose any variances to City standards in parking lots and visitor areas, which will be subject to the City’s zoning requirements set forth in Sections 9.100.150 (outdoor lighting) and 9.150.080 (parking facility light poles limited to 18 feet), and will be reviewed as individual site development permits are processed. The commenter’s opinions regarding lighting are noted. As it relates to lighting from the park in Coachella, please see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1. and Response 51‐c above. Comment 67‐l: 3. Short Term Vacation Rentals ‐ One of the biggest concerns that I have relates to the potential approval of over 700 STVR’s for the site, should rezoning occur. Every room in the hotel and casitas and every house will be approved as an STVR. The proposed $2.5M dollar homes ‐ AND UP ‐ will have multiple bedrooms with multiple people sharing a house. Add in a full hotel for one of the Special Events or even for Coachella or Stagecoach, and this development rapidly becomes nothing more than a large scale B&B with a rotating door. That could mean literally 5 to 6 thousand additional transient visitors in and out of the Project each day. Response 67‐l: The commenter’s opinion is noted. As described on page 4.7‐9 of the EIR, the project’s permanent service population is estimated at 2,672 people, including residents, hotel guests, and employees.. As described on page 3‐13 of the EIR, special events will be limited to 2,500 attendees. Whether these attendees will occupy a hotel room or residence on the property or come from elsewhere is not known, and as a result, the EIR 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐267 February 2022 conservatively estimated that these attendees would come from elsewhere, as described on page 4.13‐43, Table 3.13‐26, Special Event Trip Generation. Please also see Response 52‐g concerning STVRs. Comment 67‐m: Is this the type of intrusive commercial development that we want ‘inserted’ amongst the established communities of the Quarry, Trilogy, PGA West, Andalusia and Senterra, to name a few residential districts close by? Response 67‐m: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 67‐n: All for the sake of the TOTS that will be collected on the STVRs? What happened to the highly touted goals for quality of life in the La Quinta 2035 plan? Is this development and all that it brings along with it really worth the adverse impact it creates on the residents and citizens of South La Quinta? I’m respectfully asking you today to please “stick to the plan”, that is, the 2035 La Quinta General Plan ‐ particularly the component that speaks to the ‘livable community’ which addresses the ‘long‐term quality of life of its residents. This PROJECT is a square peg in a round hole! I encourage you to do as we did and please read the entire 1500 plus page DEIR. You will see that there is not enough certainty from the information presented to allow for rezoning with confidence, and to ensure that there will not be long term life impacting consequences for we, those residents ‐ ‘those human beings” ‐ who live nearby. Thank you for allowing us to provide our perspective today to you. Please say no to the rezoning of this Parcel of land to Tourist Commercial. Response 67‐n: Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to the rezoning of the property and the review process. Please also see Responses 41‐c, 52‐f, 83‐w through 83‐hh, and Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, for analysis of the compatibility of the proposed land uses with existing and planned surrounding land uses and the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐268 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 68: Dan Stiel Date: August 3, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 68‐a: As a full‐time resident of La Quinta ‐ and as someone who does not surf and has absolutely no ties or economic interests in this proposed project ‐ I wanted to express my support for the Coral Mountain Resort, the proposed luxury, private, residential community, including its surfable wave pool. My support comes from these perspectives ‐ but mostly from making numerous visits to similar surfable pools across the U.S. I made these visits as a marketing executive on behalf of my employer to evaluate potential sponsorship participation in events taking place at these surfable wave pools. My observations from these visits give me confidence in lending my support for the proposed La Quinta project as one that is consistent with the type of community La Quinta aspires to be – a resort town that offers an exceptional level of high‐quality amenities. Response 68‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 68‐b: My personal experiences visiting surfable wave pools across Texas and California taught me that these facilities attract serious athletes and avid surfing enthusiasts of every age and gender who are every bit as similar to the kinds of people you’ll see golfing, playing tennis, or enjoying polo on any given day across the communities of La Quinta and across the Coachella Valley. I would consider the atmosphere of these surf parks to be akin to any golf range ‐ participants were quiet, cerebral, and focused on improving their game – passionate about the sport. I never once saw rowdy, party, or raucous behavior. I even saw diverse groups of local kids taking surf lessons on several occasions. A surfable wave pool can only hold a relatively small number of participants at any given time ‐ not unlike a golf course. Response 68‐b: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 68‐c: Just like golf, it’s not a cheap sport. ‐ for example, at Kelly Slater’s Surf Ranch 2021, a day of private activities and lessons begins at $3,100.00: https://fulcrumsurf.com/shop/surf‐ranch/ Response 68‐c: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐269 February 2022 The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 68‐d: La Quinta has an opportunity to continue to diversify its ‘quality’ outdoor recreational amenities and appeal for continued economic prosperity and relevancy, including outdoor activities that drive economic activities during ‘off season’ periods when it's too hot for traditional La Quinta diversions such as tennis, golf, even hiking. Surfing is one such high‐quality amenity, especially when combined with the resort itself. Response 68‐d: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 68‐e: Competitive surfing events are every bit as serious as a polo or golf tournament. Should competitive events take place, expect the audiences to be as well behaved as those who attend one of the numerous pro and amateur golf, polo and tennis events in our communities. Response 68‐e: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 68‐f: I would encourage anyone with serious reservations about to make a visit to a surfable wave park. If you can't make it, check Kelly Slater's Surf Ranch online: Kelly Slater Wave Company. Response 68‐f: The commenter’s opinion is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐270 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 69: Thomas Swope Jr. Date: August 3, 2021 Affiliation: Resident of Cathedral City Comment 69‐a: Hello, My name is Thomas Swope Jr, and I live in Cathedral city CA. I do realize that I am not a La Quinta resident, but I wanted to write to you, or someone and express my concerns about building a wave park in our desert. Response 69‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 69‐b: Our desert is always in a constant state of drought, and that situation is most likely never going to change. We all are dependent on our aquifer for our drinking water, and or other water needs, and I really think that filling a wave pool with my, and everyone else’s DRINKING WATER!! Is a really bad and stupid idea. How exactly do you justify asking everyone to conserve as much water as possible, and then you allow a wave pool to be built that will consume millions of gallons of water to full, and to keep full. I honestly can’t believe that this project is being entertained by your city council. The answer should be elementary to each and every one of you. WE DON’T HAVE THE WATER FOR SUCH A PROJECT, so the answer should be NO.” Response 69‐b: Please see Topical Response, 2.2.3 Water Resources in Section 2.2 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies during drought conditions. Comment 69‐c: Please, for every resident’s sake in our or valley, do the right thing and DO NOT allow this project to move forward. It’s a form of waste that we all cannot afford. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Response 69‐c: This comment is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐271 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 70: Jan Wm. Talbott Date: August 3, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 70‐a: As a year‐around resident at Trilogy and close to the corner of Madison and 60 were quite concerned about this project in terms of noise, traffic, night light poll ution, water usage, etc. Perhaps even more, we’re worried as to what could happen if this thing goes belly up in a couple years. That would be an albatross hard to dispose. Please do not authorize the zoning changes necessary to locate this project in our residential area. There are many, many available parcels throughout the Valley where such a project would have little to no negative impact on the residential community. Response 70‐a: The Draft EIR analyzes project‐related impacts to lights, water use, noise, traffic, etc. in compliance with CEQA Guidelines. These topics are discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, Section 4.11, Noise, and 4.13, Transportation, (respectively) in the Draft EIR. These findings are also summarized in Section 2.2 of this Chapter along with additional information in Topical Responses 2.2.1, Light and Glare, 2.2.3, Water Resources, 2.2.4 Noise and 2.2.5 Traffic in response to comments on the analysis of these topics in the Draft EIR. The comment’s concern regarding the feasibility of the project is noted. With regard to consideration of alternative locations for the project, an alternative location was discussed in Chapter 7.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR: “CEQA Guidelines requires examination of an alternative location for the project if such locations would result in the avoidance of or lessening of significant impacts. The project objectives specifically relate to the existing Coral Mountain Resort property, which is currently undeveloped and vacant. Additionally, the project applicant has not been able to locate a suitable alternative location of at least 380 acres that is available for purchase and that would substantially reduce any of the significant impacts of the proposed project.” As allowed under Guidelines Section 15126.6. The alternative site location was not further analyzed. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐272 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 71: Kathy Weiss Date: August 3, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 71‐a: Honorable Mayor Evans, Members of the Council, staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Coral Mountain project. My name is Kathy Weiss. I am a homeowner /resident at the Quarry. #1. Location Many of you might think the Quarry won’t be impacted because the DIR said there was nothing to The West of the project. For the record, The Quarry is to The West of the proposed Wave Basin at Coral Mountain. Response 71‐a: This comment is noted. Although “the Quarry” is not listed by name, the first page of the project description (page 3‐1) states that the project site has a residential community located to the west, and the Quarry can be readily seen on the project site vicinity map, Exhibit 3.2. The eastern edge of the Quarry is also identified in the Noise Study as one of the nearby sensitive noise receptor locations (see page 4.11‐23 and Exhibit 4.11‐4.11‐2). Comment 71‐b: #2. Noise Everyone who lives near Coral Mountain knows that sound reverberates throughout this area. I can hear the murmur of simple conversations between the hikers in Coral Mountain Park, and at Lake Cahuilla Camper Park. From my home at The Quarry, I can hear the music, the bass beat, and the roar of the crowds during Coachella and StageCoach. In fact, from inside my home, I can tell you if the vehicle rumbling down west of 58th & Madison has a gasoline or diesel engine. Just like my neighbors, I hear the sounds of coyotes and hoot owls every evening. I ask any sound engineer, that has NOT been hired by the Developer, to demonstrate sound trajectory to La Quinta Mayor & City Council members. The finding of “no significant” noise impact in the DIR illustrates what a one‐sided publication this is. Response 71‐b: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see the Noise Topical Response in Section 2.2.4 of this Chapter. As acknowledged in that section, the project will generate noise. However, and as also described in that section, the noise levels will not exceed City standards. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐273 February 2022 Comment 71‐c: #3 Side effects of Tourist/Commercial Zoning Louder noise allowances, longer business hours, overnight stays, special events, bigger and taller buildings, and public safety commercial lighting are permitted, and sometimes required under Tourist/Commercial zoning. Here is just one example‐ the Wave Basin requires an audible (not visual) 30‐second alarm if there is an emergency, followed by another 30‐second audible alarm to signal the emergency has ended. California State mandated Alarm can be as loud as it needs to be in order to be heard over “The Tub and The Train,” (nickname given to the Wave Basin by Kelly Slater’s peers), the screaming and cheering crowds, the crashing of waves onto concrete flooring, and the jet skis zipping up and down the Basin. As the Tub is geared for the Novice Surfer Tourist, the alarms could be going off several times a day. If I had wanted to live in a noisy, tourist/commercial neighborhood, I certainly wouldn’t have built a home at The Quarry. Response 71‐c: Please see Responses 59‐e and 62‐f for a thorough discussion of how the Noise Study took into account all sources of noise at the Wave Basin, including the wave announcements and rescue jet ski, and see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2. for a summary of the Draft EIR conclusion that operation of the Wave Basin and other project uses will not cause any significant noise impacts to the surrounding residential communities. As shown in Table 4.11‐25 on page 4.11‐48 of the Draft EIR, the loudest offsite noise level from project operations will be 52.2 dBA at receptor location R6 (approximately 134 feet from the project boundary and directly east of the Wave Basin), whereas the loudest noise level recorded at the wave basin in Lemoore was 75.7 dBA (see Table 4.11‐24 on page 4.11‐45 of the Draft EIR). The offsite reading was more than 20 dBA less than at the noise source (wave machine) because noise levels diminish by approximately 6 dBA with each doubling of distance from the noise source (see page 4.11‐25 of the Draft EIR). The Wave Basin will not be equipped with an emergency alarm. Public safety is maintained by controlling access to the site and Basin, and surfer safety is addressed with lifeguards and the rescue jet ski. In addition, under La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.100.210, emergency operations are exempt from the City’s noise limits in non‐residential zones. Comment 71‐d: #4 STVR’s As La Quinta City Council and its residents know, STVR’s are a big nuisance, not only here in La Quinta, but elsewhere in Coachella Valley, and wherever people want to Vacation. The vast majority of people who propose short term vacation rentals do not live in this town. Most are out of towners or Commercial investors. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐274 February 2022 If City Council choses 750 more STVRs over our tranquil South La Quinta Community, you are voting against your own Community. Are we a community or a Commodity to you? To remind everyone, the Development Agreement proposes: “Short term vacation rentals will be an allowable use in all planning areas within the Project”. In “Developer Speak”‐ That means 100% of the 600 “Dwelling Units” (per the Developer’s words) built on this property can be STVR’s. In essence an overnight Hotel Room with a shared kitchen. The developer states “Dwelling Unit” prices will start at $2.5 million and go to $5 million. That tells me the Dwelling Units are going to be McMansions w/ 3 to 10 bedrooms each. Add the massive 150 room key hotel and we have “Surf City Party‐ land” with (a potential overnight) population of 4‐5,000 lodgers at our doorsteps. Simply put, 750 STVR dwellings and 4‐5,000 lodgers will be throbbing in the middle of Andalusia, Trilogy, The Quarry, Santerra, Puerta Azul and PGA West (which has a section on 58th), plus the other resident communities lining 58th Street West of Madison. This Meriwether project goes against every single zoning statement in the La Quinta General Plan 2035. The developer, when asked about the noise and light pollution, has been very careful to always reply, “we don’t want the noise to impact our residents.” From reading the DIR and the DA, this project is not catering to have many residents. I want to emphasize the developer plans to build the Wave Basin, Hotel and Casitas first. After completion in 2‐5 years down the road, only then will developer construct dwelling units on the sold Lots. A “Dwelling Unit “‐ per the developer’s own words, in the DIR, has an Owner(s), but not necessarily a Resident. A Rental has an “Owner”, a Home has a “Resident.” Keep in mind, The “Dwelling Unit” owners that chose to buy and build at Coral Mountain Wave Park, plus the tourists booking a stay, do so knowing that the “Tub and Train”, announcer, jet skis, crowds, entertainment venues, etc. will be going non‐stop 15 hours daily with 1,000’s of tourist/lodgers milling around outside all over the place. It’s easy for the Wave Park lodgers to leave and go back home when tired of the noise, crowds, and commotion. For the neighboring homeowners, it is not so easy. WE will have to soundproof our lives, unable to hear the birds, bees and other native wildlife. We will be stuck in a nightmare that never ends. The surrounding neighborhood property owners and I bought &/or built homes in South La Quinta because we wanted a peaceful, low‐key residential atmosphere. We enjoy the light traffic, no hustle‐ bustle, being outside listening to the sounds of nature. Our homes and daily life will be impacted negatively in which way. Before I chose the location of where I live in La Quinta, I asked my realtor what the West Andalusia parcel was zoned for. The realtor told me “Low‐Density Residential w/18 ‐hole golf course. It is planned to be Andalusia’s higher‐end homes with their own golf‐course.” I did more due diligence by visiting the Andalusia Sales site, looked at their Master Plan 3‐D model and confirmed the zoning with 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐275 February 2022 the Developer’s representative. Finally, after studying the LQ City zoning map, I felt confident to purchase my lot and commence building a home at The Quarry. If any of us wanted to live next door to a “Surf City Mega‐ Event Complex” we would have done so. The majority of the homeowners in South La Quinta moved here by choice, (as we were not born and raised in La Quinta.) Permitting this Zone change is slap in the Face to every single person that chose to live, buy, and/or build in South La Quinta. LQ City Council would be showing us that we, your South La Quinta residents, just don’t matter. I thought City Governments were designed to protect its residents and their properties, and make its Residents pleased to be living there. You can call me naive, because I never thought our local government would cater to an out of state rookie‐developer, that has only been in business for 8 years. For the record‐ This developer has already pulled the plug on one La Quinta based, City owned development: SilverRock. La Quinta Government should stand by their thousands of residents. Not the Out‐of‐Town developer that has a dubious history w/ La Quinta. Response 71‐d: The commenter’s opinions are noted. With respect to STVRs, plea se see Response 52‐g. With respect to noise, please see Response 52‐h, 59‐e, and 62‐f. With respect to lighting, please see the Topical Response on Light and Glare at Section 2.2.1, and with respect to land use compatibility, please see Response 41‐c and 52‐f. Comment 71‐e: #5. Developer Agreement For the record, the developer’s proposed time frame, as proposed in the DA, is 40 years. That is 4 – 0. F O R T Y. I quote this 6‐ year old article from the Desert Sun dated October 21, 2015, regarding the SilverRock project. “Robert Green Jr., of Robert Green Co., and John Gamlin, of Sofia Investments, will keep SilverRock moving forward after Meriwether Co. withdrew to pursue other interests, city Economist McMillen said.” (For the record, this is the same John Gamlin we heard speak on Meriwether’s behalf at the last open City Council Meeting) In other words, Meriwether, the same developer that dropped Silver Rock to pursue “Other interests”, wants a 40‐ year time frame in the Development Agreement. That is alarming. What if Meriwether drops this one too? Yes, I am well aware that Developers, City, State & Public entities, Planning Business, Consultants, Realtors, etc. have interacted, networked & fraternized with each other on a daily basis for many, 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐276 February 2022 many years. In fact, most of LQ City Council members are involved in these types of pursuits. When it comes to assembling DIRs for City Review, it is definitely a st acked deck in favor of the Developer. The “no significant impact” stated over and over in the DIR clearly illustrated this bias. LQ Government’s easy acceptance of the more than 1,000‐page DIR cemented the fact. The repetitive “No significant Effect” would be laughable if the thousand pages+ plus DIR wasn’t so blatant in its lack of transparency, readability, and comprehension. Having personally met and known many Developers, a good, responsible, and successful Developer looks to invest and “develop” where there is a real need, the timing is right, and there is an overwhelming neighborhood desire for the “Development” to happen. That is certainly not the case here. All which makes me ask why the Developer and their financial backers bought a parcel that did not have the desired Zoning already in place for their Project? Who, in LQ government, gave them the “greenlight”? Why would La Quinta government even think this is “in character” of the existing neighborhood zoning? In summation, I beg of you, Mayor Evans, and La Quinta City Council Members to vote NO on granting the Property Commercial/Tourist zoning. A zone change permit would be absolute disaster in the making for the many thousands of residents close to this proposed Tourist/Commercial Mega‐ development. Response 71‐e: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to the zoning for the property and the review process. Issues raised by the commenter regarding the development community and the feasibility of the project are not CEQA issues, and do not require response here. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐277 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 72: August 3rd City Council Meeting Transcribed Presentations Date: August 3, 2021 At August 3rd City Council Meeting Comment 72‐a: La Quinta City Council Meeting August 3, 2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/81158bc2‐9a14‐47c8‐9a20‐7c4e88cea5e6 Speakers discussing the Coral Mountain Resort Project and time of appearance in video linked above. In‐Person Comments Alena Callimanis (Transcribed); 0:45 – 7:35 minutes Kelly Welton (Transcribed); 7:46 – 9:15 minutes Wendy Clarke (Transcribed); 9:20 – 14:06 minutes Diane Rebryna and Anast Demitt (Transcribed); 14:15 – 23:49 minutes Verbal Comments via Teleconference Kathy Weiss (Transcribed); 27:35 – 38:45 minutes Response 72‐a: This comment is noted. The comments in these presentations are responded to below. Where applicable, the responses refer back to the same comments that were submitted to the City in written form. For example, Ms. Callimanis submitted her presentation and it is included as Letter 65; Ms. Clarke’s submitted presentation is Letter 66; Ms. Rebryna and Mr. Demitt’s submitted comments are Letter 67; and Ms. Weiss’s submitted presentation is Letter 71. Comment 72‐b: Located at: 0:45 – 7:30 minutes Speaker: Alena Callimanis Hello. My name is Alena Callimanis. What should I do about this [indicating mask]? Mayor: Your choice. Callimanis: I can? Alright, that way I can make sure you hear me. Okay, they are bringing up my presentation, and uh. It’s only going to be up there? [indicating one screen] Okay. There we go, great. Uh, so the first thing I want to do, and I’m not saying this to brag, or anything like that, but, I mean, I do have a bachelor’s in physics, I have a masters in physics. So, I take my research in whatever I do very seriously. So, when I put my name on something, that means I really looked into it and feel 100 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐278 February 2022 percent confident that I am giving the correct information. So, I wanted to make sure that I covered that upfront. Response 72‐b: This comment is noted. Comment 72‐c: Alright, um. This is the WADI Adventure Park in the U.A.E. It’s the only other surfing park in a desert environment that maps to what we have. And I think I talked about it before. But what I did was, I contacted the operations manager at that pool so that I could understand the challenges they have by having a surf pool in the heat like we do. Uh, the first thing of course is that, you know, they had a 140‐mile pipeline from the coast that brings desalinated water to the, um, to them because they don’t have an aquifer where they are. Um, but, one of the things that’s really important is that they told me they cool the pool to 85 degrees for a number of reasons are listed here. ‐ Pools in the 90s, plus hot temperatures like we’re having in the 110s and so on, uh create potential for heat stroke. And that has happened. ‐ Warmer pools can incubate Protozoa and viruses. So, this is what they actually told me is that one of the key reasons they want to cool their water to 85 because they want to keep it safe for their, um, surfers. ‐ The other thing I did miss was that surfers acknowledge that by riding on the artificial waves, they really exerting a lot more energy than regular wave because it goes on for a much longer extended period of time. So that raises the chance, if you’re doing, during the day in a hot water pool for heat stroke. ‐ Algae buildup significantly increases in hot water, with hot water and hot weather. So, chlorine requirement increase the pool, to make it safe away from chlorine away from this protozoas and everything, um, it just increases to the point where it may be unusable for swimmers in it. The Coral Mountain base, uh, people, developers base their chlorine needs on Lemoore Surf Park, and I will in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and I’ll go over that in the next page real quick. Response 72‐c: Please see Response 65‐c. Comment 72‐d: When I left the house, my pool was 95 degrees today. So that’s really hot. Um, on the next page [indicating PowerPoint]. Uh, very quickly, the CVWD water assessment said that they would need 39 million gallons yearly to replenish the evaporation from the surf pool. Um, unfortunately that was not based on any knowledge of surf pools, we didn’t have that kind of data. So they did it based on a standard factor of 1.2 for moving waters and pan evaporation numbers 2005 when we only had 99 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐279 February 2022 days over 100. So that’s that the calculations are based on. However, luckily, the World Surf League, which purchased Kelly Slater wave technology, that’s going to make up our pool here in La Quinta, wrote that on very hot days, the Lemoore Surf Ranch, the pool lost 250,000 gallons a day. Okay now, they had – I went through and calculated how many days over 100 they had – they had 27 days over 100 degrees in 2020, with the hottest temperature last year of only 107. We had 143 days over 100. Um, so I used that as a number from basing my calculations for evaporation. So, 250,000 gallons times 143 days equals 36 million gallons lost to evaporation in 143 days. If you look at line number one, CVWD has in their water assessment they only need to replenish 39 million for a whole year. I calculated based on the Kelly Ranch evaporation, 100‐uh, 36 million gallons only in 143 days. That leaves us with – oh we also had 56 days over 110 Degrees. What does that now mean for the 250,000 gallons? How much of a factor is it above that for more evaporation right? We don’t know that. uh, could it be 300,000 dollars on the days over – 300,000 gallons on the days over um, 110 degrees? Uh, what about the rest of the 222 days of the year where we have evaporation due to wind? Due to heat? We had 51 days last year over 90. That’s another large amount of, of days over it. You’ll quickly see that the 39 million gallons calculation by CVWD is wrong. I hate to say that, but. Response 72‐d: Please see Response 65‐d. Comment 72‐e: Again, so golf courses versus surf pools. I gave you those numbers so that you see, you stop believing the developer that a surf basin will use 25 percent of what a golf course will do. These evaporation figures show that we don’t even know how much more it’s going to be. Um, and golf courses use recycled and grey water; surf pools can’t. Uh, last year local golf course decrease their water usage by 17 percent over the summer without a law being in place to say please reduce it. They’re able to do that. You know, you can’t – surf park can’t decrease their water or they close. Golf courses have new designs that are environmentally friendly. I’m not advocating another golf course here. I want to have a family‐friendly development here. You could have rock wall climbing, bike trails, hiking trails, community pools, miniature golf, playgrounds, tennis, pickleball, all that, I think are, in lines of what you want for residential community. Response 72‐e: Please consult Response 65‐e. Comment 72‐f: Finally, I just wanted to show you a picture of the conception. Uh, how can they say no noise impact? Look where that pool is in relation to Coral Mountain. So thank you very much. Response 72‐f: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐280 February 2022 Please see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 of this Chapter which addresses the potential for the proximity of the project to Coral Mountain to affect noise levels. Comment 72‐g: Located at: 7:46 – 9:15 Speaker: Kelly Welton Welton: Good afternoon my name is Kelly Welton, I live in Trilogy, and I just wanted to raise some concerns that we weren’t really satisfied by the answers given to us by Merriwether and Garrett Simon on, I believe the first call that we had. Response 72‐g: This comment is noted. Comment 72‐h: One question asked was ‐ what about the noise factor, if they are going to be in operation until 10 o’clock in the evening? If we have noise concerns at 10 o’clock in the evening, who can we call? And his answer was “oh the hotel staff will take care of that.” So, I’m not exactly sure what that meant or how that will happen, but I would like to then ask – if we don’t get any satisfactory problem solving by the hotel staff for noise 5 pm, when no one is here, who do we call? What is the plan B? Will La Quinta Police come? Will Riverside County sheriff come? Response 72‐h: Please see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 of this Chapter which addresses the potential for the project to result significant noise impacts. The noise analysis determined the project will not exceed the noise standards established in the City’s noise ordinance or have any significant noise impacts on the surrounding residential communities. For this reason, enforcement actions by the City in response to noise complaints are not anticipated. A ny such complaints would be addressed by the City in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. For example, LQMC Section 9.100.210 limits outdoor noise levels to 65 dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 50 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. at any sensitive receptors, which includes the surrounding residential communities and future homes within the project. In addition, Sections 11.08.090 and 11.08.040 make it a punishable infraction to disturb the peace by willfully making any unreasonably loud noise. The City also publishes phone numbers for making noise complaints. Code Compliance receives complaints at 760‐777‐7050. In addition, the City has established a STVR hotline for complaints at 760‐777‐7157. Comment 72‐i: And my second one kind of tags on Alenas picture, and I didn’t know I could send a PowerPoint, but I’ll pass this around so you can see it, but the proposed wave pool that they have in proportion to. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐281 February 2022 Mayor: You can start over here, actually with City Clerk. Welton: If you look at the size of that Wave pool, in proportion to the size of the about 8 blocks of Trilogy, you can’t tell me that whatever contraption they’re going to use to make a wave in that pool, won’t be heard. That’s a huge pool. It’s 8 blocks of Trilogy. Thank you. Response 72‐i: Please see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 of this Chapter and Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR. As described therein, the Draft EIR did not claim that the project would not generate noise. The Draft EIR did, as demonstrated in Tables 4.11‐25 and 4.11‐26, show that noise levels would not exceed City thresholds of significance for residential receptors. Comment 72‐j: Located at: 9:20 – 14:06 Speaker: Wendy Clarke Hi Mayor Evans, Council members, Pena, Fitzpatrick, Radi Sanchez and staff. I really appreciate your service. Good to see everybody. My name is Wendy Clarke, and my Family has lived in the Valley here for 34 years.; 16 years ago, I moved to Trilogy. Response 72‐j: Please see Response to this comment at Response 66‐a. Comment 72‐k: And I am here to speak today about the request for Coral Mountain to rezone land adjacent to many of the communities surrounding where I live. Currently, we all know the land provides little revenue for the City, basically due to the Thermal Redevelopment Project. And I trust maybe City Council would have negotiated something different years ago, but it is what it is. And if it’s rezoned, the City realizes Transient Occupancy Taxes, what happens to the residents? Our quality of life is negatively and permanently impacted. I had an opportunity to hear John Gamlin on a Zoom call recently and he shared that he’s managed some south La Quinta luxury properties, uh, in residential neighborhoods. This project is in no way like any of those neighborhoods. With a huge amounts of surf waves, broadcast system, music, short term rentals. Response 72‐k: Please see the response to this comment at Response 66‐b. Comment 72‐l: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐282 February 2022 Beyond the 4 annual events that they propose, there is additional temporary‐use permits I believe it can be requested. Kelly Slater has made public that he supports the artificial surf waves for Olympic training and competition. LA is hosting the 2028 Olympics. What will one special event look like? Chaos for 1,000s of residents. Our neighborhoods are not transient, and they are not a tourist destination. We intentionally purchased homes away from the com mercial corridor. And to relax after a busy workday, some of us have retired, we like to exercise, enjoy nature, socialize with our neighbors. It’s funny when I drive down Madison on the way home from errands, there is a calm that comes over me. Um, this paradise deserves to be protected. Response 72‐l: Please see the response to this comment at Response 66‐c. Comment 72‐m: Today, environmentally mindful we face a life‐threatening drought, and I won’t go into all the details because we’ve talked about this a lot, but lakes are at historic lows. California supplies 80% of the world’s almonds, and trees aren’t being planted because there is no water. We have been asked to reduce water by 15%. Any governing body approving any project that uses a significant amount of water, is irresponsible. This Surf Wave will deplete water from our aquifer supplied by the Colorado River. NPR reports, “The Colorado River is tapped out. Extremely dry conditions like the region is experiencing in 2021, make clear that the Colorado River is unable to meet all the demands the Western U.S. have placed on it. It's up to its biggest users to decide who has to rely on it less.” In closing, what are our mutual responsibilities? ‐ Everyone reduces water consumption. ‐ CVWD transitions remaining golf courses to grey water and denies all nonessential, requests requiring water sourced from the Colorado River. ‐ The city requires studies that evaluate local evaporation rates, the actual noise of the site, and traffic studies that are post pandemic. Response 72‐m: Please see the response to this comment at Response 66‐d. Comment 72‐n: ‐ The City observes its General Plan 2035 “Livable community” that speaks to “long‐ term quality of life of its residents.” Response 72‐n: Please see the response to this comment at Response 66‐e. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐283 February 2022 Comment 72‐o: It is great to think big; change is great and inevitable. Having lived in La Quinta is wonderful. It’s real exciting to see young people moving here. Meriwether has spent millions. They’ve aligning with Kelly Slater and Michael Schwab. Their project is beyond unreasonable. Please honor south La Quinta’s established communities and reject The Wave, rezoning request. It will have permanent, quality‐of‐ life consequences for many 1000’s of residents. Thank you. Response 72‐o: Please see the response to this comment at Response 66‐f: Comment 72‐p: Located at: 14:15 – 23:49 New Speakers: Diane Rebryna and Anast Demitt Good afternoon Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, staff, and fellow attendees. Thank you for allowing me to speak today regarding Coral Mountain Resort, which I will refer to going forward as “the Project”. My name is Diane Rebryna, and my husband Anast Demitt and I are truly blessed to have our winter home here in Trilogy in La Quinta. Please know that we truly love this city, particularly its tranquil and beautiful southeast corner, which is why we chose to settle there. Response 72‐p: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐c. Comment 72‐q: At the outset, I wish to say that we’ve spent an enormous amount of time reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report ‐ which at over 1,500 pages was very challenging and intimidating to the average reader, to say the least. There were so many topics, with this study and that “study” and these and those “mitigating factors” that were covered. Some of the DEIR was formulated with conjectures; there were statements like “are not anticipated to”, “would not significantly impact”, and I felt overwhelmed as I tried to extrapolate all of the potential impacts of this Project on life as we know it in South La Quinta. Response 72‐q: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐d. Comment 72‐r: To help me understand the DEIR, I also reviewed the 2021 CEQA guidelines – this is a reference document that’s based on the CA Environmental Quality Act to which is used to develop 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐284 February 2022 Environmental Impact Reports. And it was here that I had my “eureka” moment! This document, as part of the DEIR checklist speaks to a topic called “Mandatory Findings of Significance” where the following is asked: “Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly”? That is when it hit me, yes we are the human beings that will be impacted. So this Project, as a result of the request for rezoning to allow for it, will have many known and potentially unknown environmental domino type effects on the “human beings” ‐ those being us ‐ the residents of the communities nearby. Response 72‐r: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐e. Comment 72‐s: 1. First of all, the Developer has asked for Sub‐Phase Development based on “market and consumer demand”. I am overwhelmed as I think of how plans for our lives will be totally predicated on the fact that the waves and phases of construction noise and traffic could go on for years and years. We may never see the completion of this Project in our time here. Response 72‐s: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐f. Comment 72‐t: 2. As a result of the rezoning change, Special Events asked for by the Developer could be permitted through the use of TUPs. What’s to prevent the 4 that are being asked for from turning into 8, or more for the City? City noise ordinances can be altered to accommodate these special events. There could definitely be access and egress challenges to most of the surrounding communities, and this could impact our safety and wellbeing, should there be traffic tie ups both during as well as before and after Special Events to allow for prep and take down days. Response 72‐t: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐g. Comment 72‐u: 3. And finally, I am totally perplexed as to how this Project with its enormous water usage with 18 million gallons of water to fill it from our aquifers would even be considered in our desert environment with its high temperatures, high evaporation rate and winds, and especially during a mega‐drought. I know of no other “recreational activity’ which would even be considered if there was an equivalent current and potential future threat to the environment as a consequence. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐285 February 2022 There is a global movement under way to conserve water, with good reason, and we must think of our children and grandchildren. Thank you very much. Response 72‐u: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐h. Comment 72‐v: New Speaker: Anast Demitt Mayor: And Anast Demitt. Demitt: Mayor Evans, Mayor Pro Tem Radi, Council members, City staff, fellow La Quintans. My name is Anast Demitt and I am a semi‐retired forensic structural engineer. My 45 years of engineering training has allowed me to learn how to read technical documents. That Draft EIR that I read was one of the worst technical documents I’ve ever read. It is not to the point, it is full of conjecture, tends to cloud the issues, and what’s very disappointing ‐ everything has little to no impact. there’s no cumulative analysis as to what happens. Response 72‐v: This comment is noted. Regarding the length and overall readability of the Draft EIR, the commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see Topical Responses Section 2.2.6 (Length of Draft EIR) and Section 2.2.7 (Ability to Comprehend the Draft EIR). Comment 72‐w: One of the areas that concerns me on this proposed element is the section of the DEIR related to traffic. 1. Once the Tourist Commercial aspect of Coral Mountain Resort is “up and running” there will traffic changes that will significantly impact the day to day lives of many La Quintans and affect their lives as we know them today. The traffic study included in the DEIR is flawed, because in my opinion, it was conducted during COVID when many seasonal residents chose not to return to the Valley. The base traffic volumes used in the analysis are therefore an underestimation of the actual number of vehicle trips on those roads. The study shows that levels of service in some of the affected areas will be reduced to level F. Now in engineer speak – A is good level of service and F is absolutely the worst. As a consequence, that means there will be long delays at intersections and increased commute times regulating in more GHG emissions, and longer delays in getting to our homes. The Report recommends that changes be implemented to reduce the impacts on the level of service. The Report recommends widening the roads, adding signalization to 8 intersections. When I asked the developer how this is ‐ who is going to bare this cost, their comment is that they are going to pay “their proportional share”. What is their proportionate 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐286 February 2022 share? I would submit the citizens of La Quinta will be paying a significant portion of these costs. This does not seem to be a fair trade off as we the citizens are subsidizing a private development that we will not see any benefit from. Response 72‐w: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐j. Comment 72‐x; 2. I would also like to talk about the lighting ‐ The Developer proposes to use seventeen 80 foot tall light towers with lighting with variances in parking lots and visitor areas. The effect of this lighting is another unknown that cannot be quantified. The developer had a light study done, and that is low and behold from the company that sells them lights. Not much of a conflict in my opinion. The proposed development will be similar to what I see when I drive by the Tennis Gardens in Indian Wells. Furthermore, from the proposed project site, the illumination from a public park in Coachella is visible. So even though the light may not directly reflect off the water surface, into the adjacent communities, the glow above the park will certainly be visible. I think we can kiss our dark La Quinta skies good‐bye, if that is the case. Response 72‐x: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐k. Comment 72‐y: 3. And finally, I want to talk about the Short Term Vacation Rentals [STVR]. Potentially we can have 700, over 700 STVRs on that site. The DEIR asks that every room in the hotel, casitas, and every house will be approved as a STVR. The proposed $2.5M dollar homes will have multiple bedrooms with multiple people sharing a home. Add in a full hotel for one of the Special Events or even for Coachella or for Stagecoach, and this development rapidly becomes nothing more than a large scale B&B with a rotating door. That could mean literally 5 to 6 thousand additional transient visitors in and out of the project each day. Response 72‐y: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐l. Comment 72‐z: Is this the type of intrusive commercial development that we want inserted among the established communities of the Quarry, Trilogy, PGA West, Andalusia, Santerra, just to name a few. Response 72‐z: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐m. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐287 February 2022 Comment 72‐aa: All for the sake of the TOTs that will be collected on the STVRs? What happened to the highly touted goals for quality of life in the La Quinta 2035 Plan? Is this d evelopment and all that it brings along with it really worth the adverse impact it creates on the residents and citizens of South La Quinta? I’m respectfully asking you today to please “stick to the plan”, that is, the 2035 Plan ‐ particularly the component that speaks to the “livable community” which addresses the “long‐ term quality of life for its residents.” This project is a square peg in a round hole. I encourage you to do as we did and please read the entire 1,500 plus page DEIR, it cures insomnia. You will see that there is not enough certainty from the information presented to allow for rezoning with confidence, and to ensure that there will not be long term life impacting consequences for we, those residents ‐ ‘those little human beings’ ‐ who live nearby. Thank you for allowing us to provide our perspective today. Please say no to the rezoning of this parcel to Tourist Commercial. Response 72‐aa: Please see the response to this comment at Response 67‐n. Comment 72‐bb: Located at: 27:35 – 38:45 New Speaker: Kathy Weiss Honorable Mayor Evans, Members of the Council, and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Coral Mountain project. My name is Kathy Weiss, and I am a homeowner and resident at the Quarry. #1. Location Many of you might think The Quarry won’t be impacted because the DIR said there was nothing to the West of the project. For the record, The Quarry is to the west of the proposed Wave Basin at Coral Mountain. Response 72‐bb: Please see the response to this comment at Response 71‐a. Comment 72‐cc: #2. Noise Everyone who lives near Coral Mountain knows that sound reverberates throughout this area. I can hear the murmur of simple conversations between the hikers in Coral Mountain Park, and at Lake 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐288 February 2022 Cahuilla Camper Park. From my home at The Quarry, I can hear the music, the bass beat, and the roar of the crowds during Coachella and StageCoach. In fact, from inside my home, I can tell you if the vehicle rumbling down west of 58th & Madison has a gasoline or diesel engine. Just like my neighbors, I hear the sounds of coyotes and hoot owls every evening. I ask any sound engineer, that has NOT been hired by the Developer, to demonstrate sound trajectory to La Quinta Mayor & City Council members. The finding of “no significant” noise impact in the DIR illustrates what a one‐sided publication this is. Response 72‐cc: Please see the response to this comment at Response 71‐b. Comment 72‐dd: #3 Side effects of Tourist/Commercial Zoning Louder noise allowances, longer business hours, overnight stays, special events, bigger and taller buildings, and public safety commercial lighting are permitted, and sometimes required under Tourist Commercial zoning. Here is just one example ‐ the Wave Basin requires an audible (not visual) 30‐ second alarm if there is an emergency, followed by another 30‐second audible alarm to signal the emergency has ended. California State mandated Alarm can be as loud as it needs to be in order to be heard over “The Tub and The Train,” by the way the tub and the train is a nickname given to the Wave Basin by all of Kelly Slater’s peers, the screaming and cheering crowds, the crashing of waves onto concrete flooring, and the jet skis zipping up and down the Basin. As the Wave Basin is geared for the Novice Surfer Tourist, the alarms could be going off several times a day. On, off, on, off. If I had wanted to live in a noisy, tourist commercial neighborhood, I certainly wouldn’t have built a home at The Quarry. Response 72‐dd: Please see the response to this comment at Response 72‐c. Comment 72‐ee: #4 STVR’s As La Quinta City Council and its residents know, STVR’s are a big nuisance, not only here in La Quinta, but elsewhere in Coachella Valley, and wherever people want to vacation. The vast majority of people who propose short term rentals do not live in this town. Most are out of towners or Commercial investors. If City Council choses 750 more STVRs over our tranquil South La Quinta Community, you are voting against your own community. Are we a community or a commodity to you? To remind everyone, the Development Agreement states: “Short term vacation rentals will be an allowable use in all planning areas within the Project “. In “Developer Speak”‐ That means 100% of the 600 “Dwelling Units” – 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐289 February 2022 those are the Developer’s words not mine ‐ built on this property can be STVR’s. In essence an overnight Hotel Room with a shared kitchen. The developer states “Dwelling Unit” prices will start at $2.5 million and go to $5 million. That tells me the Dwelling Units are going to be McMansions with 3 to 10 bedrooms each. Add the massive 150 room key hotel and we have “Surf City Party‐land” with a potential overnight population of 4‐ to 6,000 lodgers at our doorsteps coming and going on a daily basis. Simply put, 750 STVR dwellings and 4,000 to 500 lodgers will be throbbing in the middle of Andalusia, Trilogy, The Quarry, Santerra, Puerta Azul and PGA West (which does have a section on 58th), plus the other resident communities lining 58th Street West of Madison. This project goes against every single zoning statement in the La Quinta General Plan for 2035. The developer, when asked about the noise and light pollution, has been very careful to always reply, “we don’t want the noise to impact our residents.” From reading the DIR and the DA, this project is not catering to have many residents. I want to emphasize the developer plans to build the Wave Basin, Hotel and Casitas first. After those are completed in 2 to 5 years down the road, then will developer will start to construct dwelling units on the sold lots. A “Dwelling Unit “‐ per the developer’s own words again, not mine, in the DIR, has an Owner, but not necessarily a Resident. A Rental has an “Owner”, a Home has a “Residence.” There is a big difference between an owner and resident. All the communities I mentioned to you ar e residential communities. Now, keep in mind, The “Dwelling Unit” owners that chose to buy and build at Coral Mountain Wave Park, plus the tourists booking a stay, do so knowing that the “Tub and Train”, the announcer, the jet skis, the crowds, the entertainment venues, etc. will be going nonstop 15 hours a day, that’s why they want to be there. And there will be all those 4‐ to 5,000’s of tourist/lodgers milling around outside everywhere. The Wave Park lodgers can leave and go back home when tired of the noise, the crowds, and the commotion. We, the neighboring homeowners, cannot. We will be stuck in a nightmare that never ends. The surrounding neighborhood property owners and I bought and/or built homes in South La Quinta because we wanted the peaceful, low‐key residential atmosphere currently there. Before I chose the location of where I live in La Quinta, I asked my realtor what the West Andalusia parcel was zoned for. The realtor told me “Low‐Density Residential with 18‐hole golf course. It is planned to be Andalusia’s higher‐end homes with their own course.” I did more due diligence by visiting the Andalusia Sales site, looked at their Master Plan 3‐D model and confirmed the zoning with the Developer’s representative. Finally, after studying the LQ City zoning map, I felt confident enough to purchase my lot and commence building a home at The Quarry. If any of us wanted to live next door to a “Surf City Mega‐Event Complex” we would have done so, we didn’t. The majority of the homeowners in South La Quinta moved here by choice; meaning that we were not born and raised here. Permitting this Zone change is slap in the face to every single person that chose to live, bought, and build in South La Quinta. LQ City Council would be showing us that we, your South La Quinta residents, just don’t matter. I always thought City Governments were 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐290 February 2022 designed to protect its residents and their properties, and make its residents happy to be living there. You can call me naive, because I never thought our local government would cater to an out of state rookie developer, that has only been in business for 8 years. For the record ‐ this developer has already pulled the plug on one La Quinta based, City owned development: SilverRock. La Quinta Government should stand by their thousands of residents in south La Quinta. Not the Out‐of‐Town rookie developer that has a dubious history with La Quinta. Response 72‐ee: Please see the response to this comment at Response 71‐d. Comment 72‐ff: #5. Developer Agreement For the record, the developer’s proposed time frame, as written in the DA, is 40 years. That is 40. F. O. R. T. Y. I quote this account from the Desert Sun – uh, this 6‐year‐old account from the Desert Sun dated October 21, 2015, regarding the SilverRock project. “Robert Green Jr., of Robert Green Co., and John Gamlin, of Sofia Investments, will keep SilverRock moving forward after Meriwether Co. withdrew to pursue other interests, city Economist McMillen said.” For the record, this is the same John Gamlin we heard speak on Meriwether’s behalf at the last open City Council Meeting. In other words, Meriwether, the same developer that dropped Silver Rock to pursue “Other interests”, wants a 40‐ year time frame in the Development Agreement. That is alarming. What if Meriwether decides to drop this one too? Yes, I am well aware that Developers, Cit y and Public entities, Planning Business, Consultants, Realtors, etc. have interacted, and networked, and fraternized with each other on a daily basis for many, many, many years. In fact, most of LQ City Council members are involved in these types of pursuits. When it comes to assembling DIRs for City Review, it is definitely a stacked deck in favor of the Developer. The “no significant impact” stated over and over in the DIR clearly illustrated this bias. The repetitive “No significant effect” would be laughable if the thousand pages plus DIR wasn’t so blatant in its lack of transparency, readability, and comprehension. Having personally met and known many Developers, a good, responsible, and successful Developer looks to invest and “develop” where there is a real need, the timing is right, and there is an overwhelming neighborhood desire for the “Development” to happen. That is certainly not the case here. All which makes me ask why the Developer and their financial backers bought a parcel that did not have the desired Zoning already in place for their Project? Who, in LQ government, gave them the “greenlight”? Why would La Quinta government even think this is “in character” of the existing neighborhood zoning? In summation, I beg of you, Mayor Evans, and La Quinta City Council Members to vote “no” on granting the Property Commercial/Tourist zoning. A zone change permit would be absolute disaster 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐291 February 2022 in the making for the many thousands of residents close to this proposed Tourist/Commercial Megadevelopment. Response 72‐ff: Please see the response to this comment at Response 71‐e. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐292 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 73: Lisa Jeffery Date: August 4, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 73‐a: My husband and I moved into The Citrus as permanent (year round) residents in May 2021. As we were considering moving to La Quinta one of my biggest concerns is the availability of water for the future. We moved here from the Bay Area and have gone through a few years of severe drought. It is very scary to have to limit your use of water and a sobering reminder of how precious a resource water is. We must use it wisely! Response 73‐a: This comment is noted. Jeffery’s concern for water use is addressed in Response 73‐b. Comment 73‐b: I recently learned of Coral Mountain Resort and I’m shocked that this would even be a consideration here. California is in a drought now and we need to conserve water. Please don’t build a water park! Response 73‐b: Please see Topical Response, 2.2.3 Water Resources in Section 2.2 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies. Comment 73‐c: I personally would like to see Silver Rock development finished and eliminate the water features in the landscape. La Quinta has beautiful desert landscape. Let’s emphasize that. We must change our attitude toward our natural resources or we won’t have a planet to live on. Response 73‐c: The commenter’s opinions are noted. As stated on page 3‐11 of the Draft EIR (Chapter 3.0, Project Description), landscaping must comply with the landscape ordinances adopted by CVWD and the City of La Quinta to reduce outdoor water use in compliance with State law. The project will utilize native and drought tolerant plants and landscape features compatible with the existing desert landscape. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐293 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 74: Rosette Kivel Date: August 4, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 74‐a: I am informing you once again to my opposition to the Wave Park. The dire water drought is a major priority. We will run out of water for our agriculture as well as our personal use. Response 74‐a: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies. Comment 74‐b: The other problem is the impact on our tranquility at Trilogy. That would be traffic congestion as well as noise pollution. Do not all allow this Water Park to open. Response 74‐b: As shown in Table 4.13‐23 of the Draft EIR, with the project and City capital improvement plan (CIP) improvements, all intersections in the project vicinity will operate at an acceptable level of service. Please also see the Topical Response on Traffic in Section 2.2.5 for a summary of the Draft EIR conclusion that with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA‐1 through TRA‐14, the project will not have any significant adverse traffic impacts. As it relates to noise pollution, please see the Topical Response on Noise at Section 2.2.2, which explains that although the project will generate increased noise levels on the project site and at some off‐site locations, they will be within the thresholds determined acceptable by the City for residential receptors. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐294 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 75: Natalie Maupin Date: August 4, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident (Palm Desert) Comment 75‐a: I am a resident of Palm Desert and have been watching the news publications about the wave pool tentatively approved for the Coral Mountain area in La Quinta. I find it ironic that the LA Times published an article, “As drought worsens, regulators impose unprecedented water restrictions on California farms” while there are multiple recreational water parks under planning and/or construction in the Coachella Valley. I don’t understand the logic in using hundreds of thousands of gallons of our precious table water in a wave pool. This project should be placed on an indefinite hold until water levels are back to where we are not “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. Personally I think our farmers have a right to this water before we build a wave pool. I can find multiple articles about farmers who have basically let their farms go because they can’t maintain the crops with the amount of water they are allocated. Not all of these farms are located in the Coachella Valley, but we are home to a variety of farms that provide food and jobs to our residents. Can you explain and justify how a recreational venue warrants water over our farmers? For reference, here is the article from the LA Times. Response 75‐a: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies in drought conditions. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐295 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 76: Liz Ervin Date: August 5, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 76‐a: I am writing to you as a citizen of La Quinta. I moved to south La Quinta after extensive research seeking a crime free and quiet neighborhood. The location for the misguided “surf park” is presently zoned for low‐mid density housing, not a tourist and AIRBNB destination that would be NO benefit for the local community. Response 76‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to the proposed Zone Change and processing of the project. Comment 76‐b: It is inconceivable that this ‘surf park’ is being considered with the drought conditions. We have been asked to limit our water consumption and every day on the news this is an important topic. In addition we often get alerts from IID to reduce or electric consumption. Response 76‐b: Please see Topical Response, 2.2.3 Water Resources in Section 2.2 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies. The potential effect of the project on utilities, including IID’s system, are analyzed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, in the Draft EIR based on consultation with IID. No significant impacts on IID’s service system were identified. Please also see Responses 52‐k and 59‐b. Comment 76‐c: Please do not allow this to happen. It is up to you and would be very disappointed if this were to come to fruition. I was on a ZOOM call with the developers recently who addressed the EIR reports that were so biased and incomplete. The developer was rude and not very interested in listening to the valid concerns of local experts. Please do not change the zoning for this property. I read on some of the city council bios that they were here for the citizens of La Quinta so here is a chance to prove it. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐296 February 2022 Response 76‐c: The commenter’s opinions are noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐297 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 77: Diane Rebryna Date: August 5, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 77‐a: I am writing today as a concerned Trilogy resident to respond to the Draft Environmental Report as well as to voice my opposition to the rezoning application above which would allow for the Coral Mountain Resort development (“the Project”) in South La Quinta. PREAMBLE: The key to the color coding within this response to the DEIR is here: 1. My comments, as the writer, are in BLACK 2. The reader will see comments in RED: These are supportive documentation for that section and are excerpts from CA Environmental Quality Legislation (w/ writer’s emboldening/underlining). This legislation drives the CEQA Guidelines which in turn provide the framework for the Draft Environmental Impact Report. PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ‐ Public Resources Code DIVISION 13. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY [21000 ‐ 21189.70.10] (Division 13 added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1433.) CHAPTER 1. Policy [21000 ‐ 21006] (Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1433.) 3. The reader will see comments in PURPLE: These are excerpts from the 2021 CEQA Guidelines. https://www.califaep.org/docs CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf 4. The reader will see comments in BLUE: These are excerpts from the 2035 La Quinta General Plan (“the Plan”) (w/ writer’s emboldening/underlining)… https://www.laquintaca.gov/business/design‐and‐development/planning‐division/2035‐ laquinta‐general‐plan which is the ”…plan …crafted as the guiding policy document for the City per the vision expressed by its citizens and established by the City Council.” I‐1…The General Plan includes …“Goals, polices, and programs (that) are all supported by factual data, community opinion, background information, and detailed maps. Together, these constituent parts paint a picture of the community’s future development” My comments with respect to the DEIR for the Project will be laid out in 3 parts: A. Those regarding the DRAFT Environmental Impact Report Document B. Those regarding the Project relevant to the DEIR, and 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐298 February 2022 C. Conclusion Response 77‐a: This introductory comment is noted. Responses to the comments in this letter are provided below. Comment 77‐b: A. My comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report Document for Coral Mountain Resort ‐ issued June 22, 2021: Section 21003 of the Legislation addresses the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports. The Legislature finds and declares that it is a policy of the state that… …(b) Documents prepared pursuant to this division be organized and written in a manner that will be meaningful and useful to decision makers and to the public. …(c) Environmental impact reports omit unnecessary descriptions of projects and emphasize feasible mitigation measures and feasible alternatives to projects. My concerns with the DEIR document itself are as follow: I, and many other concerned residents, are of the opinion that this document was not organized and written in a manner that was meaningful and useful to the public. Whether it will be useful to the decision makers remains to be seen. 1. In short, the document is not succinct. The sections in the DEIR with respect to the “technical studies” contained complex language that would have been better placed in appendices, to allow for “a flow” in the main document and encourage a “rapid understanding” of the DEIR by the average reader as required by the CEQA guidelines. 2. I have strong objections to the multiple vague statements that appear throughout the DEIR (regarding identified factors)…” are not anticipated to”, “would not significantly impact”,” would not substantially change”, “would not be significant” , “minimally impacted”, “would be imperceptible”, “are not fully compliant”, etc. These are SUBJECTIVE comments that are not scientific and neutral. As a reader, comments like this do not inspire my confidence in the findings. Response 77‐b: In response to item 1, please refer to the Topical Response on the Ability to Comprehend the Draft EIR in Section 2.2.7 of this Chapter. The Draft EIR has was written to disclose all of the project components and technical methodologies utilized in order to comply with CEQA standards. The environmental topics required to be addressed by CEQA, as well as the significance threshold criteria established by CEQA require technical reports and supporting documentation in order to fully analyze and conclude whether project impacts would result in less than significant, less than significant with mitigation, or significant and unavoidable impacts. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐299 February 2022 In response to item 2, please see Response 67‐d for an explanation of how terms like those quoted in this comment are frequently used in Environmental Impact Reports to describe conclusions and evidence‐based projections. Nevertheless the commenter’s opinions on the use of these terms are noted. Comment 77‐c: 3. I also have concerns with “elaborate and ornate descriptive language” used in what should be presented as a neutral “for information” document. Often times such language was used to describe the project. For example, on page 7‐57 of the DEIR, the following statement is made: “Develop a high‐ quality private Wave Basin (The Wave) that provides unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project, and that attracts resort guests and creates a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s reputation as the “Gem of the Desert”. Only PLAIN SIMPLE LANGUAGE should be allowed, regardless of the context. Language like this belongs in a promotional brochure for the project ‐ not in a DEIR. I compared other DEIRs for other projects in the Coachella Valley and could not see examples of this type of language in the others. Response 77‐c: This comment references the objectives of the project. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15124(b), the description of the project must include a statement of objectives for the Coral Mountain Resort project, including the underlying purpose of the project and its benefits, which can be used by the decision makers to help identify and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives. Here, the project objective referenced addresses one of the primary purposes of the project, which is to develop the Wave Basin to serve as the central recreational amenity to support a residential and resort community by attracting resort guests and residents to the community. The language is appropriate in the context provided. Comment 77‐d: 4. Many of the tables were redundant and confusing in their layout; they should have been placed in the appendices for easy reference, and not allowed to clutter the document. Response 77‐d: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please also see Topical Response in Section 2.2.7, Ability to Comprehend the EIR. Comment 77‐e: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐300 February 2022 5. At 1500 plus pages including appendices, the document was too long as per the CEQA guidelines (300 pages is recommended for a complex project), and filled with redundant and repetitive sections that were repeatedly “cut and pasted” throughout the entire document. In fact, entire sections were literally repeated several times throughout the document. Response 77‐e: Please see the Topical Response in Section 2.2.6, Length of Draft EIR, of this Chapter. Comment 77‐f: 6. Then document did not include an organized and detailed Table of Contents to allow for easy reference by the reader and some of the numbering on the pages was not in sequence. There were too many sections entitled “Conclusion(s)” throughout the document, contributing to further confusion for the average reader. There were page numbering errors in some sections; some intended citations were not cited. Response 77‐f: Please see Responses 34‐c, 34‐d and 34‐g. Comment 77‐g: I would like it on record that I, and others, communicated the above concerns to the Consulting Planner, and her response on July 13, 2021 was the following: “Although the CEQA Guidelines suggest page limits, the complexity of this project requires that it be analyzed thoroughly, resulting in a longer document. The language in the document, although technical, is not unduly scientific or complex. CEQA documents usually are highly detailed and cover many variables. Likewise, the various environmental impact areas may have some redundancy of analysis, all in an effort to make the document as complete as possible. The City has completed the EIR to address all currently known aspects of the project, and to provide decision makers and the public with a comprehensive analysis of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with its implementation. The City will not be retracting the document or reissuing it.” Response 77‐g: This comment is noted. Comment 77‐h: Why this DEIR as presented is of concern: This project is very complex and its completion would be impact ful to the residents around it on many levels. There are aged residents who reside near this proposed project in retirement communities. Many can no longer can concentrate to the extent that they once could and are easily overwhelmed. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐301 February 2022 Some said they were intimidated by the DEIR and wondered how to respond when they could not understand it. Could a document like this discourage the average reader to persevere and provide a public response that is meaningful, organized and to the point ? … again, that remains to be seen. It will be interesting for the city officials to compare the number and nature of responses to the DEIR to those regarding the Notice of Preparation. Response 77‐h: This comment is noted. Please see Topical Responses Sections 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 Comment 77‐i: B. My comments and concerns regarding the Project relative to its presentation in the DEIR In order to fully understand the intent and ramifications of a DEIR, I went to the Legislation and the CEQA 2021 Guidelines, as referred to above. I sought the definition of the “Environment”… which was defined as follows in 15360 of the CEQA guidelines: 15360. ENVIRONMENT (NOTE: emboldening is writer’s) “Environment” means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. The area involved shall be the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project. The “environment” includes both natural and man‐made conditions. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21060.5, Public Resources Code. (NOTE: emboldening is writer’s) I find it interesting that the “environment” as defined in CEQA Guideline 15360 includes reference to both natural and man‐made conditions. This definition of ENVIRONMENT will form the basis for my comments going forward. Response 77‐i: This comment is noted. Comment 77‐j: The legislative background for the following section of my comments provided as an Overview, is important: The Legislature finds and declares as follows in Environmental Quality Section 21000: (a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐302 February 2022 …(b) It is necessary to provide a high‐quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man …d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached The key words in the legislation are “high” and “quality" environment, and “threshold for the health and safety” of the people. These statements are similar in concept to the 2035 La Quinta General Plan. “The long term Quality of Life” for La Quinta residents is emphasized repeatedly, particularly in the Livable Community Element and Land Use Element of the 2035 La Quinta General Plan. Also, I refer the reader specifically to the following goals and policies that are laid out in the Plan: GOAL SC‐1: A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. GOAL LU‐3 (II‐26): Safe and identifiable neighborhoods that provide a sense of place. Policy LU‐3.1…II‐26 Encourage the preservation of neighborhood character and assure a consistent and compatible land use pattern. Program LU‐3.1.b: Apply the City’s discretionary powers and site development review process consistently to assure that subdivision and development plans are compatible with existing residential areas. GOAL LU‐4… (II‐26): Maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods. Policy LU‐4.1… (II‐26) Encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. Response 77‐j: This comment is noted. Comment 77‐k: How do I see this Project? Rezoning from Low Density Residential w/ golf (“LDR w/G”) to Tourist Commercial (“TC”) is NOT consistent with the City of La Quinta’s own plan and will lead to a “domino effect” that will negatively and forever impact the existing surrounding residential communities and their residents. TC zoning now will open the door to future TC development in SE La Quinta. An entire quadrant of the City could change forever. Would the possibility of collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐303 February 2022 supersede the City’s responsibility to ensure that “subdivision and development plans are compatible with the existing residential areas, as per the 2035 Plan? Response 77‐k: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17 as they relate to the Change of Zone and processing of the proposed project applications. Comment 77‐l: The salient points follow: 1. The Developers, as stated in the DEIR, are asking for Sub Phase Development based on “consumer and market demand”. This in itself is one of the most disconcerting aspects of this whole proposal. I am overwhelmed as I think of how plans for our lives will be totally predicated on the fact that the “waves and phases” of construction noise and traffic could go on for years and years. Residents of the surrounding residential communities may never see the completion of this project in our time here. How does this ensure that we the residents will continue to enjoy the best possible quality of life ‐ particularly with the uncertainty with respect to the timing of completion of the Project that we would be facing? (GOAL SC‐1) Response 77‐l: The projected construction period for the project is defined in Section 3.0 Project Description and all analyses in the Draft EIR address the impacts associated with construction of the proposed project. Please also see Response 67‐f. Comment 77‐m: 2. Rezoning to TC, as stated in the DEIR, will essentially permit the majority (at 600 with a minimum of one night’s stay) of La Quinta’s Short Term Vacation Rentals allowed for to be concentrated at THIS Resort. As per the City Ordinance No. 591, “no new STVR permits will be issued until further notice unless the property is located within TC zones"…https://www.laquintaca.gov/connect/short‐ term‐vacation‐rentals. The large number of STVRs will allow for a constant revolving door of strangers and we, the residents nearby, will not know our neighbors as we do now. Further, this resort will be open 24 hours per day, again with strangers entering and exiting and milling about. We will think twice about those recreational runs, walks, hikes or bike rides outside of our gated communities, particularly earlier in the morning or later in the day. Also, it is a known fact that crime increases in communities where there is a significant transient population. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐304 February 2022 What will happen to our “safe and identifiable neighborhoods that provide a sense of place”? (see GOAL LU‐3 {II‐26}). Will these be “sacrificed” for the sake of TOTS for the City of La Quinta? Response 77‐m: The commenter’s concerns are noted. The comment does not provide substantial evidence that public safety will be impacted by the proposed project. As it relates to the management of STVRs, please see Response 52‐g. The Draft EIR addressed public safety in Section 4.12, and correctly determined that impacts would be less than significant. Comment 77‐n: 3. Rezoning from LDRw/G to T/C will allow the Developers to apply for Special Events via Temporary Use Permits. PAGE 3‐35 of DEIR states the following…” Temporary Use Permits are required by the City accommodate special, unique or limited duration activities that might otherwise be outside of the provisions of normal zoning … are reviewed administratively by the Design and Development Director and do not require a public hearing” What’s to prevent “the 4” that mentioned in the DEIR from turning into 8, or even more, per year? One the rezoning takes place, the residents nearby will never have further say on this matter. There will likely be major access and egress challenges to emergency management vehicles around most of the limited roadways of the surrounding communities during these Special Events (think of the La Q Festivals). This could impact our safety and well being, should there be traffic tie ups both during and before and after Special Events for the “prep and take down days” that will “bookend” the Special Events themselves. The community of Trilogy, for example, has ONLY two access and egress roads – Madison and Monroe. That will never change ‐ whether or not this Project proceeds. Why compromise the “safety” of the local residents with this Project? We are entitled to safe neighborhoods and all that this entails. Response 77‐n: Please refer to Response 66‐c as it relates to the number of TUPs, and the potential for more. As it relates to traffic during special events please see Response 52‐h. Comment 77‐o: If one is to stand back and consider the entire concept of Rezoning in this location, it is easy to see that this project makes no sense. This is definitely not in keeping very important component of the 2035 La Quinta General plan ‐ that which speaks to the “maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods” and a “consistent and compatible land use pattern ” (see GOAL LU‐3 {II‐26} above and policies) (see GOAL LU‐4 above{II‐26}). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐305 February 2022 Further, and from a practical perspective, this project does not and will never benefit the average La Quinta resident. It is essentially for the rich and it is a private destination for its residents and guests. An hour of private surfing at Lemoore CA for celebrities runs $10,000.00. In other words, this recreational outlet is NOT available to and NOT affordable by the average La Quinta resident, is it? We, the residents of the communities around it, would be required to absorb the negative aspects of this destination resort without any of the benefits. If I lived in Anaheim near Disneyland, at least I could plan an outing there with my kids and grandkids. Not so here. Coral Mountain Resort does NOT fit ‐ it is an entirely different concept of life ‐ it will not be residentially focused ‐ which will basically be “injected” amongst the quiet residential communities that surround it. This Project will be a “square peg in a round hole”! Response 77‐o: The Draft EIR analyzes the project’s consistency with the General Plan Land Use Goals on pages 4.10‐ 15 through 4.10‐17, and concludes that the project is consistent with these goals due in part to the mix of low density residential, neighborhood commercial, resort and open space uses. The low density residential uses occupy approximately 232 acres of the project site and are situated on the north and eastern portions of the site, which matches the uses across Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The higher density resort uses are set well back from these arterial roadways and surrounding residential communities and help achieve the General Plan Land Use Goals of providing a broad range of housing types and a balanced and varied economic base for the City. The resort uses also support General Plan Policy LU‐6.3, which encourages “the expansion of the resort industry as a key component of the City’s economic base.” Comment 77‐p: Additional Legislative background for the following section is important when considering the CEQA categories of Noise, Aesthetics (lights) and Hydrology: The Legislature finds and declares as follows in Environmental Quality Sections … 21000 (b) …it is necessary to provide a high‐quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. 21001(b) …all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. I would like to provide comments on some of the DEIR categories and the related issues that present as follow: Response 77‐p: The commenter’s citations are noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐306 February 2022 Comment 77‐q: 1. NOISE Section 21000(b) of the Legislation speaks to “…freedom from excessive noise”. From a practical perspective, we the residents of the surrounding communities are faced with some very tangible aspects of surrounding aberrant noise, despite what the DEIR says. In Trilogy, we can hear the music, thumping and beats of the festivals Coachella and Stagecoach. We can hear the racing cars at Thermal. Coral Mountain Resort will be close by and what we will hear will be much different from ambient noise of quiet residential communities. First of all, many of the DEIR studies, such as the operational noise are based on unknown local conditions. WE know that there is noise from reverberation at Coral Mountain. What truly will the operational noise of the Project be?… with its train and tracks, that is the wave making apparatus, as well as the noise generated by the greatly increased number of people in attendance? What about the noise that will occur during operational hours from 7 AM ‐ 10 PM every day, 365 days per year? What about increased noise from traffic during the regular operation of the Project? There will be increased noise when Special Events are held. What would a Special Event be without music and more people in attendance? More people equates to more traffic. Additionally, noise ordinances are always lifted for Special Events. These will definitely impact the quiet residential communities around the Project. I should also point out that the construction of a 1/2 mile long concrete Wave Basin could take many many months with its use of larger, heavier and ultimately nois ier construction equipment than would be required for Low Density Residential construction. Commercial development is also included in this category; again, this would be subject to Sub Phase Development considerations being asked for by the Developer. Finally, from its own 2035 Plan …”The City’s ongoing efforts to preserve the quality of life for all its residents, present and future, must include the protection of a quiet noise environment” (NOISE IV‐ 15) Regardless of the Developer’s “studies”, there is NO good reason to allow for this kind of noise in a quiet residential community. There are too many unknowns. The noise issues raised would only come about as a result of rezoning. Response 77‐q: The Draft EIR analyzes these operational noise issues in Section 4.11, Noise, and based on evidence from the project‐specific Noise Study conducted by Urban Crossroads, concluded that operation of the project would result in less than significant impacts. Please see the Topical Response on Noise at Section 2.2.4, which provides a thorough explanation of how the operational noise from the Wave 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐307 February 2022 Basin was analyzed and determined to have no significant impacts on the surrounding communities. Increased traffic noise (during regular operations and during special events) were also analyzed and determined to be less than significant (see Tables 4.11‐19 and 4.1‐20 in the Draft EIR). Likewise, construction noise was fully analyzed and determined to generate less than significant noise levels at all 10 off‐site sensitive receptor locations (see pages 4.11‐32 – 4.11‐35 of the Draft EIR). Please also see Responses 52‐h, 59‐e and 62‐f.” Comment 77‐r: 2. LIGHTS Sections 21000(b) and 21001(b) of the Legislation speak to “healthful and pleasing to the senses” and "enjoyment–of the aesthetic and scenic qualities” 17 (seventeen) 80 foot light towers on until 10 PM and the nighttime glare from the commercial development ‐ both as a result of the rezoning ‐ are other unknowns that cannot be studied at this location. Think of the Indian Wells Tennis Gardens at night; then, please compare to the Cove in La Quinta. A T/C zoning change, along with the Developer’s request for variances, will also allow for many other types and heights of lights. Commercial glare in La Quinta is appropriately saved for Hwy 111 and it muted there due to lighting ordinances. Again, please compare Hwy 111 and the Cove. Additionally, there is the matter of light diffusion in the nighttime skies in the presence of particulate matter. This was not accounted for in the “studies” presented in the DEIR. We, as residents close by have the beautiful dark desert skies now and we will forever be deprived of this… and all of the variances being asked for as mitigation measures, including walls and setbacks, will not change this in any way. Response 77‐r: Please see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1 of this Chapter for information regarding lighting levels and the standards employed in the EIR to determine the level of significance. Please also note that the Neighborhood Commercial proposed for the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 is currently permitted under current zoning for the site. Please see Responses 83‐z, 83‐aa, and 83‐bb, as it relates to light diffusion. Finally, please note that the project does not require variances, nor has it requested variances. Comment 77‐s: 3. HYDROLOGY / WATER Section 21000(d) of the Legislation states…“The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐308 February 2022 thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached”. Section 21000 (g) of the Legislation states …”It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian” I am totally perplexed as to how this Project with its enormous water usage with 18 million gallons of water to fill it from our aquifers would even be considered in our desert environment with its high temperatures, evaporation rate and winds, especially during a mega‐drought. Additionally, there is the issue of the Reasonable Use of Water ‐ in CA law: From Professor Gray’s paper entitled The Reasonable Use Doctrine in California Law and Policy (2015 Brian E. Gray, UC Hastings College of the Law) https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/987/ … , comes the following (note: italics and underlining are writer’s) ...”the cardinal principle of California water law is that all water rights, and all uses of water, must be reasonable“... and that the Doctrine of “reasonable use” is both a policy mandate AND a limitation on water rights, which applies to All branches of government, All levels of government administration of state’s water resources, and Public and private users of the State’s waters. ...”because all uses of water must be consistent with this interdependent and variable definition of reasonable use, the law renders all water rights fragile. A water right that was reasonable when first recognized, and which may have been exercised reasonably for many years, may become unreasonable as hydrologic conditions change, as California’s economy evolves, as population grows and new demands for water arise, as ecological needs are better understood, and as the environmental laws that protect the state’s aquatic ecosystems and native species are applied in ways that limit the impoundment and diversion of water for consumptive uses” Further, the City of La Quinta lays out the following in the 2035 Plan, where water conservation is stressed to protect future resources ; to wit, the following… Conservation of Natural Resources II‐136 …The conservation of natural resources is a major component of a livable community… Imported water from the Colorado River and new replenishment programs implemented by the CVWD have helped alleviate declines, but both rely on outside sources of water. In 2010, 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐309 February 2022 approximately 300,000 acre‐feet of water per year have been allocated from the Colorado River to the eastern Coachella Valley, primarily for agricultural irrigation. Although continued importation of water will help to replenish the aquifer, a more resourceful alternative is to reduce the amount of water pumped by the CVWD, which will have a direct impact on overdraft. Conservation techniques have already been implemented, and new measures are being developed to lower the amount of water used by each household and business in the City. II‐137 Water conservation in La Quinta is essential to reduce the overdraft of local groundwater, and protect future resources. II‐138 Water conservation must include all types of water use – from landscaping to indoor fixtures, and must include new and existing development. The programs described above provide the foundation for reducing water demand. This Element can allow the City to expand programs that promote water conservation now and into the future II‐138 Policy UTL‐1.2: The City should encourage the conservation of water. (V‐15) GOAL WR‐1: The efficient use and conservation of the City’s water resources. (V‐16) Two additional concerns with respect to Hydrology of this Project must be addressed: 1. As an aside, but still on the topic of water usage for a Project like this in the desert, I would like the reader to compare this Project to another responsibly developed and sustainable desert surf park in the world that is located in the United Arab Emerites (WADI). It has a dedicated 124 mile pipeline built to pipe ocean water to the area which is then cooled to address high water temperature concerns for humans AND the proliferation of micro‐organisms, both which can cause significant human illness and even death. https://surfparkcentral.com/wadi‐adventure‐wave‐pool‐and‐surf‐ park‐in‐al‐ain‐uae/ Please see Appendix A attached to this letter which is a copy of my letter dated July 19, 2021 to the Public Health Officer of Riverside County with questions regarding the filtration, cleaning and disinfecting regimes, including required documentation regarding the protocols. Please include this letter in the public comments part of my response to the DEIR. Hopefully these questions raised in the letter to Dr. Leung will be clearly addressed in the Final EIR. And, 2. The Developer repeatedly argues that a golf course uses more water than the Wave Basin will use. I say ‐ leave the existing zoning in place and negotiate with a Developer to construct alternative recreational outlets for the residents who purchase there. Alternatively, a responsible developer can construct a golf course that observes contemporary conservation measures such as extensive xeriscaping (as has been accomplished via conversion in many California golf courses) and recycled water. This is the “wave” of the future !. Supportive legislation for 2. Above is as follows: Section 21002 of the Legislation states… 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐310 February 2022 “The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of th e state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, …and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects”. Water is a VITAL component to the health and safety of the people. There is no other “recreational activity’ which would even be considered if there was an equivalent current and potential future threat to the environment looming in our midst. A development that uses water in this capacity is an irresponsible development. There is a global movement under way to be respectful of our natural resources and to conserve water; all with good reason, and we must as the City of La Quin ta has stressed in its own plan, protect future resources as we think of our children, their children and all future generations. Response 77‐s: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies. Also see Response 65‐c as it relates to the WADI project in the UAE, and please see Responses 19‐b and 49‐b regarding the availability and use of recycled water. Finally, as it relates to the letter to the Public Health Officer of Riverside County which is attached as Appendix A to her letter, please see Response No. 77‐u below. Comment 77‐t: C. Conclusion: In closing, I would like to refer to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, where it is stated (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole record before the lead agency, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Significance, (4) where it is stated that consideration should be given to “The environmental effects of a project … ( and whether they can ) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly”… We, the residents of the communities nearby, are the “human beings” that will be impacted by all of the aforementioned effects of the proposed rezoning of this parcel of land to Tourist Commercial. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐311 February 2022 With respect to the irresponsible use of water, especially during this unpredictable MEGA drought, it must be recognized that on a global level all “human beings” are being impacted. It is acknowledged that change is necessary and often desirable when considering urban planning issues. It is also understood that a City that is responsive to its residents needs to look to additional sources of revenue. Please note that the residents who live by this Parcel of land are not against development, they are against development that is incongruous and irresponsible with respect to water usage. As in all things in life, there must be a balance established ‐ pros and cons must carefully be weighed. The cons outweigh the pros with respect to this Project. On the basis of what has been presented in the DEIR, please say NO to the rezoning of this parcel of land to Tourist Commercial. Thank you for your consideration. Response 77‐t: This comment is noted. Please see Responses 67‐e as it relates to CEQA’s mandatory findings of significance, and please see Response 41‐c as it relates to General Plan consistency. Please also see Responses 52‐b and 52‐c regarding the policy balancing and findings that are required to be made by the City Council. Comment 77‐u: I am writing to you on behalf of a number of concerned residents who reside in La Quinta, CA. There is a proposed Development called Coral Mountain Resort and its “anchor” is a surf wave basin that is almost 17 acres in size and filled with 18 million gallons of water from the aquifer – so in other words, potable water. The DRAFT Environmental Report was recently released for this Project and public comment in invited until August 6, 2021. It is here: https://www.laquintaca.gov/our‐city/city‐departments/design‐and‐ development/planningdivision/the‐wave‐at‐coral‐mountain We have questions for Riverside County Department of Public regarding the following please: 1. Background Information Articles abound online regarding the death of a young man who apparently contracted the “brain eating ameba” also known as Naegleria fowleri from a surfing experience at Waco TX. The water in this wave basin had apparently been described as a “pathogen soup”. https://www.tracksmag.com.au/news/surfer‐dies‐from‐brain‐eating‐amoeba‐513336 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐312 February 2022 https://raisedwaterresearch.com/bsr‐covers‐up‐evidence‐in‐surfers‐death‐lawyer‐alleges/ The CDC describes Naegleria fowleri “as a free‐living microscopic ameba that can cause a rare and devastating infection of the brain called primary amebic meningoencephalitis”. https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/naegleria/index.html. The website also goes on to say that this microorganism usually infects people when contaminated water enters the body through the nose. WEB MD says “Naegleria loves very warm water. It can survive in water as hot as 113 degrees Fahrenheit”… “most cases of N.fowleri disease occur in Southern or Southwestern states… “The nose is the pathway of the amoeba, so infection occurs most often fr om diving, water skiing, or performing water sports in which water is forced into the nose”. https://www.webmd.com/brain/brain‐eating‐amoeba Given that this young man’s death occurred, ostensibly from an exposure to the parasite while surfing in an artificial basin, the Developers and operators of surf/wave parks apparently are “ramping up their efforts” to prevent this from occurring again. Some public health agencies have also stepped in to ensure that this is the case with enhanced filtration requirements, as well as the requirements for daily testing with water quality reports, detailing chlorine, pH, sediment and E. coli levels. Response 77‐u: While Rebryna provides a copy of the letter she sent to Riverside County, she does not provide any response from the Riverside County Public Health Officer. In addition, no comment letter from the Riverside County Health Department has been received by the City raising any public health concerns regarding the project or the proposed Wave Basin. Comment 77‐u references articles about “brain eating ameba” that can survive in very hot water and led to the death of a surfer who visited a surf water park in Waco, Texas. However, Rebryna does not provide any studies or data showing similarities between the conditions of the water park in Waco, Texas at the time of the infection and the proposed water conditions that will occur at the project Wave Basin. According to the CDC, the Naegleria fowleri amoeba thrive in “poorly maintained or minimally chlorinated swimming pools,” and according to the environmental health manager for the Waco‐McLennan County Public Health District, at the time of the infection, the water at the water park in Waco “mostly went untreated except for occasional dumps of chlorine.” (see https://www.theinertia.com/surf/brain‐eating‐ amoeba‐fabrizio‐stabile‐mother‐suing‐waco‐wave‐pool‐bsr‐cable‐park/). The proposed Wave Basin, on the other hand, will be subject to all applicable health and safety requirements of the Riverside County and State of California Departments of Health, including proper maintenance of the water in the Wave Basin. As stated on page 4.8‐19 of the Draft EIR, the project will be required to comply with regulations established by the California Department of Public Health and the Riverside County Municipal Code. Adherence to federal, State, and regional regulatory standards will ensure impacts related to the water quality in the Wave Basin will be less than significant. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐313 February 2022 Comment 77‐v: 2. The reasons for our letter and for my contacting you are as follow: A. The desert is HOT (120 days over 100 degrees last year) and the hottest months are June, July and August. We have been told repeatedly that there are NO plans by the Developer to cool the surf/wave basin in the summer months. We have concerns about the increased potential for proliferation of microorganisms in the heat of summer in the desert. The only other desert pool that we know of is in WADI UAE where a 100 plus mile dedicated pipeline is built to bring desalinated water in that is then cooled onsite for use at its surf / wave basin. We have concerns about the health and safety of the people who recreate in this very hot water. Response 77‐v: The information provided regarding the United Arab Emirates facility is acknowledged. As it relates to the temperature of the water, please see Response 42‐d. As it relates to protozoa and viruses, please see Response 77‐u. Comment 77‐w: B. We have reviewed the DRAFT EIR to determine if there is evidence of a detailed cleaning and disinfection plan in place for the ongoing maintenance of the pool, particularly with number of hot days that we have here in the desert; there is none. There is also no information on the presence of a filtration system that swimming pools require. From a public safety perspective, we would feel much more reassured about the operation and maintenance of this surf/wave basin if a detailed maintenance protocol was made publicly available, given this extraordinarily unusual HOT environment for his type of recreational outlet. There is nothing in the DEIR that outlines the required cleaning and maintenance schedules or whether or not periodic complete pool emptying and refilling is required. There seems to be a somewhat perfunctory description of the intended disinfection regime (4.8.18… Coral Mountain Resort DRAFT EIR) There is a generalized reference made to Section 65529 (Public Pool Disinfection of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations CCR) in that the pool must be “disinfected continuously”. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐314 February 2022 We see evidence of “materials” that will be used in June July and August (with particular reference to sodium hypochlorite ‐ NaClO) as well as halogens, however no evidence of a plan per se. How is the contamination of the water with bodily fluids addressed? … e.g. blood, urine, feces Response 77‐w: The operation and maintenance of the Wave Basin will comply with State and County health standards to ensure that people are not exposed to dangerous swimming conditions. As stated on page 4.8‐19 of the Draft EIR, the project will be required to comply with regulations established by the California Department of Public Health and the Riverside County Municipal Code. The project will be required to use pool disinfecting and cleaning supplies, and shall be required to follow the procedures established in the Municipal Code and Chapter 6.95 of the HSC. These standards are designed to prevent contaminants, including protozoa and viruses, from surviving in the water. As it relates to daily additions to the wave pool, please see Respons e 65‐d. As it relates to chlorine use, the Wave Basin is anticipated to use approximately 216,000 gallons of sodium hypochlorite and 14,440 gallons of sulfuric acid annually, which are both commonly used chemicals in swimming pools (for maximum accuracy, estimates are based on actual rates used at the wave basin in Lemoore, not usage rates at typical swimming pools). Emptying and refiling the Wave Basin is not required for cleaning or maintenance activities. Comment 77‐x: C. We also question whether the operator of the wave basin will be able to maintain an accurate concentration of the required disinfecting agents particularly because of high rates of water evaporation due to the extraordinary heat, high winds and the wave action itself in these desert conditions. How will accurate records be kept of the conditions that are present at the pool? As stated above, the standard of care looks more and more like records MUST be kept, with frequent assessment and input data for surf/wave basin water. D. Who will administer the records and data? Who will ensure compliance? Response 77‐x: This comment questions the accuracy of future records of maintenance activities but does not raise any environmental issues. Accordingly, no further response is required. Comment 77‐y: E. We are concerned that Kelly Slater et al has essentially stated in the past that “treating and filtering water pursuant to existing regulations makes a public surf park in California not viable”, as per a quote from the inertia https://www.theinertia.com/surf/kelly‐slater‐wavecompany‐pool‐regulations‐surf‐ pool‐wave‐basin‐california/. Thus our question ‐ if this was argued before by this surf ranch pool, will 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐315 February 2022 this aspect of pool maintenance now be taken seriously by the operators? It appears that it wasn’t in WACO, prior to that young man’s death. Response 77‐y: Please see Response 77‐w regarding compliance with all applicable State and County health and safety regulations. Comment 77‐z: Thank you for allowing me to lay out our concerns regarding the maintenance of the surf wave basin with respect to appropriate cleaning and disinfecting regimes, particularly as related to the possibility of proliferation of pathogens in water that is not cooled and/or properly treated in this hot desert environment. Because of the lack of cooling, we are also concerned about the safety of the people who surf in that type of hot desert environment. Response 77‐z: This comment summarizes the concerns raised in the letter but does not raise any new information or concerns. Please see Responses 77‐u through 77‐y. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐316 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 78: Harvey Reed Date: August 5, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 78‐a: Please accept this email as notification of my opposition to the proposed location of the Coral Mountain Resort. Changing the zoning of the proposed location from “Low Density Residential‐Open Space Recreation” to “Tourist‐Commercial” is inconsistent with current and planned land use. A zoning change will also negatively affect the quality of life for thousands of La Quinta residents who live adjacent to the proposed location. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) describes the proposed private resort as having 80‐ foot tall light poles, a public address system, an immense hydraulic and mechanical system pulling a wave sled and other industrial equipment operating from 7:00AM – 10:00PM, 365 days a year. Based on operations at the developer’s other wave park resorts, jet skis will also operate on the Wave Basin during the same time. According to the DEIR, this private resort will host special events throughout the year lasting up to four days in length with an estimated 2,500 outside attendees per day. Response 78‐a: The commenter describes his understanding of the project, which is noted. As it relates to the requested Zone Change and the process for same, please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a. Comment 78‐b: It should be noted that the developers have built wave park resorts in areas that are not surrounded by residential communities (please see attached photos). They now desire to build what they describe as “The world’s largest Wave Basin” in the center of a residential area in La Quinta. In the DEIR, the developers briefly admit that, “The project si te is surrounded by developed residential communities…” What the DEIR does not articulate is that the residential communities of The Quarry, Santerra, Coral Mountain Estates, Andalusia, and Trilogy are adjacent to the proposed location. New home developments are currently planned immediately south of the proposed location including the Estate Collection at Coral Mountain and the 1,200 residential Travertine community. When those developments are completed, the proposed wave park will literally be surrounded by residential communities. The location of the proposed wave park is currently zoned “Low Density Residential, Open Space‐Recreational” which is consistent with the design and use of existing adjacent residential communities and those being planned. Response 78‐b: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐317 February 2022 The Draft EIR analyzes the project’s consistency with the surrounding residential communities in Chapter 4.10, and concludes that the project is compatible with both the surrounding land uses and the applicable General Plan land use goals and policies. (See Draft EIR at pp. 4.10‐15 – 4.10‐17 and 4.10‐30 – 4.10‐31). Please also see Responses 41‐c and 52‐f. Comment 78‐c: The location, size, design and operating characteristics of this proposed project are not compatible with existing and future land uses. Furthermore, the project will create traffic, lighting and noise conditions which will negatively impact thousands of La Quinta residents living in the adjacent residential communities. Please consider different locations that are appropriate for this project. Response 78‐c: The commenter’s opinions are noted. The Draft EIR addressed additional light, noise and traffic impacts in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Section 4.11, Noise, and 4.13, Transportation, (respectively). Findings and conclusions regarding project impacts were based on technical studies and plans prepared by topic experts, correctly provided an analysis of impacts, mitigation measures where necessary and feasible, and disclosed significant impacts under Aesthetics. With regard to land use compatibility concerns, please see Responses 41‐c and 52‐f. With regard to lighting, noise and traffic concerns, please see the Topical Responses on these issues in Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.4, and 2.2.5, respectively. With regard to alternative locations for the project, an alternative location for the proposed project was discussed in Chapter 7.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Comment 78‐d: In this comment, Reed provides Google Earth images and screenshots of aerials displaying locations of other Wave Basins. In the aerial screenshots, Reed indicates that the existing wave facilities are not located near residential, while the project site is located in proximity to residential communities. Response 78‐d: This comment is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐318 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 79: Mitchell Tsai – Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Date: August 5, 2021 Affiliation: Representative of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Comment 79‐a: On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenters” or “Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of La Quinta’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) (SCH No. 2021020310) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project (“Project”). The City proposes to adopt the Project, carving out 386 acres of a 929‐acre area of the City, to promote future development of the Coral Mountain Resort. The Project would allow for the development of 600 residential units, a 150‐room resort hotel plus complementary uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 23.6 acres of recreational uses. As part of the Project, the City would initiate a general plan amendment and zoning change to designate the Project area for “Tourist Commercial” uses; a specific plan amendment to exclude the Project area from a previous specific plan; the adoption of the Project’s specific plan; the adoption of a tentative tract map; site development permits; and the adoption of a development agreement with the Project applicant. The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts. Commenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199‐1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. Commenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). Moreover, Commenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐319 February 2022 Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. Response 79‐a: This introductory comment states that the commenter represents the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters and requests notice of further proceedings relating to the project. As this comment does not raise any specific concerns or questions regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project, no further response to this comment is provided. Comment 79‐b: The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on‐the‐job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California. Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note: [A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction‐related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: . . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐320 February 2022 mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Managemen t District found that that the “[u]se of a local state‐certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions. Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs‐housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.” In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state‐ approved, joint labor‐management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state‐approved, joint labor‐ management training programs.” Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008: People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled. In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note: In nearly built‐out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry‐ and intermediate‐level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment‐ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐321 February 2022 The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts. The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current 2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals. Response 79‐b: The commenter’s opinions regarding City policy are noted. The comment regarding the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship program, or have on‐the‐job experience does not explain or establish how such a requirement would substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects of the project as identified in the DEIR. The commenter requests that a specified percent of workers must reside within 10 miles of the project. Unfortunately, this opinion does not identify the current average commute distance for construction workers in the La Quinta area, nor does it quantify or demonstrate that any reduction in GHG emissions would result from such a restriction. It also appears that the expertise of Mr. Hagemann is in geology and hydrology, and not transportation or GHG emissions. Similarly, the expertise of Mr. Rosenfield appears to be in chemistry and contamination issues, rather than transportation issues. Neither individual appears to have any professional licenses, certifications or other credentials that would qualify them as experts in the field of reducing vehicle miles traveled. The comment also describes certain approaches taken in two Bay Area cities to promote hiring local workers. Again, there is no substantial evidence provided by the commenter demonstrating that such a requirement in the City of La Quinta would reduce GHG emissions relating to construction worker vehicle miles traveled. By way of contrast to the comment’s unsubstantiated claim, and as described at length in Section 4.7 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the project has included a number of established project design features (PDFs) that are recognized to reduce GHG emissions and can be quantified in the CalEEMod model used to calculate GHG emissions (see DEIR pp. 4.7‐11 – 4.7‐13). These PDFs include a number of energy efficiency and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction features, consistent with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan (see DEIR Appendix I, at pp. 58‐67). In addition, the DEIR identifies Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, which requires the applicant to purchase a minimum of 72,000 MTCO2e carbon credits from a CARB‐approved carbon registry prior to issuance of occupancy certificates (see DEIR p. 4.7‐26). Given that construction emissions only constitute approximately 2.5% of the project’s total projected GHG emissions, it is exceedingly unlikely that requiring a specific percentage of local construction workers would cause any appreciable reduction in the project’s overall GHG emissions (as shown in Table 4.7‐3 in the DEIR, the construction emissions amount to 414.62 MTCO2e/year out of total project emissions of 16,725.03 MTCO2e/year). By comparison, the project design features incorporated into the project reduce the GHG emissions by 4,988.36 MTCO2e/year, and Mitigation 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐322 February 2022 Measure GHG‐1 requires the purchase of carbon credits equal to an additional 2,400 MTCO2e/year (see DEIR pp. 4.7‐17‐4.7‐18 and 4.7‐26). Finally, the comment states that the City should require the project to exceed (rather than comply with) the applicable 2019 California Green Building Code. Such a requirement may be the commenter’s public policy preference, but it is not a matter of CEQA compliance and is not required by California’s GHG emissions reduction requirements or the City’s GHG reduction plan. Comment 79‐c: I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self‐government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810. Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B). While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐323 February 2022 requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355: A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision‐making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450). Response 79‐c: The commenter’s explanation of the purpose of CEQA is noted. This comment does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided. Comment 79‐d: B. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact Report When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information. CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative).” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a). Examples of significant new information requiring recirculation include “new significant environmental impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure,” “substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible project alternative or mitigation measure 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐324 February 2022 considerably different from others previously analyzed” as well as when “the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” Id. An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental impact report. Response 79‐d: The commenter’s view of recirculation requirements under CEQA are noted. The comment does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. This comment does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided. Comment 79‐e: C. Due to the COVID‐19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Advers e Effect on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID‐19 Impacts CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4). Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to Highrisk activity for COVID‐19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID‐19. SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on‐site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐325 February 2022 In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site: Construction Site Design: • The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points. • Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening. • A 48‐hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.  The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6‐foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details. • There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening. • Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site. Testing Procedures: • The temperature screening being used are non‐contact devices. • Temperature readings will not be recorded. • Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1‐2 seconds per individual. • Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before temperature screening. • Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be refused access to the Project Site. • Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate [ZONE 2] • After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors. • If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading. • If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A. Planning 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐326 February 2022 • Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10 people including all‐hands meetings and all‐hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable local public health agencies. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID‐19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID‐ 19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site. Response 79‐e: The comment cites two articles regarding COVID‐19 risks at construction sites, but both are from the very early stages of the pandemic (April and June 2020) before testing protocols and vaccinations became available, and before natural immunities developed. The comment does not present any evidence demonstrating significant COVID‐19 risks at construction sites in Riverside County as of late 2021 that are not adequately addressed with current federal, state and Riverside County requirements. For example, construction sites are already subject to Cal OSHA’s requirements for a written COVID‐19 Prevention Program and an Injury and Illness Prevention Program to protect employees from all worksite hazards, including infectious diseases (see, e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Subchapter 7, §§ 3203 and 3205; and Cal OSHA Safety and Health Guidance COVID‐19 Infection Prevention in Construction, dated October 27, 2020, at www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/coronavirus/COVID‐19‐Infection‐Prevention‐in‐Construction.pdf). The comment also cites to PRC Section 21083(b)(3) which, along with CEQA Guideline Section 15065(a)(4), provide that a public agency must prepare an EIR where it finds that there is substantial evidence in the record that the project will cause substantial adverse effects. Here, the City did require preparation of an EIR to analyze all potentially significant effects of the project, as well as mitigation measures and alternatives that minimize or avoid such effects to the maximum extent feasible. The evidence in the record does not support the requests made in this comment. Comment 79‐f: D. The DEIR’s Project Objectives are Unduly Narrow and Circumscribe Appropriate Project Alternatives 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐327 February 2022 A project description must state the objectives sought by the proposed project. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project, and ’t should be clearly written to guide the selection of mitigation measures and alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b).) An EIR's description of the underlying purpose of the project is the touchstone for its identification of specific project objectives, and the statement of project objectives can help to define the contours of the project's purpose. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4th 326, 347.) While a lead agency has discretion to formulate the project objectives, they cannot be so narrowly defined that they preclude discussion of project alternatives that could still achieve the underlying purpose of the project. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 647, 668.) This is so because project alternatives that do not achieve the project’s underlying purpose need not be considered. (In re Bay‐Delta Programmatic Envt'l Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1166.) And the statement of objectives should be based upon the underlying purpose of the project—not the nature of the project itself. (Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1299.) Here, the DEIR inappropriately narrows the objectives of the project based upon the nature of the project, and not on any underlying purpose. The Project’s objectives include the “[development of] a high‐quality private Wave Basin (The Wave) that provides unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project, and that attracts resort guests and creates a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s reputation as the ‘Gem of the Desert.’” (DEIR, 3‐8.) If this remains a project objective, the DEIR need not consider project alternatives that do not provide “highquality private Wave Basins.” Certainly, there is no specific requirement that the tourism or residential housing needs of the City or region demand a surf simulation facility. The Objective should be reformulated so that a meaningful analysis of project alternatives can be considered. Response 79‐f: The private Wave Basin amenity is identified in the Draft EIR only as the last of seven separate project objectives set forth on page 3‐8 of the DEIR, and no single objective was used to eliminate potential project alternatives. In fact, the DEIR evaluated five project alternatives, only one of which includes a private Wave Basin. These alternatives include a No Project/No Build Alternative, a No Project/Existing Entitlements Alternative, a Reduced Density Alternative, a Golf/Resort Hotel Alternative, and a Lake Amenity/No Hotel Alternative. This range of alternatives fully complies with the requirements of CEQA Guideline 15126.6. The DEIR analyzes the comparative environmental effects of several different development scenarios on the project site, including the existing General Plan land uses, an alternative resort hotel and residential development with a championship golf course as the central amenity, and a residential only development with a private lake as the central amenity. The commenter’s assertion that the seventh objective is unduly restricting is not supported by substantial evidence. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐328 February 2022 Comment 79‐g: E. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed in the DEIR but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the DEIR’s analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by substantial evidence, the EIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence. See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amado r Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1109. While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining significance and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or thresholds of significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts (2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302. In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project‐specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1; see also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project). Response 79‐g: This comment sets forth the commenter’s view of the applicable legal requirements for evaluating a project’s environmental effects and determining the significance of such effects, however, it does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason, no further response is provided. Comment 79‐h: 1. The DEIR Fails to Support its Findings on Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality Impacts with Substantial Evidence. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4 allow a lead agency to determine the significance of a project’s GHG impact via a qualitative analysis (e.g., extent to which a project complies with regulations or requirements of state/regional/local GHG plans), and/or a quantitative analysis (e.g., using model or 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐329 February 2022 methodology to estimate project emissions and compare it to a numeric threshold). So too, CEQA Guidelines allow lead agencies to select what model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions so long as the selection is supported with substantial evidence, and the lead agency “should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(c). CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b) allow a lead agency to consider a project’s consistency with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) make clear qualified GHG reduction plans or CAPs should include the following features: (1) Inventory: Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities (e.g., projects) within a defined geographic area (e.g., lead agency jurisdiction); (2) Establish GHG Reduction Goal: Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; (3) Analyze Project Types: Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; (4) Craft Performance Based Mitigation Measures: Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project‐by‐project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (5) Monitoring: Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP progress toward achieving said level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; Collectively, the above‐listed CAP features tie qualitative measures to quantitative results, which in turn become binding via proper monitoring and enforcement by the jurisdiction—all resulting in real GHG reductions for the jurisdiction as a whole, and the substantial evidence that the incremental contribution of an individual project is not cumulatively considerable. Here, the DEIR’s analysis of GHG impacts is unsupported by substantial evidence, as it relies on outdated modeling. The DEIR’s analysis of air quality and GHG impacts throughout the DEIR relies on data created using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. (See, e.g., DEIR, 4.1‐13). A newer version of this software (currently CalEEMod version 2020.4.0) became available prior to the release of the DEIR. The DEIR provides no discussion or justification for use of the outdated 2016 version of the software. The use of outdated modeling software may result in underestimation of the Project’s GHG emissions, calling the DEIR’s conclusions into question. The DEIR’s reliance on inaccurate modeling also affects its analysis of air quality impacts and energy impacts. The DEIR potentially vastly undercounts the Project’s air pollutant emissions. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐330 February 2022 Moreover, in its discussion of the GHG impact Significance Threshold chosen for its GHG analysis, the DEIR chooses to use a target of 3.65 MTCO2e/yr per service population, stating that this screening target was chosen as a linear interpolation between the 2020 and 2030 2017 Scoping Plan reduction/efficiency targets based on the projected 2026 buildout of the Project. (DEIR, 4.7‐10). However, the DEIR fails to provide any reasoning for this choice in either the DEIR itself or the Appendix I Greenhouse Gas Report. Given that the 2017 Scoping Plan has a target of 2.88 MTCO2e/yr to be attained by 2030,11 it is unclear how a proration of GHG emissions targets between 2020 and 2030 would be consistent with meeting the goals of AB 32 and SB 32. Response 79‐h: The GHG analysis properly utilized the CalEEMod version 2016.3.2, which was released by SCAQMD, CAPCOA and other California air districts on October 17, 2017, and was the most current available version when the GHG Analysis was completed, as confirmed on page 47 of the GHG Analysis (see DEIR Appendix I). The 2020.4.0 version referenced in this comment was not released until June 2021, which is the same month the Draft EIR was released for public review. Accordingly, the 2020.4.0 version was not available when the GHG Analysis was commenced or completed. EIR studies, once commenced, are not required to incorporate every new version or update of a model that may be released thereafter. Otherwise, technical reports could be subject to never‐ending rounds of revisions to incorporate the latest model update, which would be inconsistent with the Legislature’s directive to carry out the CEQA review process “in the most efficient, expeditious manner on order to conserve the available financial, governmental, physical, and social resources with the objective that those resources may be better applied toward the mitigation of actual significant effects on the environment.” Public Resources Code § 21103(f). In addition, the lead agency “has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers the most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change.” See CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4 (c). (Also see discussion below regarding GHG mitigation measures. If the emissions modeling was updated using the latest version of CalEEMod, emissions would not increase, but in fact would incrementally decrease as a result of the updated emissions factors in the updated version, since the changes were related to increased efficiencies (Title 24, vehicle fuel economy), lower utility intensity factors and similar changes. Furthermore, the DEIR identifies GHG emissions as a significant and unavoidable impact, which would be the conclusion under either version of the model. Consequently, use of different versions of the model would not change the impact disclosure to the public. With respect to the appropriate screening target for project‐level GHG emissions, the GHG analysis appropriately utilized a 2026 buildout year target of 3.65 MTCO2e, based on SCAQMD’s “widely 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐331 February 2022 accepted screening threshold.” (See DEIR Appendix I, at pp. 44‐45). As explained on page 45 of the GHG Analysis (DEIR Appendix I), “the City has determined that the SCAQMD’s project level efficiency threshold methodology can be used to set an appropriate significance criterion by which to determine whether the project emits a significant amount of GHG,” and “the SP threshold for the project’s buildout year of 2026 was calculated by linear interpolation between the 2020 target of 4.8 MTCO2e/year and the 2030 target of 2.88 MTCO2e/year.” Thus, contrary to the assertion in this comment, the DEIR does provide the reasoning for the significan ce criterion of 3.65MTCO2e per year, consistent with the City’s discretion under CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4. Comment 79‐i: 2. The DEIR is Required to Consider and Adopt All Feasible Air Quality and GHG Mitigation Measures A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible”12 and find that ‘specific overriding economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.”13 “A gloomy forecast of environmental degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the impacts and restore ecological equilibrium.” Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039. Here, the DEIR finds that the Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, yet proposes mitigation measures that fall short of the “all feasible mitigation measures” standard set by CEQA. Mitigation Measure AQ‐2 requires future developments to employ U.S. EPA Tier 3 construction equipment. However, it fails to justify with substantial evidence why U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final‐compliant should not be required. Further, Mitigation Measure AQ‐3 demands the use of low‐VOC architectural coatings within the Project area, but the DEIR does not contemplate the feasibility of a requirement that “Super‐Complaint” architectural be utilized to further decrease Air Quality impacts. Additionally, the DEIR notes that the Project will require the “design [of] building shells and building components… to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards,” (DEIR, 4.1‐14), but does not specify which standards it is specifically referring to—energy efficiency standards or CalGreen building standards. Though the DEIR states that both should apply, it does not state the Project’s level of compliance with Tile 24 standards. The Title 24 “CalGreen” building standards include two different standard “tiers” (Tier 1 and Tier 2) for both residential and non‐residential buildings. (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐332 February 2022 11, Appendix A4 at A4.601 and Appendix A5 at A5.601). The DEIR does not address which tier is applicable within the Project’s specific plan area, and does not state that that the more stringent Tier 2 standards for residential and non‐residential development should be followed. The City should reevaluate the mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR to ensure the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures as required by CEQA. Response 79‐i: The comment incorrectly states that the EIR determined that imp acts to Air Quality will be significant. Although the comment suggests two additional and more stringent air quality mitigation measures, no further air quality mitigation measures are required or warranted because with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, along with all applicable SCAQMD regulatory requirements, impacts of the project on air quality will be reduced to less than significant levels, and the project will not have any significant and unavoidable air quality impacts (see DEIR at pp. 4.2‐42 – 4.2‐44). The comment also questions the project’s “level of compliance” with 2019 Title 24 building standards. As set forth in La Quinta Municipal Code Section 8.07.010, the City has adopted “each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms” of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. Pursuant to LQMC section 8.02.010, the City also adopted the 2019 California Building Code. The project is subject to and will comply with all applicable requirements of both the California Building Code and CalGreen Building Code. As stated above, by complying with all applicable regulatory requirements and implementing Mitigation Measures AQ‐1 through AQ‐3, the project will reduce impacts to less than significant levels and avoid any significant air quality impacts. With respect to GHG emissions, the comment raises no questions or objections with respect to any of the GHG mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. The DEIR identifies mitigation measures that mitigate impacts from GHG emissions to a level of less than significant, but conservatively considers GHG emissions to be significant and unavoidable because “the use of carbon credits has not been broadly adopted in the Coachella Valley.” Contrary to the assertion in this comment, the DEIR did not fail to identify measures to adequately mitigate all GHG impacts, but rather, identified mitigation measures that could reduce the GHG impacts to a less than significant level, and also concluded that without a longer track record of using carbon credits in the Coachella Valley as mitigation for private development projects, the impact should be conservatively identified as significant and unavoidable in case the proposed mitigation proves infeasible for any reason. This approach serves one of the fundamental purposes of an EIR, which is to fully and robustly disclose potential impacts to agency decision‐makers and the public, rather than under‐disclose such impacts in the hope that untested mitigation will render such impacts less than significant. Comment 79‐j: 3. The DEIR Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures as “Project Design Features” 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐333 February 2022 The DEIR improperly labels mitigation measures for “Project Design Features” or “PDFs” which the DEIR purports will reduce environmental impacts. (See, e.g., DEIR, 4.1‐13 through 4.1‐15 (Air Quality); see also DEIR, 4.5‐18 through 4.5‐19 (Energy); DEIR, 4.7‐11 through 13 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions).) Many of the DEIR’s conclusions regarding mitigation of environmental impacts below levels of significance rely on the implementation of these PDFs, and that as such no additional mitigation is required. However, it is established that “’[a]voidance, minimization and / or mitigation measure’ . . . are not ‘part of the project.’ . . . compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue . . disregards the requirements of CEQA.” (Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656.) When “an agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance determination, and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no significant effects will occur, that agency must treat those measures as though there were adopted following a finding of significance.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 652 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1) and Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1).]) By labeling mitigation measures as project design features, the City violates CEQA by failing to disclose “the analytic route that the agency took from the evidence to its findings.” (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093; Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1035 [quoting Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.]) The DEIR’s use of “Project Design Features” further violates CEQA because such measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures that are fully enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to ensure that the measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects to the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines § 15091(d).) Though they are presumably enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Project’s Development Agreement, the PDFs should be properly adopted as mitigations and subject to a mitigation monitoring and reporting program under CEQA. Response 79‐ j: First, the DEIR clearly distinguishes between PDFs, which are a part of the project being proposed by the applicant and explicitly listed in the Specific Plan, thus providing assurance as to their implementation, and mitigation measures, which are identified to lessen or avoid significant impacts of the project. Nothing in CEQA precludes consideration of the characteristics of a project in evaluating its environmental effects. Moreover, because some PD Fs are factored into the quantitative analysis of impacts, as required to use the CalEEMod quantitative modeling for air quality and GHG impacts, all PDFs identified in the DEIR are also being made fully enforceable by the City through the project Development Agreement, as disclosed in the EIR. The Coral Mountain Specific Plan lists PDFs 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐334 February 2022 in Section 1.7 of the document included to reduce GHG emissions and promote energy efficiency project‐wide through sustainability features. If the Specific Plan is approved by the City, the project would be required to implement the PDFs in order to be consistent with the Specific Plan. In addition, the commenter’s reliance on Lotus is misplaced. In that case, the Lead Agency failed to complete the analysis required to determine the level of significance of the impacts on trees, specifically redwood trees. Here, the EIR fully discloses the potential impacts associated with air quality, energy and greenhouse gas emissions, and as a result of that analysis, determines whether impacts are or are not significant, leading to the imposition of mitigation measures. Unlike Lotus, the City correctly analyzed the impacts and determined mitigation measures based on those impacts. Comment 79‐k: 4. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings on Population and Housing and Recreation with Substantial Evidence The City’s Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) concluded that the Project will have a less than significant impact on population and housing, and thus precluded the DEIR from undertaking any further analysis of the direct or indirect effects of the Project on population growth in the City. Thus, the DEIR does not analyze the issue. Analysis of Population and Housing impacts was ruled out by NOP, on the grounds that projected population growth related to the Project still puts the City under its 2035 population forecast. (DEIR, Appendix A, NOP at pp. 39‐40.) La Quinta’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report forecasts a population of 46,297 people by 2035 (Id.), whereas predicted growth related to the project is 1,698 new residents, (DEIR, 6‐6), raising the population to 42,358 (2,181 new residents in the NOP (raising the population to 42,841)). However, SCAG’s comment on the City’s NOP forecasts a lower population of 45,034 by 2035. (DEIR, Appendix A, Letter from Southern California Association of Governments to Nicole Sauviat Criste (April 1, 2021) at p. 4.) The Project will ultimately result in a net increase in housing, and may have cumulatively considerable impacts with other housing projects in the area, especially the adjacent Andalusia project. An EIR’s discussion of cumulative impacts is required by CEQA Guidelines §15130(a). The determination of whether there are cumulative impacts in any issue area should be determined based on an assessment of the project's incremental effects “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3); Banning Ranch Conservancy v City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1228; see also CEQA Guidelines §15355(b).) The DEIR demurs on any cumulative impacts analysis based on the assumption that the Project “is not anticipated to result in an indirect growth inducing impact because the existing infrastructure has been sized to accommodate long term growth… and because the projected population growth is already included in the City of La Quinta’s General Plan.” (DEIR, 6‐7). The DEIR cannot simply ignore the fact that 1,698 new residents will potentially be drawn to the City by the Project and not consider 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐335 February 2022 the cumulative effect of that projected population growth with that of other pending projects. This is a potentially significant impact that the DEIR should analyze. In addition, neither the DEIR nor the NOP contain any substantive discussion of Recreation impacts. (See NOP at pp. 41‐42; DEIR, 6‐7 through 6‐8). The CEQA Guideli nes identify a threshold of significance related to whether or not a project will include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project dedicates 23.6 acres of previously‐open space to the development of recreational facilities on in the Project area, including the potential development of rope courses. This has reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and requires analysis in the DEIR. Payment of Quimby fees (a mitigation) does not excuse the DEIR from analysis of environmental impacts the Project will have via the creation of recreational spaces. Response 79‐k: Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the DEIR and the Initial Study circulated with the NOP both addressed these subjects. As set forth on pages 6‐6 and 6‐7 of the DEIR, the project will add approximately 1,698 new residents to the City, but this growth is already fully accounted for in the City’s General Plan and the project is not installing infrastructure that will remove barriers allowing or facilitating additional growth. Further, the project is proposed on a property for which an approved Specific Plan exists, which permits up to 750 residential units, and which has been included in the City’s General Plan Land Use plan since its annexation approximately 20 years ago. Therefore, the project will not induce substantial unplanned population growth, nor will it displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing (as the project site is currently vacant, undeveloped land). Likewise, the DEIR discusses the project’s potential to increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities on pages 6‐7 and 6‐8 of the DEIR and concludes that the project will not have a significant effect because it is constructing substantial recreational amenities for project residents and guests, and because the project will pay Quimby fees and other development impact fees to help fund the development of other types of public recreational facilities in the City. The onsite recreational facilities are included in the project description analyzed in the DEIR, and any potentially significant impacts of those facilities are addressed in Chapter 4 of the DEIR. Comment 79‐l: F. The DEIR Fails to Demonstrate Consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS Plans Senate Bill No. 375 requires regional planning agencies to include a sustainable communities strategy in their regional transportation plans. Gov. Code § 65080, sub.(b)(2)(B).) CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d) provides that an EIR “shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and…regional plans. Such regional plans include…regional transportation plans.” Thus, CEQA requires analysis of any inconsistencies between the Project and the relevant RTP/SCS plan. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐336 February 2022 In April 2012, SCAG adopted its 2012‐2035 RTP/ SCS (“2012 RTP/SCS”), which proposed specific land use policies and transportation strategies for local governments to implement that will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions of 9 percent per capita in 2020 and 16 percent per capita in 2035. In April 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016‐2040 RTP/SCS (“2016 RTP/SCS”)14, which incorporates and builds upon the policies and strategies in the 2012 RTP/SCS15, that will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions that would reduce the region’s per capita transportation emissions by eight percent by 2020 and 18 percent by 2035.16 SCAG’s RTP/SCS plan is based upon the same requirements outlined in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan and SB 375. On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020 – 2045 RTP / SCS titled Connect SoCal (“2020 RTP/ SCS”).17 The 2020 RTP / SCS adopts policies and strategies aimed at reducing the region’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2020 and 19% below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. 18 For both the 2012 and 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG prepared Program Environmental Impact Reports (“PEIR”) that include Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (“MMRP”) that list project‐level environmental mitigation measures that directly and/or indirectly relate to a project’s GHG impacts and contribution to the region’s GHG emissions.19 These environmental mitigation measures serve to help local municipalities when identifying mitigation to reduce impacts on a project‐specific basis that can and should be implemented when they identify and mitigate project‐specific environmental impacts. Here, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project’s is consistency wi th any of SCAG’s aforementioned RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR must demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the RTP/SCS Plans’ project‐level goals, including: Land Use and Transportation • Providing transit fare discounts21; • Implementing transit integration strategies22; and • Anticipating shared mobility platforms, car‐to‐car communications, and automated vehicle technologies GHG Emissions Goals • Reduction in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines,25 such as: o Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐337 February 2022 why certain measures were incorporated in the Project and why other measures were dismissed. o The potential siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy. o The potential for reducing peak energy demand. o Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. o Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts. • Off‐site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. • Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: o Use energy and fuel‐efficient vehicles and equipment; o Deployment of zero‐ and/or near zero emission technologies; o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; o Use lighter‐colored pavement where feasible; o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; • Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end‐of‐trip facilities, and telecommuting programs. • Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride‐sharing vehicles or high‐occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; • Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. Hydrology & Water Quality Goals • Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating water quality/supply requirements, such as: o Reduce exterior consumptive uses of water in public areas, and should promote reductions in private homes and businesses, by shifting to drought‐tolerant native landscape 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐338 February 2022 plantings(xeriscaping), using weatherbased irrigation systems, educating other public agencies about water use, and installing related water pricing incentives. o Promote the availability of drought‐resistant landscaping options and provide information on where these can be purchased. Use of reclaimed water especially in median landscaping and hillside landscaping can and should be implemented where feasible. o Implement water conservation best practices such as low‐flow toilets, water‐efficient clothes washers, water system audits, and leak detection and repair. o Ensure that projects requiring continual dewatering facilities implement monitoring systems and long‐term administrative procedures to ensure proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on groundwater for the life of the project. Comply with appropriate building codes and standard practices including the Uniform Building Code. o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimized new impervious surfaces to the greatest extent possible, including the use of in‐lieu fees and off‐site mitigation. o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible. o Where feasible, do not site transportation facilities in groundwater recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious surface. • Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating and enforcing water quality and waste discharge requirements, such as: o Complete, and have approved, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) before initiation of construction. o Implement Best Management Practices to reduce the peak stormwater runoff from the project site to the maximum extent practicable. o Comply with the Caltrans stormwater discharge permit as applicable; and identify and implement Best Management Practices to manage site erosion, wash water runoff, and spill control. o Complete, and have approved, a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan, prior to occupancy of residential or commercial structures. o Ensure adequate capacity of the surrounding stormwater system to support stormwater runoff from new or rehabilitated structures or buildings. o Prior to construction within an area subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, obtain all required permit approvals and certifications for construction within the vicinity of a watercourse (e.g., Army Corps § 404 permit, Regional Waterboard § 401 permit, Fish & Wildlife § 401 permit). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐339 February 2022 o Where feasible, restore or expand riparian areas such that there is no net loss of impervious surface as a result of the project. o Install structural water quality control features, such as drainage channels, detention basins, oil and grease traps, filter systems, and vegetated buffers to prevent pollution of adjacent water resources by polluted runoff where required by applicable urban stormwater runoff discharge permits, on new facilities. o Provide structural stormwater runoff treatment consistent with the applicable urban stormwater runoff permit where Caltrans is the operator, the statewide permit applies. o Provide operational best management practices for street cleaning, litter control, and catch basin cleaning are implemented to prevent water quality degradation in compliance with applicable stormwater runoff discharge permits; and ensure treatment controls Are in place as early as possible, such as during the acquisition process for rights‐of‐way, not just later during the facilities design and construction phase. o Comply with applicable municipal separate storm sewer system discharge permits as well as Caltrans’ stormwater discharge permit including long‐term sediment control and drainage of roadway runoff. o Incorporate as appropriate treatment and control features such as detention basins, infiltration strips, and porous paving, other features to control surface runoff and facilitate groundwater recharge into the design of new transportation projects early on in the process to ensure that adequate acreage and elevation contours are provided during the right‐of‐way acquisition process. o Design projects to maintain volume of runoff, where any downstream receiving water body has not been designed and maintained to accommodate the increase in flow velocity, rate, and volume without impacting the water's beneficial uses. Pre‐project flow velocities, rates, volumes must not be exceeded. This applies not only to increases in stormwater runoff from the project site, but also to hydrologic changes induced by flood plain encroachment. Projects should not cause or contribute to conditions that degrade the physical integrity or ecological function of any downstream receiving waters. o Provide culverts and facilities that do not increase the flow velocity, rate, or volume and/or acquiring sufficient storm drain easements that accommodate an appropriately vegetated earthen drainage channel. o Upgrade stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate any increased runoff volumes. These upgrades may include the construction of detention basins or structures that will delay peak flows and reduce flow velocities, including Expansion and restoration of wetlands and riparian buffer areas. System designs shall be completed to eliminate increases in peak flow rates from current levels. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐340 February 2022 o Encourage Low Impact Development (“LID”) and incorporation of natural spaces that reduce, treat, infiltrate and manage stormwater runoff flows in all new developments, where practical and feasible. • Incorporate measures consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater Management Act and implementing regulations, such as: o For projects requiring continual dewatering facilities, implement monitoring systems and long‐ term administrative procedures to ensure proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on groundwater for the life of the project, Construction designs shall comply with appropriate building codes and standard practices including the Uniform Building Code. o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimize to the greatest extent possible, new impervious surfaces, including the use of inlieu fees and off‐site mitigation. o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible. o Avoid construction and siting on groundwater recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious surface. o Reduce hardscape to the extent feasible to facilitate groundwater recharge as appropriate. • Incorporate mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and local floodplain regulations, consistent with the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program, such as: o Comply with Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management, which requires avoidance of incompatible floodplain development, restoration and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and maintenance of consistency with the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program. o Ensure that all roadbeds for new highway and rail facilities be elevated at least one foot above the 100‐year base flood elevation. Since alluvial fan flooding is not often identified on FEMA flood maps, the risk of alluvial fan flooding should be evaluated and projects should be sited to avoid alluvial fan flooding. Delineation of floodplains and alluvial fan boundaries should attempt to account for future hydrologic changes caused by global climate change. Transportation, Traffic, and Safety • Institute teleconferencing, telecommute and/or flexible work hour programs to reduce unnecessary employee transportation. • Create a ride‐sharing program by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. • Provide a vanpool for employees. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐341 February 2022 • Provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan containing strategies to reduce on‐ site parking demand and single occupancy vehicle travel. The TDM shall include strategies to increase bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and carpools/vanpool use, including: o Inclusion of additional bicycle parking, shower, and locker facilities that exceed the requirement. o Direct transit sales or subsidized transit passes. o Guaranteed ride home program. o Pre‐tax commuter benefits (checks). o On‐site car‐sharing program (such as City Car Share, Zip Car, etc.). o On‐site carpooling program. o Distribution of information concerning alternative transportation options o Parking spaces sold/leased separately. o Parking management strategies; including attendant/valet parking and shared parking spaces. • Promote ride sharing programs e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for high‐occupancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces to accommodate vans used for ride‐ sharing, and designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas. • Encourage the use of public transit systems by enhancing safety and cleanliness on vehicles and in and around stations, providing shuttle service to public transit, offering public transit incentives and providing public education and publicity about public transportation services. • Build or fund a major transit stop within or near transit development upon consultation with applicable CTCs. • Work with the school districts to improve pedestrian and bike access to schools and to restore or expand school bus service using lower‐emitting vehicles. • Purchase, or create incentives for purchasing, low or zero‐emission vehicles. • Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero‐emission vehicles. • Promote ride sharing programs, if determined feasible and applicable by the Lead Agency, including: o Designate A certain percentage of parking spaces for ride‐sharing vehicles. o Designate adequate passenger loading, unloading, and waiting areas for ride‐sharing vehicles. o Provide a web site or message board for coordinating shared rides. o Encourage private, for‐profit community car‐sharing, including parking spaces for car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transit. o Hire or designate a rideshare coordinator to develop and implement ridesharing programs. • Support voluntary, employer‐based trip reduction programs, if determined feasible and applicable by the Lead Agency, including: o Provide assistance to regional and local ridesharing organizations. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐342 February 2022 o Advocate for legislation to maintain and expand incentives for employer ridesharing programs. o Require the development of Transportation Management Associations for large employers and commercial/ industrial complexes. o Provide public recognition of effective programs through awards, top ten lists, and other mechanisms. • Implement a “guaranteed ride home” program for those who commute by public transit, ridesharing, or other modes of transportation, and encourage employers to subscribe to or support the program. • Encourage and utilize shuttles to serve neighborhoods, employment centers and major destinations. • Create a free or low‐cost local area shuttle system that includes a fixed route to popular tourist destinations or shopping and business centers. • Work with existing shuttle service providers to coordinate their services. • Facilitate employment opportunities that minimize the need for private vehicle trips, such as encourage telecommuting options with new and existing employers, through project review and incentives, as appropriate. • Organize events and workshops to promote GHG‐reducing activities. • Implement a Parking Management Program to discourage private vehicle use, including: o Encouraging carpools and vanpools with preferential parking and a reduced parking fee. o Institute a parking cash‐out program or establish a parking fee for all single‐occupant vehicles. Utilities & Service Systems • Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (Title 24, part 11), U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes, and the California Green Builder Program into project design including, but not limited to the following: o Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris and diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities. o Inclusion of a waste management plan that promotes maximum C&D diversion. o Development of indoor recycling program and space. o Discourage exporting of locally generated waste outside of the SCAG region during the construction and implementation of a project. Encourage disposal within the county where the waste originates as much as possible. Promote green technologies for long‐distance transport of waste (e.g., clean engines and clean locomotives or electric rail for waste‐by‐rail disposal systems) and consistency with SCAQMD and 2016 RTP/SCS policies can and should be required. o Develop ordinances that promote waste prevention and recycling activities such as: requiring waste prevention and recycling efforts at all large events and venues; implementing recycled 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐343 February 2022 content procurement programs; and developing opportunities to divert food waste away from landfills and toward food banks and composting facilities. o Develop alternative waste management strategies such as composting, recycling, and conversion technologies. o Develop and site composting, recycling, and conversion technology facilities that have minimum environmental and health impacts. o Require the reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). o Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, institutional and commercial projects. o Provide recycling opportunities for residents, the public, and tenant businesses. o Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services. o Implement or expand city or county‐wide recycling and composting programs for residents and businesses. This could include extending the types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste recycling) and providing public education and publicity about recycling services. The DEIR fails to mention or demonstrate consistency with the above listed measures and strategies of the SCAG RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR should be revised to indicate what specific project‐level mitigation measures that will be followed to demonstrate consistency with the RTP/SCS Plans. Response 79‐l: The Draft EIR addresses consistency with the SCAG 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCAG RTP/SCS) developed pursuant to SB No. 375 in the Air Quality, Energy, GHG Emissions and Transportation Chapters. As explained on pages 4.1‐15 through 4.1‐18 of the DEIR, SCAQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) incorporates the information in the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, and SCAQMD provides detailed criteria for evaluating a project’s consistency with the AQMP, which is provided on these pages of the DEIR. (Also see DEIR pp. 4.5‐10 – 4.5‐15 and 4.5‐34 – 4.5‐38, describing the relationship between the SCAG 2016‐2040 RTP/SCS, the 2016 AQMP, and the City of La Quinta GHG Reduction Plan, as well as the project’s consistency with the goals and standards in those plans.) The project’s consistency with the SCAG 2016‐2040 RTP/SCS developed pursuant to SB No. 375 is also addressed in detail in Section 4.7, GHG Emissions, of the DEIR. As explained on page 4.7‐5, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), in consultation with SCAG and other Metropolitan Planning Organizations, provided regional reduction targets for GHG emissions for the years 2020 and 2035, to implement the land use allocations in the regional transportation plans adopted pursuant to SB No. 375. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update prepared by CARB incorporates these sustainable communities strategies. On pages 4.7‐20 through 4.7‐25, the DEIR provides a thorough analysis of the project’s consistency with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, including the sustainability strategies incorporated therein. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐344 February 2022 Finally, the DEIR further addresses the project’s consistency with the transportation goals and related policies in the SCAG 2016‐2040 RTP/SCS in Section 4.13, Transportation, at pages 4.13‐5 through 4.13‐8 and 4.13‐47 through 4.13‐48. As discussed therein, CVAG’s Regional Transportation Plan is implemented, in part, through Congestion Management Plans (CMPs), which link land use, transportation and air quality strategies together with programs to allocate transportation funds to alleviate traffic congestion and reduce related impacts such as air quality and GHG emissions. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) is responsible for implementing the CMP, in consultation with CVAG, the City of La Quinta and other local agencies, including through the collection and use of its Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) and Measure A funds to construct transportation improvements, consistent with the sustainable communities strategies developed pursuant to SB No. 375. The project is required to pay both TUMF and the City’s development impact fees to fund such improvements, and also incorporates project design features that implement the alternative transportation strategies included in the 2016 RTP/SCS and the 2016 AQMP (see DEIR at pp. 4.13‐47 – 4.13‐48). This comment recites numerous SCAG policies but fails to identify any specific objections or concerns regarding the DEIR’s detailed analysis of the project’s consistency with the sustainable communities strategies developed pursuant to SB No. 375, as discussed above. In this comment, the commenter also requests incorporating a general list of measures conforming to the regulatory standards regarding hydrology and water quality. The provided list is only partially applicable to the project and does not contribute any content that has not already been covered in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the DEIR. As discussed on page 4.9‐18 of the DEIR, the project is required to develop and implement a City‐ approved project‐specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to comply with the current standards of the Whitewater River Region Water Quality Management Plan for Urban Runoff, Whitewater River Watershed Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, and Section 8.70.070 of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, all of which stem from the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The list of hydrology and water quality measures mandated in the Whitewater River Region as part of the project specific WQMP are discussed on pages 4.18 through 4.9‐21 and 4.9‐28 of the DEIR. The evaluation of how the project complies with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements is provided on pages 4.9‐16 through 4.9‐17 of the DEIR. This discussion covers the permit procedures and compliance plan parameters regarding the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009‐ 0009‐DWQ, as amended by 2010‐0014‐DWQ and 2012‐006‐DWQ. Pages 4.9‐20 through 4.9‐22 of the DEIR address groundwater quality and recharge methods to be implemented by the project in relation to the Indio Subbasin resources. This includes avoiding any physical interference with any existing recharge infrastructure associated with the regional 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐345 February 2022 groundwater management efforts. Moreover, this discussion identifies the low impact development (LID), structural and non‐structural source control measures aimed at protecting groundwater quality, as a function of the project specific WQMP. Pages 4.9‐24 through 4.9‐26 of the DEIR address the aspect of s tormwater management, flood control and floodplain compliance, as applicable to the project location under the City’s engineering standards and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) documentation from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Therefore, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the project’s consistency with SCAG sustainable communities strategies have been integrated into the EIR in the resource issue area where they apply. In addition, Section 3 of this Final EIR contains a summary of this consistency analysis. Also see Response 4‐a. Comment 79‐m: G. Failure to Include Consultation and Preparation Section CEQA requires all EIRs contain certain contents. See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15122 – 15131. CEQA expressly requires an EIR “identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other authorization.” CEQA Guidelines § 15129. This information is critical to demonstrating a lead agency fulfilled its obligation to “consult with, and obtain comments from, each responsible agency, trustee agency, any public agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and any city or county that borders on a city or county within which the project is located ….” PRC § 21104(a). Failure to provide sufficient information concerning the lead agency’s consultation efforts could undermine the legal sufficiency of an EIR. Courts determine de novo whether a CEQA environmental document sufficiently discloses information required by CEQA as “noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions” of CEQA is a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515. Here, the DEIR fails to identify which federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, or other organizations, if any, that were consulted in the preparation of this DEIR. The DEIR should be revised to identify the organizations the City consulted with in the preparation of the DEIR in compliance with Section 21104(a) of the Public Resources Code. Response 79‐m: As explained in CEQA Guidelines §§ 15082 – 15087, the consultation process for an EIR includes the Notice of Preparation and all response thereto, consultation during the 45‐day public review period, as well as any additional informal consultation by the lead agency. Here, the NOP and all responses thereto are provided in Appendix A of the DEIR, which include consultation with Riverside County 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐346 February 2022 Airport Land Use Commission, Desert Recreation District, Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Native American Heritage Commission, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, SCAG, and SCAQMD. During the drafting of the DEIR, IID and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) were consulted to determine plans for the project’s connection to the existing offsite substation, and domestic water and wastewater systems. In addition, the Final EIR will include a list of all public agencies and other organizations who consulted with the City regarding the EIR, including during the 45‐day public review period pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15086. This comment also cites to Public Resources Code §§ 21104 and 21105, but these statutes apply only to state lead agencies, not local agencies like the City of La Quinta (for the avoidance of doubt, the City did comply with the consultation requirements set forth in Public Resources Code § 21153, which are consistent with the CEQA Guidelines cited above). Comment 79‐n: II. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long‐term general plan governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540. General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law.” See Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213. State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally or “horizontally” consistent: its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” See Gov. Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. A general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal.4th at 796 fn. 12. Second, state law requires “vertical” consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the [general] plan.”]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184. A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐347 February 2022 or impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher, 52 Cal.3d at 544. State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2); Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1184. A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782‐83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341‐42 (“FUTURE”). Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan’s policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378‐79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal.3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth‐oriented policies of general plan). As explained in full below, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. As such, the Project violates the State Planning and Zoning law. Response 79‐n: This comment does not identify any alleged inconsistency between the project and the City of La Quinta General Plan, nor does it identify a specific question or concern regarding the adequacy of the DEIR in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For that reason, no further response to this comment is provided. Comment 79‐o: B. The Project is Inconsistent with the General Plan, and thus the DEIR’s Conclusions Regarding Impacts on Land Use and Planning are Unsupported by Substantial Evidence The DEIR fail to establish the Project’s consistency with several General Plan goals, policies, and programs including the following: • Policy LU‐2.3: The City’s outdoor lighting ordinance will be maintained; • Goal LU‐3 and associated policies and programs: Safe and identifiable neighborhoods that provide a sense of place; • Policy LU‐5.1: Use development incentives to achieve a mix of housing, including affordable housing; • Policy CIR‐1.14: Private streets shall be developed in accordance with development standards set forth in the Municipal Code, relevant Public Works Bulletins, and other applicable standards and guidelines; 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐348 February 2022 • Policy SC‐1.2: Reduce water consumption at a minimum consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality Element); • Policy SC‐1.4: Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions at a minimum consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality Element); • Goal H‐2 and associated policies and programs: Assist in the creation and provision of resources to support housing for lower and moderate income households; • Goal H‐3 and associated policies and programs: Create a regulatory system that does not unduly constrain the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing affordable to all La Quinta residents; • Goal H‐5 and associated policies and programs: Provide equal housing opportunities for all persons; • Goal AQ‐1 and associated policies and programs: A reduction in all air emissions generated within the City; • Goal BIO‐1 and associated policies and programs: The protection and preservation of native and environmentally significant biological resources and their habitats; • Policy WR‐1.6: Encourage the use of permeable pavements in residential and commercial development projects; • Goal OS‐2 and associated policies and programs: Good stewardship of natural open space and preservation of open space areas; • Goal OS‐3 and associated policies and programs: Preservation of scenic resources as vital contributions to the City’s economic health and overall quality of life; • Policy UTL‐1.3: New development shall reduce its projected water consumption rates over “business‐as‐usual” consumption rates. The Project fails to discuss its conformity with each of the aforementioned Goals, Policies, and Programs laid out in the City’s General Plan, even though the Project will have reasonably foreseeable impacts on land use, traffic, housing and population, biological resources, vehicle trip generation, air quality, and GHG emissions. This discussion is relevant not only to compliance with land use and zoning law, but also with the contemplation of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. The DEIR should be amended to include analysis of the Project’s comportment with the Goals, Policies, and Programs listed above. Further, the DEIR should be revised to analyze the Project’s consistency with the City’s upcoming 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and its related Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Response 79‐o: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐349 February 2022 The project’s consistency with the City of La Quinta General Plan, including all of the areas noted above (with the exception of Biological Resources), are specifically addressed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR at pages 4.10‐15 through 4.10‐24. Further General Plan consistency analysis is provided in the corresponding DEIR Chapter for each of the topic areas identified in this comment, including Section 4.3, Biological Resources, which analyzes the project’s consistency with the CVMSHCP, as called for under General Plan Goal BIO‐1 and supporting Policy BIO‐1.1. The comment does not identify or explain any specific alleged inconsistencies between the project and the City of La Quinta General Plan, nor does it raise any questions or concerns regarding the General Plan consistency analysis described above. This comment also incorrectly frames the required analysis under CEQA. While the comment asserts that “[t]he DEIR fail [sic] to establish the Project’s consistency with several General Plan goals, policies, and programs include the following . . . [followed by a list of General Plan policies and goals],” it fails to provide any substantial evidence of any inconsistencies with such goals and policies. The California courts have consistently held that an EIR does not need to evaluate the project’s consistency with every General Plan goal, policy and program. Rather, “[b]ecause EIRs are required only to evaluate ‘any inconsistencies’ with plans, no analysis should be required if the project is consistent with the relevant plans.” Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.4th 444, 460 (quoting Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App..4th 1552, 1556; and see South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 352‐354. ‐ As described above and in Response No. 79‐l, the Draft EIR thoroughly analyzes the project’s consistency with the General Plan and other applicable plans. Comment 79‐p: III. CONCLUSION Commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s DEIR and/or prepare an environmental impact report which addresses the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office. Response 79‐p: As previously stated, the commenter requests that the City revise and recirculate, or prepare a new EIR. However, the comments received on the Draft EIR, the responses thereto, and the limited revisions made to the DEIR in response to the comments received all provide clarifications and amplifications to the DEIR, but do not add “significant new information” as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. Specifically, no new information has been added that changes the DEIR in way that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, which is the standard for recirculation under CEQA. Examples of such “significant new information” would include a new or substantially more severe adverse environmental effect than previously disclosed in the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐350 February 2022 Draft EIR, which is not the case here, where additional information is provided in response to the comments to clarify or amplify the information provided in the Draft EIR with further detail or discussion. Accordingly, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required or appropriate here. Please also see Response No. 79‐d above for a further discussion of the standards for requiring recirculation of a Draft EIR. Comment 79‐q: This letter from SWAPE, which is attached to Comment Letter No. 79, purports to be a “draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.” The letter describes the authors’ understanding of how the CalEEMod calculates construction‐related VMT and asserts that a requirement that all workers must live within 10 miles of the project site would decrease construction‐related GHG emissions by approximately 600 metric tons, or 20 MTCO2e/year on an amortized basis. Response 79‐q: This opinion does not identify any data or information relating to the proposed project, including the current average commute distance for construction workers in th e La Quinta area, nor does it quantify or demonstrate that any reduction in GHG emissions would result from such a restriction for this project location. This is particularly evident given that the letter is dated three months prior to the release of the EIR, and in the commenter’s statement that the a nalysis was based, in part, on a project in the City of Claremont, California, which is located in Los Angeles County, at least 60 miles from the proposed project. The commenter provides no substantial evidence that there is any similarity between Claremont and La Quinta, or that the Specific Plan he analyzed is in any way consistent with the Specific Plan proposed for the project site. The opinion also fails to evaluate the number and specialties of available construction workers who live within 10 miles of the project site, as well as the statutory and Constitutional validity of imposing such a requirement on a private development project (and on qualified construction workers living outside the 10‐mile limit). Without such information, the letter is purely speculative as to whether it could be feasibly implemented. In addition, even if the proposed 10‐mile limit on construction workers could legally and feasibly be implemented, it would only reduce GHG emissions by approximately 70 MTCO2e/year according to the authors’ calculation. By comparison, the project design features incorporated into the project reduce the GHG emissions by 4,988.36 MTCO2e/year, and Mitigation Measure GHG‐1 requires the purchase of carbon credits equal to an additional 2,400 MTCO2e/year (see DEIR pp. 4.7‐17‐4.7‐18 and 4.7‐26). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐351 February 2022 The comment letter does not provide any substantial evidence that any portion of the project EIR has been completed incorrectly, and no further consideration is required. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐352 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 80: Sally Arroyo Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 80‐a: Thank you allowing us again to be part of the process in assessing the suitability of the Coral Mountain Resort "The Wave." After reading through the entire DEIR carefully many times it is clearly apparent that although it seems that the consulting firms and the City of La Quinta think they have done their due diligence with their studies, they failed to consider the human factor ‐‐‐ their residents, their constituents and this beautiful area. They are apparently only concerned with development, revenues and the allure of world‐wide recognition. We also found the alternative comparisons interesting in that based on the findings there really is only one alternative and that is the alternative that the developer and the City of La Quinta want, The Wave Basin and Resort. We also found that many of the findings were deemed "less than significant." This may be the standard term/language used within the parameters of Federal, State, County and City study mandates, but we nearby citizens and homeowners and our opinions are not less than significant and absolutely reject the conclusions of these findings. Response 80‐a: The commenter’s opinions are noted. The Draft EIR was written to disclose the project components and to analyze and disclose whether the project would result in significant environmental impacts. Findings and analyses were based on technical studies prepared by technical experts in the various topic areas, including traffic, noise, lighting, biological resources and cultural/tribal cultural resources. The methodologies used for the technical reports are based on local, regional and state methodologies and satisfy CEQA criteria for determining significance thresholds. Per the CEQA Checklist provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, analysis of projects determines “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant impact with the implementation of mitigation measures,” and “significant and unavoidable impacts” conclusions based on the thresholds provided by local, regional, and state agencies, as well as technical reports generated for specific project. Comment 80‐b: The developer purchased this property knowing the current zoning. Promises and projections were then made at meetings held for local residents to drum up support for the project. Those who attended those meetings have reported that they now feel they were misled. The words in some of the correspondence were "bait and switch." The City of La Quinta appears to have bought into this bad idea and has gone along with it by moving to allow proposed zone changes, special events and 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐353 February 2022 everything else that nearby homeowners find unacceptable. This development will have no advantage for La Quinta residents who will not reside in the resort or use its amenities, only disadvantages such as more traffic, more noise, more water usage from our aquifer, more light pollution, etc. It does feel like the City and the developer are attempting to sell us on what we absolutely don’t want. Let's reject the tourist commercial zoning as well as this whole project. Response 80‐b: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to the Zone Change and processing of the proposed project. Comment 80‐c: In an era of massive climate change the City of La Quinta should still be asking the major question of where the water would come from to sustain the resort. Surf parks require massive amounts of water and this resort will waste even more. This is irresponsible. We have seen estimates of 18 million gallons to fill the pool. In addition, this project will have to recover/refill water lost to evaporation that nearly equals the amount used to fill the pool. Add this to the amount of water used by residents, guests and commercial establishments as well as the golf course. Golf courses have the advantage of being able to use desertscaping and grey water for non‐potable uses, resulting in less water use. Also, the DEIR did not validly compare best water uses for golf courses. The surf park will not be using grey water in their pool and while they should have a filtration system, that still does not lessen the water lost through evaporation. CVWD recommends that two new wells be drilled. These wells would tap into our aquifer, which is not being replenished fast enough so it is a finite resource that people living here desperately need. CVWD is not thinking far enough into even the near future. Climate change is drying up the entire West. We need the aquifer to augment receiving less river water. We have had recently two of our hottest days on record for the Coachella Va lley. Projections are that it is only going to get worse and this represents what is happening everywhere in the West. Response 80‐c: Please see Topical Response, 2.2.3 Water Resources in Section 2.2 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies. As stated in that section, CVWD is required to plan for the long term, and has done so to address SGMA requirements. This includes projections that address climate change and long‐term drought conditions. Comment 80‐d: The light comparison alleging that 17 extremely bright lights, strong enough for water safety and lighting up waves, mounted atop 80 foot poles are similar to 17 palm tree landscape lights pointed up at tree trunks is fiction. Anyone who has seen the difference will tell you that there is no comparison. Not only will these lights cause light pollution for our area obliterate any California and 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐354 February 2022 La Quinta dark sky ordinances, but the toll on wildlife such as bats, night birds, night wildlife and migrating birds would be extremely harmful. These lights would be especially harmful because the resort borders the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument and "flying" wildlife will continue to fly over this project area. Response 80‐d: Please see Topical Responses on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1 and Biological Resources in Section 2.2.2 of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for significant light and glare impacts from the lighting plan proposed for the Wave Basin, including the potential for impacts to wildlife, as well as how the proposed lighting system fully complies with all applicable dark sky requirements. Please also see Appendices B.1 and B.2 of this Final EIR, as well as Response 13‐r. Comment 80‐e: The sound study tries to minimize the impact of noise by asserting that Coral Mountain will absorb equipment noises. But Coral Mountain covers a tiny part of the project perimeter so nearly all of the neighborhoods around the development would get noise from surf‐purposed loudspeakers that will be nearly always on and noise from planned special events. The planned sound from the Wave Basin will travel throughout our corridor from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week and Coral Mountain will not absorb it. Then add in the sounds from the loudspeakers for the surfing and for the events and there will be a constant barrage of noise. Combine that with traffic noise. Most of our traffic is from maintenance workers going to and from work, weekdays early in mornings and afternoons. One cannot really call our traffic scenario rush hour traffic. We also have a low level of 24‐hour traffic from 58th and Madison and occasional distant daytime target practice from the range near Lake Cahuilla. At night we get some traffic noise, but while even that is irritating, we are fortunate to hear mostly wildlife sounds. We have consistent traffic now which increases during “The Season” but regardless with a development of this scale, our traffic and noise will be much worse. Medical studies have shown that exposure to noises, while subjective, is detrimental to one’s health. This is especially true for those who already suffer hypertension. Most older adults have high blood pressure and many of those who own homes here are older. More noise and the stress related to the noise leads to a host of medical issues. Simultaneous noise from different sources, like individual cars, crowds and loudspeakers can multiply many times by factors of 10. Noise from all the separate sources from this project could increase total noise logarithmically, meaning by factors of 10, on a constant daily basis, especially in evenings when we all love our desert quiet. Think of living near a freeway and barely noticing noise made by a few cars versus the jet engine roar made by many cars. This is the type of situation that this project could cause. It must be noted that this area is generally very quiet so even one speeding car on 58th or Madison is grating. It would be totally unacceptable to spoil the general silence of the desert. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐355 February 2022 Response 80‐e Please see Topical Responses 2.2.4 Noise in Section 2.2 of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for significant noise impacts from the proposed Wave Basin and other components of the project. Please see Responses 52‐h, 59‐e, and 2‐h as it relates to the equipment and project noise sources analyzed, and Response 52‐h as it relates to the noise levels studied surrounding the project site, including traffic noise, and their relationship to the City’s noise standards. In summary, the project’s impacts on off‐site traffic noise are provided in the Draft EIR at pages 4.11‐35 – 4.11‐42, and as shown on Tables 4.11‐17 through 4.11‐20. The project will not cause a significant increase in off‐site traffic noise at any stage during buildout or at full buildout, Including during special events, and therefore, will not cause any adverse health effects on nearby residents. Comment 80‐f: In the DEIR it was pointed out that there will be no property tax revenue to the City through 2035. Nothing about this project will contribute to the enjoyment of life for the residents of La Quinta. What happens, if as one resident wrote, this ends up being an empty hole in the ground and a failed development. We can see the headlines now "The City of La Quinta Gem of an Empty Promise and a Concrete Hole." Word to the wise, think before you buy into this fad. If the City of La Quinta wants the Wave Basin so badly then perhaps they should make arrangements to have the Wave Basin at their SilverRock Resort. We could go on and on but will stop here. Response 80‐f: The commenter’s opinion is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐356 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 81: Fritz E. Bachli Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 81‐a: The following perspective on the “Wave Project” is based on my educational background in the field of Environmental Sciences and thirteen years of living experience here at Trilogy. I am not surprised about the many concerns residents are voicing in opposition to the ‘Wave Park’? The City of La Quinta must be concerned about the environmental complaints which are piling up at the City Hall?” Response 81‐a: This introductory comment is noted. Please see the responses to the comments in this letter below. Comment 81‐b: Even re‐zoning appears not a welcoming answer to accommodate the ‘Wave Park!’ However, common sense reminds us: ‘If it’s not a fit – leave it!’ It’s surprising that the Project applicant has not been able to locate a suitable alternative location in our city or elsewhere? The purpose of zoning is simple. It is designed to ensure balanced communities. Zoning allows the government to control development of the land and ensure the public is satisfied with their community. The Draft EIR claims that improving community health is one of the priorities of city government in order to sustain life which can be enjoyed by residents? If citizens believe it’s not a fit – the city hall should listen and not promote it! Hopefully my contributions will support the NOPs (Notice of Preparation) filed by concerned citizens. Response 81‐b: A comparative analysis of the zone change proposed for the project is included on pages 4.10‐24 to 4.10‐30 of Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR. Within this section, the Draft EIR compares the consistency of the development standards for each proposed planning area with the City zoning code. Based on the consistency analysis presented in Section 4.10, the project will be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the La Quinta General Plan. The Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan will result in changes to development standards, but as demonstrated in Section 4.10, those changes will not be substantial and will result in less than significant impacts. Please also see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as it relates to the Zone Change. Comment 81‐c: Following are three key points taken directly from the Draft EIR which are of major concern to me as a Trilogy Resident? 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐357 February 2022 1. NOISE ‐The project will not generate operational noise levels that have any significant impact on any sensitive receptors including residents in the surrounding communities. Areas in the vicinity of the planned project are repeatedly defined as “Golf Course and Residential Communities!” Trilogy, perhaps other communities as well, belong to a category of housing which is not recognized as such in the Draft EIR? Trilogy with 1238 homes, housing approx. 2500 residents, existed long before the planned construction of a Wave Park! The City Council of LQ should recognize that 55+ Communities are the choice for many aging people who want to focus attention to their mental, emotional and physical wellbeing. These adults enjoy the serenity of quiet neighborhoods. 55+ adults often decide that the value of time is for elderly individuals the greatest asset that they possess. Disappointing enough, the Draft EIR does not recognize the needs expressed by residents who selected a 55+ community? Trilogy residents are accustomed to noise levels of approx. 30 dBA! It will literally be a “bad awakening” when they must live in an environment where 60 to 80 dBA is defined as the new normal! (Measuring Instrument: METERK / MK 09 / Sound Level Meter). Response 81‐c: Please see Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for significant noise impacts from project. Please also see Response 52‐h. The noise study concluded that operational noise generated by the project would result in less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation. The project will not result in noise levels of 60 to 80 dBA as presented in this comment. As shown in Table 4.11‐25, operational noise levels from the project will range from 39.8 dBA to 52.2 dBA at the 10 off‐site sensitive receptor locations surrounding the project site, which are well below the City’s established acceptable noise level of 65.0 dBA. Further, as shown in Table 4.11‐26, the project’s operational noise levels will not significantly increase ambient noise levels at any of the 10 sensitive receptor locations (as noted in Table 4.11‐26, current daytime ambient noise levels at the 10 o ff‐site locations ranged from 43.8 dbA to 62.5 dBA). Comment 81‐d: 2. AIR QUALITY The National Heart Association classified the Southern Californian Counties as some, if not the worst, air quality regions in our nation! ‐The Wave Park is seven miles of the 1‐10 freeway. The site is found outside the designated “blowsand” area but is still exposed to seasonal wind activities capable of producing fugitive dust from undeveloped ground conditions?” 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐358 February 2022 The Draft EIR is incomplete without reporting available Health Data documented in the annual Eisenhower Hospital and Imperial County Health Assessments and Improvement updates? This is a substantial oversight and a sign of ignorance towards the constituents exposed and complaining about an ever‐increasing air contamination problem in the area? Response 81‐d: The project’s air quality impacts are analyzed in Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR and in the technical Air Quality report included as Appendix C. As indicated on page 4.2‐33 of Section 4.2, Air Quality, in the Draft EIR, the blowsand zone is determined and designated by South Coast AQMD. The description of the project’s proximity to this zone is accurate, while acknowledging that the project and other parts of the Coachella Valley outside of this designated zone are also exposed to seasonal wind conditions capable of producing fugitive dust. The adverse health effects to humans from air contaminants, as well as the status of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) where the project is located, are discussed in the Draft EIR at pp. 4.2‐4 through 4.2‐ 12. As explained therein, the determination of whether a region’s air quality is healthy or unhealthy is determined by comparing contaminant levels in ambient air samples with state and federal standards. The SSAB is within the healthy limits established for all criteria pollutants except PM10 (particulate matter) and ozone (see Table 4.2‐1). For ozone, the EIR points out that SCAQMD has determined that local sources of air pollution generated in the Coachella Valley have a limited impact on ozone levels, because the local ozone exceedances are primarily caused by the direct transport of ozone and its precursors from the South Coast Air Basin; and that the Coachella Valley is intended to be in attainment by 2023 (see pages 4.2‐9 – 4.2‐10). For PM 10, the Coachella Valley is currently designated as a serious nonattainment area, and is subject to the EPA‐approved Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan to reduce PM 10 levels to healthy levels. Please also see Section 2.2 of the Air Quality Study, attached as Appendix C to the Draft EIR, for a thorough discussion of the health effects associated with each of the criteria pollutants identified by the SCAQMD. The underlying health concerns associated with particulate matter are fundamental factors toward the establishment of criteria air pollutant standards and South Coast AQMD Rules 403 and 403.1, the latter of which is specific to the Coachella Valley region. As indicated on page 4.1‐9, the Approved Coachella Valley PM10 State Implementation Plan (CVSIP) is in effect to establish the necessary controls toward particulate matter attainment. As shown in Tables 4.2‐5 and 4.2‐6, the project’s construction‐related PM10 emissions will be substantially below the regional thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD. Likewise, the operational emissions for PM10 will also be substantially below the regional thresholds of significance (see Tables 4.2‐7 and 4.2‐8). The same is true when special events are included (see Tables 4.2‐9 and 4.2‐10). 3 Air Quality is Chapter 4.2 of the Draft EIR, but some of the pages, including the pages referenced here, were mis‐ numbered as pages 4.1‐1 through 4.1‐34 in the Draft EIR. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐359 February 2022 The Draft EIR also looked at potential human health impacts in the immediate vicinity of the project on pages 4.2‐31 – 4.2‐40, including at ten off‐site sensitive receptor locations in the vicinity of the project. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐2, the project will not exceed SCAQMD’s localized significance threshold for PM10 or any other criteria pollutant during construction (see Table 4.2‐13, and as explained on pages 4.2‐40, the project will not have any significant air quality impacts on local residents in the community. Accordingly, the Draft EIR properly analyzed the potential human health impacts relating to air quality contaminants, and determined that the project would not cause any significant impacts. The commenter’s reference to the annual community health assessments from Eisenhower Hospital and Imperial County are noted, but are not necessary for the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR, which is based on ambient air quality information for the area and the project‐specific air quality emissions that could have significant adverse effects on that ambient air quality, and thus adverse health effects. Comment 81‐e: Fugitive dust readings on my own patio and tests conducted at locations of Trilogy residents who are hypersensitive to dust and suffering from pulmonary diseases are often exposed to PM‐2.5 particles at a level of 31.0 mg/3 and in terms of PM‐10 particles of 110.2 mg/m3. (Measuring Instrument: Dylos 1700) Such levels can be compared with a very bad “hair day” in Beijing / China! Elevated PM‐10 and PM‐ 2.5 levels are associated with increases of asthmatic conditions, increase in Emergency Room visits and increased mortality rates. Response 81‐e: As explained on pages 4.2‐31 – 4.2‐36 of the Draft EIR, potenti al localized air quality impacts, including from PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during grading and construction operations, were analyzed using maximum daily emissions calculations from the CalEEMod program and applicable SCAQMD data, and then maximum emissions levels were calculated at the nearest sensitive receptor location, which is the existing residence on Avenue 60, approximately 37 feet from the project boundary. As shown in Table 4.2‐13, the project, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ‐2, will not exceed any SCAQMD localized threshold and will not have any significant air quality impacts on the surrounding residential communities. As the residences in Trilogy are much further away from the project grading operations, any emissions reaching Trilogy residents would be even less than at the sensitive receptor locations studied. Please also see Sections 3.6 through 3.9 of the Air Quality Study, which is included as Appendix C to the Draft EIR. Comment 81‐f: Air Quality Standards considered safe and obtained from AQMD are taken from monitoring stations in Palm Springs 18 miles southeast from the project, the Indio station is 6 miles away and the distance to Mecca amounts to 11 miles. Air quality is a very local phenomenon and measurements taken miles 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐360 February 2022 away from the project are not representative of the actual situation as it is occurring at the project site and at individual sites of sensitive receptors. Response 81‐f: Although the level of ambient air quality is determined by SCAQMD on an area wide basis (the Coachella Valley is in the Salton Sea Air Basin), as described in the Draft EIR on pages 4.2‐4 and 4.2‐5, the Air Quality Study prepared for the project also carefully evaluated localized air quality impacts pursuant to SCAQMD guidance (see Responses 81‐d and 81‐e). Comment 81‐g: Special events, four times a year, with a daily expectancy of 2500 “Wave Park” guests, thousands of visitors per year will unquestionably contribute to a further overload of environmental conditions for the area right across the street from the Trilogy community! Response 81‐g: Potential air quality impacts during special events were specifically evaluated in the Air Quality Study and were found to be less than significant. Table 4.2‐10 identifies the project‐related air quality emissions for special events for each of the criteria pollutants, and shows that they will not exceed SCAQMD’s established thresholds. Comment 81‐h: Mobile measuring devices which provide immediate on‐site particle readings are becoming household items! Some time ago, I demonstrated to an AQMD team from the City Hall of La Quinta during a visit to the Golf Course Perimeter a slide presentation and test methods I used to measure PM‐10 and PM‐2.5 particle loads at the Trilogy community. They were surprised about the immediate results with handheld high quality measuring devices and the accurate readings when compared with fixed measuring stations. Response 81‐h: The comment is noted. Please also see Responses 81‐d – 81‐f above regarding the Air Quality Study’s analysis as completed pursuant to SCAQMD guidance and established thresholds of significance. Comment 81‐i: ‐SCAQMD has the legal obligation to enforce air pollution regulations!” From the moment a legitimate complaint is filed, and actions taken by the AQMD may literally take weeks, months or even years. Very frustrating process which might have been improved when compared in previous years? Response 81‐i: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐361 February 2022 The commenter’s frustration with SCAQMD’s enforcement practices is noted. However, as noted above, the project will not generate significant levels of air quality emissions during construction or operations, and will not have any significant adverse air quality impacts. In addition, per Rule 403.1, all grading/site disturbance notification signs posted on development sites have a hotline/contact number to call with complaints Comment 81‐j: ‐LST’s (Localized Significance Threshold) limits were developed in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding the exposure to individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. Is Trilogy qualifying for such an exemption? Response 81‐j: The reference to an “exemption” for Trilogy regarding LST limits is not clear. As discussed in Responses 81‐d and 81‐e, the project will not exceed SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds for any criteria pollutants during construction or project operations, including at the closet existing residence, located 37 feet to the east of the project boundary. Comment 81‐k: 3) WATER The Wave Park could result in cumulatively significant impacts to water supplies and infrastructure if not reviewed by the City and CVWD? I wish there would be more concrete definition in the (Draft EIR) like this one. An eye opener for ordinary residents without in depth knowledge in the field of water issues! A surfer confessed to me that Wave Parks are fun. But pulling ground water especially in the desert and deleting aquifers is against all common‐sense Environmental principles. Such water is not being used to benefit a society. It’s being used for middle, upper financial elite classes for leisurely escapism. AKA a vacation while the world burns, farm animals have to be slottered due to lack of food and water. The greenhouse effect takes its tall! Response 81‐k: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies. Comment 81‐l: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐362 February 2022 THE PROJECTED WAVE PARK IS NOT A PLANNED COMMUNITY THAT COMPLIMENTS EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE ALREADY EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLOAD IN THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. The commenter includes pictures from Trilogy and the air quality measurement equipment referenced in Comment 81‐e. Response 81‐l: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see Responses 81‐b through 81‐k as they relate to the specific concerns. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐363 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 82: Ramon Baez Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 82‐a: Reference: email from Ramon Baez dated 3/10/2021 (attached); email from Mr. Rob Michiels dated 7/21/2021 (attached) Response 82‐a: This comment is noted. The email messages referenced in this comment are responded to in Responses 82‐e through 82‐g below. Comment 82‐b: As I stated in the attached referenced email dated March 10, 2021, we enjoy the tranquility and serenity of the Andalusia Country Club. Prior to the scoping meeting, we were opposed to this project and now after a careful review of the DEIR and having discussions with the developer representatives we are even more opposed to many facets of this project. We believe it will be incompatible to the 2035 General Plan and the culture of the community within the South East La Quinta area. We actually do not believe it is compatible to any residential area of the Coachella valley. We are not NIMBY type people. My wife and I are big supporters of development but it needs to be compatible to the overall community and provide value to the overall community. Response 82‐b: The commenter’s opinion is noted. The Draft EIR analyzes project compatibility with the La Quinta General Plan in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning. Please also see Responses 41‐c, 52‐f and 83‐w through 83‐hh for further information regarding the project’s consistency with the City’s 2035 General Plan. Comment 82‐c: We believe that this project will have a significant negative impact to the overall environment with everything we have read from a traffic, noise and light pollution. Response 82‐c: The commenter’s opinion is noted. This comment presents an opinion, however, and not substantial evidence that the project will result in substantially greater impacts than identified in the Draft EIR. Please also see the Topical Responses on Light and Glare, Noise, and Traffic in Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.4, and 2.2.5, respectively, for further information on these topics. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐364 February 2022 Comment 82‐d: By rezoning this area to tourist commercial, we will no longer have a similar community adjacent to us but will have a Surf Amusement Park with planned surf festivals and tournaments several times a year. We are sure that there is not one planned community in the La Quinta area that would want such a project to be erected adjacent to them. Response 82‐d: The commenter’s opinion is noted. The project proposes a mixed‐use resort community which includes low density residential land uses within the project site. Low density housing will occupy approximately 232.3 acres of the site (approximately 60 percent of the project). The proposed zone change is analyzed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, which concluded that the land use and zone changes proposed for the project would result in less than significant impacts. A comparative analysis of the zone change proposed for the project is included on pages 4.10‐24 to 4.10‐30 of Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR. Within this section, the Draft EIR compares the consistency of the development standards for each proposed planning area with the City zoning code. Based on the consistency analysis presented in Section 4.10, the project will be consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the La Quinta General Plan. The Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan will result in changes to development standards, but as demonstrated in Section 4.10, those changes will not be substantial and will result in less than significant impacts because the project will look similar to the other gated private resort communities in this portion of the City with perimeter walls, landscaping and low‐density residential development along Madison Street and Avenue 58. Please also see Responses 15‐d, 17‐a, and 41‐c as they relate to the Zone Change and processing of the project as well as the land use compatibility concerns raised in this comment. Comment 82‐e: We respectfully request that the Planning Commission and the City Council not approve the rezoning being requested by the developers to allow the construction of the Wave Basin and providing them the ability to build 750 STVRs in the middle of a low‐density residential area which are truly neighborhoods. My fellow Andalusia resident, Mr. Rob Michiels, submitted questions concerning the DEIR (see attachment dated July 21, 2021) that we believe need to be answered for all of us that are very concerned about this very complex project. Response 82‐e: The commenter’s opinion is noted. As it relates to the allowance of STVRs on the property, please see Response 52‐g The responses to the referenced questions are provided in Responses 52‐b Through 52‐p. Comment 82‐f: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐365 February 2022 Comment 82‐f refers to Mr. Rob Michiels letter (Comment Letter No. 52), which Baez included for reference. Response 82‐f: This comment is noted. Please refer to Comment Letter No. 52, Rob Michiels, for the letter and associated responses. Comment 82‐g: Comment 82‐g refers to Mr. Rob Michiels letter sent July 20, 2021, which Baez included for reference. Response 82‐g: This comment is noted. Please refer to Comment Letter 45 and 46, Rob Michiels, for the letter and associated responses. Comment 82‐h: Comment 82‐h refers to a previous letter Baez sent to the City during the public comment period in March associated with the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR. Baez included the letter for reference. In this comment, Baez expresses his opposition to the project for similar reasons discussed in Comment 82‐c. Response 82‐h: This comment is noted. Please see the Topical Response on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1, as it relates to lighting at the project site. The March comment letter was included in Appendix A, Notice of Preparation, and considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐366 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 83: Bruce Bauer SBEMP Attorneys Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: SBEMP Attorneys representing the La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development Comment 83‐a: Our office represents residents in the City of La Quinta (City), La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development (LQRRD), who are rightfully concerned about the development of a proposed project within the City that portends fundamental changes in the character of the City. That proposed project, described below, is the subject of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2021020310, prepared by MSA Consulting Inc. (DEIR). Please consider the enclosed comments with respect to that DEIR and consider, in particular, the concerns we have raised concerning the issues of traffic, noise, air quality, water, and the Applicant’s request to amend the City’s General Plan. Response 83‐a: This introductory comment describing La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development (LQRRD) does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Specific responses relating to the environmental issue areas are addressed below. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided. Comment 83‐b: I. THE PROPOSED WAVE FESTIVAL PROJECT The subject of the DEIR is a proposal to be build an enormous development on land that is currently slated in the City’s General Plan for low‐density residential development. The existing local area is characterized by developed golf course and residential communities to the north, west, east, and southeast, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west and south, Monroe Street and vacant and agricultural lands to the east, and open space to the south. (DEIR, p. 14, Section 1.2.1.) The area is in keeping, then, with what most people expect in the residential areas of a beautiful desert city in the Coachella Valley: (1) low density; (2) quiet; (3) low traffic; and (4) unencumbered mountain vistas that are illuminated by the stars at night. Instead of this low‐density, and low‐key, development that residents of the City were told would be developed nearby, The Wave Development, LLC (Applicant), proposes a large‐scale commercial enterprise, replete with recurring festivals, that includes a 150‐room hotel and 600 residential units (all of which will be permitted to have short‐terms rentals1). As part of this project, the focal point of all of these short‐term rental units will be an enormous 18 million gallon2, 16‐acre, artificial surf basin that will have artificial waves generated by a large locomotive‐like engine. This Wave Basin will be, in turn, illuminated with 80‐foot light towers, lighting up the darkened desert night sky, encircling the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐367 February 2022 basin. Additionally, Applicant proposes, as part of the Wave Festival Project, large scale commercial development including, separately, 57,000 square feet and 60,000 square feet of commercial uses. DEIR, p. 67, Section 2.51. The project will be referred hereinafter to the “Wave Festival Project.” The Wave Festival Project’s Wave Basin will be the focal point of a parade of at least four (4) events a year of a four‐day duration. As indicated by Applicant, there will be four (4) entertainment/special events (of four (4) days duration or 16 days and nights of special events per year) (the “Special Events.) Each day of these Special Events might easily bring in thousands of visitors per day (with each such event the Applicant would be permitted to have 2,500 guests per day – this would be in addition to the guests that are staying at the resort’s villas and hotel, myriad employees and vendors attending to all those guests, and does not include the days that will be needed for staging and dismantling of each of the Special Events.) Applicant then is seeking permission to allow approval of the Wave Festival Project with an enormous amount of overnight guests in excess of 4,000 per night ((one can estimate that it might have 600 overnight guests for its planned 150‐room hotel (4 pillows per room x 150 rooms), plus 3,600 overnight guests for the planned 600‐villas (averaging 3 bedrooms each, 6 pillows X 600=3,600 overnight)), for a total over 4,000 overnight guests coming and going. There will then also be the 2,500 allowed visitors coming and going. The Wave Festival Project then promises to bring significant changes to the City and its surrounding and adjoining communities compared to what was previously approved for this area. Naturally, a project of this nature, that will continue to morph and increase exponentially, should be given additional scrutiny. The proposed Wave Festival Project is both out of scope of the nature of its proposed setting as set forth in the City’s General Plan as discussed below. The enormity of this request, and the scale of change from the City’s existing land use designation for the proposed site, is evidenced by the fact that Applicant is seeking an extraordinary number of approvals including as follows: (1) a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019‐0002); (2) Zone Change (ZC 2019‐0004); (3) Specific Plan (SP 2020‐0002); (4) Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2019‐0005); (5) Site Development Permit (SDP 2021‐0001); and, (6) a Development Agreement (DA 2021‐0002). It is clear that the Wave Festival Project bears NO relationship to the development that had been originally entitled for that area. The Wave Festival Project is not akin to a low‐density golf‐centered master‐planned community. No one can seriously contend such. The Wave Festival Project is, in reality, a commercial entertainment‐based venue endeavor and not a residential development. The 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐368 February 2022 Wave Festival Project will be comprised of a commercial /high‐density project that will cause far more impact on the surrounding communities that could ever have been conceived in prior entitlements and is being severely understated by the Applicant so that approval can be obtained. The quiet and serene atmosphere currently enjoyed by the City’s residents will forever be destroyed. As such, we do not believe the Wave Festival Project, as proposed, should move forward with the City, as analyzed, since it is not in keeping with the character and entitlements envisioned by the City and its residents. However, should the City consider the Wave Festival Project it must do so under only the most exacting review standards. Response 83‐b: The commenter’s opinions are noted. This introductory comment restating and partially recharacterizing the project description from the Draft EIR (calling it a “Wave Festival Project”), and expressing LQRRD’s opposition to the project, does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided. Comment 83‐c: II. CEQA AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state and local government agencies to inform decision makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects, and to reduce those environmental impacts to the extent feasible. CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report (“EIR”) (except in certain limited circumstances). See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn‐Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Comms. For a Better Env’t. v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.) CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(a)(1).) Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self‐government.’” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. Of Port Comm’rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐369 February 2022 Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment were feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15092(b)(2)(A) and (B).) The DEIR that has been submitted is 738‐page document that has not afforded the public a reasonable manner to decipher it, nor has it properly analyzed the Wave Festival Project for a myriad of reasons as discussed below. Response 83‐c: This comment recites the language of certain CEQA Guidelines and case law, but does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided. Please also see Topical Responses 2.2.6, Length of the Draft EIR, and 2.2.7, Ability to Comprehend the Draft EIR. Comment 83‐d: III. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, ANALYZE, AND MITIGATE ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. As discussed below, and in the attached expert comment letters of traffic (comment letter dated August 3, 2021) and sound (comment letter dated August 2, 2021) experts, Minagar & Associates, Inc., the DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Wave Festival Project’s impacts. CEQA requires that a lead agency analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(1); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126(a); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354.) The EIR must not only identify the impacts but must also provide “information about how adverse the impacts will be.” (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831.) The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692.) While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐370 February 2022 A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355, quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, 409, fn. 12.) A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision‐making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1117.) Response 83‐d: This comment does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided. Comment 83‐e: A. Traffic Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. Traffic impacts have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated in the DEIR. The DEIR greatly understates traffic counts. It is well known that festivals of the nature that the Applicant proposes with the Special Events bring in large crowds. Given the short‐term rental nature of the residences to be constructed, it is likely they will be densely occupied during those timeframes. Therefore, the reliance on existing data of traffic counts is not reliable and trustworthy information. In normal developments in the City, many neighborhoods are thinly occupied because they are often second homes. Therefore, data utilizing existing traffic counts only reflect that sort of development. However, the development sought in connection with the Wave Festival Project should more closely be attuned to traffic counts for like developments (here a commercial entertainment development) and particularized times of the year such as when festivals such as Coachella and Stagecoach occur. Also, the DEIR has not considered when the Special Events will occur. The timing of the Special Events is especially important given other busy events that occur during the calendar as pointed out above. Response 83‐e: This comment asserts that the Draft EIR “understates traffic counts” because the counts only reflect existing conditions, and do not take into account the potential for short‐term rentals, or special events at the proposed project. This comment appears to conflate the Draft EIR analysis of existing traffic conditions and the potential traffic from the proposed project. To accurately determine the existing traffic conditions, the Draft EIR and accompanying traffic study included traffic counts taken on four different dates, all of which occurred prior to the start of the COVID‐19 pandemic, as described on page 4.13‐10 of the Draft EIR. In addition, the counts were adjusted upward in accordance with the established City of La Quinta traffic study requirements to account for both seasonality and annual background growth. See La Quinta Engineering Bulletin #06‐ 13 and Appendix L.1 of the EIR. The Draft EIR and traffic study did not understate the traffic counts 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐371 February 2022 taken by Urban Crossroads, and accordingly, the existing conditions baseline analysis in the traffic study and EIR is appropriate and correct and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 (1) which states that an EIR agency should describe physical environmental conditions as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published. The trip generation rates established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the recognized standard source reference used by cities across California, were used to estimate the number of trips the proposed project would generate based on each of the proposed uses. These rates include residential rates, resort/hotel rates, recreational rates, and commercial rates, which were applied to each of the proposed project uses, which is the standard professional practice for traffic studies. The scope of the analysis, including the ITE land use categories, was established through compliance with the City’s Engineering Bulletin and the Traffic Impact Analysis scoping process, which was reviewed and approved by the City of La Quinta (see Appendix 1.1 to the Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix L.1 of the Draft EIR). As it relates to the assertion that the traffic analysis does not consider when the proposed special events will occur during the course of the year, the comment is incorrect. First, the City’s requirement under Engineering Bulletin #06‐13 is that peak season factors be assumed for both existing and future conditions, thus the percentage adjustments required for seasonality. The trip generation rates for the special events are based on the maximum capacity of those events, which is 2,500 attendees, and are calculated in addition to the trips generated by the balance of the project’s land uses, as shown in Table 4.13‐26 of the Draft EIR. Therefore, contrary to the commenter’s opinion, all land uses and high season impacts have been calculated in the traffic study’s analysis. Comment 83‐f: Traffic counts utilized in the DEIR include Thursday, August 15, 2017, Tuesday, April 9, 2019, Tuesday, May 7, 2019, and Tuesday, September 10, 2019. These counts were not taken during either during the busiest part of the year, for City residents, i.e., the “High Season” in the middle of the winter months when snowbirds have returned to the City (from October through March.) Those more realistic dates should have been utilized to conduct a meaningful traffic analysis. The base traffic volumes used in the analysis are therefore an underestimation of the actual volumes. Response 83‐f: Please see Response 83‐e. Comment 83‐g: As opined by Minagar & Associates in their comment letter of August 3, 2021 (see, Exhibit 2 hereto), the analysis contained in the DEIR is also defective in several key respects:  For a large mixed‐use of the size contemplated by the Wave Festival Project, utilization of traffic counts from Thursday, August 15, 2017, Tuesday, April 9, 2019, Tuesday, May 7, 2019, 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐372 February 2022 and Tuesday, September 10, 2019 is not prudent. Current traffic counts could have been easily taken right after the scoping agreement on February 12, 2020, and before the start of COVID‐ 19 pandemic on March 15, 2020. It goes without saying that the traffic volumes are the foundation of every traffic impact study. Once their validity is questioned, then the public trust is eroded. Response 83‐g: Please see Response 83‐e. A complete response to the comments in the Minegar & Associates letter was prepared by the traffic consultants, Urban Crossroads, which is attached as Appendix L.3 to this Final EIR and is incorporated into this response. As described in that document and in Response 83‐ e, the traffic counts were adjusted per the standards established by the City for seasonality, and the annual growth rates applied based on prior year averages, also consistent with City standards. The traffic count data is therefore accurate and appropriate for use in the traffic analysis and the Draft EIR. Comment 83‐h:  For the trip generation estimation for the Special Events during weekends, since the national ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide the required rates, why surveys of similar facilities weren’t used to establish the rates? Response 83‐h: As explained in greater detail in the Urban Crossroads Memo included in Appendix L.3, the project contains a unique mix of uses. The most appropriate way to calculate trip generation rates is to assign the most applicable established ITE rate for each individual use (i.e., single‐family residential, resort hotel, neighborhood commercial, recreational uses, etc.). In this case, the ITE rates applicable to each of the project uses were reviewed and approved by City of La Quinta staff and documented in the scoping agreement, consistent with the City’s requirements under EB #06‐13 (see Appendix 1.1 of the Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix L.1 of the Draft EIR). Due to a lack of truly similar facilities, trip generation rates for the special events were based on the maximum capacity of 2,500 visitors and an average vehicle occupancy of 2.4 persons per vehicle, in reliance on the expertise and judgment of the traffic engineers (see p 115 of Traffic Impact Analysis, Appendix L.1 of Draft EIR). The trip generation calculations for the special events are considered conservative because they assume there will be 2,500 additional visitors for the special events, in addition to the hotel guests, residences and other project visitors, as shown on Table 4.13‐26 in the Draft EIR, even though it is expected that many attendees of the special events will be staying in the project residences and hotel rooms, rather than commuting to the special event from off the project site. Comment 83‐i: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐373 February 2022  Why for the 2,500‐Guest Wave Basin Facility, the old trip generation rates from SANDAG Manual for a recreation park (developed) from over 20 years ago was used to generate new traffic estimates? Surveys of similar facilities could have been performed. Response 83‐i: It is not clear whether this comment pertains to the special events, which can host up to a maximum of 2,500 guests, pursuant to a special use permit issued by the City of La Quinta, or whether it pertains to the ordinary operations of the Wave Basin. The trip generation for special events is addressed in Response No. 83‐h above, and in either case, there are no similar existing facilities that could be surveyed and provide meaningful data on trip generation for the proposed Wave Basin, which is a private recreational amenity in a resort and master planned community. With respect to ordinary Wave Basin operations, the trip generation rates for the Wave Basin are derived from the San Diego Association of Governments established rates for a public recreational park, because this was determined in the professional judgment of the traffic engineers to provide an appropriate and conservative trip generation rate for the proposed private Wave Basin project component. Based on the SANDAG’s recreational park rates of 50 daily trips per acre of park, the Wave Basin itself Is assigned a total of 600 daily trips, which is considered very conservative because the Wave Basin requires approximately 50 employees daily and can only accommodate a maximum of 130 total surfers per day (maximum of 30 surfers in the Wave Basin at any one time). All other visitors to the Wave Basin area are captured by the other categories of uses in the vicinity of the Wave Basin, including the Wave Club, the Resort Hotel, and the Farm. Please see Table 4.3‐11 of the Draft EIR for the trips generated by these additional uses. Comment 83‐j:  There are a number of discrepancies among the land use sizes of The Wave Basin Facility, The Wave Village, The Farm and related uses for the purposes of trip generation calculations in different reports. Response 83‐j: The comment asserts discrepancies, but does not identify any, making a direct response impossible. As explained on pp. 3‐19 and 3‐20 of the Draft EIR, the Wave Basin facility is approximately 16.62 acres, and the water body footprint is approximately 12.14 acres. The total Wave Basin subarea of Planning Area III totals approximately 31.2 acres, and includes the equipment, storage and related facilities required to operate the Wave Basin. Only the trips directly associated with the Wave Basin itself are included in the 12‐acre calculation, and all other visitors to the Wave Basin area are captured by the other categories of uses in Planning Area III, including the Wave Club, the Resort Hotel, and the Farm. Please see Table 4.3 of the TIA for the trips generated by these additional uses. Consequently, the discussion of the relevant acreages in the Draft EIR is consistent and correct. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐374 February 2022 Comment 83‐k:  For the claimed VMT mitigation reductions, the specific source and category from the State of California's CAPCOA Manual must be documented for verification. Response 83‐k: As set forth on pages 4.13‐54 and 4.13‐55 of the Draft EIR, reductions in VMT were evaluated using the State of California CAPCOA guidance (Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures). As further expanded upon in the Urban Crossroads Memo attached to this Final EIR as Appendix L.3, there were three separate sources of VMT reductions taken from the State of California CAPCOA, which are as follows: ‐ The first VMT reduction factor applied recognizes the proximity of different land uses. This CAPCOA reduction measure is LUT‐3 which indicates a range of 9‐30% VMT reduction is applicable for a mixed‐use project. A conservative reduction of only 3% was assumed in the project’s VMT analysis. It is likely that the mix of uses in the project will result in a greater reduction in vehicle trips and VMT. ‐ The second VMT reduction factor applied recognizes design elements that allow for connections between different uses and areas that will reduce the need to use a vehicle for short trips. The CAPCOA measure is SDT‐1 which indicates a range of 0‐2% applicable VMT reduction, and SDT‐2 which indicates a range of .25‐1.00% applicable VMT reduction. A reduction of 2% was applied in recognition of the of the high level of multi‐modal connectivity that will be provided based on the design of the project’s. ‐ The third VMT reduction applied is for marketing strategies for commute trip reductions. The CAPCOA measure is TRT‐7, which indicates a range of 0.8‐4.0% applicable VMT reduction. A conservative reduction of 1% was assumed in the project’s VMT analysis. Comment 83‐l: B. Water Supply Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. The seriousness of the state’s water concerns means that large‐scale projects like this in the middle of the desert must be carefully planned to ensure adequate supp lies of water, even in times of severe drought. Cities and counties are required to verify that adequate long‐term water supplies exist for large development projects. (Water Code § 10910; Gov. Code § 66473.7.) These laws, working in conjunction with CEQA, force municipalities to consider how they will supply water to new projects. Thus, when an agency considers a detailed project proposal that would require additional water, the public must have an opportunity to consider, in a detailed EIR, the project’s water supply and mitigation measures and alternatives that would lessen the related impacts. (Pub. Res. Code § 21093(a); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15152(a)‐(c).) This detailed analysis is referred to as a Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐375 February 2022 Water supply for the proposed project would be provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). (DEIR, at 4.9‐19.) Coachella Valley relies on groundwater for its primary supply sources. (DEIR, at 4.9‐19.) The proposed project is expected to consume approximately 958.63‐acre feet per year (AFY), which equates to an alarming 312,163,558 gallons of water per year. (DEIR, at 4.9‐19.) The DEIR vaguely states without any details that the groundwater basin can meet the water demands of the Coachella Valley for extended normal and drought periods. (DEIR, at 4.9‐28.) However, the WSA admits repeatedly that the Coachella Valley relies on groundwater for its primary supply source, and that “the amount of water in the acquifer has decreased over the years due to heavy pumping to serve urban, rural and agricultural development in the Coachella Valley, which has withdrawn water from the aquifer at a rate faster than its natural rate of rech arge.” (WSA, p. 30.) The solution has been to import the majority of the water supply, primarily from the Colorado River. This is not a sustainable model as Californians have acutely learned over the last decade of drought‐like conditions. Response 83‐l: Please see the topical response concerning water use in Section 2.2.3 of this Final EIR for additional discussion regarding the adequacy of the analysis in the Water Supply Assessment approved by the CVWD and why the water demand estimated for the project, including the proposed Wave Basin, will not result in adverse impacts to groundwater conditions in the Indio Subbasin. Contrary to the commenter’s assertions, the CVWD’s long term planning includes multiple water sources, and includes potential shortfalls in water allocations from outside sources. Furthermore, CVWD’s analysis shows that it has a long term management plan in place to assure a balanced supply of water under drought conditions. Since 2009, groundwater storage volume in the Indio Subbasin actually increased by approximately 840,000 acre‐feet due to CVWD’s groundwater management efforts. As acknowledged in this comment, a Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV) was prepared for the project and approved by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), which concluded that the project is expected to consume a total of 958.63 acre‐feet per year (AFY) for all indoor and outdoor water uses, and concluded that there are sufficient water supplies during normal, single‐dry, and multiple‐dry years over the required 20‐year assessment period for the project and all other existing and planned future water demand. As set forth in CVWD’s Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan Update (the “Indio SGMA Update”) for the period 2020 through 2045, total water demand for the subbasin is expected to increase by a total of approximately 61,262 AFY, from approximately 583,348 AFY to 644,610 AFY. The estimated 958.62 AFY required for the project is included in these estimates, and accounts for approximately 1.5% of this projected increase in total demand for the subbasin. Also as explained in the Indio SGMA Update, CVWD relies on a combination of local groundwater, Colorado River water, SWP exchange water, surface water, and recycled water to meet water demands, and through its groundwater management efforts, CVWD projects that it can meet the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐376 February 2022 projected water demand without depleting groundwater in the subbasin or creating an overdraft condition. (See, e.g., Indio SGMA Update, pp. ES‐7 – ES‐12). Comment 83‐m: Coachella Valley’s water conservation plans rely on source substitution with the Colorado River, but the Colorado River is also experiencing historically low levels and drought conditions. Countless other communities also rely on the Colorado River as a water source, so this practice is not sustainable in the long term. In fact, the WSA only analyzes and accounts for the water supply for the next 20 years, which is relatively soon. (DEIR, at 4.9‐28.) With exponential population growth expected, and the continuing effects of climate change, this analysis needs to account for a much longer period. Recent climatic developments, and the increasing impact of drought in the State and in the Western state, especially an historic drought in the Colorado River basin of 20 years, demand that the City not review water usage with “business as usual” calculations. See, e.g., California water regulators took unprecedented action this week, passing an emergency regulation that will bar thousands of Californians from diverting stream and river water as the drought worsens. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021‐08‐04/california‐drought‐water‐restrictions‐ howbad‐is‐it ). Elsewhere, in the Colorado River basin, water levels in the water reserves held by Lake Powell and Lake Mead, two of the US’s largest reservoirs that both sit along the Colorado River relied upon more than 40 million (including the Coachella Valley) are at record lows. https://www.popsci.com/science/lake‐mead‐lake‐powell‐drought/ As set forth above, the Wave Festival Project (even with water conservation measures) would have a total water demand of 958.63 acre‐feet per year (AFY). It is important to note that the DEIR fails to equate the AFY by gallons of water per year. This was done purposefully. It does not want the public to know just how many gallons of water this project will use on a yearly basis. Projects that allow for 312,163,558 gallons of wasted resources should not be permitted to put pressure on already declining aquifers. This is especially true when the climate crisis is creating an uncertain future where sustainability and demand on aquifers are getting harder and harder to predict. Response 83‐m: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3. The WSA/WSV correctly analyzed project impacts as required by State law, over a 20 year horizon. Both the WSA/WSV and CVWD’s Indio SMGA Update consider the potential for extended drought conditions. In addition, the Indio SMGA Update specifically considers the impact of climate change and examines multiple scenarios for its effect on the subbasin groundwater levels for the 50‐year period 2020 – 2070, taking into account both cumulative water demand and CVWD’s groundwater management efforts. Several alternative scenarios are addressed in the SGMA Update that account for all projected growth, expanded agricultural water use, and climate change/drought effects. CVWD projects a substantial increase in the subbasin groundwater storage, not an overdraft condition, due to its ongoing 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐377 February 2022 groundwater management efforts and future planned CVWD projects that will reduce the net demands on the Subbasin. (See, e.g., Indio SMGA Update, pp. ES‐9 – ES‐12, and p. 7‐89). As it relates to the use of acre feet per year (AFY) rather than gallons, the commenter’s assertion that gallons were purposefully omitted is false. The CVWD, and indeed the industry as a whole, calculate aquifer use on the basis of AFY, and the WSA/WSV followed CVWD’s required methodology. Comment 83‐n: C. Noise Has Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. Noise pollution, like air pollution, has significant health implications. In analyzing the Wave Festival Project, Applicant has utilized its existing wave facility in Lemoore, California as a barometer of certain issues including noise. (See, DEIR at p. 4.11‐45.) For example, Applicant states as follows: Additionally, the noise expert stated that agricultural fields and desert floors are considered soft surfaces for the purposes of sound propagation. Additionally, the noise expert stated that Coral Mountain is likely to absorb, rather than reflect noise back towards sensitive receiver locations. Only hard surfaces, such as pavement, would change the sound attenuation characteristics of the project. In addition, the worst‐case reference noise level conditions were taken during peak wave noise events at 12 feet, as stated above, whereas Coral Mountain is located approximately 650 feet from the Wave Basin. The reference noise level measurements themselves do not include any sound attenuation for the agricultural fields. Therefore, although the proposed project is located on the desert floor and adjacent to Coral Mountain, the noise measurements from the Lemoore site provide an accurate comparison of noise levels to occur at the project site. Id. The absurdity of the suggestion that conditions of the Lemoore facility could be likened to the proposed site of the Wave Festival Project can be seen clearly in an aerial photograph of that facility: The Lemoore facility is in a rural, agricultural area that is devoid of nearby residential development. The Wave Festival Project is proposed to be built next to adjoining large and well‐developed residential communities. The concerns that arise in an agricultural area are not the same as they are in a residential up‐scale area like the one that will surround the Wave Festival Project. The comparison, for analysis purposes, of data from the Lemoore facility is therefore faulty since it is akin to comparing “apples to oranges.” Moreover, the assertion that Coral Mountain is “likely to absorb, rather than reflect noise back towards sensitive receiver locations” was never tested or analyzed and is contrary to common sense and the experience of residents of the City. They know well that noise is AMPLIFIED off the hard surfaces of the surrounding mountains that are largely devoid of vegetation that might absorb sound as it does in an agricultural setting like Lemoore, California. Response 83‐n: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐378 February 2022 The commenter’s opinions are noted, but he does not provide substantial evidence that the measurement of noise at the Lemoore facility, and the consideration of soft surfaces in the noise analysis are incorrect. To clarify, measurements of noise levels from the Wave Basin in Lemoore were taken at eight different locations at and around the Wave Basin, including at the lifeguard tower, the cable roller system, and a variety of locations around the Wave Basin. (See Noise Impact Analysis, Appendix K.1 of the DEIR, at pp. 73‐74). These noise measurements were undertaken to accurately characterize the noise created by the equipment and activity at the Wave Basin, including the machinery that creates the waves. That analysis was appropriate, since the noise source is unique, and data on noise levels at wave pools are not generally available. Noise levels ranged from 75.7 dBA near the cable roller system to 62.6 dBA at the end of the Wave Basin. To analyze the “worst‐case scenario” for noise generated by the Wave Basin, the highest noise level of 75.7 dBA was input into the CadnaA noise model, a three dimensional noise model used to estimate projected noise levels at various distances from the noise sources, taking into account ground absorption, distance, and building/barrier noise attenuation factors. Accordingly, the projected noise levels at the receiver locations set forth in the Draft EIR are based on actual operational measurements input into established computer modeling protocols, not noise levels in Lemoore at the same distances. The only noise measurements taken from Lemoore were at the source of the noise itself, and therefore, the difference between agricultural uses near the Lemoore facility and the proposed project site are not relevant to the noise level projections set forth in the DEIR. On the specific question of whether significant noise levels will be amplified by bouncing off Coral Mountain, Urban Crossroads explained in a supplemental memo that based on Federal Highway Administration studies and guidance, if all noise striking a hard surface were reflected back to a given receiving point, the maximum increase in noise would be limited to 3 dBA. However, not all acoustical energy is reflected back to the same point, and accordingly, FHWA measurements show that reflective noise increases do not exceed 1‐2 dBA, which is not perceptible to the average human ear. (See Urban Crossroads Memo dated 4/20/21, attached as Appendix K.2 to the DEIR). Comment 83‐o: Construction and traffic noise are some of the largest producers of noise pollution. Prolonged exposure to noise pollution can lead to hypertension and heart disease, hearing loss and consequential sleep disturbances. Wave Basin/Wave machine activity, outdoor pool/spa activity, outdoor activity, and neighborhood commercial land use activities will run from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (DEIR, at 4.11‐44.) Response 83‐o: The comment asserts health impacts are associated with noise generally, but provides no substantial evidence that the proposed project will cause any such health impacts. As analyzed in Chapter 4.11 of the Draft EIR, the project will generate construction noise, but will not exceed the FTA acceptable 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐379 February 2022 level of 85 dBA at any on‐site or off‐site location and will comply with the City’s Municipal Code restriction on hours of construction (see pp. 4.11‐32 – 4.11‐35). As stated in the DEIR, although the project will not cause any significant construction noise impacts, the DEIR identifies four mitigation measures (NOI‐1 through NOI‐4) which will further reduce construction noise. Traffic noise was also analyzed in the DEIR, and the project will not cause any significant traffic noise impacts in the short term or long term (see pp. 4.11‐35 through 4.11‐42). Comment 83‐p: Finally, and most importantly, the Wave Festival Project is also projected to host Special Events as pointed out above. The Applicant must also properly analyze and mitigate significant impacts from noise from the Wave Festival Project considering these Special Events. Special consideration as to when they will be scheduled must also be analyzed. Moreover, special consideration must be given to the fact that all the proposed residential development will be in the nature of short‐term rentals which are known to create additional noise and havoc in a community. Indeed, the City knows these problems exist with respect to short‐term rentals. (See, https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/local/la‐quinta/2021/07/21/la‐quinta‐considers‐ noisemonitor‐mandate‐str‐properties/8033933002/.) The DEIR has not analyzed these impacts from the short‐term rentals that will be pervasive as the Wave Festival Project. This impact allowing these rentals is significant since there are no nearby short‐term rentals since most are prohibited in nearby communities. Response 83‐p: Potential traffic noise from special events was modeled and analyzed in the noise study, and as discussed at pp. 4.11‐40 and 4.11‐41 of the DEIR, the special events will not cause any significant noise impacts. The operational noise from the project was modeled by evaluating noise at the existing Wave Basin in Lemoore, California, as well as noise at a pool at a local resort, a neighborhood park, and a neighborhood commercial center operating simultaneously. Operational noise levels were not projected to exceed 65 dBA at any off‐site locations, and as a result, the project will not have any significant operational noise impact on the existing residential communities in the project vicinity. As it relates to the commenter’s assumptions relating to short term rentals as a source of excessive noise, without substantial evidence, short‐term rentals will be subject to the City’s noise ordinance and Municipal Code provisions on short‐term vacation rentals to ensure no significant noise impacts to other communities in the project vicinity. As explained in the Desert Sun article cited in this comment, the City completed a pilot program to determine whether mandatory noise monitors at short term vacation rental locations would increase property owner attentiveness to neighbor complaints and reduce such complaints. To the extent the City adopts a noise monitoring requirement for short‐term rentals, any short‐term rentals within the project would be subject to that requirement. The City’s noise standards apply to all areas of the City, and will apply to the proposed 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐380 February 2022 project. Should noise from a short term rental be in violation of the City’s noise ordinance, it will be enforced in the same manner at the project site than it would be anywhere in the City. Comment 83‐q: The former project, where the Wave Festival Project is proposed, envisioned a quiet golf‐based community with little noise emanating from that project. The City generally enjoys a quiet noise environment, with existing community noise being dominated by highway and local traffic, intermittent aircraft flyovers, and commercial operations. The City enjoys an enviable quiet environment that must be considered and not compromised in the manner sought by Applicant. Low noise levels are a major economic asset of the City’s resort and residential atmosphere and it is precisely that reason that residents have relocated to the City. The Wave Festival Project, however, anticipates that the Applicant will conduct Special Events including concerts and hosting large‐scale surfing venues with music. These issues have not been properly addressed or analyzed in the DEIR. All these elements will contribute heavily to noise pollution in the area. Noise pollution does not only adversely affect human lives. Wildlife, especially birds, are heavily impacted by increased noise pollution. Communication, mating behavior, hunting and survival instincts of animals are altered by excessive noise. As such, the City should carefully review proposals such as the Wave Festival Project which we believe to be incompatible with the quiet environment present in the City. Response 83‐q: Please see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4, as it relates to noise levels and the City’s noise standards. The comment incorrectly states that the project proposes concerts and large‐scale surfing events with music, as part of future special events. This is not accurate, as neither concerts nor large‐scale surfing events are proposed. Any special events would remain subject to the same Wave Basin capacity limits, which include a maximum of 30 surfers at any one time, as well as maximum total limitation of 2,500 special event attendees. By comparison, the large‐scale music festivals in Indio can have in excess of 100,000 guests daily. Further, the number of these special events would be limited to no more than 4 per year and each would only be authorized through review and approval of a temporary use permit from the City, which includes demonstrating that the event will not violate the City’s Municipal Code or cause significant noise, traffic or other impacts. As it relates to noise levels and biological resources, please see Response 14‐q. In addition, Mitigation Measures TRA‐9 through TRA‐14, and BIO‐4 and BIO‐7, will ensure that special event traffic will not cause any significant traffic impacts, and that Wave Basin lighting and noise levels do not impact wildlife using Coral Mountain, respectively. Please also see Responses 13‐q and 13‐r. Comment 83‐r: D. Air Quality Has Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐381 February 2022 The Wave Festival Project will also result in significantly compromised air quality in the area throughout the construction process, and potentially once the development is completed. Removal of stabilized soils and biological soil crust creates a destructive cycle of airborne particulates and erosion. As more stabilized soils are removed, blowing particulates from recently eroded areas act as abrasive catalysts that erode the remaining crusts thus resulting in more airborne particulates. The Coachella Valley is in the Salton Sea Air Basin (“SSAB”) under South Coast Air Quality Management District jurisdiction. (DEIR, at 4.1‐2.) The regional climate, as well as the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine significantly influence the air quality in the SSAB. Currently, state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SSAB. (DEIR, at 4.1‐16.) Construction activities associated with the Wave Festival Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, which includes site preparation, grading, building construction paving, and architectural coating. (DEIR, at 4.1‐18.) A development with this effect on emissions is unacceptable amidst the current state of our climate crisis. Response 83‐r: The Draft EIR thoroughly analyzed the project’s construction related emissions using universally accepted modeling techniques, and determined that, with implementation of the specified mitigation measures and project design features (PDFs), the project will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by SCAQMD or have any significant adverse effects (see DEIR pp. 4.1‐15 – 4.1‐23 and 4.1‐ 31 – 4.1‐40). SCAQMD is the expert agency entrusted with and responsible for air quality monitoring and permitting in the air basin, and its thresholds of significance, as described on page 4.1‐12 of the Draft EIR, are the appropriate benchmark on which to base air quality analysis for the project As explained in the DEIR, compliance with the applicable SCAQMD Rules and the City of La Quinta’s fugitive dust control ordinance limit the generation of PM10 and other fugitive dust during construction activities to levels that are below the SCAQMD thresholds. Comment 83‐s: The Wave Festival Project could result in significant impacts health effects from air quality emissions as well considering the significant nature of the Special Events as has been outlined above. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, the Court held that air quality analysis must make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences. Any consideration of air quality must address the health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from the large quantity of idling vehicles consistent with a development of the type sought by Applicant. As pointed out above, because of the transient nature of the visitors to the Wave Festival Project because of short‐term rental and the significant impact of the Special Events, there will likely be many idling vehicles. The analysis of the DEIR, to actually demonstrate that there are no significant impacts to air quality, is required to “connect” adverse human health effects to the levels of pollutants that would be emitted by the Wave Festival Project. The DEIR fails to do so. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐382 February 2022 Response 83‐s: Despite the commenter’s assertion, the comment does not provide substantial evidence that a “large quantity of idling vehicles” will result from the proposed project. To the contrary, the DEIR specifically evaluates vehicle emissions and other potential air quality emissions during special events at the project (see pages 4.1‐29 – 4.1‐31 of the Draft EIR), and determined that with implementation of applicable PDFs, including pedestrian connectivity and a complimentary mix of land uses, as well Mitigation Measure AQ‐3, daily emissions during special events, with a maximum of 2,500 guests, will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds of significance. The DEIR also discusses the health impacts that would result from the exceedance of these thresholds of significance, but with implementation of the specified PDFs and mitigation measures, these adverse health effects will be avoided, as concluded on page 4.3‐44 (also see Appendix A, at pp. 47‐59). Comment 83‐t: E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. The DEIR needs to go further in addressing the spike in greenhouse gas emissions during the potentially multiple year construction and because of the Special Events and short‐term rentals. The Wave Festival Project will be constructed in three phases and will take approximately six (6) years to complete. (DEIR, at 4.1‐19.) Due to the use of heavy construction equipment, unsafe levels of air pollutants would have an impact on the surrounding community and wildlife during that time. The presence of toxic air contaminants during construction is discussed in relation with the sensitive human receptors but ignores construction pollutant impact on wildlife and the ecosystem. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60 to 80% by the end of the century because of increasing temperatures. (DEIR, Appendix I [GHG Report], p. 20.] The City may not hide behind a self‐serving threshold to avoid this significant impact. Response 83‐t: The project’s potential impacts relating to GHG emissions are analyzed in Section 4.7 of the DEIR and in the Coral Mountain Specific Plan Greenhouse Gas Analysis (GHGA) included in Appendix I to the DEIR. The DEIR analysis also references and relies upon a number of public regulatory and reference documents regarding the effects of GHG emissions and the measures taken by the State of California and its agencies to substantially reduce GHG emissions. To meet California’s adopted standards for the reduction of GHG emissions, SCAQMD has provided guidance for public agencies to use to establish project‐level screening thresholds of significance under CEQA. Based on this guidance, and the City’s own Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, the City established a threshold of 3.65 metric tons of CO2 emissions per service population annually as the analysis threshold for the project. This threshold is consistent with SCAQMD guidance, including taking into account the most recent target 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐383 February 2022 of reducing emissions to a level of 40% below 2020 levels by 2030, as discussed in Section 14.7 and in the project‐specific GHG Analysis (Appendix I). As explained in the DEIR, the GHGA quantified the construction and operational GHG emissions that will be generated by the project, including those from special events, and determined that with incorporation of the specified PDFs and mitigation measures, the project would generate a total of 3.62 MTCO2e per service population, which is below the established threshold of significance (page 4.7‐20). However, as this calculation depends, in part, on the purchase of carbon credits under Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, and because the purchase of carbon credits has not been widely adopted in the Coachella Valley for resi dential and resort communities, the Draft EIR conservatively concluded that the project’s GHG emissions should be considered significant and unavoidable. Contrary to the author’s comment, the City is not “hiding behind a self‐serving threshold,” but instead, thoroughly quantified and analyzed the project’s construction and operational generation of GHG emissions, identified ways to substantially reduce those emissions to the greatest extent feasible, and then conservatively disclosed the worst‐case scenario, specifically, that the project could cause significant and unavoidable levels of GHG emissions if the purchase of carbon credits is not a feasible or successful mitigation measure in the Coachella Valley. As allowed under CEQA Guidelines Section 15043, the City has identified a potentially significant and unavoidable impact, and fully disclosed it to the public and decision makers. The City will, also as allowed under CEQA, consider whether this potentially significant impact is outweighed by defined project benefits, and whether the EIR should be certified through the hearing process, and the adoption of findings. Comment 83‐u: F. Cumulative Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. As written, the DEIR also glosses over the aggregate environmental impacts of the Wave Festival Project and misleads the reader through words such as “may” and “potentially.” This Project cannot be viewed independently from other planned developments in the region. The EIR needs to address the cumulative effects of the Wave Festival Project in relation to other nearby projects and planned developments. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15355(b).) Traffic, water demands, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and air pollution are aggregate and have cumulative effects. It would be disastrous oversight for the City to allow the Wave Festival Project to move forward without fully analyzing this Project impact in relation to the overall impact of other projects in the region that are currently in development or in the planning stages. This is especially true given the fact that the DEIR did not consider the scheduling of 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐384 February 2022 Special Events (not defined or discussed in the DEIR), and their otherwise enormous impact vis‐à‐vis other festivals in adjoining communities such as Coachella and Stagecoach and the impact of the short‐term rentals (again, not addressed in the DEIR.) Response 83‐u: This comment is not correct, as each chapter in the DEIR specifically addresses cumulative impacts for the topic covered in that Chapter (i.e., traffic, hydrology, noise, GHG emissions, etc.), and evaluates the potential cumulative impacts consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15130. As specified in Guideline 15130, the cumulative impact analysis can be based upon a summary of projections contained in an adopted plan, including a General Plan, which is how the cumulative impact analysis was conducted in the DEIR. Cumulative impacts for the topics identified in this comment are addressed in the Draft EIR on the following pages: traffic at pages 4.13‐57 – 4.13‐ 61; water supplies at pages 4.15‐34 – 4.15‐35; noise at 4.11‐51 – 4.11‐54; GHG emissions at pages 4.7‐25 – 4.7‐26; and air quality at pages 4.2‐41 – 4.2‐42. As to other special events in the region that are outside the jurisdiction of the City, no separate analysis is required because the commenter’s assertion that special events will occur at the same time as other, much larger events elsewhere in the valley is entirely speculative. As provided in CEQA Guideline 15145, speculation is not appropriate in an EIR, and the City did not engage in speculation in analyzing the impacts of the project. Furthermore, special events outside the jurisdiction of the City of La Quinta are sufficiently removed geographically that, when considered in conjunction with the limited size (2,500 guest maximum) of any project special events, would not have combined environmental effects. Given this geographic distance and the limited size of the project’s proposed special events, such special events would not cause cumulatively considerable contributions to the traffic, noise or other impacts of the 100,000+ person music festivals referenced in this comment, that occur in the neighboring city of Indio. In addition, the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR, such as TRA‐9 – TRA‐14, regarding the need for a traffic management and parking plans prior to approval of any special use permits for special events at the project, will further ensure that the project will not cause any cumulatively considerable contributions to the impacts caused by major festivals in the region. Finally, as described extensively in responses to multiple issue areas above, the impacts of special events have been fully disclosed in the EIR, and the assertion that they are “not defined or discussed in the EIR” is false. The comment references short‐term rentals as a potential source of significant cumulative effects but fails to provide any substantial evidence showing any such effects would occur. As each topic area analyzes the operational impacts of the project with all residences occupied, including traffic and noise, no further cumulative impacts from short‐term rentals of such residences are anticipated. Please also se Response 52‐g. Comment 83‐v: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐385 February 2022 IV. THE DEIR IS INCONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN PROGRAMS AND LAND USE POLICIES. CEQA requires that environmental impact reports analyze the consistency of a project with applicable local plans, including General Plans. (See Napa Citizens for Honest Govt. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 386‐87; 14 Cal. Code Regs. Appendix G, § IX(b).) Inconsistencies with a General Plan or other local plan goals a nd policies that were enacted to protect the environment are significant impacts in themselves and can also be evidence of other significant impacts. (See id.; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 929.) “The general plan is more than the legal underpinning for land use decisions; it is a vision about how a community will grow, reflecting community priorities and values while shaping the future.” (See, General Plan Guidelines; Published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf )). The City must abide by its general plan since it is, in essence the “Constitution” of the City: “[T]he general plan [is] a ‘ “constitution” for future development’ [citation] located at the top of ‘the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use’ [citation]. The general plan consists of a ‘statement of development policies … setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals.’ [Citation.] The plan must include seven elements—land use, circulation, conservation, housing, noise, safety and open space—and address each of these elements in whatever level of detail local conditions require [citation]. General plans are also required to be ‘comprehensive [and] long[]term’ [citation] as well as ‘internally consistent.’ [Citation.] The planning law thus compels cities and counties to undergo the discipline of drafting a master plan to guide future local land use decisions.” (DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772–773 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019], fn. omitted.) Since it is essentially the Constitution of the City, a general plan cannot be lightly amended. Much thought and deliberation go into the formation of the general plan and any amendment thereto. The City is well of aware of this fact and its last update its general plan took place over a period of years. (See, https://www.laquintaca.gov/business/lq2035‐general‐plan/documents) Key to any such updates is community participation which is integral to the update process. The City’s general plan is the 2035 La Quinta General Plan (General Plan). Here, Applicant seeks an extraordinary request from the City in connection with the Wave Festival Project, i.e., an amendment to the City’s General Plan. This re quest skirts and short circuits the normal procedure that the City undertakes when it amends its General Plan which involves years of deliberations and community input. Moreover, such a request short circuits the expectations of residents of the City who invest their life savings in the City in purchasing residences based on their belief that the values of the General Plan will hold true for the foreseeable future. It is for that reason the City must tread lightly and consider the request of the Applicant with great concern. Here, the Applicant requests a dramatic change to the City’s General Plan. The General Plan Amendment (GPA 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐386 February 2022 2019‐0002) will amend the current General Plan land use designations from General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Open Space – Recreation to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space. (DEIR, at 3.5.2.) The Wave Festival Project bears NO relationship to the development that had been originally entitled for that area. The request of the Applicant is for a wholesale change in the character of the lan d where they propose to build. The DEIR briefly states, “The project site is surrounded by developed residential communities…” A serious examination of the area shows The Quarry, Santerra, Coral Mountain Estates, Andalusia, and Trilogy residential communities surround the proposed location. Additionally, new home developments immediately south of the proposed location have been approved or are in review including the 57 residential Estate Collection at Coral Mountain and the 1,200 residential Travertine community—a fact omitted from the EIR. Clearly, the Wave Festival Project is a “horse of a different color” entirely and is primarily a commercial enterprise where low‐density housing is slated to be built. Response 83‐v: While it is true that a General Plan is “at the top of the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use,” as cited in the comment, that does not mean that General Plans are not routinely amended. If fact, Section 65358 (a) of the California Government Code states that a legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted general plan. The only limitation on amending an adopted general plan in Section 65358 (b) is that no mandatory element of a general plan can be amended more frequently than four times during any calendar year for a general law city. La Quinta, as a charter city, has no such limitation. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, and as provided in the City’s Municipal Code, Section 9.230.010, a General Plan Amendment may be made at any time, as determined by the legislative body. Each amendment may include more than one change to the general plan. Consistent with state law, both the City’s 2035 General Plan and the Municipal Code provide that any property owner or citizen may initiate a General Plan Amendment (See 2035 General Plan at pp. 1‐7 – 1‐8; and LQMC Chapt. 9.230). On page 1‐7 of the General Plan itself, under the heading “Amending the General Plan,” it provides that “[t]he General Plan is a mu lti‐faceted document, which defines and addresses the changing needs of the City. It is also based on an ongoing assessment and understanding of existing and projected needs.” Several of the other projects on the City Planning Department list of current projects also include proposed or approved General Plan Amendments, including Centre at La Quinta, Codorniz, and Travertine. This comment also states that the DEIR omits discussion of two new residential communities in the project vicinity, the Estate Collection at Coral Mountain and Travertine. It is not clear whether the commenter raises this issue to bolster his argument that the project is not compatible with these residential neighborhoods, or to assert some error in the project’s cumulative impact analysis. If the latter, the cumulative impact analysis is properly based on General Plan buildout, which includes the additional residential units proposed in those communities (see 2035 General Plan, General Plan Land Use Plan and Table II‐3 [Land Use Summary] at pp. II‐8 through II‐12). If the former point, the DEIR 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐387 February 2022 addresses land use compatibility with regard to all surrounding land uses, and with respect to specific impacts in the Draft EIR discussion of each environmental impact as appropriate. The commenter characterizes the proposed General Plan Amendment as a “wholesale change in the character of the land” proposed for development by the project, but in fact, the project retains the low density, neighborhood commercial and open space land uses on most of the project site, including the entire perimeter of the site. Less than one‐third of the site is proposed for development under the City’s Tourist Commercial land use designation, and this area is buffered from the surrounding communities by more than two hundred acres of low‐density residential development, as well as perimeter walls and landscaping that are fully consistent with the surrounding communities. Comment 83‐w: The DEIR's analysis of the Wave Festival Project's consistency with the General Plan is fundamentally flawed. The DEIR takes the position that because amendments and minor adjustments to the General Plan are proposed, the Wave Festival Project would be consistent with both documents, and, therefore, any conflicts with plans would be less than significant. (DEIR, at 4.10‐1.) To evaluate the accuracy of this statement and the Wave Festival Project's consistency with the General Plan, the DEIR must identify the "minor adjustments" to the plan's policies. Unfortunately, the DEIR fails to provide this critical information. Response 83‐w: The Draft EIR states in both Chapter 3.0, Project Description (p. 3‐9), and Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning (pp. 4.10‐2 – 4.10‐4), that the proposed General Plan Amendment will amend the current General Plan land use designations from General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Open Space – Recreation, to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space – Recreation. This comment also cites Draft EIR p. 4.10‐1 for a statement about General Plan consistency and minor adjustments that is not accurate and does not appear on that page of the Draft EIR. Comment 83‐x: Moreover, in its analysis, the DEIR glosses over numerous, glaring inconsistencies to reach the contrived conclusion that the Wave Festival Project is somehow consistent with the General Plan. In addition to misinforming decision‐makers and the public about the Wave Festival Project's consistency with the General Plan, this analysis underestimates the actual impacts of the Wave Festival Project and ignores some of the Wave Festival Project's most significant impacts. The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to provide a comprehensive and accurate analysis of all General Plan inconsistencies. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐388 February 2022 Numerous goals and policies within the City are relevant to the Wave Festival Project. Many of these goals and policies are directly at odds with the Wave Festival Project. Some of the most egregious violations are discussed below. Response 83‐x: This comment asserts that the Draft EIR misinforms decision‐makers and the public regarding the project’s alleged inconsistencies with the General Plan. However, the comment provides no specific examples of any such alleged inconsistencies, and instead, serves as an introduction to the comments that follow. As described in more detail in the following responses, the Draft EIR provides an analysis of the project’s consistency with the General Plan’s applicable goals, policies and programs regarding Land Use, Circulation, Livable Communities, Economic Development, Parks, Recreation and Trails, Housing, Water Resources, Open Space and Conservation, Noise, Soils and Geology, Flooding and Hydrology, Hazardous Materials, Emergency Services, and Water, Sewer and Other Utilities on pages 4.10‐15 through 4.10‐24. Moreover, the California courts have consistently held that an EIR does not need to evaluate the project’s consistency with every General Plan goal, policy and program. Rather, “[b]ecause EIRs are required only to evaluate ‘any inconsistencies’ with plans, no analysis should be required if the project is consistent with the relevant plans.” Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 63 Cal.App.4 th 444, 460 (quoting Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (2011) 200 Cal.App..4th 1552, 1556; and see South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 352‐354. As described above and in Response No. 79‐l, the Draft EIR thoroughly analyzes the project’s consistency with the General Plan and other applicable plans. Comment 83‐y: A. The Wave Festival Project is Inconsistent with General Plan Policies Pertaining to Water Usages. The General Plan embodies values and principles that recognize the importance of the water resources in the area, including maintaining water availability to provide domestic water to existing developments in the City. Despite these important principles, the DEIR fails to provide any General Plan consistency analysis for water. The following goal is indisputably linked to protecting the environment through avoiding impacts on water resources: GOAL‐WR‐1 GOAL‐WR‐1 states: “The efficient use and conservation of the City's water resources.” The General Plan acknowledges that continued growth in the City and the region has resulted in an increased demand for domestic water. As a result, CVWD extracts more water from the lower thermal subarea than is naturally recharged into it every year — a condition known as overdraft. (General Plan, p. III‐ 58.) It further states that increased development will contribute to greater demand for water resources and the potential for continued overdraft. (Id.) 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐389 February 2022 This Project is enormous and will require significant amount of the City’s valuable water resources. At project buildout, the Wave Festival Project could accommodate approximately 7.77 acres of Neighborhood and Wave Farm Commercial uses; 232.07 acres of Low Density Residential; 117.70 acres of Hotel/Resort uses comprised of the hotel, the Wave Lagoon, attached residential uses and various resort related amenities; and 27.01 acres of Open Space. The low‐density residential land use will include 496 units of detached residential. The hotel resort land use proposes 150 hotel keys, 104 attached resort residential units and 55,000 square feet of commercial uses. The 16‐acre surf Wave Basin and lagoon will serve as the focal point of the development. The estimated total domestic water demand for indoor and outdoor use is approximately 941.03 acre‐ feet per year (AFY), or 2.45 acre‐feet per acre. The residential indoor demand estimate is 97.22 AFY, the non‐residential indoor use estimate is 42.34 AFY, and the outdoor estimate is 801.47 AFY. (WSA, p. 20.) The majority of the water use is the outdoor water demand, which equates to an outrageous 260,986,749.15 gallons of water per year. With precious water resources, a huge surf lagoon in the middle of the desert clearly does not comply with General Plan GOAL‐WR‐1 as an efficient use of water. The Wave Festival Project's inconsistency with this General Plan Goal constitutes a significant impact. Response 83‐y: This comment quotes the General Plan Goal WR‐1 (“The efficient use and conservation of the City’s water resources”) and asserts that the Project does not comply with the goal of efficient water use. However, the comment does not identify any particular General Plan policies or programs that are inconsistent with or prohibit any of the project’s proposed uses of water. The General Plan does not identify any specific limits on the amount of water that should be used by any particular project or use, and instead, establishes policies to support CVWD’s efforts to supply adequate domestic water to residents and businesses by continuing to implement the City’s landscape ordinance and building codes (see Policy WR‐1.1 and Program WR‐1.1a). Here, the project fully complies with the City’s landscape ordinance and CVWD’s limit on outdoor water use. As set forth in the DEIR and the WSA/WSV, the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for outdoor water use for the project site is 962 AFY. The project, including the Wave Basin, is projected to use 801.47 AFY for outdoor uses, or approximately 83.3% of what is allowed under CVWD’s and the City’s landscape ordinances. (See, e.g., DEIR at p. 4.15‐31.) Accordingly, the project not only complies with both City and CVWD water use standards, but in fact uses materially less outdoor water than the maximum amount of water consistent with the efficient use of water. Specifically, the project will reduce outdoor water use from 921.02 AFY, for the currently permitted land uses, to 801.47 AFY, as set forth in the Draft EIR at pp. 4.15‐15 – 4.15‐16 and 4.15‐34. This is entirely consistent with Goal WR‐1. Comment 83‐z: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐390 February 2022 B. The Wave Festival Project is Inconsistent with General Plan’s Policies Pertaining to Aesthetics and Light Pollution. It is undisputable that the Wave Festival Project — given the height, bulk, and scale of its proposed structures — would irreparably alter the community's character and views of the surrounding mountains. By the DEIR's own admission, the Wave Festival Project's impacts on scenic vistas, the visual character or quality of the site, scenic resources, and light and glare would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR at 1‐15.) The DEIR's conclusion that the Wave Festival Project would not conflict with the General Plan policies pertaining to aesthetics would be laughable if the implications were not so ominous. Certain of the most egregious violations include: Guiding Principle: One of the guiding principles of the General Plan is to reduce light pollution. (General Plan, p. 1‐3.) The Wave Festival Project is blatantly inconsistent with this principle. The Wave Festival Project proposes 80‐foot‐high light fixtures. The 80‐foot light fixtures proposed for the project would be located around the Wave Basin to illuminate the recreational facility during the evenings. (DEIR, at 4.1‐56.) The Wave Festival Project proposes seventeen (17) 80‐foot lights, separated approximately 20 feet from each other. The light poles lie within the line of sight for motorists and pedestrians, and visible to the properties south of the Wave Festival Project. (DEIR, at 4.1‐39, 4.1‐41.) Even worse, the lights will operate from dust to 10 PM. (Id.) As opined by Minagar & Associates in their comment letter of August 2, 2021 (see, Exhibit 3), the analysis contained in the DEIR is defective in several respects: Providing the right lighting solution for an exterior application should take into consideration glare, along with the specific site requirements for spacing, efficiency, and visual comfort. Current means of measuring glare in exterior applications are not fully defined or comprehensive. Ways to is by the following: Shielding, diffusion, selection of warm CCTs, and reducing contrast of the Effective Luminous Area. Reducing glare may reduce the efficiency of the luminaire and the spacing, height which were not addressed in this DEIR report nor in Appendix B due to cost and potential redesign of the project. We have to bear in mind that, the level of glare that an individual experiences is highly subjective. Therefore, the designers should install mock‐ups in order to confirm adequate performance and visual comfort of the concerned parties affected by such installation. Shielding and Diffusion in LED Luminaires has not been explored in the DEIR report nor in Appendix B. There is no alternative solution/ study provided for the intensity from the luminaire, the number of luminaires, the size of the luminaire, and the height or the angle of the luminaire. The proposed lighting plan does not provide any gradients. It immediately changes between dark and bright. For older residents/visitors in the surrounding area of the proposed project site, it will inevitably create a lot of discomforts especially bothering some individual’s eyes. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐391 February 2022 Response 83‐z: To be clear, the Draft EIR did not determine that impacts associated with light and glare would be significant. As described on page 4.1.60 through 4.1‐70, impacts associated with light and glare were found to be less than significant. Please also see the Topical Response on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1. As explained in the Draft EIR, the lighting for the Wave Basin includes shielded, directional energy efficient LED light fixtures that will prevent light spillage outside of the Wave Basin planning area (see Draft EIR pp. 4.1‐60 – 4.1‐63). While this comment fails to identify any specific General Plan goals or policies that the Wave Bain could possibly violate, the Wave Basin lighting does comply with the applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code, as explained on the Draft EIR pages cited above. Specifically, the shielded and directional lights proposed will not emit light onto adjacent properties and will comply with the allowed hours of operation for recreational lighting (10:00 p.m. cutoff). Please also see Section 2.2.1 above for a thorough response to comments concerning the project’s potential light and glare impacts. The Minagar & Associates letter quoted in the comment regarding the impacts of LED lighting are speculative and do not provide substantial evidence that changes may occur in the design of the lighting. The concerns relating to shielding certainly do not apply to the TLC lighting proposed for the Wave Basin component of the project. The Musco memo (Appendix B.1) explains the details of how the specific height of the proposed light fixtures, the shielding from the fixture visor, and the ability to directionally aim the lighting will allow the system to light the Wave Basin without creating any up lighting or unwanted light spillage, thus ensuring dark skies compliant lighting. It is important to note that the Wave Basin light system was optimized to avoid light spillage, and if the light fixture heights were reduced, the light cut off angle would need to be increased to cast light across the water surface, which would result in more light and glare. Consequently, as described in the EIR, the height of the light poles is optimal for lighting the project while at the same time minimizing any appreciable light and glare impacts to Coral Mountain and adjacent properties. The analysis has further been supported by the demonstration conducted on November 17, which included the installation of “mock‐ups” suggested by Minagar & Associates (see Appendix B.2 of this Final EIR). Comment 83‐aa: Nor does the DEIR address concerns that are specific to the City and desert conditions. The City is regularly buffeted by high winds. As a result, there is silica particulate blown about in the area of the proposed project. That particulate is highly reflective. Nowhere in the DEIR does the Applicant address this important issue. The DEIR did not, then, properly analyze the light and glare emanating from the enormous 80‐foot towers that will be constructed. There are no actual mockups of the proposed towers that would provide real and credible analysis of their impacts, for example. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐392 February 2022 Response 83‐aa: While the comment does not provide any evidence or other information showing how winds would affect the lighting analysis in Appendix B of the Draft EIR, the lighting analysis in Appendix B and the further information in the supplemental Musco memo, plainly demonstrate that the proposed lighting system has been optimized to reduce light and glare and avoid any significant light or glare related impacts to adjacent properties or the public. Also see Response 83‐z as it relates to “mock‐ ups.” Comment 83‐bb: Moreover, the analysis of the DEIR did not consider the darkened skies of the surrounding environment in the Coachella Valley. It is a much‐hallowed quality that municipalities and homeowner’s associations go to great lengths to make certain that ambient light is dampened or eliminated, e.g., some communities prohibit or limit light posts. This darkened atmosphere opens the night skies to the beauty of illuminating stars. These darkened skies then are a particularly bad backdrop from the glare that will most assuredly emanate from the 80‐foot light towers that Applicant proposes especially when windstorm lift reflective particulate into the air. The light and glare generated from the fixtures would result in significant impacts and is in direct contrast to the City’s principle to reduce light pollution.. Response 83‐bb: First, the commenter is correct that La Quinta limits lighting in order to assure dark skies. As described in the EIR (see page 4.1‐60 and 4.1‐61), the analysis is based on the City’s lighting standards, which require that lighting plans demonstrate that light not extend beyond property lines. That standard was correctly analyzed in the EIR. As explained above and in the DEIR, the Wave Basin lighting system is fully dark sky compliant and uses TLC for LED technology to effectively light the Wave Basin while generating a fraction of the light and glare typically visible at parks and other recreational facilities that use older generations of lighting technology or standard LED lighting (see pages 1‐2 of Appendix B.1). As explained in the Musco memo, the lighting at the Bagdouma Sports Park in Coachella consists of “a combination of light fixtures from Musco, including the 2005 lights and 1989 unshielded lights, with respective candela ratings of 11,858 and 21,400,” as compared to the 7 candela generated by the proposed TLC lights proposed for the project (see Musco memo, Appendix B.1 of this Final EIR, at p.2). Accordingly, the EIR demonstrates that the Wave Basin lighting will generate far less light and glare than the existing lighting in the community and will avoid any significant impact on the area’s dark skies. Comment 83‐cc: GOAL OS‐3: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐393 February 2022 Goal OS‐3 states the importance of the preservation of scenic resources as vital contributors to the city's economic health and overall quality of life. (General Plan, at 11‐30.) The Wave Festival Project causes a significant change in the visual character of the area from a singlestory residential and golf environment to a hotel and Wave Basin facility. As determined in the line‐of‐sight analyses and visual simulations, the project site will result in the partial obstruction of views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains, depending on location and viewpoint. Therefore, development of the project property would result in obstructed and partially obstructed views of these scenic resources. (DEIR, at 4.1‐44.) The Wave Festival Project's clear inconsistency with this General Plan Goal constitutes a significant impact. Response 83‐cc: The comment does not mention the three policies in the General Plan supporting this goal all make clear that the City’s policies to meet this goal involve avoiding development in designated open space areas within hillside and visually prominent areas. Furthermore, to the extent development of designated open space is allowed, grading and structures should be visually subordinate and compatible with surrounding landscape features (see 2035 General Plan 111‐73 and 111‐74). The project does not propose any development in such designated open space areas, and instead, proposes development of a site that has been planned for residential and golf course development since the time the property was annexed into the City of La Quinta in or about 2002. Accordingly, the project is consistent with General Plan Goal OS‐3. In addition, and unrelated to the Open Space goal cited in the comment, the Draft EIR thoroughly analyzes the project’s impacts on scenic vistas and the visual character of the site and surrounding area (see DEIR pp. 4.1‐22 – 4.1‐60). This analysis includes line‐of‐sight and visual simulations of the project from 5 different locations surrounding the project (see Exhibits 4.1‐4 – 4.1‐13). Based on this evidence, the DEIR concluded that the Wave Basin lighting and buildings in the Tourist Commercial area (Planning Area III) will not have a significant impact on existing views of scenic vistas due to their location far into the interior of the project, and their distance from off‐site viewing locations (see DEIR p. 4.1‐40). The DEIR further concluded that development of the project will result in the obstruction of existing views of Coral Mountain from certain locations along the perimeter roads surrounding the project due to construction of the walls, landscaping, and homes along the perimeter of the site. The DEIR notes that these improvements are consistent with the perimeter walls, landscaping and homes in the surrounding communities, and their impact on existing views of scenic resources would result from any development of the project site (see DEIR pp. 4.1‐44 – 4.1‐45). Even though this impact is mitigated to the maximum extent feasible through implementation of Mitigation Measures AES‐1 and AES‐2 (setting back the perimeter walls and residential structures further from the perimeter roads than required under the City’s Municipal Code), the change in existing views is identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of the project, even though the 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐394 February 2022 impact would be consistent with the visual character of the surrounding developments. While this constitutes a significant aesthetic impact, as disclosed in the DEIR, it does not reflect any inconsistency with applicable policies in the 2035 General Plan. Comment 83‐dd: Policy LU‐2.3: Policy LU‐2.3 states that the City's outdoor lighting ordinance will be maintained. The La Quinta Municipal Code (“LQMC”) Section 9.100.150, Outdoor Lighting, is intended to provide standards for outdoor lighting which allow adequate energy efficient lighting for public safety while minimizing adverse effect of lighting, such as lighting which has a detrimental effect on astronomical observations; inefficiently utilizes scarce electrical energy; and/or creates a public nuisance or safety hazard. As set forth above, the Wave Festival Project site, which is currently undeveloped and vacant, provides largely unobstructed views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains from public rights‐of‐ways. (DEIR, at 4.1‐72.) However, because of the enormous light poles around the Wave Basin, it will create an unsafe glaring off the roads where cars travel. The Wave Basin lights will be projected until 10 p.m. at night. The bright lights at the Wave Basin in the evening hours will clearly conflict with the City’s policy for public safety under the LQMC outdoor lighting ordinance. Response 83‐dd: As described in the DEIR, the project lighting fully complies with the City’s outdoor lighting ordinance, which is set forth in Section 9.100.150, including shielding requirements and hours of operation for recreational lights (see DEIR pp. 4.1‐60 – 4.1‐63). The pole lights will be located 1,274 feet from the public viewing point on Avenue 60, 2,745 feet from Madison Street, and 4,002 feet from Avenue 58 (see Exhibits 4.1‐6, 4.1‐10, and 4.1‐12 in Draft EIR). The lights will have no impact on public streets. Please also see the detailed description of the proposed Wave Basin lighting in Response No. 83‐z above. The project is therefore not in conflict with Policy LU‐2.3. Comment 83‐ee: C. The Wave Festival Project is Inconsistent with General Plan Policies Pertaining to Noise Pollution. Notwithstanding the fact that the Wave Festival Project would r esult in significant noise pollution, the DEIR identifies it as “less than significant.” Moreover, it never bothers to analyze the Wave Festival Project's consistency with the following General Plan policies: Guiding Principle: One of the guiding principles of the General Plan is to reduce noise pollution. (General Plan, p. 1‐3.) The City's ongoing efforts to preserve the quality of life for all its residents, present and future, must include the protection of a quiet noise environment. The Wave Festival Project is clearly inconsistent with this principle. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐395 February 2022 There are both operational and construction noise impacts associated with this Project. For example, the Wave Basin and associated machinery/facilities will cause operational noise impacts. Prior to each wave, the control tower announces the event over the public address system. (DEIR, Appendix K.1 [Noise Study], at p. 73.) This is followed by the noise generated from the movement of the sled and an increase in noise levels from the mechanical equipment buildings. As the sled moves through the lagoon, noise from the cable and metal rollers is clearly audible. (Id.) During peak wave events, the Wave Basin generates noise levels ranging from 62.6 dBA Leq at end of the lagoon, 73.8 dBA Leq in the lifeguard tower and 75.7 dBA Leq near the cable roller system. (Id.) There are also serious noise levels concerns associated with outdoor hotel pool and spa activity. These noise activities include the waterfall, people talking, and children and adults swimming and playing in a pool. The measured reference noise level at 50 feet is 57.8 dBA Leq. (Id. at p. 75.) In addition, there is noise level impacts associated with the Wave Festival Project’s outdoor or beach club activities, including parents speaking on cell phones, kids playing, and background youth soccer games, with coaches shouting instructions and people cheering and clapping. The special events will also contribute to additional noise. The Noise Study estimated the playground activity noise level to be 43.4 dBA Leq. (Id.) Finally, there is noise level impacts associated the proposed neighborhood commercial center. The noise level measurements collected show a peak hourly noise level of 54.8 dBA Leq when measured at 50 feet. (Id.) All the operational noise impacts exceed 219.3 dBA Leq. There are also construction‐related impacts associated with the Wave Festival Project, which includes combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to more than 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet. (Id. at p. 81.) Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. The Wave Festival Project is inconsistent with this general principle of reducing noise pollution. As discussed above, the operational and construction noise impacts would affect human lives, as well as wildlife. The DEIR cannot simply ignore this very real threat to public safety. Response 83‐ee: Please see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4. As described in that response and as set forth in the DEIR (pp. 4.11‐32 – 4.11‐50), the project’s potential construction and operational noise impacts were carefully evaluated, and with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 through NOI‐6, all such impacts would be less than significant. The comment cites noise levels that are clearly below the City’s standards for single family homes, as described in the EIR. Furthermore, the comment’s conclusion that the noise levels at the site will cumulatively equal 219.3 dBA Leq is false. Noise levels are not additive, as suggested in this comment. Rather, as described on page 4.11‐47 of the Draft EIR, the project will generate noise levels ranging from 39.8 to 53.3 dBA Leq at the off‐site 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐396 February 2022 sensitive receptor locations analyzed in the Noise Study, taking into account all operational noise sources. The EIR analysis included an evaluation of noise from the wave machine, the wave itself, and the loudspeaker announcements, as well as outdoor pool activity noise, outdoor park activities, and neighborhood commercial noise (see DEIR at p.p. 4.11‐45 – 4.11‐48). Also see Response Nos. 83‐n to 83‐p above regarding the project’s potential to generate increased noise at any off‐site locations, and the evidence supporting the DEIR conclusion that the Wave Basin and other project operations will not cause noise levels that exceed the City’s established standard of 65 dBA. Comment 83‐ff: GOAL N‐1 GOAL N‐1 states as follows: “A helpful noise environment which complements the City's residential and resort character.” The primary source of noise in the City is traffic. (General Plan, p. IV‐4.) Traffic generated by the operation of the Wave Festival Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off‐site areas. (DEIR, Appendix K.1 [Noise Study], at p. 1.) The DEIR acknowledges that the Wave Festival Project‐related noise level increases are considered “potentially significant” for Avenue 58 and Madison Street. (Id.) In addition to the resort itself, there will be increased traffic from construction and special events. The Wave Festival Project's inconsistency with these General Plan principles and goals constitutes a significant impact. Response 83‐ff: The project’s potential impacts on roadway noise levels are analyzed in detail on pages 4.11‐35 through 4.11‐42. As described on those pages, traffic noise increases from the project were calculated at 28 roadway segments surrounding the project site at three different stages of project buildout (completion of Phase 1, Phase 2 and full buildout), and at all times, the project‐related increases in roadway noise fall below the City’s established thresholds of significance (See DEIR Tables 4.11‐17, 4.11‐18 and 4.11‐19). The General Plan Noise element also identifies several specific policies and programs to promote the goal of a “healthful noise environment” (see 2035 General Plan pp. IV‐15 through IV‐16). These include limiting outdoor noise levels to 65 dBA for sensitive receptors, including residences, and requiring that development projects provide a noise impact analysis of construction and operations showing compliance with the City’s noise standards. This is exactly what is provided in Section 4.11 and Appendix K.1 and K.2 of the DEIR. Although the project will fully comply with the City’s noise standards, including during special events, it is worth noting that in support of Goal N‐1, the General Plan includes Program N‐1.3.a, which states as follows: “Provide accommodation for special events in the public interest, such as concerts and festivals, which may temporarily exceed the maximum allowable d ecibel level.” This program reflects 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐397 February 2022 the balance the 2035 General Plan seeks to strike between promoting the residential and resort character of the community and promoting opportunities to strengthen the City’s economic base and the City of La Quinta as a world‐class “resort and recreation destination” (See 2035 General Plan at pp. 1‐2 and 1‐3). Comment 83‐gg: D. The Wave Festival Project is Inconsistent with General Plan Policies Pertaining to Transportation. If implemented, the Wave Festival Project would be directly at odds with the General Plan's fundamental principles that development only be allowed in areas where the circulation and transportation system capacity can accommodate such development. One of the guiding principles in the General Plan is to “[p]romote and encourage a broad range of transportation opportunities, especially those that reduce the impact to our environment, as well as effectively moving people and goods. Continue to work closely with neighboring communities and regional agencies to address regional transportation issues.” (General Plan, at p. I‐3.) The General Plan includes numerous guiding policies centered on these themes, including, but not limited to: Response 83‐gg: Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, and as set forth in Section 4.13 of the Draft EIR, with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA‐1 through TRA‐15, the project will not have any significant impacts on the intersections and roadways in the vicinity of the project. The roadways surrounding the project site are all designated in the General Plan to carry substantially more vehicles than they currently do, as evidenced by the Existing Conditions Table 4.13‐8, which demonstrates that current roadway capacity is at LOS’s ranging from A to C. As such, the circulation system can accommodate the vehicle trips that will be generated by the project. In addition, Mitigation Measures TRA‐1 and TRA‐2 require the project to pay the City’s development impact fees to fund circulation system improvements within the City and the regional TUMF to fund regional improvements to the transportation system. Accordingly, the project will support the General Plan guiding principle quoted above. Comment 83‐hh: Policy CIR‐1.12 Policy CIR‐1‐1.12 states as follows: “As a means of reducing the vehicular traffic on major roadways and to reduce vehicle miles traveled by traffic originating in the City, the City shall pursue development of a land use pattern that maximizes interactions between adjacent or nearby land uses.” (General Plan, at p. II‐126.) In direct violation of Policy CIR‐1.12, if the Wave Festival Project is approved, the City would be allowing significant and unavoidable traffic impacts on local and regional highways. The Wave Festival Project is inconsistent with this General Plan Policy which also constitutes a significant impact. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐398 February 2022 Response 83‐hh: This comment is incorrect. As analyzed and disclosed in the DEIR, the project will not have any significant and unavoidable traffic impacts. (See DEIR pp. 4.13‐17 – 4.13‐42). Moreover, the project proposes a complimentary mix of uses and design features that will reduce vehicle miles traveled by maximizing the internal connections between adjacent land uses. As explained on pages 4.13‐54 and 4.13‐55, the project includes residential, resort and neighborhood serving retail development that will allow residents and guests to meet some of their retail and recreational needs without traveling outside of the project site. The project also includes improve d design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity within the project and between uses so that residents and guests can travel within the project without using their vehicles. The neighborhood commercial uses proposed at the corner of Madison St. and 58th Avenue will also help meet the retail needs of nearby residents, which will reduce their existing trips further into La Quinta and Indio for such needs, such as coffee and groceries. Accordingly, the project complies with and promotes General Plan Policy CIR‐1.12. In fact, the project’s mix of complimentary land uses and design features described above implement General Plan Programs CIR‐1.12.a through CIR‐1.12.c, which implement Policy CIR‐1.12 (see 2035 General Plan at p. II‐126). Comment 83‐ii: Policy CIR‐2.1 Policy CIR‐2.1 states as follows: “Encourage and cooperate with SunLine Transit Agency on the expansion of routes, facilities, services and ridership especially in congested areas and those with high levels of employment and commercial services and encourage the use of most energy efficient and least polluting transportation technologies.” (General Plan, at p. II‐128 — II‐129.) Within this Policy are several program goals, including: Program CIR‐2.1.a: Consult and coordinate with the SunLine Transit Agency on immediate and long‐term transit issues and assure pro active representation on the Agency Board and its decision making process. * * * Program CIR‐2.1.c: When reviewing development proposals, consult and coordinate with SunLine and solicit comments and suggestions on how bus stops and other public transit facilities and design concepts, including enhanced handicapped access, should be integrated into project designs. Program CIR‐2.1.d: When reviewing large‐scale development proposals, consult and coordinate with SunLine to encourage the development of rideshare and other alternative, high occupancy transit programs for employers with sufficient numbers of employees. (Id. at II‐129.) 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐399 February 2022 The DEIR simply states that “bus facilities are not located within the project study area.” (DEIR, at 4.13‐8.) It makes no mention of consulting with the SunLine Transit Agency or evaluating on ways that transit services could be incorporated into the Wave Festival Project. In fact, the DEIR provides no indication that the Wave Festival Project would result in an increase in transit mode share. Based on the Coral Mountain Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Appendix L.2), the Wave Festival Project has an estimated service population (SP) of 1,698 residents, 434 employees associated with the hotel use, 240 employees associated with the retail use, and approximately 300 hotel occupants for a total service population of 2,672. (DEIR, at 4.7‐9.) With this type of large‐scale project, it is imperative that transit programs are evaluated in more detail. Response 83‐ii: Unfortunately, as described on page 4.13‐8 of the DEIR, Sunline Transit Agency’s facilities and services are not located with the project’s study area. Sunline Transit Agency reviews and updates its service areas periodically, and as described in General Plan Program CIR‐2.1.a, the City consults and coordinates with Sunline Transit Agency on such long‐term transit issues. However, at this time, there is nothing more that the City or project can do to extend Sunline’s transit service to the project, because SunLine is an independent agency whose business plan the City cannot control. Instead, the project supports General Plan Goal CIR‐2 (“A circulation system that promotes and enhances transit, alternative vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian networks”) through the project design features described above in Response No. 83‐hh and in the DEIR at pp. 4.13‐54 and 4.13‐55. Comment 83‐jj: Policy CIR‐2.2 Policy CIR‐2.2 states as follows: “Encourage reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by reducing vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay by increasing or encouraging the use of alternative modes and transportation technologies, and implement and manage a hierarchy of Complete Street multimodal transportation infrastructure and programs to deliver improved mobility and reduce GHG emissions.” (General Plan, at p. II‐129.) As set forth above, the DEIR is inadequate in its evaluation of alternative modes of transportation. The DEIR states that the Wave Festival Project includes Project Design Features (PDFs) that effectively reduce air quality and GHG emissions. (DEIR, at 7‐6.) It goes on to list a few programs, such as employer‐sponsored shuttles, and commute trip reduction program. (Id.) However, the DEIR provides very little detail on how these programs would be implemented. Without providing any details, it is unclear whether it complies with Policy CIR‐2.2 of the General Plan. The Wave Festival Project is in clear violation of these General Plan Policies. The DEIR provides no indication that the Wave Festival Project would result in an increase in transit mode share. Rather than meeting recreational demand with transit service, the Wave Festival Project would likely be completely auto‐based. In addition, the Wave Festival Project would result in a significant impact on 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐400 February 2022 local transit service providers for which the DEIR does not identify adequate mitigation. The Wave Festival Project is inconsistent with this General Plan Policy which also constitutes a significant impact. Response 83‐jj: As explained in Response No. 83‐hh above, the project complies with this Policy by incorporating improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity within the project and between uses, so that residents and guests can travel within the project without using their vehicles. In fact, such efforts to improve interconnectivity between adjacent uses is specified in General Plan Program CIR‐2.2.c as one of the ways to help achieve Policy CIR‐2.2. The project also reduces GHG emissions by including a complimentary mix of uses that will help reduce vehicle trips from project residents and guests, as well as existing residents in the community, who would otherwise need to travel several miles for any neighborhood serving commercial uses. Finally, the project is required to make improvements to adjacent public streets, as described on pages 4.13‐29 and 4.13‐37 – 4.13‐38 of the EIR, to include sidewalks, multi‐modal trails and bike lanes, in full compliance with the City’s Complete Streets program. Accordingly, the project is consistent with Policy CIR‐2.2 by reducing GHG emissions. Comment 83‐kk: CONCLUSION We are concerned on several fronts that a project of the magnitude and impact of the Wave Festival Project is being considered without sufficient consideration being given to its significant environmental impact to the City and its residents. Moreover, we are concerned that the City is running afoul of its requirements to conduct a thorough and meaningful analysis of the Wave Festival Project as required by California law and by its own General Plan. Before the Wave Festival Project can even be considered, then, there must be a credible analysis of its environmental impact. That critical analysis has not been performed. Response 83‐kk: The commenter’s concerns are noted. As described in Responses 83‐a through 83‐kk, the City has undertaken a complete and comprehensive analysis of the project’s environmental impacts. As this comment does not identify a specific question or concern regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR in identifying and analyzing potential environmental impacts, no further response to this comment is provided. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐401 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 84: Alena Callimanis 1 Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 84‐a: Comments regarding DEIR Section 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems. In the CVWD Water Assessment, Coral Mountain surf pool replenis hment is listed at 39 million gallons yearly. CVWD does not have knowledge of coefficients to account for evaporation due to Wave Action at the time of their Water Assessment. In addition, the increasing number of days of wind action in the Coachella Valley will cause additional evaporation. (If required, Alena Callimanis can provide additional information on the number of high wind days in Coachella Valley). Water evaporation calculations by CVWD are based on a standard factor of 1.2 for moving water and pan evaporation numbers from 2005. In 2005, when these calculations concluded, we only had 99 days over 100 degrees. Response 84‐a: Please see Response 65‐d regarding the validity and accuracy of the water demand and evaporation calculations for the project as stated in the WSA/WSV approved by CVWD. Comment 84‐b: Therefore, in order to determine the amount of water required, the DEIR must look at the following information: 1) The World Surf League, which purchased Kelly Slater wave technology, wrote that on very hot days at Lemoore Surf Ranch, the pool lost 250,000 gallons a day. It is valid to accept this as a minimum number to be used for La Quinta, because Lemoore is in Kings County where the evapoTranspiration rate is lower than our area. Since the La Quinta evapoTranspiration Rate would dictate a higher rate of evaporation than Lemoore, we are actually looking at higher than 250,000 gallons per day of evaporation. Lemoore had 27 days over 100 degrees in 2020 with hottest temperature of 107 degrees. La Quinta had 143 days over 100 degrees in 2020. The first part of a new calculation can use 250,000 gallons a day times 143 hot days. This equals 36 million gallons lost to evaporation in 143 days. This does not account for an additional 222 days of the year. But considering we had 56 days over 110 degrees in 2020, it should be reasonable to expect that on the days over 110 degrees, evaporation should be higher than 250,000 gallons. Should we calculate that at 300,000 gallons? Especially considering our Eto is higher than Lemoore. What about the rest of the 222 days of the year? We had 51 days over 90 degrees as part of that 222 days. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐402 February 2022 The DEIR must use numbers that reflect actual wave pool evaporations and not outdated evaporation methods. It must include calculations based on known evaporations from wave pools. 2) The DEIR must account for the additional windy days which add to evaporation. Many sites on line provide ways to account for actual wind evaporation. This must be included. Response 84‐b: Please see Response 65‐d. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐403 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 85: Alena Callimanis 2 Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 85‐a: We have been told that there will be no “light pollution”. However, this picture was taken from 58th Street and shows the light impact from Bagdouma Park in Coachella, over five miles from the Coral Mountain site. Due to the nature of fine sand particles in the air in the Desert, light will always appear like this. And since the residents are significantly closer to Coral Mountain than Bagdouma Park we will have significant light pollution from the seventeen 80 feet light poles. By the way, the poles at the Park are only 60 feet height. So the light impact will be significant to the surrounding developments. Response 85‐a: Please see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1 of this Chapter. Please also see Response 51‐c, which provides a detailed explanation of how the proposed TLC for LED lighting system is substantially different from the older metal halide lights installed at Bagdouma Park. Please also see Appendix B.1 for a discussion of the LCD for LED lighting system features that provide effective illumination of the Wave Basin while preventing light spillage outside of the Wave Basin area, and Appendix B.2 for the results of the on‐site lighting lest conducted on November 17, 2021 and the resulting light contour exhibit that shows the contour line where light levels will be 0.01 foot candles or less (which is on‐site and within the immediate vicinity of the Wave Basin). Comment 85‐b: In addition, please also provide information on wind tunnel tests that have been performed on the lights to ensure that during our wind events, the poles will not snap or bend and cause injuries. Lisa Castro, the resident adjacent to the surf basin, has stated for the record to the City Council that Coral Mountain causes a wind tunnel effect in this area. She has recorded significant wind events and can provide that information if requested. Response 85‐b: The light poles and fixtures will be constructed in full compliance with the California Building Code wind load design requirements. The California Building Code has been adopted by the City of La Quinta with minor revisions to account for the specific climate in the Coachella Valley, including high wind events. Also see City of La Quinta Building Department, Building Code page (https://www.laquintaca.gov/business/design‐and‐development/building‐division/building‐codes), which identifies additional design criteria for buildings and other structures constructed in the City, 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐404 February 2022 including “Basic Wind Speed: 110 mph for Risk Category II Buildings and other structures (usually results in 85 mph for Allowable Stress Design); Exposure "C". Comment 85‐c: This comment displays the pictures Callimanis refers to in Comment 85‐a. Response 85‐c: Please see Response 85‐a. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐405 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 86: Alena Callimanis 3 Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 86‐a: A full study must be completed on this site due to the fact that the surf lagoon has a still water level that is as much as 9 ft (2.75 m) deep in the center. 9 ft of water weighs 562 pounds per square foot (psf), which is a very heavy load (a uniform freeway load is only 250 psf, as comparison). The load will fluctuate with the wave and will cause a dynamic loading. A geotechnical engineer needs to provide an analysis to determine the potential impact of this loading on the soil at this site. Response 86‐a: As stated on page 4.6‐17 of the Draft EIR, all on‐site water bodies will be lined, and slopes and shores will be stabilized to state and local standards and under the supervision of a structural engineer, to ensure liquefaction or infiltration will not occur at the Wave and water bodies onsite. As discussed in Response 86‐b, a Geotechnical Investigation was prepared for the project by Sladden Engineering to explore the subsurface conditions at the site to provide recommendations for foundation design and site preparation relative to the development of all the facilities and structures proposed as part of the project. Sladden conducted a field exploration program, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses to determine the potential for impacts relating to existing geology and soils conditions on the site and recommendations to avoid these potential impacts. Additionally, as also explained on page 4.6‐17 of the Draft EIR, the Wave Basin will incorporate the necessary structural concrete design features to address the pressure and drainage associated with the wave generation. In addition, Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 requires the Wave Basin designs to be prepared by a qualified engineer in compliance with all seismic requirements and to incorporate all recommendations of a qualified soils engineer. Finally, the proposed Wave Basin will be constructed to meet all engineering standards of the California Building Code in force at the time that building permits are secured. These measures will ensure that the loading of the soil at the site of the Wave Basin will not create any significant geotechnical effects. Comment 86‐b: The site is located in relatively close proximity of potentially active seismic faults and pressures due to seismic forces. The geotechnical engineer needs to address equivalent fluid pressure for lateral seismic forces at this site, and to be added to the geology and soils discussion. Meriwether has discussed that they recorded the Kelly Slater wave pool in Lemoore for seismic information and found no impact. This is not what is required here at the Wave Basin site in La Quinta. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐406 February 2022 An independent geotechnical engineer, who has not worked with Meriwether in the past and has been vetted by us, must provide the information requested above that is required to be included in the EIR due to this location, not Lemoore. Response 86‐b: A Geotechnical Investigation was prepared for the project by Sladden Engineering, in February 2019. The purpose of the Geotechnical Investigation is to explore the subsurface conditions at the site to provide recommendations for foundation design and site preparation relative to the development of the project. Sladden conducted a field exploration program, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. Specifically, the site characterizations consisted of the following tasks:  Site reconnaissance to assess the existing surface conditions on and adjacent to the site.  Drilling ten (10) exploratory boreholes to depths between approximately 21 and 51 feet bgs in order to characterize the subsurface soil conditions. Repres entative samples of the soil were classified in the field and retained for laboratory testing and engineering analyses.  Digging five exploratory trenches to depths of approximately five feet bgs in order to evaluate the subsurface conditions along previously identified vegetation linaments.  The performance of laboratory testing on selected samples to evaluate their engineering characteristics.  The review of available geologic literature and the discussion of potential geologic hazards.  The review of various geotechnical reports previously prepared for the project site.  The performance of engineering analyses to develop recommendations for foundation design and site preparation. With respect to the proximity of potentially active seismic faults, the results of Sladden Engineering’s analysis are stated on pages 4‐5 of the Geotechnical Report included as Appendix G to the Draft EIR. Sladden determined that while the southwestern United States “is a tectonically active” region, the project site is not located within any State of California or County of Riverside designated fault zone, and the nearest known potentially active fault is San Andreas – Coachella fault located approximately 13.9 Km from the project site. Consistent with the request in this comment, the Sladden report discusses the appropriate equivalent fluid weight to use in retaining wall design, and notes that seismic pressures must be considered in the design of retaining walls in excess of 6 feet (once wall he ights and configurations are finalized and designed). See Geotechnical Report at p. 11. The Geotechnical Report was prepared by an experienced and independent engineering firm that conducted a project‐site specific evaluation as described above, not based on data from the Lemoore wave basin. Sladden Engineering provided their professional expertise to determine best practices compliant with engineering standards and procedures to be implemented at the project site. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐407 February 2022 Based on the site‐specific investigation and analysis performed by Sladden Engineering, the Geotechnical Report and Draft EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO‐1 through GEO‐3, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking, seismic‐related ground failure, ground subsidence, collapsible soils, and corrosive soils would be less than significant (see Draft EIR, at pp. 4.6‐26 ‐ 4.6‐28). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐408 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 87: Alena Callimanis 4 Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 87‐a: Section 4.5 states that the project would be .19 percent of IID’s total estimated demand in 2031. We are not interested in the demand in 2031. We are interested in the demand when the Wave Park is operating 7AM to 10pm, 365 days a year, in 2023. Please provide information from IID that states that power will be available at that rate required for the wave machinery in 2023. In addition, with IID’s aggressive peak demand energy efficiency programs, we would like to see incorporated into the EIR that IID understands that the Wave Park’s peak hours of energy demand will be 6pm to 10pm, especially in the summer during our extreme heat and how IID and the Coral Mountain project plans to address that. Response 87‐a: As discussed on pages 4.5‐25 – 4.5‐28 of the Draft EIR, the project will be required to add a transformer to IID’s existing substation on Avenue 58, which according to IID’s comment letter on the NOP (See Draft EIR Appendix A), will need to be completed prior to the first electrical in‐service date for the project. With this additional infrastructure, IID will have adequate capacity to meet the project’s demand along with all other existing and planned future development. As it is doing with this project, IID requires all new projects to submit detailed loading calculations, panel sizes, and related information so that IID can complete the necessary studies and engineering work to determine each project’s infrastructure requirements that will need to be constructed before that project receives electrical service. In that way, IID is able to ensure that it is able to meet all existing and future electricity demands. Comment 87‐b: In addition, section 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, references greenhouse gas credits but bypasses the actual discussion of the significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions as the result of the huge amount of electricity that is required to be produced to generate waves by the Wave Pool machinery, from 7AM to 10PM, 365 days per year. We want a full accounting in the EIR of the greenhouse gas emissions, both from electrical power creation, and from the cement production required for the 16.7 acres Wave Basin. Response 87‐b: The operational energy source GHG emissions disclosed in Section 4.7 of the Draft EIR, tables 3‐4 through 3‐9 and in the underlying GHG Analysis Study include the factor of electricity use from Wave 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐409 February 2022 Basin operations. As shown in Table 4.7‐4, GHG emissions relating to energy used by the project during operations, including the Wave Basin, are projected to by 3,923.79 total MTCO2e per year (by comparison, mobile sources are projected to generate 6,602.23 MTCO2e per year). Phase 1 of the project construction, which includes the Wave Basin, is estimated to generate 2,171.3 total metric tons of CO2e over a 2‐year period (total project buildout is estimated at 12,438.51 total metric tons of CO2e over an 8 year period). The GHG Analysis is provided as Appendix I in the Draft EIR, and the appendices to the GHG Analysis contain the results of the GHG computer modeling for the different construction and operational components of the project’s total estimated GHG emissions. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐410 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 88: Alena Callimanis 5 Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 88‐a: With regards to the project noise levels, Section 4.11, we demand a noise evaluation to be conducted on the Coral Mountain site, in order to determine the actual noise impact of the project. There has been a significant amount of La Quinta City Council Public Hearing Comments on noise that is propagated currently throughout the communities that are around Coral Mountain, including hikers conversations, shooting noises from the Lake Cahuilla Police Shooting range, car noises, and numerous other examples. The Urban Crossroads Noise Memo, dated April 20, 2020, states that Coral Mountain is likely to absorb, rather than reflect noise. This is an Environmental Impact Report. A speculative comment like that has no place in the EIR. The new noise evaluation must be made directly on site so that the noise impact can be properly evaluated, both during the day and during the hours of 8pm to 10pm. There must be an independent sound advisor available during the study so that we are comfortable with the results. The importance of this cannot be brushed aside by an evaluation that is determined by computer simulations. Even though sensors were placed around the Coral Mountain site to record pre‐existing sound conditions, that cannot be used to predict the actual noise levels on site. Please inform me when this is scheduled so that we make sure an independent noise consultant will be able to join the analysis. Response 88‐a: Project‐related operational noise was thoroughly analyzed in Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR, based on technical studies provided by Urban Crossroads, Inc. As described in Responses 52‐h, 59‐e, and 62‐f, the noise impacts of all components of the project were analyzed in the Draft EIR at pages 4.11‐44 through 4.11‐49. As the comment relates to increases in noise versus the City’s noise standards, please see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 above, as well as Table 4.11‐26 in the Draft EIR, which shows that the project will not significantly increase ambient noise levels at any of the ten sensitive receptor locations in the immediate project area. As described in the Draft EIR, noise measurements were taken at ten off‐site locations, and identified current noise levels ranging from 43.8 dBA (at location L8/R8 at the existing homes on Avenue 60 approx. 38 feet from the project site) to 62.5 dBA (at location L2/R2 at the existing homes on the north side of Avenue 58). The analysis then goes on to apply all of the noise made by all of the land uses proposed for the project, and found, as shown in Table 4.11‐26, that noise levels will increase in those sensitive locations by between 0.0 and 4.9 dBA, and in no location does the addition of project noise increase 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐411 February 2022 noise levels above the City limit of 65.0 dBA or increase ambient noise levels by a significant amount. This method of analysis was completed by Urban Crossroads, a recognized expert traffic and noise engineering firm, using established noise modeling software consistent with protocols and used in analyzing noise impacts throughout California. Therefore, the noise analysis, and the Draft EIR correctly analyzed impacts on the project site, not in a hypothetical environment. The comment’s characterization of the Noise Memo is incorrect. On the issue of whether significant noise levels will be amplified by bouncing off Coral Mountain, the noise expert explained that based on Federal Highway Administration studies and guidance, if all noise striking a hard surface were reflected back to a given receiving point, the maximum increase in noise would be limited to 3dBA. However, not all acoustical energy is reflected back to the same point, and accordingly, FHWA measurements show that reflective noise increases do not exceed 1‐2 dBA, which is not perceptible to the human ear (see Urban Crossroads Memo dated 4/20/21, attached as Appendix K.2 to the DEIR). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐412 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 89: Alena Callimanis 6 Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 89‐a: I have significant concerns about the undercalculation of the use of chlorine at the Wave Basin. With our excessively high temperatures, the risk of warmer water means more chlorine demand. Both living and non‐living contaminants are more prevalent in warmer water. Algae, bacteria and brain‐ eating amoebas, for instance, are living contaminants that chlorine must kill. Warmer water means those microorganisms can reproduce more rapidly, therefore problems like algae and bacteria are more prevalent in the summertime. To kill any living organism, chlorine needs a certain amount of contact time (CT). Hotter days mean more non‐living organics in the water, like sunscreen and body oils. Between these organics and the living contaminants like algae and bacteria, warm water has a higher chlorine demand than cold water. For example, dosing at 5ppm/day, chlorine consumption could be 1,100lbs/day of 68% briquettes. This is a significant amount of chlorine that needs to be kept on site. What are the precautions that are being taken to safely house this significant amount of chlorine? To keep it cool? I am concerned that the filtration systems will not be able to circulate the water an adequate amount. In our excessive high temperatures, if full pool circulation through the filtering system takes significantly longer than once per day, there is a high risk of not properly removing all contaminants. This poses a danger to the health and safety of surfers and people in the pool. I would like to understand more fully in the EIR how the developer will address the chlorine and filtration required at the excessively hot water temperatures found here (pool temperatures have been between 93 and 97 degrees, with no cooling relief overnight). This is a big risk to the health and safety of all surfers/people in the water, that must be addressed. Response 89‐a: Please see Responses 52‐l and 65‐c for a detailed response to these concerns regarding the project’s disinfectant treatment of the water in the Wave Basin, the safe storage and use of the necessary chemicals, and the project’s compliance with the State and County health and safety requirements. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐413 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 90: Anast Demitt Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 90‐a: Following please find my response to the Draft EIR (the “DEIR”) for the Coral Mountain Resort (the “Project”). I anticipate that a number of other concerned residents will prepare responses commenting upon zoning, aesthetics, noise, and lighting so I will focus my response to two issues where analytic review can provide support to my comments. In general, my concerns lie in three areas that will be detailed further in my report. A short summation of these issues follows: ‐ MSA Consulting Inc. failed to disclose what I believe to be a conflict of interest in their engagement as prime consultant in the preparation of the DEIR which results in bias in the conclusions contained within the Draft EIR. ‐ The calculated water consumption determined by MSA Consulting Inc. did not take into consideration the City of La Quinta’s Maximum Applied Water Allowance for this project. The calculated outdoor water consumption is at 99.98% of the Ci ty of La Quinta’s legislated maximum consumption for this site leaving no additional capacity for emergency or maintenance use. ‐ The increased vehicular traffic loads will result in significant reductions in levels of service necessitating roadway and signalization upgrades for which the Project developer will only pay a small percentage of the associated costs. Response 90‐a: This introductory comment is noted. Please see the responses to Comments 90‐b through 90‐d below. Comment 90‐b: 1. MSA Consulting Inc’s Engagements I would like to commence this response by commenting on the DEIR prepared by MSA Consulting Inc. (“MSA”). During my reading of the Notice of Proposal in March of 2021, I reviewed a number of grading and site layout drawings for the project which had MSA’s logo on them leading me to understand that they had been prepared by MSA. Clearly MSA had been retained to act in the role of a civil engineering consultant by the developer several years ago and was engaged to act as the prime consultant in the preparation of the EIR. In my view, this is a serious conflict of interest which results the calling into question the credibility of the entire DEIR and any of the conclusions presented in the DEIR by MSA. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐414 February 2022 The National Society of Professional Engineers (“NSPE”) has issued a Code of Ethics that all practicing Professional Engineers are expected to understand and follow. MSA, in my opinion, has contravened the Code of Ethics by not addressing their retainer as the design engineer in the DEIR. Without this disclosure, readers of the report are given the impression that MSA is acting as a neutral independent party in preparing the DEIR for the lead Agency, The City of La Quinta. Following is Cannon 5 taken from the NSPE’s Code of Ethics and it states: 5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests. MSA is not a neutral party in the preparation of the DEIR as MSA has and may continue to receive financial gain as the civil engineering consultant for the Project in the event the Project receives regulatory approval. Without clear disclosure, the average reader of the DEIR will assume that MSA, acting in their professional capacity, is entirely neutral and that the conclusions they present are statements of fact and are not influenced by past or future financial gain. This undisclosed Conflict of Interest causes any conclusions made in the report to be called into question. Even the perception of a possible conflict of interest should be sufficient reason for MSA to include in the DEIR their prior engagement as the design engineer by the developer to ensure full disclosure is provided to all readers of the DEIR which is a public document issued through the city of La Quinta. Response 90‐b: The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for preparation of CEQA analysis and documentation. Lead Agency means the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agency will decide whether an EIR or Negative Declaration/Mitigated Negative Declaration will be required for the project and will cause the document to be prepared (Guidelines Section 15367). MSA Consultants, Inc. provides CEQA support for the City as an “On Call Consultant,” for the City. This list is available at the City of La Quinta. The City, consistent with many other cities in California, allows the preparation of environmental documents, subject to City peer review and approval. In this case, the City has reviewed, extensively commented upon, and eventually approved all of the technical studies prepared for the project, the Notice of Preparation, the Draft EIR, and this Final EIR. Furthermore, as stated in Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 369, “When an EIR is required, the lead agency is responsible for preparing it, but rather than preparing it using its own staff, the agency may enlist the initial drafting and analytical skills of the applicant’s consultant (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21082.1(a), 21100(a); [CEQA] Guidelines 15084(d)(3)), so long as the agency applies its ‘independent review and judgment to the work product before adopting and utilizing it . . . This methodology is common in California and the Guidelines affirmatively endorse [this approach].” Comment 90‐c: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐415 February 2022 2. Water Consumption and the Water Serving Agreement Appendix M to the DEIR is the Water Serving Agreement (“WSA”) between the Coachella Valley Water District (“CVWD”) and the developer of the project. The updated water demand was prepared by MSA and submitted to the CVWD in a letter dated September 28, 2020. The updated WSA indicates that the Project’s calculated outdoor water demand is 810.47 acre feet. I have reviewed the City of La Quinta’s Municipal Code with respect to the annual Maximum Applied Water Allowance (“MAWA”) for new developments. The Municipal Code defines MAWA as follows: “Maximum applied water allowance” means for design purposes, the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscaped area, as specified in Division 2, Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 7, Section 492. It is based upon the area’s reference evapotranspiration, the ET adjustment factor, and size of the landscaped area. The estimated applied water use shall not exceed the maximum applied water allowance. In the following comments, I refer to Article 8.13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and specifically, section 8.13.030. It is my understanding that MAWA applies to aggregate annual amount of water which is available for use by a project outside of the buildings. This procedure is consistent within the MAWA cacluations provided by CVWD in the WSA. The City of La Quinta’s MAWA calculation equation from section 8.13.030 of the Municipal Code is reproduced following: MAWA = (ETo X 0.45 X LA X 0.62) / 748 Inserting an Eto (reference evapotranspiration) of 75 inches per year which is specified by the City of La Quinta in Section 8.13.030 and an outdoor landscaped area of 12,656,401.56 square feet (taken from table 2.0‐3 of the WSA) into the referenced equation results in a MAWA for this site of 354,057.76 hundred cubic feet or 812.81 acre feet of water. The estimated outdoor consumption calculated my MSA of 810.47 acre feet is therefore 810.47/812.81 or 99.8% of MAWA. The total estimate consumption as determined by CVWD is for evapotranspiration only and does not include for extraordinary irrigation or for filling or refilling of the wave pool, swimming pools or the lakes and ponds located within the project. If the wave pool evaporation calculated by MSA is even marginally greater than what has been estimated, or, if maintenance requires the emptying and refilling of any of the ponds, pools, or surf/Wave Basin, then the project’s water consumption will exceed the legislated MAWA for the site. It is my understanding that a development cannot consume more water than that determined using the MAWA equation in the City of La Quinta Municipal Code specified MAWA. The NSPE Code of Ethics addresses the honesty of an engineer’s work as follows: 3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐416 February 2022 a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact. The important material fact that was not included in the MSA Report was that the estimated water consumption on this site is essentially already at MAWA without the demand for additional water in the event that evaporation or maintenance demands are higher than what was allowed for by MSA in their estimates. Response 90‐c: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for information on the MAWA estimate for the project. The MAWA reflects the maximum amount of outdoor water use that a proposed project may use under the CVWD and City of La Quinta Landscape Ordinances. This also ensures compliance with applicable state law restrictions on outdoor water use. As stated on page 23 of the WSA, project “landscaping may need to me modified to ensure that the entirety of the project is meeting the MAWA established in CVWD’s Landscape Ordinance or other applicable regulations.” Since the Wave Basin is being constructed in Phase 1 of the project, that means that if the Wave Basin uses more water than was allocated, landscape areas in other portions of the project will need to modify their landscaping to use less water so the project remains compliant with the Landscape Ordinance. Please note, however, that the WSA/WSV conservatively used the entire footprint of the Wave Basin to estimate water demand (815,443 square feet), rather than the actual water surface area (544,500 square feet), Which means the Wave Basin should actually use less water than estimated, not more as suggested in the comment. Please also see Response 65‐d. Comment 90‐d: 3. Traffic Changes caused by the Project Once the Tourist Commercial aspect of the Project is “up and running” there will be resulting traffic loads that will significantly impact our day to day lives as we know them. In my opinion, the traffic study included in the DEIR is flawed as it was conducted during COVID when many seasonal residents chose not to return to the valley. The base traffic volumes used in the analysis are therefore likely an underestimation of the actual volumes. The study shows that levels of service in some of the affected areas will be reduced to level F. The DEIR recommends that changes be implemented to reduce the impacts on the Level of service. The developer has stated that they will pay for “their proportional share”. The citizens of La Quinta are then stuck with the remainder of the costs, a very unreasonable expectation for citizens of La Quinta. Response 90‐d: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐417 February 2022 This comment is incorrect in its characterization of the analysis conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic. As stated on page 29 of the Traffic Impact Analysis a s well as Section 4.13, Transportation, in the Draft EIR, “the intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected on August 15th, 2017, April 9th, 2019, May 7th, 2019, and September 10, 2019. To ensure that these traffic counts reflect high‐season traffic levels, a 20% increase is applied to counts taken in August, 5% increase is applied to counts taken in April, and 10% increase is applied to counts taken in May, as required under City of La Quinta’s Traffic Study requirements (EB#06‐13). The average AM/PM peak hour intersection growth between 2017 and 2019 counts data at selected study area and nearby intersections is approximately 2.66%. The additional 2.66% growth rate was applied to the study area intersections with 2017 counts to reflect 2019 conditions.” Therefore, traffic counts were taken prior to COVID, and baseline numbers were properly adjusted to reflect peak season traffic conditions. As it relates to the concern that the roadway improvements will not be constructed in time to meet the cumulative demands of project traffic plus other cumulative traffic growth, this concern is unfounded. As stated on page 4.13‐29 through 4.13‐34 of the Draft EIR, all intersections impacted by Phase 1 and Phase 2 traffic will need signals or other improvements installed to operate at an acceptable level of service, with or without the project, and are funded by the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Accordingly, these improvements are fully funded by the CIP and will be installed as warranted. Please note that Phase 1 and Phase 2 traffic contributes a fair‐share of between 0.4% and 3% to these intersection improvements. The project’s payment of the City’s development impact fees covers its share of these intersection improvements and helps fund the City’s CIP. As described on pages 4.13‐37 – 4.13‐42, at buildout, the project will be required to install a signal at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 58 (project contributes 23% of traffic), and will contribute to the need for signals or other improvements at four additional intersections which are included in the City’s CIP and will be constructed by the City. The project’s fair share of the improvement costs at the affected intersections range from 2% to 11% and are fully funded through payment of the City’s development impact fees. Comment 90‐e: Additionally, the study finds that the so called “special events” will further increase the anticipated traffic loads on the existing transportation infrastructure. Once again, the burden for these traffic loads will be borne by the citizens of La Quinta with increased travel times, delays in commutes resulting in significant greenhouse gas emissions. The report does not address these environmental impacts on the quality of life for residents in the adjoining neighborhoods. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐418 February 2022 Response 90‐e: A maximum of four special events per year are proposed as part of the project description. As described in Draft EIR Section 4.13, Transportation, events will be restricted to 4 days duration with peak trips anticipated on Saturdays (up to 4 events per year). Staggered arrivals and departures will result in fewer trips on the three other days. Therefore, Saturdays were selected to illustrate the worst‐case traffic scenario. Improvement recommendations identified for weekend special event conditions are consistent with the improvements identified for Phase 3 weekday typical operations. Therefore, any event occurring prior to the build out of the project, and concurrent improvements, including traffic signal installations, would result in a significant impact on traffic operations. If project special events are held prior to the construction of Phase 3 improvements the following mitigation measures are included in the EIR to reduce the impacts to the regional traffic system (as provided in Mitigation Measures TRA‐9 and TRA‐10):  Traffic improvements will be completed or the applicant shall provide a focused traffic analysis with the Temporary Use Permit that identifies any improvements that are not necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at study intersections. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied.  A special event traffic and parking plan will be submitted with each Temporary Use Permit to ensure that special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. As required by Mitigation Measures TRA‐12 through TRA‐14 for large special event venues, traffic control typically includes special event flaggers, law enforcement personnel, online or transmitted event information (suggested routes, parking, etc.,) and portable changeable message signs (CMS) (or moveable mechanical electronic message boards.) CMS will be located at critical locations identified by the La Quinta Police Department (LQPD) and in place 5 days ahead of the event and 2 days after. Therefore, the Draft EIR correctly analyzed the traffic impacts associated with special events, found those impacts significant based on the City’s thresholds of significance (LOS D) for intersection operations, and provided feasible mitigation measures that will reduce these impacts to less that significant levels. Contrary to the comment’s assertion, GHG emissions associated with special events were disclosed and analyzed. As explained on pages 4.7‐19 and 4.7‐19 of Section 4.7 Greenhouse Gases, in order to ensure a worst‐case analysis of total GHG emissions for the project, total annual emissions for the project were calculated separately (as shown in Table 4.7‐3), and then total GHG emissions from the maximum 16 days of special events were calculated (see Table 4.7‐5), and the two totals were added together for the maximum annual GHG emissions for the project (See Tables 4.7‐7 and 4.7‐8). 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐419 February 2022 The annual GHG emissions associated with the operation of the proposed Project, is shown on Table 4.7‐8, after implementation of all feasible emission reduction measures as enforceable PDFs and Mitigation Measure GHG‐1. As shown in that Table, project ‐related GHG emissions are reduced to 3.62 MTCO2e per service population (SP) per year which is less than the applicable threshold of 3.65 MTCO2e per SP per year. The Draft EIR correctly found that feasible mitigation may not be possible, and identified GHG emission impacts as potentially significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure GHG‐1, which requires the developer to purchase a minimum of 72,000 MTCO2e of carbon credits from a CARB‐approved carbon registry, prior to any occupancy of the site, would offset the GHG emissions generated by the project. However, the purchase of these carbon credits would not change the actual GHG emissions levels of the project itself. Moreover, as the use of carbon credits as mitigation for GHG emissions has not been widely adopted in the Coachella Valley area for residential and resort community projects. Therefore, the Draft EIR considers impacts associated with GHG emissions to be a significant and unavoidable impact of the project to ensure disclosure of the worst‐ case scenario. Comment 90‐f: In closing, the DEIR for the Project appears to have been prepared by a consultant who is conflicted in their professional capacity without adequate disclosure of the conflict to readers of the report. Furthermore, the DEIR contains language that is repetitive, subjective and attempts to obfuscate the facts. Engineers are to prepare reports based on facts and not to include overly descriptive language or superlatives in an attempt to sway readers to a proponent’s proposal. This DEIR is short on objective facts and burdened with opinion and superlatives. In my view, the DEIR is in need of significant rewriting bearing in mind the obligations that Professional Engineers are required to adhere to in work that will be relied upon by City Officials and members of the public. Any conclusions presented in the current DEIR are therefore called into questions regarding their objectivity given the MSA’s prior engagement with the Project’s developer on this matter. I may be contacted at the number below with any questions that you may have. Response 90‐f: Please see Response 90‐b regarding the appropriateness of consulting environmental services; and Section 2.2.7 of the Topical Responses regarding the content of the EIR. As described in response to these comments and throughout this Final EIR, the analysis of impacts of the proposed project has been thoroughly conducted, all impacts have been identified, and all feasible mitigation measures applied. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐420 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 91: Mary Greening Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 91‐a: Thank you for the opportunity to provide commentary on the EIR for the Coral Mountain Wave Project. As 15 year homeowners at Andalusia CC, we have enjoyed the serenity of this part of La Quinta, and believe the proposed waterpark development is not in sync with other developments in the area. We support the following alternative considered for evaluation, in order of preference: ‐ Alternative 2 – No Project/Existing Entitlements ‐ Alternative 4 – The Golf/Resort Hotel ‐ Alternative 5 – The Lake Amenity/No Hotel ‐ Alternative 3 – Reduced Density If the project continues, we would like to voice the following issues/concerns: Response 91‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Responses to individual issues are provided below. With respect to the land use compatibility concerns raised, please see Responses 41‐c and 52‐f. Comment 91‐b: Visibility/Lighting: We are very concerned about the lights that will be visible from the top viewing levels of the hotel. A 4‐story structure is significantly above the predominantly single level only housing in the area, and the top of the building and its lights would be visible from adjacent neighborhoods. We are even more concerned about the 80’ proposed lights over the wave park. These towers would not only be visible from a distance, even unlight, but would also impact views of the mountain and the night sky. Response 91‐b: Please see the Topical Response on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1 of this Chapter for a summary of the analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the potential for significant light and glare impacts from the proposed pole lighting. In addition, please see the line‐of‐sight analysis contained on pages 4.1‐23 – 4.1‐45, including Exhibits 4.1‐4, 4.1‐6, 4.1‐8, 4.1‐10, and 4.1‐12, which show that the hotel will not be visible from the off‐site viewing locations due to topographical conditions and intervening perimeter walls, landscaping and low‐density residences. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐421 February 2022 Comment 91‐c: Noise This neighborhood is very quiet. We can hear the cars from the Thermal Club, which is much further away than the proposed project. Our concerns are: ‐ Traffic noise on Madison ‐ Noise from the filtering and heating system for the wave park (which we couldn’t find addressed in the EIR). The waterpark will need to be heated much of the year, and filtering will be constant ‐ Noise from the announcers ‐ Noise from spectators ‐ Noise from special events Response 91‐c: Section 4.11, Noise, of the Draft EIR includes analysis of the sources of noise identified in this comment. Traffic noise is addressed in Section 4.11 (see Tables 4.11‐19 and 4.11‐20, which show that the project will not cause a significant increase in traffic noise at any of the study area roadway segments). Noise from each of the operational noise sources listed in this comment are addressed on pages 4.11‐44 – 4.11‐4.11‐50 (see Tables 4.11‐25 and 4.11‐26, which show that all such operational noise sources, taken together, will not exceed the City’s 65 dBA noise standard at any off‐site location or cause a significant increase in ambient noise levels). Please also see Responses 52‐h, 59‐e and 62‐ f. Comment 91‐d: Traffic We believe there should be 2 main entrances into the development – one as proposed, which would serve only residents, and a second, which would be off Madison in the south end of Sec. II, which would serve the hotel, wave park, tourists. We are very concerned about the increased traffic levels, particularly during special events. We also do not want traffic light(s), now or in the future, on Madison at 58th, 60th, or in‐between Response 91‐d: Section 4.13, Transportation, in the Draft EIR includes analysis of the traffic that would be generated during the proposed special events (pages 4.13‐42 – 4.13‐47). As it relates to the commenter’s preference to not have traffic signals installed, the comment is noted. However, as described in the Draft EIR, a significant impact would occur at the intersections of Madison St./Avenue 58 and Madison St./Project entrance if traffic signals are not installed, and accordingly, the project will be required to 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐422 February 2022 install those signals when warranted. Only a stop sign controlled stop is required at Madison St./Avenue 60. With respect to project access, the commenter’s preferences are noted. Please see the circulation plan on Exhibit 3.9 for a full depiction of the project access points. Comment 91‐e: Hours of Operation The hours of operation should be reduced. We would propose an opening no earlier than 8 am, with a closure from October through February no later than 7 pm, and from March through September of 8 pm. With lights doused at the wavepark and on the viewing area of the hotel at these hours, there would be much less impact of lights on nearby communities. Response 91‐e: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Comment 91‐f: Special Events We would prefer no special events, but if they are to be allowed, we would propose that they never be held during any concert, art, or other main event at the polo grounds, and not during athletic events like the bike tour, triathlons, etc. Response 91‐f: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 91‐g: Operations during Wind Events Cancel operations if winds are > 20 mph or gusts > 25 mph. We have high gust rates in this area even when winds are in the 20’s due to the currents coming down the mountain. Response 91‐g: The commenter’s opinion is noted. However, the comment does not provide substantial evidence that wind events would impact the project site or project operations. Comment 91‐h: Border Wall and Landscaping 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐423 February 2022 A wall higher than normal would help reduce noise. Planting of large trees such as palms, tipuanas, etc. on the exterior and interior would reduce visibility of the hotel, lights, etc. Response 91‐h: The project proposes a 6‐foot perimeter wall surrounding the property, consistent with the Noise Study’s determination that it is required to mitigate on‐site noise levels from traffic on the perimeter arterial roadways (Mitigation Measure NOI‐5). Perimeter trees are also proposed along the northern and eastern property boundaries in areas adjacent to Avenue 58 and Madison Street. On the western project boundary, an 8‐foot high fence is proposed to serve as a barrier to ensure that bighorn sheep cannot access the project site. Comment 91‐i: Thank you. We look forward to receiving updates on the review and approval process. Please add us to your mailing list. Response 91‐i: This comment is noted. The City has added the commenter to the mailing list for all notices related to this proposed project. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐424 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 92: Carol Jensen Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 92‐a: It is with great dismay I begin this letter in response to the DEIR on the proposed Coral Mountain Resort. I really don't know where to begin. The DEIR is way too long for the La Quinta average citizen to read which I believe is by design. There are so very many things wrong about this project but when speaking specifically about the DEIR, I am seeing way too many statements of the impact in any given category being unknown or only being projected based on years old data. Response 92‐a: The commenter’s opinions are noted. Please see the Topical Response on the Length of the Draft EIR in Section 2.2.6 of this Chapter. Comment 92‐b: The drought situation alone should be enough to stop this project. Farmers will not have enough water to grow food in CA. This translates to hunger, unemployment, and a tanked economy. Why approve a project that will leave a hole in the ground when there is no water to be had? Will LQ residents need to conserve and thirst, not bathe, so we can have a recreational wave park? Response 92‐b: Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s ground water management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies. Comment 92‐c: Everything is wrong about this proposed project, everything. From water waste to increased noise to a horrendous number of STVRs, which are already a huge problem for La Quinta, this project cannot go forward. What about the 2035 La Quinta report, written and approved by the Mayor and Council, that states good use of valuable resources as a prime goal? This project would not comply with any good use of resources, especially water. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐425 February 2022 Response 92‐c: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see Response 52‐g as it relates to STVRs; and Responses 41‐c, 52‐f, and 83‐w through 83‐hh as it relates to the project’s consistency with the General Plan. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐426 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 93: Suzanne Kahn Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 93‐a: Please do not approve the Wave Park development. Increased use of water, increased traffic resulting in increased emissions will simply increase the stress on an environment that is already growing drier and hotter. Please plan for being responsible and sustainable in the long term. Response 93‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. This comment presents an opinion, however, and not substantial evidence that the project will result in substantially greater impacts than identified in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR discusses and analyzed project‐related water use in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, and traffic in Section 4.13, Transportation. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐427 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 94: Francine Roy Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 94‐a: I am making a correction to my letter. I erroneously referenced the IID... I meant the Coachella Valley Water District. Response 94‐a: The correction is noted. Comment 94‐b: I am writing this letter to you because I am in a state of shock.... Why would you even CONSIDER changing the current zoning to allow a project that goes against ALL COMMON SENSE? The residents who purchased homes near this project site BELIEVED that the "worst case scenario" they would ever have to deal with was what the current zoning allows: "LOW‐ DENSITY residential use, as well as a golf course and some commercial use." The proposed change to allow "tourist commercial" zoning violates the 2035 general plan for La Quinta. So, tell me, what was the point of spending all of the time, money and effort to come up with the 2035 general plan if you were going to be tempted to go against that plan when a project came along that dangled a couple of million dollars of tax revenue in front of you that doesn't make any sense on MANY levels! We all choose to live here because we enjoy the night sky, the quiet, the nature, the landscape, the small amount of traffic we have, etc. Response 94‐b: Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to the Change of Zone and processing of the project. Comment 94‐c: But, the reality of climate change is that we are all very concerned about how long we will have drinking water available to us. The IID has asked us all to conserve water and I know I am doing my share to USE LESS than their recommended amount. This wave park will require 18,000,000 gallons of DRINKING WATER JUST TO FILL IT UP. This does not include "topping it off" every day because of evaporation loss. This does not sound like "conserving water" to me. Response 94‐c: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐428 February 2022 Please see the Topical Response on Water Resources in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s ground water management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies, including during drought conditions. Please see Response 65‐d as it relates to evaporation rates. Comment 94‐d: Since I moved here, I have been reading about the issues with Short Term Rentals. This project is planning on making all 600 homes available as Short Term Rentals!!!! How can you justify allowing this? At the very least, 600 homes does not sound like "low density" to me! Response 94‐d: Please see Response 52‐g regarding STVRs. As the 600 homes are spread over approximately 353 acres in Planning Areas II and III, the density is approximately 1.7 units per acre, well below the maximum range allowed in the Low Density Residential land use designation. Comment 94‐e: What this beautiful parcel of land needs is a developer who wants to put in some beautiful energy efficient homes, some hiking and biking trails that we can all enjoy, maybe a beautiful park with drought tolerant natural landscaping (no golf course.... there are already too many golf courses that are using up water resources) and a small commercial area where there could be a market, a cafe, a restaurant, etc. for the residents that live in that part of La Quinta since it's a drive just to get groceries. Response 94‐e: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 94‐f: Please, please realize that this developer is "slick." He seems to have an answer for everything. The project doesn't make sense for our community nor do I think it even makes sense for him but that's a different discussion ... Last but not least, I'm very confident that the City of La Quinta would be "featured" on the CBS Evening News if this project is approved. I can hear it now ... "City of La Quinta approves a private wave park project in the midst of a historical drought and climate change!" Do we really need that kind of negative publicity??? I'd rather we be admired for spearheading energy‐efficient projects and protecting our decreasing natural resources. This is not the right place nor the right time for this project. Response 94‐f: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐429 February 2022 This comment is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐430 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 95: Carolyn Winnor Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 95‐a: My name is Carolyn Winnor and my husband and I have lived in Trilogy La Quinta, for 16 years. Moved to La Quinta after we retired to get away from the congestion of Los Angeles County, having lived in Santa Clarita for 24 years. I am strongly Opposed to the rezoning of Coral Mountain from low density residential to Tourist/Commercial. I have read portions of the DEIR and I believe the City needs to do additional research regarding the Lighting, Noise and Water Usage that a project of this magnitude requires. I am sure you are aware of the La Quinta General Plan 2035. Below are some excerpts from the plan and you may consider my opinions as NIMBY; not sure how they couldn’t be, when the developer wants to have the property rezoned to Tourist/Commercial in the middle of a Low Density Residential area. I understand the need for the City to look for additional tax dollars, but I think consideration is required on how this will affect your constituents and even you, if you lived in or near South East La Quinta. Response 95‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to the Zone Change and processing of the project. Please also see Responses 41‐c, 52‐f, and 83‐w through 83‐hh regarding consistency with the City’s 2035 General Plan. Comment 95‐b: The DEIR considers the items below: Significant and Unavoidable (Executive Summary Page 1‐15) Table 1‐3. These are admitted faults that cannot be addressed or mitigated. 4.1 Aesthetics 1. Adverse effect on scenic vistas 2. degradation to the visual character or quality of the site. 3. Light and Glare Response 95‐b: The summary provided in this comment is incorrect. Section 4.1, Aesthetics, addresses the project’s impacts on aesthetic resources. Within this Section, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impact to scenic vistas (i.e., Coral Mountain and Santa Rosa Mountains) when viewed 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐431 February 2022 from a public viewshed (CEQA threshold of significance a.). The Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project’s perimeter walls, landscaping and structures would result in significant impacts to these scenic vistas when viewed from public rights‐of‐ways. This is clearly stated at pages 4.1‐44 and 4.1‐ 45. Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR also concluded the project’s impact to light and glare, visual character, and scenic resources would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Comment 95‐c: La Quinta General Plan 2035 Land Use Zoning Consistency To assure consistency and compatibility between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance Table II‐2 shows the Zoning districts that correspond to each land use designation. Tourist Commercial This land use designation is specifically geared to tourism‐ related land uses, such as resort hotels, hotels and motels, and resort commercial development, such as conference centers, restaurants, resort‐supporting retail and services (including day spas and similar personal services). Time share, fractional ownership or similar projects may also be appropriate in this designation, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. For this project to be built on the land purchased by Meriwether it will need to be rezoned to Tourist Commercial. The developments surrounding this land are zoned Low Density Residential. Based on LQ 2035 Land Use, there is no consistency or compatibility between T/C & Low Density Residential. Response 95‐c: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a as they relate to the Zone Change and processing of the project. Please see Responses 41‐c, 52‐f and 83‐h concerning consistency with the City’s 2035 General Plan. Comment 95‐d: The lighting for this project is consistent with commercial property located on Highway 111. Lights left on during nighttime hours, height, in the Resort 25’, Wave Club 25’, Farm 40’ and Back of House 40’. The only lights currently addressed that will be on until 10 pm, are the 80’ Wave lights. The LQ Municipal Code for Lighting, pole height 8’. Is this consistent or compatible with Low Density Residential Property? NO. The DEIR considers, this is significant and unavoidable. Response 95‐d: Please also see the Light and Glare Topical Response in Section 2.2.1 of this Chapter. The proposed lighting will comply with Section 9.100.150 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (Outdoor Lighting), and no significant impacts will occur to the surrounding residential communities (see Draft EIR at pp. 4.1‐ 60 – 4.1‐61). Comment 95‐e: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐432 February 2022 The Resort 4 stories at 40’, Wave platform 4 stories at 45’, Wave Club 3 stories at 40’ E &.W Resort Residential 3 stories at 30’, Farm 3 stories at 40’ and Back of House 2 stories at 30’. The LQ Municipal Code 2 stories at 28’. Is this consistent or compatible with Low Density Residential Property? NO. The DEIR considers, this is significant and unavoidable. Response 95‐e: The commenter’s opinions regarding land use compatibility of the proposed tourist commercial uses are noted. Please see Responses 41‐c, 52‐f, and 83‐w through 83‐hh regarding these compatibility concerns. Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR provides analysis of the consistency of the project with the existing visual character of the area on pages 4.1‐53 through 4.1‐57, and concludes that the proposed building heights, pole heights, and lot coverage proposed for the Tourist Commercial planning area are not fully consistent with the City’s established Municipal Code development standards. However, “the building and lighting height standards allowed under the proposed Specific Plan are located at the center of the site, and will neither be visible from outside the project, nor impact the viewsheds surrounding the project.” The building heights proposed exceed the maximum building heights established in the La Quinta Municipal Code for Low Density Residential zones. However, the submittal of the project Specific Plan establishes new developmental standards for the project site. If approved, the Specific Plan acts as the guide for the project site. Please also see the land use consistency analysis on pages 4.10‐24 through 4.10‐29. Based on this thorough analysis of land use compatibility issues, impacts were determined to be less than significant. Comment 95‐f: Noise – The DEIR used the dBA recorded at the Kelly Slater Le Moore Wave Pool, not on the proposed property, next to Coral Mountain. The DEIR states the surface of Coral Mountain is soft and sound will not travel (totally erroneous). I live in Trilogy, La Quinta and I can hear gun shots from the shooting range near Lake Cahuilla. On Sunday mornings I can hear the cars on the track at the Thermal Race Track. Sound carries in the desert and especially during the evenings and at night. I believe the City needs to address how the sound will carry near Coral Mountain. Not just the sounds that make the Wave, but record the dBa of jet skis, music at the volume they plan on using, any announcements from loud speakers, etc. I have watched many videos of Wave Poo ls and they put music on the videos, or voice overs, people making commentaries but NEVER do you hear the actual sounds at the Wave Pool and its surroundings. Why? Appendix K.2 Noise Memo Report Urban Crossroads See Page 76 Table 10‐1 Reference Noise Level Measurements. Please read where and when these noise levels were measured. Why hasn’t the noise levels been measured on the proposed site? Noise Level Chart: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐433 February 2022 4/13/2020 Surf Ranch Lemoore, Ca 3/16/2005 Westin Hotel Rancho Mirage, CA 10/8/2014 Founder’s Park in County of Orange 4/18/2018 Ramon Commercial Center See Page. 93‐94 9.100.210 La Quinta Municipal Code Non Residential Noise Regulations The quiet low density residential neighborhoods, will now have to live with NON Residential Noise standards? Response 95‐f: Please see the Noise Topical Response in Section 2.2.4 of this Chapter as it relates to the City’s noise standards. Also see Responses 52‐h, 59‐e, and 62‐f as it relates to the analysis methodology used for the site‐specific noise modeling, including the uses and machinery factored into the analysis. Comment 95‐g: Water Usage ‐ I believe the evaporation of water needs to be addressed by the City, so we will actually know the water consumption of the Wave. The developer claims Los Angeles is only 2 hours from La Quinta, who then will be coming to La Quinta during the summer months where the temperature ranges from 110‐120 degrees and the lows are between 85‐95 degrees at night? Individuals can go surfing at the beach with water and air temperatures between 65‐70, actually closer than 2 hours from Los Angeles. Response 95‐g: Please see the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3 of this Chapter for information on the water demand estimate for the project, and CVWD’s groundwater management plan, including projections for long‐term water demand and supplies. Also see Response 65‐d as it related to summer temperatures and water use. Comment 95‐h: What happens if the fad of the Wave is over in 3 to 5 years or financially without summer usage the Wave fails? What is La Quinta and the residents of South East La Quinta left with? Who will be responsible to rehab the land? If this project goes forward, it will forever change South La Quinta from a quiet residential area to a bustling Tourist area, with lights 25’ to 80’ tall, unnecessary water usage, additional traffic, 600 STVR, 150 Hotel Rooms, noise (Jet skis, music, loudspeakers and alarms) 24/7/365 days a year, not to minion a minimum of 4 Special Events, did I say additional traffic? Response 95‐h: The commenter’s opinions are noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐434 February 2022 Comment 95‐i: Please listen to the Residents that will be forced to live in this constant festival like environment and say NO to rezoning the property to Tourist/Commercial. Response 95‐i: This comment is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐435 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 96: Brian and Gale Levy Date: August 5, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 96‐a: This email is from Brian and Gail Levy ‐ we live in Trilogy at Avenue 60 & Madison. We retired to live here in 2014 to enjoy the beautiful, quiet, and peaceful La Quinta neighborhood in and about Trilogy. We previously spent many years as part‐time Palm Springs vacationers, and have owned property there since 1979. Having spent decades vacationing in and about Palm Springs, we decided to retire to live in our beautiful and quiet La Quinta neighborhood. We are vehemently opposed to the proposed wave park for a number of reasons, which are summarized below: Response 96‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Comment 96‐b: 1: We are living in a critical drought situation while experiencing increasing wildfires. Water for firefighting and sustaining life is in an increasingly short supply. We believe that building a wave park during an increasing water shortage while experiencing increasing wildfires is irresponsible and self‐ serving to the financial interests of a few, rather than the greater good of the La Quinta community; Response 96‐b: As described in the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3, CVWD, the water provider for the City and the project site, has thoroughly and comprehensively researched and documented projected long‐term water demand and supply, including the effects of drought and climate change, in its Urban Water Management Plan and Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan. As described above, CVWD’s documentation shows that both short‐term and long‐term impacts of drought and climate change have been assessed, and that the management techniques, water supplementation measures and other strategies implemented by CVWD and its sister agencies within the Subbasin will assure a balanced and positive long term water supply. In addition, CVWD approved a project‐specific Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV), which disclosed that the project is expected to cons ume approximately 958.63‐acre feet per year (AFY) based on the residential indoor demand, non‐residential indoor demand, and outdoor demands of the project at buildout. Taking into account the project water demands and the available sources of water, as well as the required water conserving measures described on page 4.15‐16 of the Draft EIR, CVWD determined that there are adequate water supplies available for the project and 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐436 February 2022 all other existing and planned future uses, including during single‐dry and multiple‐dry years. See Appendix M to the Draft EIR. The project’s water use is not expected to have any effects on the ability to fight wildfires locally, regionally, or elsewhere in the State of California, because (1) CVWD has confirmed that it has adequate water supplies for the project and all other current and planned future uses, including for local firefighting purposes (which is one aspect of water system demands evaluated by CVWD), and (2) because groundwater from the Indio Subbasin is not a significant source of water for fighting wildfires in California. Comment 96‐c: 2: We believe that the additional noise and added traffic will negatively impact our residential neighborhood forever. Can our neighborhood tolerate more traffic and noise? Maybe. Is additional traffic and noise from a commercial resort within our residential community a good idea? NO. Residents frequently walk and bike ride on Madison between Avenue 60 and the fire department. More traffic from the proposed commercial wave park is not a good idea for this residential neighborhood. Further, the proposed size of this wave park in this specific mountain location is unlike any other in existence, and as a result, reliable and predictable noise patterns hypothecated in the pending DEIR are extremely speculative and therefore unreliable. The DEIR in and of itself was not well written, and the assumptions utilized were not clearly spelled out; Response 96‐c: The commenter’s opinions regarding additional noise and traffic, are noted, but not supported by substantial evidence. The project’s potential impacts relating to increased noise were thoroughly analyzed in the project‐specific noise study attached as Appendices K.1 and K.2 to the Draft EIR, which was prepared by a professional noise engineer using established state and local methodologies to evaluate whether project would cause any significant effects relating to construction noise, traffic noise, or project operational noise. As explained in the Noise Study and Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR, the noise study took into account both the surrounding geography of the project site and the actual noise levels that will be generated by the proposed Wave Basin. With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI‐1 through NOI‐6, the project will not create any significant increases in noise. Please also see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 above, and Responses 52‐h, 59‐e, and 62‐f in this Final EIR. Regarding traffic, Section 4.13, Transportation, of the Draft EIR fully analyzes project‐related traffic impacts of the proposed project and provides mitigation measures that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. These findings were generated based on technical studies performed by professional traffic engineers, which are included as Appendix L.1 and L.2 in the Draft EIR. Please also refer to the Topical Response on Traffic at Section 2.2.5 above. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐437 February 2022 With respect to pedestrian and bicycle safety on Madison Street, north of Avenue 60, the project will be required to install a perimeter trail and landscaping that will significantly enhance pedestrian safety along that segment of Madison Street. In addition, the project will be required to install roadway improvements to City standards along this portion of the project frontage, which will enhance bicycle safety. Comment 96‐d: 3: What if the developers are wrong, and the wave park is not a financial success? What if the project cannot be financially sustained long term, and the wave park shuts down? What then? What will be left behind will be a blight on our community, and a regretful legacy for this city who valued proposed additional revenue over quality of life for its residents; 4: When we purchased our home in Trilogy, we intended to spend our retirement living in this community and enjoying the many benefits that our La Quinta neighborhood has to offer. The approval of the commercial wave park project will be a permanent change to our residential neighborhood and signal to us that we should no longer continue to live in La Quinta because La Quinta no longer values the quality of our lives and this neighborhood. It is our belief that the only good that can come from the commercial wave park will be the potential financial gain for the developers and investors. This may be a good commercial project for the investors, but this residential neighborhood is the wrong location for a commercial development such as this wave park. Response 96‐d: The commenter’s opinions regarding the project’s potential economic benefits are noted. This comment addresses the economic characteristics of the project and does not address any potential impacts of the project on the environment. Section 15131 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines precludes the analysis of economic effects unless that economic effect would have a physical impact on the environment. This comment does not provide any information or evidence on how the long‐ term economic viability of the proposed Wave Basin could result in physical changes that would constitute significant environmental impacts. Additionally, the project promotes the quality of life for all residents of the City by providing needed sales and transient occupancy tax revenues to the City to fund police, fire and other public facilities, which is particularly important in this portion of the City because the City will not receive property tax revenue from the land in this area until 2035, as further described in Response 52‐e above. Comment 96‐e: Given the variables, the misuse of our precious water resources, and the high financial risks associated with putting this commercial development in our residential neighborhood, when you consider this proposal, please ask yourselves the following questions: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐438 February 2022 What is the legacy that I want to leave for this community? What is the downside to the community if the project is approved, goes forward, and then fails to pan out financially? Does this project represent a wise use and conservation of our dwindling water resources? Is the high risk associated with this venture worth taking for the city and for the La Quinta residents affected by this proposed commercial project in a residential neighborhood? Thank you for your consideration. Response 96‐e: The commenter’s questions are noted, but do not address environmental issues. As it relates to the processing of the project applications and the City Council’s consideration of policy issues, please see responses 15‐d and 17‐a above. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐439 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 97: Nancy Bruce Date: August 6, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 97‐a: I am writing in response to the Draft EIR for the Coral Mountain Resort development. I have owned a home in La Quinta for 20 years. When my husband and I first built a home in La Quinta I loved that the city motto was “Gem of the Desert” and “Growth with Charm”. You don’t see the “Growth with Charm” anymore and this development certainly flies in the face of that motto! I have many concerns about the development but I think it must be said that this DEIR was so long, convoluted and hard to understand it was almost unreadable. Response 97‐a: The commenter’s opinion is noted. Regarding the commenter’s opinion on the DEIR being long, convoluted and hard to understand, please see Topical Responses on Length of Draft EIR and Ability to Comprehend the Draft EIR in Sections 2.2.6 and 2.2.7 above. Comment 97‐b: The fact that the entire report was hired and paid for by the developer also presents huge concerns to its validity. Response 97‐b: Regarding the report’s validity, the City of LA Quinta is the lead agency who is responsible for exercising its independent judgment in determining the adequacy of the EIR and in deciding whether to approve a proposed project. Prior to public release, both the Draft EIR and this Final EIR were thoroughly reviewed, extensively commented upon, and ultimately approved by the City. As expressly permitted in the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was prepared by MSA Consultants, Inc., who are on the City’s list of approved CEQA consultants. Please also see Response No. 90‐b. Comment 97‐c: Another concern is that most of the study was completed during COVID which certainly affects the traffic study and noise to some degree. Here are my concerns: Response 97‐c: As stated on page 29 of the Traffic Impact Analysis included as Appendix L.1 in the Draft EIR, the supplemental memo from Urban Crossroads included as Appendix L.3 in this Final EIR, and page 4.13‐ 10 in Section 4.13, Transportation, in the Draft EIR, “the intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected on August 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐440 February 2022 15th, 2017, April 9th, 2019, May 7th, 2019, and September 10, 2019 (which were all collected before the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic). Moreover, these counts were adjusted upward in accordance with the City’s Engineering Bulletin # 06‐13 to reflect peak season conditions.” Therefore, traffic counts were taken prior to COVID, and baseline numbers reflect peak season levels. Additionally, as stated on page 4.11‐2 of Section 4.11, Noise, noise measurements were taken by the noise technical expert on October 16th, 2019. Thus, noise measurements were taken prior to COVID, and the noise analysis reflects peak season levels. Comment 97‐d: Lighting – Seventeen 80 foot tall lights surrounding the wave pool will certainly have an effect on everyone living around this development. Most homes in the neighborhood with mountain views look towards Coral mountain. What they will see in the future is light poles during the day and light glow at night. What happened to the Dark Sky ordinance? Well, the City Council voted to remove the Dark Skies ordinance from the Municipal Code in May, 2021. How convenient! Yet the people living here say that the night skies are precious part of their community. Ads on the internet extolling La Quinta’s many virtues talk about the Dark Sky ordinance. So much for all the people who live here and visitors too! Response 97‐d: Please see Topical Responses on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1 above, as well as Appendices B.1 and B.2 of this Final EIR for a summary of the analysis in the EIR regarding the potential for significant light and glare impacts from the proposed Wave Basin lighting, including how the proposed lighting system fully complies with all applicable dark sky requirements. Please also see Responses 13‐r and 52‐i in this Final EIR. Comment 97‐e: Noise – The noise study found no issues with noise whether it be construction or the operation of the Wave pool. They studied the noise of traffic (during COVID) and did theoretical studies of other aspects of the operation. One of their conclusions was that sound would be absorbed by rock. Really? Since when does rock absorb sound? And if it did, why can I hear hikers near Coral Mountain when I’m standing on the corner of 58th and Madison? Theoretical studies don’t replicate reality and this area needs real world study. Response 97‐e: The commenter’s opinions regarding noise are noted, but not sup ported by substantial evidence. The Noise Memo provided by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Appendix K.2 of the Draft EIR) addressed the concern regarding noise of the project echoing off of Coral Mountain. The noise engineer explained that based on Federal Highway Administration guidance and studies, noise bouncing off a hard 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐441 February 2022 surface can cause noise increases of no more than 1‐2 dBA, which is not perceptible to the human ear. Further, given the distance between the Wave Basin and Coral Mountain (approximately 650 feet), the soft surfaces over that distance that absorb sound, and the maximum, worst‐case noise levels generated at the Wave Basin (75.7 dBA), the Wave Basin will not cause significant noise levels or noise impacts at Coral Mountain or in the surrounding communities. Again, as explained in Topical Response 2.2.4 and Section 4.?, Noise of the Draft EIR, the noise levels will not exceed the City’s standards, and impacts were correctly determined to be less than significant. Please also see Responses 52‐h, 59‐e and 62‐f of this Final EIR. See Response 97‐c to address the commenter’s concern about the timing of the reports and COVID. Comment 97‐f: Traffic – As mentioned before the studies were done during COVID. In my development (Puerta Azul) none of the Canadians made it to La Quinta in the winter of 2020 which is a significant number of owners. The rate of COVID in early winter was also very high ke eping some homeowners from coming as well as visitors. I heard a presentation from the developer admitting that the study may not reflect non COVID traffic amounts but if there are stop lights needed they would help pay for them. For a light at 58th and Madison, which I can’t see NOT having, they would contribute 10%. If that is correct then the homeowners living around this PRIVATE development end up paying for a light that wouldn’t have been needed. How in the world is that fair?! This development is in a land locked area with very few roads to get people to it. Response 97‐f: See Response 97‐c to address the commenter’s concern about the timing of the reports and COVID. As it relates to the concern of roadway improvements and the implementation of traffic signals, this concern is unfounded. As described on pages 4.13‐37 – 4.13‐42 of the Draft EIR, at buildout, the project will be required to install a signal at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 58 (the project contributes 23% of the traffic). Existing residents will not be asked to provide any funding for this traffic signal. As stated on page 4.13‐41, the funding will come from the Developer, who will be required to install the traffic signal, with the potential to receive credit against the Developer’s payment of impact fees for the costs that exceed the Developer’s fair share obligation. Moreover, as stated on page 4.13‐29 through 4.13‐34 of the Draft EIR, all intersections impacted by Phase 1 and Phase 2 traffic will need signals or other improvements installed to operate at an acceptable level of service, with or without the project, and are funded by the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Accordingly, these improvements are fully funded by the CIP and will be installed as warranted. Please note that Phase 1 and Phase 2 traffic contributes a fair‐share of between 0.4% and 3% to these intersection improvements. At buildout, the Project will also contribute to the need for signals or other improvements at four additional intersections, which are 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐442 February 2022 also included in the City’s CIP and will be constructed by the City. The project’s fair share of the improvement costs at the affected intersections range from 2% to 11%. The project’s payment of the City’s development impact fees covers its share of these intersection improvements and helps fund the City’s CIP. Please also see the Topical Response on Traffic at Section 2.2.5 and Response 22‐j above. Comment 97‐g: Someone needs to really look at what will happen with traffic especially with planned events of 2500 people. I can think of the traffic jams from the PGA concerts a couple of years ago as perfect examples of what happens when thousands of people try to squeeze into an area with few roads. If this were to happen on Madison thousands of people would be unable to leave their developments. Any emergency vehicle would have trouble reaching any destination on that route. This needs serious attention. Response 97‐g: A maximum of four special events per year are proposed for the project, with a maximum attendance of 2,500 per event. By way of comparison, it is estimated that approximately 25,000 people attended the Stevie Nicks concert during the American Express Golf Tournament at PGA West in 2020 (See New Traffic Patterns, More Exits Part of Plan to Fix American Express Concert Traffic, The Desert Sun, by Larry Bohannan, published January 11, 2022). As described in Draft EIR Section 4.13, Transportation, events will be restricted to 4 days duration with peak trips anticipated on Saturdays (up to 4 events per year). Improvement recommendations identified for weekend special event conditions are consistent with the improvements identified for Phase 3 weekday typical operations. However, any event occurring prior to the build out of the project, and its concurrent traffic improvement requirements, would result in a significant impact on traffic operations. Therefore, if project special events are held prior to the construction of Phase 3 improvements, the following mitigation measures identified in the EIR are required to reduce the impacts to the regional traffic system (as provided in Mitigation Measures TRA‐9 and TRA‐10):  Traffic improvements will be completed or the applicant shall provide a focused traffic analysis with the Temporary Use Permit that identifies any improvements that are not necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at study intersections. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied.  A special event traffic and parking plan will be submitted with each Temporary Use Permit to ensure that special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐443 February 2022 As required by Mitigation Measures TRA‐12 through TRA‐14 for special events, traffic control typically includes special event flaggers, law enforcement personnel, online or transmitted event information (suggested routes, parking, etc.,) and portable changeable message signs (CMS) (or moveable mechanical electronic message boards.) CMS will be located at critical locations identified by the La Quinta Police Department (LQPD) and in place 5 days ahead of the event and 2 days after. Therefore, the Draft EIR correctly analyzed the traffic impacts associated with special events, found those impacts significant based on the City’s thresholds of significance (LOS D) for intersection operations, and provided feasible mitigation measures that will reduce these impacts to less that significant levels. The Draft EIR analyzes project‐related impacts to traffic in compliance with CEQA. This topic is discussed in Section 4.13, Transportation, in the Draft EIR. Please also see the Topical Response on Traffic at Section 2.2.5, above, and Response 52‐‐n. Comment 97‐h: Water – We are in a serious drought. The entire west coast and beyond is suffering in ways no one anticipated happening for many years because of Global Warming. The water numbers in the DEIR are calculated using information from the Lemoore surf park. The climate there is different from La Quinta, we have many more and hotter days, the proposed pool is bigger than Lemoore (more area to evaporate) yet no one attempted to extrapolate what that would mean for water consumption. I heard an engineer at the City Council this week say that the development was at 99% of their total water allotment. That’s not much of a cushion! What happens if they need more water? And let’s be clear: this is drinking water! Someone needs to look at this carefully. Response 97‐h: As described in the Water Resources Topical Response in Section 2.2.3, CVWD, the water provider for the City and the project site, has thoroughly and comprehensively researched and documented projected long‐term water demand and supply, including the effects of drought and climate change, in its Urban Water Management Plan and Indio Subbasin Water Management Plan. As described above, CVWD’s documentation shows that both short‐term and long‐term impacts of drought and climate change have been assessed, and that the management techniques, water supplementation measures and other strategies implemented by CVWD and its sister agencies within the Subbasin will assure a balanced and positive long term water supply. In addition, CVWD approved a project‐specific Water Supply Assessment/Water Supply Verification (WSA/WSV), which disclosed that the project is expected to cons ume approximately 958.63‐acre feet per year (AFY) based on the residential indoor demand, non‐residential indoor demand, and outdoor demands of the project at buildout. Taking into account the project water demands and the available sources of water, as well as the required water conserving measures described on page 4.15‐16 of the Draft EIR, CVWD determined that there are adequate water supplies available for the project and 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐444 February 2022 all other existing and planned future uses, including during single‐dry and multiple‐dry years. See Appendix M to the Draft EIR. CVWD enforces these water limits when it reviews the landscaping plans for each portion of the project, and CVWD will only approve plans that are consistent with the water use limits set forth in Landscape Ordinance No. 1302.4. With respect to the source of water for the project, the Wave Basin is projected to use approximately 119.58 AFY, or approximately 12.5 % of the project’s total demand, and is expected to use private well water or other non‐potable water, rather than water from CVWD’s potable system as stated in the comment. Moreover, the project landscaping and other outdoor water use, which constitutes approximately 681.89 AFY of the project’s total 958.63 AFY (71%), is expected to use non‐potable water from the nearby canal or from private wells, not from CVWD’s potable water system. These are the same water sources used for the golf courses and outdoor landscaping at the other developments in the area. The project will also be required to determine the feasibility of using recycled water for these outdoor uses if it becomes available to the area in the future. Finally, please see Response 65‐d for a further response regarding the projected water use and evaporation rates of the Wave Basin. Comment 97‐i: Bats – No one mentions the bats when they talk about this project but the bat study in the DEIR says that night time light is the biggest concern for the multiple b at species living on and near the proposed development site. Light disrupts feeding, roosting, maternity and raising of the young. The study recommends that all lighting be “dark sky compliant”. Does La Quinta care about this anymore since they removed Dark Sky from Municipal Code? And how compliant can the custom 80 foot lights be? At that height they will disrupt any creature flying anywhere near the wave pool. What mitigation can be made for bats, a protected species? Is there really any reason people need to surf at night? You certainly can’t do that at the beach, why should this be any different? Response 97‐i: Please see Topical Responses on Light and Glare, in Section 2.2.1, and Biological Resources, in Section 2.2.2, above. As shown in the exhibit on page 2‐10 of this Final EIR, the light levels from the Wave Basin lighting system will drop to the imperceptible level of 0.01 foot candles within the immediate vicinity of the Wave Basin itself, and will not cause any light spillage onto Coral Mountain. Please also see Appendices B.1 and B.2 of this Final EIR, as well as Response 13‐r, which discusses h ow Mitigation Measure BIO‐4 will avoid any impacts to bats by prohibiting any light trespass onto Coral Mountain, which must be confirmed with a supplemental light study following installation of the Wave Basin lighting system. Comment 97‐j: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐445 February 2022 Zoning – I realize that zoning isn’t part of the DEIR but it must be addressed. What homeowner buys a house where they’re researched all things that could impact that important, expensive decision, only to have something like this happen? How can a homeowner trust their Mayor and City council to look out for their best interests when a developer comes along with a proposal to change a swath of land located in the middle of a number of neighborhoods zoned low density, residential to Commercial, tourist? I don’t see another area in La Quinta that is as quiet and residential as this area. It defies logic why this would be the place to build something like what is proposed and to allow a zoning change along with it. Response 97‐j: A General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone have been requested to allow the Wave Basin and other tourist commercial uses on a portion of the project site because these uses are not presently allowed on the project site. These are policy decisions for the City Council. As it relates to the processing of the project applications, please see Responses 15‐d and 17‐a of this Final EIR. The proposed General Plan Amendment and zone change are analyzed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR, which concluded that the land use and zone changes proposed for the project would result in less than significant impacts, in part because the proposed tourist commercial uses are located in the interior of the project site, surrounded by low‐density residential uses, perimeter walls and landscaping, consistent with the surrounding communities. Comment 97‐k: I appreciate the time you’ve taken to read my concerns. I hope that all parties involved in the decision making will take the time to study the issues, be open minded and see that this development belongs in another area. Response 97‐k: This comment is noted. 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐446 February 2022 Comment Letter No. 98: Dennis and Jackie Miller Date: August 5, 2021 Affiliation: Area Resident Comment 98‐a: We are 10 year homeowners at Andalusia at Coral Mountain. We enjoy the quiet environment the southern La Quinta border provides. We are proponents of property rights but wonder if the wave park is consistent with development of this area of La Quinta. Alternative uses for the property are well defined in the EIR. We support alternatives (in descending order of preference): • Alternative #4 Golf/Resort Hotel • Alternative #2 No project / Existing Entitlements • Alternative #3 Reduced density Additional areas of concern are: Response 98‐a: The commenter’s opinions and preferences concerning the project alternatives are noted. Responses to individual issues are provided below. Comment 98‐b:  Traffic – We are concerned event related traffic will overload the corridor resulting in gridlock. The 4 way stop at Madison and 58th will be overwhelmed during events. The memory of Ironman I’s paralyzing of La Quinta streets is still fresh. Additional access to the property would provide additional ingress/egress on alternatives to Madison alone. Response 98‐b: The comment is noted. Please see Response 97‐g above, which addresses the special events and the associated traffic. As explained therein, the project is required to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 58. Please also refer to Topical Response 2.2.5, Traffic, and Response No. 52‐n above. Comment 98‐c:  Noise – The area is a quiet, serene neighborhood. We are concerned about noise from equipment required to heat, treat the pool in addition to the wave making machinery. Response 98‐c: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐447 February 2022 The project’s potential impacts relating to increased noise were thoroughly analyzed in the project‐ specific noise study attached as Appendices K.1 and K.2 to the Draft EIR, which was prepared by a professional noise engineer using established state and local methodologies to evaluate whether project would cause any significant effects relating to construction noise, traffic noise, or project operational noise. As explained in the Noise Study and Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR, the noise study took into account the actual noise levels that will be generated by the proposed Wave Basin and the equipment associated with it. With implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI‐1 through NOI‐6, the project will not create any significant increases in noise. Please also see the Topical Response on Noise in Section 2.2.4 above, and Responses 52‐h, 59‐e, and 62‐f in this Final EIR. Comment 98‐d:  Lighting – 17 80’ towers will create a “ball park” type of illumination immediately adjacent to the beautiful mountains. We understand the desire for specific light angles but ask consideration be given to lighting standards of 30’ or less to reduce the lighting glare. Response 98‐d: Please see Topical Responses on Light and Glare in Section 2.2.1 above, as well as Appendices B.1 and B.2 of this Final EIR for a summary of the light and glare analysis in the EIR and the conclusion that the project will not cause any significant light and glare impacts. Please also see Responses 51‐c and 52‐i in this Final EIR. The Musco Total Lighting Control (TLC) for LED technology lighting system proposed for the Wave Basin is a state‐of‐the‐art lighting syst em that effectively lights the Wave Basin itself without creating light and glare impacts on surrounding properties. The TLC for LED system uses optimized height, directional lighting, and full cut‐off visors to minimize light overspill outside of the Wave Basin area. As explained in Appendix B.1, at pp. 2‐3, the 80‐foot height of the fixtures optimizes the angle of the lighting and the cut‐off visors, thus minimizing any light spillage outside of the area intended to be illuminated (here the Weave Basin itself). In addition, the exhibit on page 2‐7 of this Final EIR illustrates the differences between the TLC for LED lighting and traditional stadium lighting. Comment 98‐e:  Hours of operation – reduce end time to 8 pm. Response 98‐e: The comment is noted. The Draft EIR analyzed the maximum hours of operation for the Wave Basin allowed under the City’s Municipal Code for a recreational facility to ensure that the worst‐case scenario for potential impacts like light, glare and noise was fully analyzed and disclosed. The operating hours requested by the applicant will be a matter for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council in their review of the project. Please see Response 15‐d and 17‐a regarding processing of the project. Comment 98‐f: 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 2‐448 February 2022  Special events – 4 special events drawing attendees and traffic to La Quinta’s southern edge has the potential to create traffic gridlock. Response 98‐f: The comment is noted. Please see Responses 52‐n, 97‐g and 98‐b above, which address special events and the associated traffic. Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 07:39:09 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:RE: Coral Mountain Resort No2ce of Availability - Dra; Environmental Impact Report Date:Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 6:30:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:Rull, Paul To:Consul2ng Planner AEachments:image002.png This project is outside of the airport influence area, and therefore ALUC has no comments at this 2me. If you have any ques2ons, please feel free to contact me. Paul Rull ALUC Director From: Consul2ng Planner <Consul2ngPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 4:42 PM To: Consul2ng Planner <Consul2ngPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Coral Mountain Resort No2ce of Availability - Dra; Environmental Impact Report Good A;ernoon, AXached please find the No2ce of Availability of the Dra; Environmental Impact Report for Coral Mountain Resort in the City of La Quinta, California. The Dra; Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is available for a 45-day public review period beginning on June 22, 2021 and ending on August 6, 2021. The Dra; EIR is available for public review at City Hall, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 and at the City of La Quinta Public Library, located at 78-275 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. In addi2on, the Dra; EIR is available on the City's website at hXp://www.laquintaca.go/thewave. Please provide any comments in response to this no2ce (please note "Coral Mountain Resort DEIR" in the subject line) in wri2ng by August 6, 2021 to: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 13:07:03 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:Re: Coral Mountain Resort No1ce of Availability - Dra: Environmental Impact Report Date:Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 12:18:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Zerda, Daniel To:Consul1ng Planner Hi Nicole, Thank you for the transmiOal. Please note that the project is not located within an Airport Influence area, and as a result, ALUC review will not be required at this 1me. Please let me know if you have any ques1ons. -Best Regards, Daniel Zerda Student Intern Transporta1on and Land Management Agency County of Riverside (951)955-0982 From: Consul1ng Planner <Consul1ngPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 10:42 AM To: Consul1ng Planner <Consul1ngPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Resort No1ce of Availability - Dra: Environmental Impact Report CAUTION: This email originated externally from the Riverside County email system. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Morning, Yesterday's email had a typographical error in the body of the email. The URL address has been corrected below. My apologies for any inconvenience. Nicole Sauviat Criste Consul1ng Planner City of La Quinta From: Consul1ng Planner Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 4:41 PM To: Consul1ng Planner <Consul1ngPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Coral Mountain Resort No1ce of Availability - Dra: Environmental Impact Report Good A:ernoon, AOached please find the No1ce of Availability of the Dra: Environmental Impact Report for Coral Mountain Resort in the City of La Quinta, California. RE: Coral Mountain Resort Notice of Availability - Draft Environmental Impact Report Hetrick, Kohl@CALFIRE <Kohl.Hetrick@fire.ca.gov> Mon 6/28/2021 11:44 AM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Kimberly Cuza <kcuza@terranovaplanning.com> ** 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. ** Hi Nicole, Yes, I should be routed for these reviews and will ensure that they are sent to the appropriate Fire Strategic Planning Representative in our Riverside Ofﬁce. Which case in Trakit is being utilized for documenting this review? Thank you, KOHL HETRICK Fire Safety Specialist / Ofﬁce of the Fire Marshal Cal Fire/Riverside County Fire Department City of La Quinta CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department Desk: 760-777-7074 | Mobile: 760-409-5109 Inspection Hotline: 760-777-7131 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 kohl.hetrick@ﬁre.ca.gov | www.rvcﬁre.org Sch: Mon-Thurs Leadership, Competence, Integrity, Safety, Customer Service The Ofﬁce of the County Fire Marshal is committed to facilitating ﬁre and life safety solutions by empowering its employees to serve our community through innovation and partnership. From: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 12:54 PM To: Hetrick, Kohl@CALFIRE <Kohl.Hetrick@ﬁre.ca.gov> Cc: Kimberly Cuza <kcuza@terranovaplanning.com> Subject: Fw: Coral Mountain Resort Notice of Availability - Draft Environmental Impact Report Warning: this message is from an external user and should be treated with caution. Good Afternoon Kohl, We have Shawn Branaugh on our EIR list for Cal Fire, and he sent me the email below. Are you reviewing EIRs for the City? If not, can you forward this to the right person? Thanks! Nicole Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTBhY2EtN... 1 of 3 6/28/21, 1:41 PM From: Branaugh, Shawn@CALFIRE <Shawn.Branaugh@ﬁre.ca.gov> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 11:18 AM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Subject: RE: Coral Mountain Resort Notice of Availability - Draft Environmental Impact Report ** 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. ** Hi Nicole, This email was sent to me by mistake, I have nothing to do with the City of La Quinta. The CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department contact person for La Quinta is Kohl Hetrick at 760-777-7074. Shawn. From: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 10:43 AM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Resort Notice of Availability - Draft Environmental Impact Report Warning: this message is from an external user and should be treated with caution. Good Morning, Yesterday's email had a typographical error in the body of the email. The URL address has been corrected below. My apologies for any inconvenience. Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta From: Consulting Planner Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 4:41 PM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Coral Mountain Resort Notice of Availability - Draft Environmental Impact Report Good Afternoon, Attached please ﬁnd the Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Coral Mountain Resort in the City of La Quinta, California. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is available for a 45-day public review period beginning on June 22, 2021 and ending on August 6, 2021. The Draft EIR is available for public review at City Hall, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 and at the City of La Quinta Public Library, located at 78-275 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. In addition, the Draft EIR is available on the City's website at http://www.laquintaca.gov/thewave. Please provide any comments in response to this notice (please note "Coral Mountain Resort DEIR" in the subject line) in writing by August 6, 2021 to: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTBhY2EtN... 2 of 3 6/28/21, 1:41 PM 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 or consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov Please include your name, address, and other contact information in your response. Further details of the proposed Project are available at http://www.laquintaca.gov/thewave. Kindest Regards, Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTBhY2EtN... 3 of 3 6/28/21, 1:41 PM RE: Coral Mountain Resort Notice of Availability - Draft Environmental Impact Report IGR – Intergovernmental Review <IGR@scag.ca.gov> Tue 6/29/2021 2 :11 PM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Anita Au <au@scag.ca.gov> ** 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. ** Hi Nicole, Thank you for sending this NOA for the Coral Mountain Resort DEIR. I have a couple of follow-up questions related to the incorporation of SCAG’s comments on the NOP (starting page 66 in Appendix A) and I’m wondering if we can chat over the phone in the coming weeks. I’m out of the ofﬁce next week, but my schedule is open this Friday, July 2nd and in the morning and afternoon on Tuesday, July 13th. Let me know if any of these times work for you. Thanks, Annaleigh Intergovernmental Review (IGR) Program Annaleigh Ekman (she/her), Assistant Regional Planner Tel: (213) 630-1427 IGR@scag.ca.gov SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS 900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 From: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2021 10:43 AM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Re: Coral Mountain Resort Notice of Availability - Draft Environmental Impact Report Good Morning, Yesterday's email had a typographical error in the body of the email. The URL address has been corrected below. My apologies for any inconvenience. Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta From: Consulting Planner Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 4:41 PM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Coral Mountain Resort Notice of Availability - Draft Environmental Impact Report Good Afternoon, Attached please ﬁnd the Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 1 of 2 6/29/21, 3:00 PM Coral Mountain Resort in the City of La Quinta, California. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is available for a 45-day public review period beginning on June 22, 2021 and ending on August 6, 2021. The Draft EIR is available for public review at City Hall, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 and at the City of La Quinta Public Library, located at 78-275 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. In addition, the Draft EIR is available on the City's website at http://www.laquintaca.gov/thewave. Please provide any comments in response to this notice (please note "Coral Mountain Resort DEIR" in the subject line) in writing by August 6, 2021 to: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 or consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov Please include your name, address, and other contact information in your response. Further details of the proposed Project are available at http://www.laquintaca.gov/thewave. Kindest Regards, Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 2 of 2 6/29/21, 3:00 PM Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 14:05:08 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort No0ce of Availability - Dra9 Environmental Impact Report Date:Wednesday, June 30, 2021 at 2:00:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Hetrick, Kohl@CALFIRE <Kohl.Hetrick@fire.ca.gov> To:Reinertson, Adria@CALFIRE <Adria.Reinertson@fire.ca.gov>, Williams, Traci@CALFIRE <Traci.Williams@fire.ca.gov> CC:Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>, Kimberly Cuza <kcuza@terranovaplanning.com>, Cooley, Sonia@CALFIRE <Sonia.Cooley@fire.ca.gov>, White, Bryan@CALFIRE <Bryan.White@fire.ca.gov> Good Day Strategic Planning Team, RE: La Quinta MP2019-0004 The Dra9 Environment Impact Report for the Coral Mountain Resort (The Wave Development, LLC) is now available for review. The documents may be accessed at the following link: haps://www.laquintaca.gov/our- city/city-departments/design-and-development/planning-division/the-wave-at-coral-mountain This Dra9 EIR is available for a 45-day public review period beginning on June 22, 2021, and ending on August 6, 2021. To provide comments in response to this no0ce (please include "Coral Mountain Resort DEIR" in the subject line in wri0ng, by August 6, 2021, to: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consul0ng Planner, City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253, or consul0ngplanner@laquintaca.gov. Please include your name, address, and other contact informa0on in your response. Please let me know if you have any ques0ons. Thank you, KOHL HETRICK Fire Safety Specialist / Office of the Fire Marshal Cal Fire/Riverside County Fire Department City of La Quinta CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Department Desk: 760-777-7074 | Mobile: 760-409-5109 Inspec0on Hotline: 760-777-7131 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 kohl.hetrick@fire.ca.gov | www.rvcfire.org Sch: Mon-Thurs Leadership, Competence, Integrity, Safety, Customer Service The Office of the County Fire Marshal is commiaed to facilita0ng fire and life safety solu0ons by empowering its employees to serve our community through innova0on and partnership. JASON E. UHLEY 1995 MARKET STREET General Manager-Chief Engineer RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 951.955.1200 951.788.9965 FAX www.rcflood.org RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 239464 August 3, 2021 City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Nicole Sauviat Criste Re: Coral Mountain Resort, 2nd Submittal The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District's review is based on the above-referenced project transmittal, received June 23, 2021. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue: ☒ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. ☐ This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely, . The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and administrative fees will be required. ☐ An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities, namely, ____________________. For further information, contact the District's Encroachment Permit section at 951.955.1266. ☒ The Districts previous comments are still valid (see attached letter dated 03/09/21). GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval City of La Quinta - 2 - August 3, 2021 Re: Coral Mountain Resort, 2nd Submittal 239464 should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, DEBORAH DE CHAMBEAU Engineering Project Manager Attachment ec: Riverside County Planning Department Attn: Phayvanh Nanthavongdouangsy SLJ:ju JASON E. UHLEYGenelal Manager-Chief Engineer1995 MARKET STREETRIVERSIDE, CA 9250I951,955.1200FAX 951.788.9965www.rcflood.org237149TheRIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROLAND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTMarch 9,202ICity of La Quinta78-495 Calle TampicoLa Quinta, CA 92253Attention: Nicole Sauviat CristeRe: Coral Mountain ResortThe Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) does not normallyrecommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District alsodoes not plan check City land use cases or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other floodhazatdreports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limitedto items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, otherregional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extensionof a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition,information of a general nature is provided.The District's review is based on the above-referenced project transmittal, received February 18,2021.The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail, and the following comments do not in anyway constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to floodhazard, public health and safety, or any other such issue:This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities, nor are otherfacilities of regional interest proposed.n This project involves District proposed Master Drainage Plan facilities, namely,District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must beconstructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required forDistrict acceptance. Plan check, inspection, and adrninistrative fees will be required.An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any construction related activities occurring withinDistrict right of way or facilities, namely, For further information.contact the District's Encroachment Permit section at95L955.1266.The Districts previous comments are still valid. City of La QuintaRe: Coral Mountain Resort.)March 9,2021237 t49GENERAL INFORMATIONThis project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System CIPDES) permit from theState Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval shouldnot be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or ii shown to beexempt.If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped floodplain, then theCity should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans, and other informationrequired to meet FEMA requirements, and should fuither require that the ipplicant obtain a ConditionalLetter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation, or other final approval of the projectand a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this project, the City should require theapplicant to obtain a Section 1602 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife anda Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or writtencorrespondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A CleanWater Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the localCalifornia Regionalwater Quality control Board prior to issuance of the corps 404 permit.Very truly yours,tora-DEBORAH DuEngineering Proj ect Managerec: Riverside County Planning DepartmentAttn: Phayvanh NanthavongdouangsySLJ:blm Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 1 Febraury 2021 CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT NOTICE OF PREPARATION INTRODUCTION The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County. Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map, shows the City’s location within the larger Coachella Valley region. The project site encompasses an area of approximately 929 acres in the southeastern portion of the City of La Quinta. As shown in Exhibit 2, Vicinity Map, the local area is characterized as a developing area with a number of golf course and residential communities to the north, west, east, and southeast, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west and south, and open space and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) percolation ponds to the south. Exhibit 3, Site Location Map, displays an aerial view of the project site, outlining section lines, project boundary, adjacent roadways and neighboring communities. In addition to the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west and south, Coral Mountain is situated within the southwest portion of the project property. The proposed project includes a General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Specific Plan Amendment and new Specific Plan, as well as a Tentative Tract Map and Site Development Permit(s) leading to the development of a mix of uses including residential, resort, commercial, and recreational uses on 386 acres. The project proposes 496 low density residential units on approximately 232.3 acres, a full-service resort hotel (up to 150 keys), 104 resort residential units, and 57,000 square feet of resort commercial uses on approximately 120.8 acres, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses on 7.7 acres, and open space recreational uses on 23.6 acres. Additionally, an artificial Wave basin is proposed on approximately 16.62 acres of the site. The site is currently included in a previously approved specific plan titled “Amendment IV of Andalusia at Coral Mountain.” Amendment IV’s Specific Plan consists of approximately 929 acres located south of Avenue 58, west of Monroe Street, north of Avenue 60 , and both east and west of Madison Street. Amendment IV was approved in 2017 and separated the project into two distinct communities: Andalusia East (the area east of Madison Street) and Andalusia West (the area west of Madison Street and the proposed pro ject area). Andalusia East, under Amendment IV, is currently under development, providing low density residential units, an 18 -hole golf course, a clubhouse and associated amenities. Andalusia West, under Amendment IV, is currently undeveloped, but proposed residential and golf course uses. In order to achieve the land use goals of the properties east and west of Madison Street, the two areas are to be separated and governed by two specific plans. Amendment V of SP 03-067 removes the area west of Madison Street and covers the area east of Madison Street. No changes to the land uses, development standards or guidelines are proposed, and build out of SP 03 -067 Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 2 Febraury 2021 on the east side of Madison Street will proceed as currently planned. The approximately 386-acre area west of Madison Street will be governed by the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan, a new Specific Plan that will address only the westerly area. The Applicant is also requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019-0002), a Zone Change (ZC 2019-0004), a Specific Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan (SP 2019-0003), a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2019-0005), and a Site Development Permit (SDP). The GPA will amend the current General Plan land use designations to reflect the land use designations required for implementation of Specific Plan 2019-0003, and include General Commercial, Low Density Residential, Open Space – Recreation, and Tourist Commercial. The ZC will revise the existing zoning of the Specific Plan area to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Parks and Recreation, and Tourist Commercial. The Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) will separate the west 386 acres from the existing Specific Plan (SP 03-067). The Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan (SP 2019-0003) will be adopted as the master plan governing the allowable land uses, development standards and design guidelines for the project. The proposed Tentative Tract Map will subdivide the subject property into separate legal lots to facilitate development of the proposed uses , and the proposed SDP will detail the site plan, architectural designs and landscape plans for the artificial wave basin. N.T.S.NORTHMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT1REGIONAL LOCATION MAP A V E N U E 6 0A V E N U E 5 8A I R P O R T5 4 T H A V E N U E5 2 N D A V E N U EM A D I S O N S T R E E T M O N R O E S T R E E T B O U L E V A R DCITY OFLA QUINTASITECOUNTY OFRIVERSIDEN.T.S.NORTH Legend:Project BoundaryExisting City / County BoundaryMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT2VICINITY MAPAMENDMENT VOF SP 03-067 PROJECT SITEA V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0AMENDMENT V OF SP 03-067M O N R O E S T R E E T M A D I S O N S T R E E T N.T.S.NORTH Legend:Project BoundaryMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT3SITE LOCATION MAP Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 6 Febraury 2021 1.1 Project Site Location As shown in Exhibit 2, Vicinity Map, and Exhibit 3, Site Location Map, the approximately 386- acre portion of the project site to be developed under SP 2019-0003 is generally bounded by vacant land and Avenue 58 on the north; Madison Street on the east; residential estates, vacant land, and the Avenue 60 alignment on the south; and Coral Mountain, and vacant land to the west. Further discussion of the land uses adjacent and in proximity to the project property is included in the following section, Surrounding Land Uses. The project is located in portions of Section 27 and 28, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base Line and Meridian; and at Latitude 33° 37’ 15” N, Longitude 116° 15’ 21” W (approximate geographic center of the site). 1.2 Surrounding Land Uses Land uses surrounding the project site are as follows (see the aerial photograph in Exhibit 2): Direction Description North • Avenue 58 • Vacant Land • Developed and Undeveloped Single Family Residential Communities • Golf Course East • Madison Street • Single Family Residences in Andalusia Country Club • Golf Course in Andalusia • Vacant lands South • Avenue 60 • Developed and Undeveloped Single Family Residences and Communities • Golf Course, including Trilogy • Vacant Land • CVWD Levee West • Coral Mountain • Natural Open Space Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 7 Febraury 2021 2.0 Project Site History The project property was originally included as part of the “Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan”, first approved in 1988 by Riverside County. The Specific Plan area was later annexed to the City of La Quinta. The area south of Avenue 58 and north of Avenue 60 became known as the “Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03-067” and included areas east and west of Madison Street. Since then, the property has gone through various entitlement activities and four specific plan amendments as part of the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan (SP 03-067), summarized in Table 1, below: Table 1 Specific Plan Summary 1988-2017 Specific Plan Name Year Approved Summary Supporting Documents Rancho La Quinta Specific Plan 218 (County of Riverside) 1988 Original Specific Plan approved by Riverside County Board of Supervisors; included a maximum development of 4,262 dwelling units, 380 acres of golf and 35 acres of commercial uses. EIR Rancho La Quinta SCH #1987071302 Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218, Amendment I (County of Riverside) 2000 Reduced development intensity by 762 dwelling units and 25.8 acres of commercial uses to up to 3,500 dwelling units and 9.2 acres of commercial uses. TTM 2002-149 TTM 2002-12 Coral Mountain Specific Plan Amendment II (City of La Quinta) 2003 Changed name to “Coral Mountain” Specific Plan; split specific plan into two specific plans: Trilogy (522 acres) and Andalusia (934-acres); Supersedes Coral Mountain Specific Plan 218 for Andalusia area. Environmental Assessment 2003-483 approved GPA 2003-093; CZ 2003-116; Specific Plan 2003-067; Site Development Permit 2003-787; EA 2003-483 Amendment III of Coral Mountain SP 2013 Relocated golf clubhouse and provided higher density around golf course. Amendment IV of Andalusia at Coral Mountain 2017 Revised development standards in Planning Area II to allow for attached/detached residential villas of up to 2 stories. The eastern half of the previous iteration of the Specific Plan is being developed with the Andalusia Country Club while the western half has remained vacant. Exhibit 4, Existing General Plan Land Use Map, illustrates the project’s existing General Plan land use designation. Approval of the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan will establish a new master plan and development standards for the property west of Madison Street to allow creation of a boutique resort and master-planned community. Concurrently, Amendment V of Specific Plan 03-067 is being processed to remove the western half such that only the Andalusia Country Club east of Madison Street will remain. This will create two separate and distinct communities, “Coral Mountain Resort”, west of Madison Street, and “Andalusia Country Club”, east of Madison Street. A V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0M A D I S O N S T R E E TN.T.S.NORTH Legend:Medium/High Density ResidentialGeneral CommercialOpen Space - NaturalOpen Space - RecreationProject BoundaryLow Density ResidentialMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT4EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 9 Febraury 2021 3.0 PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 3.1 Project Objectives The Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan serves as an overall framework to conscientiously guide development of the proposed project. To ensure the functional integrity, economic viability, environmental sensitivity, and positive aesthetic impact of this Specific Plan, planning and development goals for the project were established and supported through an extensive analysis. This analysis includes an examination of project environmental constraints, engineering feasibility, market acceptance, economic viability, City General Plan goals, development phasing, and local community goals. The Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan has identified the following Project objectives: • To implement a plan that recognizes and responds to the natural and aesthetic character of the property. • To create a private resort community with a variety of interrelated and mutually supportive commercial and recreational land uses that will also generate transient occupancy and sales tax revenues to enhance the City’s economic base and long-term financial stability. • To promote walkability and non-motorized connectivity as an integral part of the project design. • To maintain the overall density count previously included for this property in the Andalusia Specific Plan. The following project objectives have been identified for the EIR: • To contribute to the reduction of air emissions generated within the City. • To contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions generated within the City. • Provide a regulatory framework that facilitates and encourages energy and water conservation through sustainable site planning, project design, and green technologies and building materials. • Assist in the protection and preservation of cultural resources. • Contribute to the preservation, conservation and management of the City’s open space lands and scenic resources for enhanced recreation, environmental and economic purposes. • Provide protection of the health and safety, and welfare of the community from flooding and hydrological hazards. • Provide a healthful noise environment which complements the City’s residential and Resort/Spa character. • Provide housing opportunities that meet the diverse needs of the City’s existing and projected population. Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 10 Febraury 2021 • Provide a circulation system that promotes and enhances alternative vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian systems. • Provide domestic water, sewer and flood control infrastructure and services which adequately serve the project development. 3.2 Project Description As stated in Section 2.0, Project Site History, the project site is currently a part of the “Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan 03 -067”, which includes the area south of Avenue 58 and east and west of Madison Street. The area east of Madison Street encompasses the Andalusia Country Club property, and the area west of Madison Street is currently vacant. Amendment V of Specific Plan 03-067 is being processed to remove the area west of Madison Street from the Specific Plan area, thus, creating two separate and distinct communities, “Coral Mountain Resort”, west of Madison Street, and “Andalusia Country Club”, east of Madison Street. Approval of the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan will establish a new master plan and development standards for the 386-acre property west of Madison Street to allow creation of a boutique resort and master-planned community. The Coral Mountain Resort project (“project”) will result in a variety of land uses, as shown in Exhibit 5, Proposed General Plan Land Use Map. Low Density Residential land uses will occupy approximately 232.3 acres and result in a maximum of 496 dwelling units. Tourist Commercial land uses will result in 104 dwelling units, 150 hotel rooms, and 57,000 square feet of private resort-serving commercial uses available to residents and hotel guests, on approximately 120.8 acres. General Commercial land uses will occupy approximately 7.7 acres with up to 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses available to the general public. Open Space Recreation land uses will occur on approximately 23.6 acres in the southwest portion of the site. Table 2, Proposed Land Use Summary, shows the land use associated with each planning area. Exhibit 7, Planning Area Land Use Plan, shows the location of each project planning area. Table 2 Proposed Land Use Summary Planning Area (PA) Land Use Category Gross Land Area (Acres) Non- Residential Building (SF) Max. Dwelling Units (DU) Max. Hotel/Resort Units (DU) PA I GC 7.7 60,0001 PA II LDR 232.3 496 PA III TC 120.8 57,0002 104 150 PA IV OS-R 23.6 Right of Way 1.5 Total 385.9 117,000 600 150 Note: GC = General Commercial, LDR = Low Density Residential, TC = Tourist Commercial, OS -R = Open Space Recreation Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 11 Febraury 2021 1. Consisting of retail commercial uses available to the general public. 2. Consisting of private resort-serving commercial uses available only to residents and hotel guests. In addition to the proposed onsite development, project implementation will also include the installation of an off-site transformer bank at an existing IID substation, located at 81600 Avenue 58, as part of the proposed upgrades. Construction for the conduits and line extension would occur in the existing right-of-way. Project Construction According to the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, project construction will occur in eight (8) primary development areas with buildout anticipated to occur in three primary phases over approximately 4- to 6-years. Each primary development area may be broken into subphases in response to market conditions and consumer demand. For example, the hotel of up to 150 keys may be constructed in multiple subphases. Exhibit 6, Conceptual Development Plan, reflects the anticipated construction sequence and may be non-sequential and adjusted subject to market conditions (so long as necessary utilities and access are provided). Phased development will be accompanied by the orderly extension of circulation and parking facilities, public utilities, and infrastructure in accordance with the final conditions of approval for the project. Phasing is conceptual and subject to refinement with final engineering design and changes in sequence in response to market conditions. The applicant proposes to commence construction of the Wave Basin first due to the longer construction timelines associated with this component of the project, compared to the other uses within the Specific Plan. Accordingly, a Site Development Permit (SDP) for the Wave Basin is being processed concurrently with the initial entitlements, with one or more SDPs for other Planning Areas within the Tourist Commercial and Low Density Residential land use development areas (designated as Phase 2 on Exhibit 6) being filed prior to final approval of the Wave Basin SDP. The Wave Basin SDP map is illustrated in Exhibit 7, Wave Basin SDP Map. Following this entitlement and construction schedule, it is anticipated that the Wave Basin and other Tourist Commercial and Residential land uses will be completed and ready for occupancy at approximately the same time. Project Components The project components shall include: • 600 Dwelling Units of varying types o 496 single family attached and detached dwellings and affiliated amenities (Low Density Residential land use) o Low Density Residential product types may include estate compounds, single-family Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 12 Febraury 2021 detached/attached units, alley loaded homes, and clustered products o 104 resort residential units (Tourist Commercial land use) o Resort residential product types may include single family detached units, townhomes, and stacked flats • 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible neighborhood commercial building space • 150-key resort with customary resort amenities o The Resort Hotel will provide a hospitality component, with amenities such as a restaurant and bar, retail shop, meeting space, swimming pool, fitness center, spa and lodging. o Lodging options will provide a range of traditional hotel rooms, suites, and casitas. • 57,000 square feet of resort-serving commercial and recreational building space o Residents and guests of the property will have exclusive use of resort commercial. • The Wave Basin o 16.62-acre artificial surf Wave basin o Residents and guests of the property will have exclusive use of Wave basin • 26.5 acres south of the Wave basin o Providing permanent service and administrative facilities and unprogrammed gathering and staging space for temporary equipment such as portable toilets, shade structures, tenting for inclement weather, and catering equipment. • Approximately 24 acres of natural open space for low -impact active and passive recreation activities. o Including hiking, biking, and ropes courses. • Special events o The project applicant anticipates the potential occurrence of special events involving attendance of up to 2,500 guests per day for up to 4 days (up to 4 events per year). GENERALTOURISTCOMMERCIALLOW DENSITYRESIDENTIALOPEN SPACE -RECREATIONCOMMERCIALTOURISTCOMMERCIALA V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0M A D I S O N S T R E E TN.T.S.NORTH Legend:Low Density ResidentialTourist CommercialOpen Space (Recreation)Project BoundaryGeneral CommercialMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT5PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE A V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0M A D I S O N S T R E E T532211478PHASE 2PHASE 1PHASE 36Legend:Project BoundaryNotes: 1.sequence. It is conceptual and subject to refinementin response to market conditions.Development Area BoundaryPhase BoundaryPhase 1Phase 2Phase 3Phasing plan reflects the anticipated construction2. Numbers 1 - 8 indicate Development Areas.N.T.S.NORTHMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT6CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AVENUE 58AVENUE 60MADISON STREETPROPOSED WAVE BASINACCESS ENTRY (SECONDARY)PROPOSED WAVEBASIN ACCESS ENTRY(PRIMARY)WAVE BASINACCESS ROADWAVE BASINACCESS ROAD**PROPOSED WAVE BASINN.T.S.NOTE: ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS MAY BE ADDED IN A LOCATION SUBJECT TO CITY APPROVAL.MSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT7WAVE BASIN SDP Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 16 Febraury 2021 3.3 Planning Areas The project proposes the development of four planning areas, defined in this section. Table 3, below, indicates each planning area, and their proposed acreages, and dwelling units. Exhibit 8, Planning Area Land Use Plan, illustrates the proposed planning area locations Table 3 Proposed Planning Area Summary PA Land Use (Zone)1 Acres Commercial (SF) Max. Units I Neighborhood Commercial (CN) 7.7 60,000 SF II Low Density Residential (RL) 232.3 496 Units III Resort (TC) III-A: Resort Hotel 8.5 150 rooms III-B: The Wave 31.22 III-C: Wave Club 3.2 III-D: Resort Residential West 40.5 104 units III-E: Resort Residential East III-F: The Farm 11 III-G: Back of House 26.5 PA III Total acreage 120.8 57,000 SF IV Open Space Recreational (PR) 23.6 Roads 1.6 Total 386 60,000 CN 57,000 TC 600 DU 150 rooms 1. Zone Codes: Neighborhood Commercial = CN; Low Density Residential = RL; Tourist Commercial = TC; Parks and Recreation = PR 2. The Wave Subarea is 31.2 acres and contains a 16.62-acre artificial surf wave basin. - PA IINEIGHBORHOODCOMMERCIALPA ILOW DENSITYRESIDENTIALPA IIRESORTPA IIIA V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0M A D I S O N S T R E E TOPEN SPACEPA IVIII-CIII-BIII-DIII-FIII-AIII-EIII-GN.T.S.NORTH Legend:Planning Area Sub-BoundaryNeighborhood CommercialLow Density ResidentialProject BoundaryPlanning Area BoundaryResortOpen Space (Recreation)MSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT8PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 18 Febraury 2021 3.5 Circulation Plan The circulation plan for the project proposes a multi-modal approach providing transportation facilities within the Specific Plan area for a variety of user groups including motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers of electric vehicles, thereby decreasing automobile dependency. Convenient access and parking are planned in close proximity to retail and resort areas. The internal system of private local roadways will allow residents of individual neighborhoods to access all Planning Areas internally without exiting onto surrounding public streets. The project’s multi-modal transportation system will consist of sidewalks, multi-use trails, and shared use of low-speed, low-volume roadways, specifically including: off-street bicycle and pedestrian paths/routes; sidewalks in higher traffic areas; pedestrian/bicycle crosswalks; pedestrian and multi-use paths and streets; traffic calming methods; short street segments with frequent caution zones and stopping points; and golf cart routes and other alternative forms of personal transportation. Vehicular Circulation Vehicular access to the project site will utilize existing public arterial roads, including Avenue 58, and Madison Street. These roads are largely improved to their ultimate lane width, needing only the addition of minor widening, a meandering multi-purpose trail, sidewalks, and parkway landscaping along the boundary of the Specific Plan area. The surrounding roadways will be improved to the standards of the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element. The internal circulation system will consist of a series of roads providing access to the individual residential and recreational components within the Specific Plan area. The proposed internal rights of way will vary from 32-foot/33-foot private drives to the 100-foot entry drive. As shown in Exhibit 9, Circulation Plan, the interior street system proposed for the project is an internal system of private streets linking all neighborhoods to provide open circulation. Per Exhibit 9, the project proposes various road categories and rights-of-way. These include the Entry Drive, Local Road “A”, Resort Drive, and Resort Commercial Drive. The Entry Drive is the main entry off of Madison Street that provides access to the resort area. Local Roads branch off of the primary entry drives and link residential and resort residential areas to the Entry Drive. Resort Drives are open to the guests and residences of the community to convey vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles throughout the project. A secondary entrance is provided from Avenue 60. The project site is bordered on the north and east sides by public streets designated as Secondary Arterials in the City of La Quinta General Plan. The segment of Avenue 60 located south of the project site is designated as a Collector Road. The project provides access to the Neighborhood Commercial in Planning Area I with a primary public entry from Madison Street, two public entries from Avenue 58 and one from the Entry Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 19 Febraury 2021 Drive. Entries to residential neighborhoods will be provided from the primary entry drive and their conceptual locations illustrated in Exhibit 9. Non-Vehicular Circulation Non-vehicular circulation proposed for the project is intended to include multi -use trails, sidewalks, walk streets, and a boardwalk feature. The features are described as follows: - Multi-Use Trail: An 8-foot-wide multi-use trail along the main spine road to provide future neighborhoods with a central bike and pedestrian connection to the resort core as well as the main entry gate. - Sidewalk: Sidewalks are included along key streets in the resort core to provide a completely interconnected pedestrian grid experience so that resort guests can walk or bike to all activities at the wave basin and resort facilities. - Walk Streets: Designed as narrow walkways between homes, Walk Streets provide connectivity with immediate residential frontage. The Walk Street network is one of the primary organizing components of the community plan. Terminating at the boardwalk, Walk Streets link residents to The Wave, The Farm, and the greater network of trails and open spaces, enabling movement throughout the community. - The Boardwalk: The Wave basin and its integrated pedestrian boardwalk is the terminus for nearly all the Walk Streets – functioning as a gathering space as well as an active recreational amenity. Exhibit 10, Non-Vehicular Circulation Plan, illustrates the proposed locations for the multi-use trail, connecting boardwalk feature, sidewalks, and walk streets. A V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0M A D I S O N S T R E E TN.T.S.NORTH Notes:1.Conceptual residential entry pointsreflect anticipated locations only.Entry locations are conceptual andsubject to refinement as the projectis built out.2.Local Road Sections "B" and "C"(not shown) may be used in futuredevelopment areas.Legend:Project BoundaryConceptual Residential Entry Point24' Right of Way: Entry Drive24' Right of Way: Local Road "A"24' Right of Way: Resort Drive26' Right of Way: Resort / Commercial Drive32' Right of Way: Resort / Commercial Drive40' Right of Way: Entry Drive40' Right of Way: Resort DriveConceptual Residential Gated Entry Point60' Right of Way: Resort DriveMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT9VEHICULAR CIRCULATION PLAN A V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0M A D I S O N S T R E E TN.T.S.NORTH Legend:Connecting Boardwalk FeatureProject BoundaryMulti-Use TrailSidewalkWalk StreetMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT10NON-VEHICULAR CIRCULATION PLAN Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 22 Febraury 2021 3.6 Infrastructure Plan The infrastructure system planned to serve the project described below will be designed to provide a coordinated system of infrastructure and public services to adequately serve the project area at full buildout. The project will be served by the following utilities: - Water and Sewer: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) - Electricity: Imperial Irrigation District (IID) - Gas: Southern California Gas Company Water and Sewer Water and sewer service for the Specific Plan area are provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The CVWD provides domestic water from wells. Non -potable water sources are intended to be used for the irrigation of common landscape areas. The project proposes to connect to the existing water lines located on Avenue 58 (north) and Madison Street (east). The proposed water lines will consist of 18 -inch, 12-inch, and 8-inch public water lines. Sewer lines in the area currently exist along Avenue 58 and along a portion of Avenue 60 (southeast of the project). The project proposes 15-inch, 12-inch and 8-in sewer lines that will connect to the existing sewer lines and provide sewer service to the project. The project will conform to the requirements of the CVWD's programs and requirements pertaining to water management and conservation. See Exhibit 11 for the Conceptual Water Plan and Exhibit 12 for the Conceptual Sewer Plan. A V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0WW1 2W 12W12W12W12 W 12W18W18W8W8WWWW W W M A D I S O N S T R E E T8W8 W 8W NORTH 8W12W18WWN.T.S.Legend:Proposed Public 8'' Water MainProposed Public 12'' Water MainProposed Public 18'' Water MainProject BoundaryExisting Water MainNotes:Information shown is conceptual only.Final engineering design plans may deviate.1.Number and location of wells is preliminary &subject to further discussion with C.V.W.D.2.Proposed C.V.W.D. Well SiteMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT11CONCEPTUAL WATER PLAN 8S12S12S12S12S12S 8S8S8SA V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0SSS SSSSS15 S 1 5 S M A D I S O N S T R E E T8S 8S8 SN.T.S.NORTH Legend:Proposed 8'' Sewer MainProposed 12'' Sewer MainProposed 15'' Sewer MainProject BoundaryExisting Sewer MainSNote:Information shown is conceptual only.Final engineering design plans may deviate.8S12S15SMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT12CONCEPTUAL SEWER PLAN Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 25 Febraury 2021 Grading and Drainage As shown in Exhibit 13, Conceptual Drainage Plan, the project includes a comprehensive drainage system that collects storm flows, retains the incremental post -development increase and discharges surface water at pre-development levels to protect individual residences, the resort, and commercial uses as well as downstream properties. Surface drainage will be conveyed by the local street system from development areas to a system of basins and underground storm drains. As illustrated in the conceptual drainage plan, multiple retention basins and lakes (including the Wave), will be used to convey and safely capture surface flows. Retention basins will be constructed and sized to retain the worst-case flood volume from a 100- year storm event. These basins will also include water qualit y elements that serve as structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) in accordance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS-4) Whitewater River Watershed Municipal Stormwater Program. Off-Site Electrical Improvements Electric utilities for the site are provided by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The project EIR will analyze the improvements in further detail. Exhibit 14, Off-Site Electrical Improvements, illustrates the location of the existing substation and proposed distribution line(s) and upgrades. Other Utilities The site is within the Southern California Gas Company’s service area for natural gas, and Frontier and Charter Communications for telecommunications. The project will tie into the existing cable, gas and telecommunications lines located along Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. A V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0M A D I S O N S T R E E TN.T.S.NORTH Legend:Conceptual Drainage Sub-AreaConceptual 100-Year Sub-Area RetentionProject BoundaryWater Feature / RetentionSite Drainage FlowsOff-Site Drainage DirectionNote:Drainage and retention is conceptual and subjectto refinement with final engineering design.MSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT13CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE PLAN A V E N U E 5 8A V E N U E 6 0EXISTING I.I.D. SUBSTATIONPROJECT SITEM A D I S O N S T R E E T N.T.S.NORTH Legend:Proposed Transformer BankProject BoundaryProposed Conduit SystemMSA CONSULTING, INC.> PLANNING > CIVIL ENGINEERING > LAND SURVEYING34200 Bob Hope Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270760.320.9811 msaconsultinginc.comCORAL MOUNTAIN RESORTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTEXHIBIT14OFF-SITE ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 28 Febraury 2021 3.7 Project Implementation Implementation of the proposed project includes the approval of the following entitlement processes: General Plan Amendment (GPA) - The GPA will amend the current General Plan land use designations from General Commercial, Low Density Residential, Open Space – Recreation, to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Resort, and Open Space - Recreation. The GPA requires public hearings before the Commission and the Council. Zone Change (ZC) - The ZC will revise the existing zoning of the Specific Plan Area from Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Golf Course, to Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Low Density Residential (RL), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Tourist Commercial (TC). The ZC requires public hearings before the Commission and Council. Specific Plan (SP) – The Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan will be adopted as the master plan governing the allowable land uses, development standards and design guidelines for the project. The SP requires public hearings before the Planning Commission (Commission) and the City Council (Council). Tentative Tract Map (TTM) – TTMs are intended to implement the project and subdivide the property into smaller lots for development. The TTM which is currently under consideration will implement the Specific Plan and subdivide all of PA III, the Wave resort, and the western corner of PA II into lots suitable for the development of the uses permitted for these areas in the Specific Plan. Future TTMs may be filed with each phase of development as necessary to implement the balance of the project. Each TTM will require review by the Planning Commission. Site Development Permit (SDP): SDPs are required by the City for final approval of landscape design, architectural design, and site plans. An SDP for the Wave Basin is being sought in connection with the current entitlements, and will establish the location, architectural design and landscape plan for the Wave Basin along with associated mechanical equipment and improvements (Planning Area III-B). Future entitlements for project-specific components will also include: Site Development Permit (SDP): Additional SDPs will be required by the City for final approval of landscape design, architectural design, and site plans for each phase of development. These may be processed concurrent with or subsequent to other entitlement approvals. Each SDP will require public hearings before the Commission. Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Allowable uses that require a CUP shall be processed in accordance with Section 9.210.020 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Temporary Use Permit (TUP): TUPs are required by the City to accommodate special, unique, or limited duration activities that might otherwise be outside the provisions of normal zoning. Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 29 Febraury 2021 Temporary uses are anticipated and allowed by the Specific Plan. TUPs are reviewed administratively by the Design and Development Director and do not require a public hearing. Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 30 Febraury 2021 4.0 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) As stated in the section, 3.6, Project Implementation, the Applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Map for the project area to General Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space Recreation; a Zone Change to revise the City’s Zoning Map to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Parks and Recreation, and Tourist Commercial; a Specific Plan (SP); a Tentative Tract Map (TTM); and a Site Development Permit (SDP) for the Wave basin.. 4.1 Need for an EIR The City of La Quinta, as Lead Agency under CEQA, has determined that the project has the potential to significantly impact the environment, and has determined that an EIR shall be prepared. The EIR will be prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq.). The EIR will evaluate the environmental effects of the project in accordance with the latest regulatory requirements, determine whether significant impacts will occur, identify feasible mitigation measures to minimize or avoid any potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project, and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. 4.2 Summary of Environmental Issues The EIR will evaluate all environmental issues set forth in the CEQA Environmental Checklist (per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines) where the project could potentially have any significant effects. The issue areas that will be evaluated in the Draft EIR include: • Aesthetics • Geology and Soils • Noise • Air Quality • Greenhouse Gases • Public Services • Biological Resources • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Transportation • Cultural Resources • Hydrology and Water Quality • Tribal Cultural Resources • Energy Resources • Land Use and Planning • Utilities The environmental topics that are not anticipated to result in any impacts include Agricultural Resources, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, Recreation, and Wildfire (discussed in subsections 4.2.2, 4.2.11, 4.2.13, 4.2.15, and 4.2.18, respectively). Therefore, these sections will not be further discussed in the Draft EIR. Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 31 Febraury 2021 4.2.1 Aesthetics The City of La Quinta is located along the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains that form the backdrop to the City’s western boundary and the project site. The Santa Rosa Mountains and their foothills and peaks are part of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument and contribute to the natural scenic vista. Coral Mountain occurs, in part, on the project site. The project will involve the construction of a mixed-use community consisting of residential units, general commercial uses, tourist commercial uses, a resort, open space recreational uses, as well as an artificial surf Wave basin. The proposed uses and structures would have a potential effect on aesthetic resources. Analysis of the impacts of existing aesthetic resources from adjacent viewpoints will be evaluated in the EIR. The proposed project’s impact on existing scenic vistas as well as the scenic quality in the area will be evaluated in the EIR. This evaluation will analyze the proposed features, such as the Wave basin, associated structure heights, building character, mass and heights, and project landscaping. The proposed project will be required to comply with the lighting and landscape requirements City of La Quinta Municipal Code. On-site native environments have been modified by prior agricultural operations and clearing activities that occurred over multiple decades. Historic structures occur on the project site, as does the significant rock outcropping that is Coral Mountain. Therefore, the project’s impact to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway will also be analyzed in the EIR. Development adjacent to the City of La Quinta General Planned Image Corridors located on Avenue 60, Madison Street, and Avenue 58 shall be restricted to a height limitation of 22 feet from pad grade within 150 feet from the right-of-way. Rear and side yard setbacks for lots adjacent to Image Corridors shall be expanded to a minimum of 25 feet per La Quinta Municipal Zoning Code Section 9.50.020. The project will introduce light and glare associated with commercial, residential and resort development to a site that is currently vacant and does not emit any light or glare. The project proposes a recreational Wave basin, including 80-foot light poles, to illuminate the Wave basin in the evenings. Therefore, potential light and glare impacts to daytime and nighttime views in the area as a result of project development will be analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will evaluate CEQA Guideline Thresholds “a” through “d” and mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels . 4.2.2 Agricultural Resources and Forestry Per the most recent (2016) California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site is located in an area designated as Farmland of Local Importance, but will not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1959 topographic map, Palm Desert Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 32 Febraury 2021 Quadrangle (15-minute series), the project property previously operated as agricultural land, likely vineyards. Historical aerial imagery dating back from 1996 indicates that the site had been cleared of all agricultural remnants prior to 1996. The project site currently lies within a suburban area of La Quinta, with residential uses to the north, east and south. Additionally, the project area currently is designated Low Density Residential, Open Space Recreational and General Commercial by the City of La Quinta, and has been so designated since 1993 when the property was annexed to the City. The project site is not currently designated within an agriculture land use category and the site has not been in agricultural use for over 25 years. Overall, the project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The project site is not in use as Farmland of Local Importance and is not planned for such use in the General Plan. The project property is not located in an area under the Williamson Act contract, and there are no lands within the Williamson Act contract in the immediate project vicinity. No forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for timberland production occurs on the project site or in the surrounding area because forest vegetation is not characteristic of the Coachella Valley desert environment. Based on the foregoing, the project will not result in any impacts to agricultural and forestry resources, and the EIR will provide no further analysis of this topic. 4.2.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The project site is located within the Riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Existing air quality in relation to the applicable air quality standards for criteria air pollutants is measured at established air quality monitoring stations throughout the SCAQMD jurisdiction. The three permanent ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Coachella Valley are in Palm Springs (AQS ID 060655001), Indio (AQS ID 060652002), and Mecca (Saul Martinez - AQS ID 060652005). The project site is located approximately 18 miles southeast of the Palm Springs station, 6 miles southwest of the Indio station, and approximately 11 miles northwest of the Mecca (Saul Martinez) station. The project has the potential to generate criteria emissions and greenhouse gas emissions in excess of SCAQMD standards. The EIR analysis will include a stand-alone air quality study to evaluate whether construction and operation of the proposed development will comply with the applicable SCAQMD air quality standards. The EIR analysis will also include a greenhouse gas (GHG) study to evaluate project-related construction and operational emissions and determine the level of GHG impacts as a result of constructing and operating the proposed project. The EIR will provide an in-depth evaluation of CEQA Thresholds “a” through “d” regarding project impacts to air quality; and CEQA Thresholds “a” and “b” regarding project- Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 33 Febraury 2021 generated greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels. 4.2.4 Biological Resources The Coral Mountain Resort property is located on relatively flat land within elevations ranging from approximately 72 feet below mean sea level to 65 feet above mean sea level. Vegetation within the study area is best described as Desert Saltbush scrub, Tamarisk scrub, and Mesquite Hummock. Land is disturbed in the southern and northeast portions of the study area and a stand of blue palo verde is present in the eastern portion of the study area. Dominant species include fourwind saltbush, bush seepweed, athel, and common Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus). The majority of the project area was previously agricultural land. As a result, the Desert Saltbush scrub is fairly disturbed throughout the project area. Common wildlife species expected on the project site include common raven, mourning dove, and greater roadrunner. A biological survey and records search is required to determine whether any sensitive or special status animal species are located within the boundary of the project site. The findings of the project-specific biological survey and records search will be fully addressed in the EIR. The project is not anticipated to have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, since there are no jurisdictional waters and no lakes, rivers, or streambeds onsite. Additionally, the project property does not contain, nor is adjacent to, federally protected wetlands, marshes, or other drainage features. No blue-line stream corridors (streams or dry washes) occur in the project area, and the project would not impact federally protected wetlands. The project’s consistency with adopted habitat policies and plans will be analyzed in the EIR, including the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). In short, the project EIR will evaluate the findings of the project-specific biological survey and records search, and mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels . 4.2.5 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources The EIR will include a project-specific Historical/Archaeological Resource Survey Report. The project area is located on the southcentral outskirts of the City and is adjacent to the eastern foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and includes a portion of a rocky knoll known as Coral Mountain. The ground surface in much of the project area has been disturbed to various Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 34 Febraury 2021 degrees, except for the portion in and around Coral Mountain. The northeast portion of the site does not appear to have been farmed but it has been cleared of vegetation. The analysis in the EIR will include a review of the project-specific cultural evaluation, an assessment of the potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources associated with project construction, and the results of AB 52 consultation with Native American Tribes. Therefore, CEQA Guideline Thresholds “a”, “b”, and “c”, regarding cultural resources, and Thresholds “a) i” and “a) ii”, regarding Tribal Cultural Resources will be included in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels. 4.2.6 Energy Resources The project will consist of residential, commercial, open space/recreational and resort uses. Low density residential uses will occupy approximately 232.3 acres of the site, commercial uses will occupy 7.7 acres, resort uses will occupy 120.8 acres, and the open space/recreational uses will occupy 23.6 acres of the project site. The project site, located at the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, lies within the service area boundaries of Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electricity and Southern California Gas Company for natural gas. As a part of project implementation, the project will be required to install an off-site transformer bank at an existing IID substation located at 81600 Avenue 58 as part of proposed upgrades. Construction for the conduits and line extension would occur in the existing right-of-way. The Coral Mountain Resort EIR will analyze project-related impacts to energy resources during construction activities and operation. The impacts of the offsite improvements will also be analyzed in the EIR. The EIR will evaluate CEQA Guideline Thresholds “a” and “b” to determine the project’s potential energy impacts, and mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels. 4.2.7 Geology and Soils A site-specific Geotechnical Investigation is required for the project property, to investigate the geotechnical and soil conditions at the site. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo fault zone. However, seismic activity that may occur on either the San Andreas fault zone (approximately 7.75 miles northeast of the project site), or San Jacinto fault zone (approximately 14 miles southwest of the project site) could result in severe ground shaking. The California Building Code Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 35 Febraury 2021 contains specific requirements and standards to ensure safe building design. The EIR will evaluate the impacts of seismic hazards and geologic hazards at the project site. Therefore, CEQA Thresholds “a” through “d” will be analyzed in the EIR. Mitigation will be provided in the EIR, if necessary. The project is currently located within the Coachella Valley Water District’s (CVWD) service area for water and sewer services. The project proposes to connect with the existing sewer infrastructure to provide sewer to the residents and guests of the proposed project. The project site will not use septic systems. Additionally, CVWD has sufficient capacity to treat effluent generated by the project. Further discussion regarding project-related sewer and wastewater use will be provided in the Utilities and Service Systems section of the EIR. Since the project will not use septic systems , CEQA Threshold “e” will not be analyzed in the EIR. In addition to the project-specific Geotechnical Investigation, a project specific Paleontological Resources Assessment will be included in the EIR to identify any significant, non-renewable paleontological resources that may exist within or adjacent to the project site. The findings of the Paleontological Resources Assessment will be analyzed in the CEQA Threshold “f” discussion of the EIR. Mitigation measures will be provided, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels . 4.2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implementation of the project would facilitate new growth and development throughout the project area. Resort, commercial, residential, and recreational developments would result in an increased population of residents and non-residents that would have both the potential to be susceptible to hazards, and to utilize hazardous materials. The project site is located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Unified School District. The closest school is the Westside Elementary School, located approximately 1.30 miles northeast of the project site at 82225 Airport Boulevard in Thermal. The project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; therefore, CEQA Threshold “c” will not be analyzed in the EIR. The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and therefore, CEQA Threshold “d” will not be analyzed in the EIR. Moreover, the closest airport to the proposed project is the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, located at 56-850 Higgins Drive in Thermal, California. The project is located approximately 4.25 miles west of the Airport, and outside of the Airport’s Land Use Compatibility Zone. Therefore, CEQA Threshold “e” will not be analyzed in the EIR. Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 36 Febraury 2021 Although the project will not result in impacts to CEQA Thresholds “c”, “d”, and “e”, the EIR will analyze project-related impacts to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; the release of hazardous materials into the environment; the implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan; and wildfire impacts (CEQA Thresholds “a”, “b”, “f”, and “g”. These topics will be discussed in detail, and mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels. 4.2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality The project site is defined by a relatively level terrain with scattered vegetation coverage. This setting occurs on the east side of Coral Mountain and two engineered flood control dikes (No. 2 and No. 4). The dikes form part of the regional flood control system and the planned Eastern Coachella Valley Stormwater Master Plan Project (Master Plan). The on-site conditions have been modified by prior agricultural operations and clearing activities that occurred over multiple decades. The site has also been altered by dirt roads, hiking paths, and various underground irrigation lines. Current on-site drainage is controlled via sheet flow generally trending from west to east. In addition to the on-site drainage conditions, vacant land and Coral Mountain west of the project are tributary to the project area. The off-site hillside portion of Coral Mountain primarily consists of rock outcrop, while the vacant land is relatively flat with conditions similar to those that occur on-site. The project site is covered by three Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels: 06065C2244H and 06065C2900H effective April 19, 2017, and 06065C2925H, effective March 6, 2018. Based on these sources, the project area is designated Zone X, an “area with reduced flood risk due to levee”. The levee system being referenced includes Dike No. 2 and Dike No. 4 located west and upgradient of the project site. A project specific hydrology study will be prepared to analyze project on-site facilities and off- site tributary flows. The EIR analysis will consider how the flood protection solutions will be incorporated into the site design, storm drain infrastructure, and water quality management practices in relation to the applicable regulatory standards that apply during construction and operation of the proposed development. The EIR will analyze the project’s site design measures to prevent interference with existing groundwater recharge facilities located south of the project. A Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification has been completed and was adopted by CVWD in March 2020. This report analyzes the project demand for water and the supply availability for the project area. Its findings will be described in the EIR. Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 37 Febraury 2021 The introduction of impervious land cover (i.e., roadways, hardscape, buildings) resulting from project implementation would result in an increase in the rate and amount of surface runoff produced by a site. The EIR will analyze the surface runoff generated by project implementation, and the proposed onsite stormwater retention system. The Coral Mountain Resort EIR will evaluate CEQA Guideline Thresholds “a” through “e” in order to determine project-related impacts to hydrology and water quality and mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels. 4.2.10 Land Use Planning The project site, located at the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, is surrounded by developed residential communities to the north, east, and south, vacant land to the north, west and south, and Coral Mountain to the southwest. The surrounding developments are gated and operate separately from each other. The proposed project occurs on vacant land, and will not impact operation of surrounding residential projects, currently or in the future, and development of the proposed project will not divide an established community. Therefore, CEQA Threshold “a” regarding project land use and planning will not be analyzed in the Coral Mountain Resort EIR. The project will include a General Plan Amendment to revise the existing City of La Quinta General Plan Map to be consistent with the proposed land uses. The proposed project consists of a variety of land uses including Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, General Commercial, and Open Space Recreation. A Zone Change is required to revise the City’s Zoning Map to be consistent with the proposed land uses. The EIR will analyze whether the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning, in the discussion of CEQA Threshold “b”, and mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels. 4.2.11 Mineral Resources Mineral resources found throughout the region include sand, gravel, crushed stone, copper, limestone, and tungsten. Many of these resources are important for common construction projects including asphalt, concrete, road base, stucco, and plaster. There are currently several active sand and gravel mines in the Coachella Valley, but none are in the City of La Quinta. Future mining within the City of La Quinta is unlikely due to existing urbanization. Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 38 Febraury 2021 According to the Mineral Land Classification Map, the approximately 386-acre project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1) and Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3). The northeast portion of the project is located with the MRZ-1 zone, which specifies areas where geologic information indicates no significant mineral deposits are present or likely to be present. The southwest portion of the project property is located within the MRZ -3 zone which indicates areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences where the significance cannot be evaluated from available data. The Mineral Resource Zone Map within the 2035 La Quinta General Plan, also classifies the project property to be located within zones MRZ-1 and MRZ-3. A small portion of MRZ-3, located just north of Avenue 60 and west of Madison (i.e. the project site), is undeveloped vacant land designated for low density residential development. A barrow pit, used temporarily for the development of the Thomas Levy water recharge facility, is located within the project area. However, the use was temporary, and the barrow pit is not currently used for mining. The site has been designated for low density residential and golf course uses, and any barrow pits have been abandoned. The La Quinta General Plan Environmental Impact Report (LQGP EIR) states that undeveloped sites located in MRZ-3 zones in the City are surrounded by urban development and mineral extraction activities are incompatible and unlikely on the remaining vacant parcels. The project site, designated for urban uses, is not conducive to mineral extraction. Therefore, the LQGP EIR concludes that development of areas within these land use categories will not result in the loss of availability of locally important mineral resources considered valuable to the region and state and will not result in the loss of availability of mineral resource recovery sites. The project site is not recognized as a mineral resource recovery site delineated in the City of LQGP, General Plan EIR or resource maps prepared pursuant to SMARA. The use of a small portion of the property as a barrow pit was temporary and associated with the construction of the Thomas Levy water recharge facility to the northwest. The land is currently and has for many years been designated for residential and golf course development, and not for mineral extraction. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on mineral resources, and analysis of CEQA Thresholds “a” and “b” regarding mineral resources will not be included in the EIR. 4.2.12 Noise The project is located on vacant land on the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The closest airport to the project is the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, located at 56-850 Higgins Drive in Thermal, California. The project is located approximately 4.25 miles west of the Airport. Since the project is not located within two miles of a public airport or in Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 39 Febraury 2021 the vicinity of a private airstrip, CEQA Threshold “c”, regarding noise-related impacts, will not be analyzed in the EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s residential and residential and resort character. A project-specific noise impact analysis will be prepared. Potential impacts of noise associated with project construction and operation will be analyzed and addressed in the EIR, as required by CEQA Threshold “a”. Appropriate design measures and all applicable restrictions and requirements will be identified within the EIR and, if necessary, mitigation measures will be identified and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels. Additionally, project-generated groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels will also be analyzed in the EIR to determine whether impacts are significant, and if necessary, mitigation measures will be identified and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels (CEQA Threshold “b”). 4.2.13 Population and Housing A maximum of 600 dwelling units are proposed to be developed within the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan. According to the 2020 California Department of Finance population and housing estimates, the City of La Quinta’s total population is approximately 40,660 with an average household size of 2.60. The City of La Quinta’s General Plan (LQGP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed future growth in Section III, Part L, Population and Housing. The EIR forecasts a population of 46,297 people by year 2035. As a result of project build-out, the proposed development could add approximately 2,181 new residents to the City for an approximate population of 42,841. This is an increase of 5 percent, and still below the projected 2035 population forecast of 46,297. Although the project would contribute to growth within the City of La Quinta, significant growth to population, housing and employment is already anticipated in the City’s General Plan and EI R, including based upon the prior entitlement approvals for the project site . In addition, this projected increase is a conservative figure because it assumes that the project’s future residents will not be current residents of La Quinta. However, it is a nticipated that some of the project’s residents will be existing residents from within the City and/or from neighboring incorporated and unincorporated areas. Additionally, the 150 hotel keys will not lead to permanent residents of the project. The employment generated by the project will include hotel, commercial and surf-related employees. However, the project will not result in a large Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 40 Febraury 2021 employment base, and jobs created at the project will be absorbed by new and existing residents of the City and surrounding jurisdictions. The proposed project lies adjacent to the existing paved roadways, Avenue 58 (north) and Madison Street (east). Extensions of these roadways are not proposed as part of project implementation. Avenue 60, south of the proposed project, pr ovides approximately 750 feet of paved access (from the Madison Street intersection) to the residential properties south of the site. Implementation of the proposed project will extend Avenue 60 approximately 525 feet to the west, to provide access to the southern portion of the project property. The project will be required to make offsite improvements for electrical power to the site. The project will be required to install an off-site transformer bank at an existing IID substation located at 81600 Avenue 58 and extend a distribution line along Avenue 58. Conduit systems will also be installed along Avenue 58 as part of the proposed upgrades. Construction of the conduits and line extension would occur in the existing right-of-way. The extension of IID’s infrastructure will provide electricity exclusivity to the proposed project. The project’s connection to the existing IID infrastructure will occur during the first phase of development and will be for exclusive use of the proposed project. In a letter dated May 26, 2020, IID concluded that electrical facilities can be extended to serve the project, under the conditions in the will serve letter. Water lines currently occur along Avenue 58 and Madison Street, and sanitary sewer lines occur on Avenue 58 and Avenue 60. No additional extensions of infrastructure will be required. The project is not anticipated to result in an indirect growth inducing impact because the existing infrastructure has been sized to accommodate long term growth by the applicable providers and because the projected population growth is already included in the City of La Quinta’s General Plan. Therefore, the EIR will not analyze project-related direct and indirect population growth (CEQA Threshold “a”) of the population and housing section. The project site is currently vacant and does not provide housing. D evelopment of the project site would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing and there would be no impact. Therefore, CEQA Threshold “b”, regarding project-related impacts to population and housing, will not be analyzed in the EIR. Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 41 Febraury 2021 4.2.14 Public Services The Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD), under contract with the City of La Quinta, provides 24-hour fire protection and emergency medical services to the City. Law enforcement services are provided to the City of La Quinta through a contractual agreement with the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s department provides 24-hour municipal police services associated with a City police department. The City of La Quinta is served by two school districts: Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). DSUSD serves the portion of the City west of Jefferson Street and north of Avenue 48, which includes the northern Sphere of Influence. CVUSD boundaries include the areas of Jefferson Street and east of Avenue 48. Implementation of the proposed project will increase the permanent population which could have an impact on the City’s public services. CEQA Threshold “a” (fire protection; police protection; schools; parks; and other public facilities) will be analyzed in EIR to quantify the potential impacts of the demand to public services, and mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels. 4.2.15 Recreation The project proposes a mixed-use development consisting of commercial, tourist commercial, low density residential, and open space recreational uses on approximately 386 acres of vacant land. The project proposes the development of a golf practice facilities (i.e., par 3 golf, or putting green), clubhouse and resort amenities, supporting uses and the Wave b asin. Additional recreational uses include: • The Wave contains an artificial surf wave basin (The Wave basin), that will recreate ocean waves for recreational surfing by individual resort residents and hotel guests as well as the hosting of limited private and public events by reservation. • The Wave Club will function as a private clubhouse with amenities for exclusive use by project residents and guests. The clubhouse may feature changing rooms, surfboard storage, pool, and a casual dining/lounging area. • The Farm will include private resort-serving entertainment and fitness facilities. It will offer a wide range of community and active lifestyle amenities , including hiking, biking, bicycle pump track, fitness, and swimming pool areas. In addition, spa and dining facilities may be provided for residents and hotel guests. • Planning Area IV, located on approximately 24 acres on the western side of the project property, allows open space, and low-impact active and passive recreational activities, such as hiking, biking, and ropes courses. Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 42 Febraury 2021 The recreational amenities, parks, and open space areas proposed for the project would reduce use of City parks and recreation facilities, since the proposed site would provide various recreational opportunities within the project boundaries. Some visitors may a ttend events and participate in activities at local parks; however, such visits are expected to be minimal. The project will comply with the City’s parkland in lieu fee (Quimby) and other development impact fees. The amount of recreational space provided w ithin the project will reduce the likelihood of project residents’ use of existing City facilities. Since the project will comply with Quimby fees, and the project proposes on-site recreational facilities, the project will not result in significant impacts to recreation, and the EIR will not analyze CEQA Thresholds “a” and “b” regrading recreation. 4.2.16 Transportation The proposed project is located on vacant property at the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 58 in the City of La Quinta. Vehicular access to the project is provided by existing public arterial roads, including Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The project will be required to widen and improve these roadways to their ultimate General Plan half-width. The property is surrounded by Low Density Residential land uses and natural open space. Regional access to the site is provided by Interstate 10, Highway 111, Madison Street, Monroe Street and other major arterials. The project will generate trips associated with residential, commercial and resort development, which could impact the City’s circulation system. In addition, the project includes special events at the wave basin facility which would result in increases in trip generation during short periods of time. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) is being prepared to assess potential traffic-related impacts relating to development of the project site . The TIA will be based upon an analysis of existing roadway conditions in the project vicinity, a variety of traffic count sources (including peak hour counts collected by the consulting traffic engineers), the General Plan Circulation Element, planned roadway improvements and other data and information. The TIA will provide documentation and analysis of existing traffic conditions, trips generated by the project, distribution of the project trips to roads outside the project, and projected future traffic conditions. A project-specific Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis is also being conducted (pursuant to Senate Bill 743, and the City’s VMT Analysis Policy) to evaluate the impacts of VMTs generated by the project. The findings of the VMT Analysis will be provided in the EIR. Moreover, the EIR will analyze hazards associated with transportation/roadway features, as well as emergency access proposed for the site. The EIR will analyze CEQA Thresholds “a”, “b”, Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 43 Febraury 2021 “c”, and “d” in order to determine project-related impacts to traffic, and mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine whether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels. 4.2.17 Utilities and Service Systems Water and wastewater services would be provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Currently, domestic water service lines exist along Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The project will require two well sites to adequately serve the site. The well sites will be located within the project’s existing footprint and will be analyzed in the EIR. No new wastewater treatment facilities are required as a result of the project’s development. The City determined that the proposed project requires the preparation and approval of a Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification, consistent with Water Code Section 10912. A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and Water Supply Verification (WSV) were completed for the proposed p roject and adopted by the water provider, CVWD, in March 2020. The findings of the WSA/WSV will be included in the EIR. Electrical service to the project would be provided by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). Connection to an offsite substation is required in order to provide electrical power to the project. CVWD will also provide wastewater services to the site. The offsite sewer alignment and improvements will come from the east in Avenue 60. Wastewater will go to CVWD’s water reclamation plan number 4 (WRP-4) located at 63-002 Fillmore St., Thermal CA. As a standard requirement, the project site design will incorporate stormwater management by conveying site runoff into on-site retention basins with a combined capacity to handle the water quality management plan design capture volume and the controlling 100-year storm event volume. This will also be analyzed in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the EIR. Southern California Gas Company is the provider of natural gas. Telephone and internet communications will be provided by Frontier and Charter Communications. Burrtec will provide solid waste and recycling services. The project will be able to tie into the existing cable, gas and telecommunications lines located along Avenue 58 and Madison Street. The project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage systems, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 44 Febraury 2021 The development of the proposed Coral Mountain Resort project would increase the demand for utilities in the City. The service, location, timing and construction of on- and off-site improvements required for all utilities will be included in the EIR analysis. Project design features and mitigation measures during construction and operation would be identified in the Draft EIR. CEQA Thresholds “a” through “e”, regarding project impacts to utilities and service systems, will be evaluated in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be developed, if necessary, and analyzed to determine wh ether impacts can feasibly be reduced to less than significant levels. 4.2.18 Wildfires The project site is currently characterized as vacant land with scattered vegetation of varying densities. Vegetation within the project area includes Desert Saltbush scrub, Tamarisk scrub, Mesquite Hummock, and Sonoran creosote. Residential land uses surround the property to the north and east. The property’s western and southern boundaries abut vacant land and Coral Mountain. Scattered residential estate properties lie south of the project site. According to CAL Fire’s Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in State Responsibility Areas (SRA) Map, the project site is not located in an SRA or located in an area classified as very high fire hazard severity zone. Per CAL Fire’s map, the property is located in a (incorporated) Local Responsibility Area (LRA) that is designated “non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone”. The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high, high or moderate fire hazard severity zones, therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The FHSZ map designates the area west of the project site, i.e., Coral Mountain, as a Federal Responsibility Area (FRA). However, this site is also not designated as a very high, high or moderate FHSZ. Wildfire risk is related to a number of parameters, including fuel loading (vegetation), fire weather (winds, temperatures, humidity levels and fuel moisture contents) and topography (degree of slope). Steep slopes contribute to fire hazards by intensifying the effects of wind and make fire suppression difficult. Fuels such as grass are highly flammable because they have a high surface area to mass ratio and require less heat to reach the ignition point. According to the Riverside County General Plan, wildfire susceptibility is moderate to low in the valley and desert regions on the western and eastern sides of the Salton Sea. The project is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area, or an area classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Therefore, the project site is not expected to expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. In addition to this, the La Quinta General Plan (LQGP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) states that fire hazards exist where wildland areas are adjacent to or are intermixed with urbanized areas. The open space and wilderness areas on the western portion of the City are made up Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan NOP 45 Febraury 2021 primarily of Granitic rock and sparse desert vegetation. Therefo re, there is limited vegetation to burn that could cause a major wildfire. The flat urbanized areas of La Quinta are considered very low wildfire areas. The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires because the City of La Quinta does not provide conditions, such as dense vegetation, conducive for the spread of wildfires. The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because it will provide emergency fire access to the project site, and will not alter the City’s existing street system. Emergency access would be compliant with the standards of the Fire Department to ensure proper vehicular access for emergency vehicles to the site. As a result, the project is not expected to require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Wildfires are not expected to occur at the project site, or within the City of La Quinta. This is due to the Granitic Rock and sparse vegetation that characterize the Santa Rosa Mountains, as well as the developed and landscaped urban areas of La Quinta. Since the City is not expected to be impacted by wildfires, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes as a result of a wildfire. No impact is expected to result from the project, and CEQA Thresholds “a” through “d” regarding wildfire impacts are not analyzed in the EIR. 5.0 Conclusion An EIR will be prepared for the proposed project that addresses the environmental impacts associated with the development of the Coral Mountain Resort project. The EIR will also analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, including the CEQA-mandated “No Project Alternative”, and other potential alternatives that may be capable of avoiding or substantially reducing any of the significant effects of the Project. All environmental issues identified in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, and other issues that may be raised by responsible or trustee agencies or other parties commenting on this Notice of Preparation will also be fully addressed in the EIR. CITY OF LA QUINTA NOTICE OF PREPARATION Project Title: Coral Mountain Resort Project Location: Within the City of La Quinta, the project encompasses an area of approximately 929 acres south of Avenue 58, north of Avenue 60, and east and west of Madison Street. As a part of the proposed project, the 386-acre portion of the site west of Madison Street is proposed to be removed from the existing Andalusia Specific Plan (SP 03-067) and developed under Specific Plan 2019-0003. This area is generally bounded by the Avenue 58 to the north; Madison Street to the east; the extension of Avenue 60 to the south; and Coral Mountain to the west. Located in portions of Section 27 and 28, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base Line and Meridian; Latitude 33° 37’ 15” N Longitude 116° 15’ 21” W (approximate geographic center of the site). Project Description: The proposed project would result in the development of a master planned resort community, and the removal of the 386-acre development site from the existing 929-acre Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan. The project proposes to develop the 386-acre site with a mix of uses including up to 600 dwelling units of varying product types, a resort facility with up to 150 rooms, 57,000 square feet of tourist commercial uses, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and open space recreational uses on a pproximately 23.6 acres. In addition, the project proposes a 16.62 -acre artificial wave basin for recreational purposes. The project consists of the following entitlement applications: a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019-0002), a Zone Change (ZC 2019-0004), a Specific Plan Amendment to SP 03- 067, a Specific Plan (SP 2019-0003), a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2019-0005), and a Site Development Permit (SDP) for a portion of the project consisting of an artificial wave basin. The City of La Quinta, acting as the Lead Agency, has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the proposed project. The EIR will be prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project. This Notice of Preparation also solicits comments and questions from responsible agencies, trustee agencies, federal, State and local agencies and the general public, on the scope and content of the enviro nmental document to be prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Comments received in response to this Notice of Preparation will be reviewed and considered in determining the scope of the EIR. The time period to submit comments will begin February 17, 2021 and will end March 19, 2021. Comments and questions may be directed to : Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner, City of La Quinta, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253, or consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov. Please include the name, phone number, and address of your agency’s contact person in your response. PUBLISH ONCE ON FEBRUARY 16, 2021 1/8 PAGE DISPLAY AD www.CactusToCloud.org @CactustoCloud August 6, 2021 Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Via: consultingplanner@laquinta.gov Subject: Comments on Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR SCH #2021020310 Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste, CactusToCloud values the opportunity to submit comments for the project above referenced, and we respectfully request you please share our comments with the La Quinta City Council. CactusToCloud is a group of desert advocates collaborating on community science and environmental education projects in the Coachella Valley, and our goal is to celebrate and protect our desert home. We represent diverse backgrounds and life experiences, and we are all UCR-Palm Desert California Naturalists and Climate Stewards. As it happens, we are also all homeowners in the City of La Quinta. As concerned La Quinta residents, and given our training and time spent in our community, we consider it imperative that we, CactusToCloud, oppose this project, and we ask that the DEIR be revised to address the concerns contained in this letter, and other letters of concerned residents and conservation organizations. This project threatens to negatively impact the existing cultural, ecological, and recreational features in this area. Coral Mountain itself is a cultural and historically rich space, where Native American petroglyphs, intact honey mesquite hummocks, and the ancient Lake Cahuilla Shoreline are visible and accessible to our community. We are concerned irresponsible development of this area would damage these irreplaceable assets in our beautiful city, and that access to public lands will be limited. It is common knowledge that we are in the middle of one of the worst droughts in the history of our state. The use of our ever-diminishing water resources to fill and maintain a 20-acre basin would be short-sighted and does not consider reduced water availability during an unprecedented drought, or uncertain future conditions due to a changing climate. We fear the DEIR has not properly address this, and if this project is approved our community risks water shortages and similar water restrictions to those now in effect in other parts of our state. California’s water board recently unanimously approved emergency regulations to temporarily stop thousands of landowners, residents and farmers alike, from using water from the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta watershed. Consumers are now living with a 55 gallon per person per day allowance, and face penalties up to $1000 per day, plus $2500 per acre-foot, for illegally diverting water. Only through responsible use of water, both imported and from our underground aquifer, can we avoid similar restriction in La Quinta. While we oppose this specific project as presented, we support the responsible development of this site in general. Indeed, smart development around Coral Mountain has the potential to fulfill important community needs such as affordable housing, equitable access to public lands, and climate resilience planning (as required of city governments by SB 379). Any development should incorporate resilience best practices, such as community input and consideration of environmental justice, sustainable water use, native plant landscaping, and outdoor recreational access to Coral Mountain, Boo Hoff Trail, and the Santa Rosa Wilderness. Instead of a surf park which is out of character with our desert, a development that not only preserves but enhances the natural and cultural heritage of our City would be an asset to the community. The CactusToCloud team is ready and interested in working with the City and developers to assist in the implementation of these features, and working together to build a resilient and inclusive community for people and wild plants and animals to thrive in the Coachella Valley. Thank you for your time and consideration, CactusToCloud Sendy Barrows Colin Barrows Tracy Bartlett Elizabeth Ogren Erickson CCCAAALLL FFFIIIRRREEE ––– RRRIIIVVVEEERRRSSSIIIDDDEEE UUUNNNIIITTT RRRIIIVVVEEERRRSSSIIIDDDEEE CCCOOOUUUNNNTTTYYY FFFIIIRRREEE DDDEEEPPPAAARRRTTTMMMEEENNNTTT BILL WEISER - Fire Chief 2300 Market Street Ste. #150, Riverside, CA 92501 • (951) 955-4777 • Fax (951) 955-4886 www.rvcfire.org Proudly serving the unincorporated areas of riverside county and the cities of: Banning Beaumont Canyon lake Coachella Desert Hot Springs Eastvale Indian Wells Indio Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore La Quinta Menifee Moreno Valley Norco Palm Desert Perris Rancho Mirage Rubidoux CSD San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Kevin jeffries District 1 Karen spiegel District 2 Charles Washington District 3 v. manuel perez district 4 jeff hewitt district 5 August 6, 2021 Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR Ms. Criste, The Riverside County Fire Department Strategic Planning Division has reviewed the Draft Environmental Imapct Report for the Coral Mountain Resort. Section 3.5.3 Project Components makes mention of the potential of up to four special events per year with no more than 2,500 guests at each event. We are requesting further information on these events as well as clarification on the daily operation of The Wave in respect to anticipated daily attendance, hours of operation, whether the venue is open to the public, etc. Clarification of these items will assist the Riverside County Fire Department in determining the anticipated need for service and if additional mitigations will be needed to provide service to the proposed developemt. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR and comment. Should you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at (951) 955-5272 or via email at adria.reinertson@fire.ca.gov. Sincerely, Adria Reinertson Deputy Fire Marshal Friday, August 6, 2021 at 15:30:56 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:FW: Coral Mtn Resort DEIR comments from CVWD Date:Friday, August 6, 2021 at 3:16:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:William PaIerson To:consulJngplanner@laquintaca.gov ACachments:image001.png Ms. Criste, Please also include the following comment: Pages 88, 89 (SecJon 3.8), 609, and 617 (SecJon 4.15) of the pdf refer to and/or depict the proposed water infrastructure through the project. CVWD will require an offsite pipeline in Ave. 60 in accordance with the exisJng Agreement. In addiJon, there are changes to other porJons of the onsite pipeline that will be needed. We suggest the project proponent meet with CVWD to discuss these requirements. Sincerely, William Patterson Environmental Supervisor Environmental Services Department Coachella Valley Water District 75-519 Hovley Lane East Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 398-2651 From: William PaIerson Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 9:50 AM To: 'consulJng' <Planner@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Coral Mtn Resort DEIR comments from CVWD Hello Ms. Criste, CVWD would like to submit the following comments in response to the Public review period for the Coral Mountain Resort Draa Environmental Impact Report. The Coachella Valley Water district (CVWD) received noJced that the 45-day public review period would begin on June 22, 2021 and end on August 6, 2021. CVWD has the following comments for your consideraJon in the document. Location Comment Page 3-5 Draft EIR states “CVWD Levees”. Please correct to “USBR Levees.” General Project is adjacent to USBR lands managed by CVWD; any impacts to these lands will require CVWD’s review. Page 2 of 2 General The project’s footprint is within CVWD’s irrigation lateral system. Project will require review by CVWD. Sincerely, William Patterson Environmental Supervisor Environmental Services Department Coachella Valley Water District 75-519 Hovley Lane East Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 398-2651 August 6, 2021 Sent via email Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta, 78‐495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253 consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov Re: Comments on Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR SCH# 2021020310 Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste: These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”) regarding the Coral Mountain Resort Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) drafted and released by the City of La Quinta (the “City”). The Center has reviewed the Coral Mountain Resort (the “Project”) DEIR closely and is concerned that the DEIR fails to adequately assess the Project’s impacts on biological resources and water supply, among other impacts. The Center urges the City to address the deficiencies identified in this letter and recirculate a new DEIR for public comment prior to preparing a final EIR for the Project. The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in and around La Quinta. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines impose numerous requirements on public agencies proposing to approve or carry out projects. Among other things, CEQA mandates that significant environmental effects be avoided or substantially lessened where feasible. (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126(d).) Unfortunately, the DEIR for the Project fails to comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in numerous respects I. Biological Issues While we recognize that the project area is within the “take” boundary of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, concerns still remain about the absence of mechanisms to prevent Peninsular bighorn sheep from being attracted to the wave pool feature and non-native plantings. We also have concerns about the night lighting as described below. A. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep August 6, 2021 Page 2 The Center has worked for years trying to protect and recover the Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally endangered species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act and state-listed and fully protected species under State law. Nearby projects in La Quinta have been responsible for numerous Peninsular bighorn sheep deaths (Hurt 2016). At the city-owned SilverRock golf course, fences have been erected to preclude bighorn from coming onto the golf course and associated facilities, helping to keep bighorn out of harm’s way (KESQ News Team 2019). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Plan (2000) recommends the following measures be implemented to help in the recovery of Peninsular bighorn, which is particularly important in the La Quinta area where mortalities of bighorn continue. 1.2.1.1 Construct fences to exclude bighorn sheep from urban areas where they have begun or may begin using urban sources of food and water. Fences serve several functions including: (1) separating bighorn sheep from potential threats of urbanization (e.g., toxic plants, parasites, accidents, vector-borne diseases, traffic, herbicides, pesticides, behavioral habituation), (2) controlling human and pet access to remaining bighorn sheep habitat, (3) preventing bighorn sheep from becoming habituated to and dependent upon artificial sources of food and water, and (4) modifying habituated behaviors and redirection into remaining native habitat. In the northern Santa Rosa Mountains, ongoing coordination with cities and landowners on a regional fencing strategy will be critical to the long-term health and maintenance of this ewe group… cooperation by residential landowners will be critical to the success of excluding the northern Santa Rosa Mountains ewe group from urban habitats. Along the remainder of the urban interface, where sheep have not yet shown indications of habituation to human habitats, future behavioral habituation also may occur. Although fencing may be viewed as a last resort to other potential forms of aversive conditioning, prudent planning dictates that mitigation be required to offset the likelihood of future adverse effects (behavioral habituation and increased mortality rates) when new projects are approved along the urban interface. Though actual fence construction could be contingent upon future use by sheep and the ineffectiveness of other potential deterrents, the wherewithal, responsibilities, and easements for fences should be determined and secured at the time of project approval. (emphasis added) Fences should be 2.4 meters (8 feet) high, or functionally equivalent, and should not contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. Gaps should be 11centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. This fence design should only be used at the urban interface.” 1.2.1.2 Avoid non-native vegetation along unfenced habitat interfaces where it may attract or concentrate bighorn sheep. Along fenced sections of the urban interface, ornamental and toxic plants should not extend over or through fences where they may be accessible to browsing bighorn sheep. August 6, 2021 Page 3 1.2.1.4 Prohibit the use of any known toxic plants where they may be accessible to bighorn sheep or potentially invade bighorn sheep habitat. A list of known toxic plants should be provided to all developers, landscapers, and homeowners. 1.2.1.5 Discourage the use of plants known to invade and degrade bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., tamarisk, fountain grass). 1.2.1.6 Prohibit intentional enticement of bighorn sheep onto private property. This item includes, but is not limited to, vegetation, mineral licks, or unfenced swimming pools, ponds, or fountains upon which bighorn sheep may become dependent for water. 1.2.1.9 Prohibit the construction of water bodies in developed areas adjoining sheep habitat that may promote the breeding of midges (Culicoides sp.) and monitor/control vectors in existing problematic ponds. Water features should be designed to eliminate blue-tongue and other vector-borne diseases by providing deeper water (over 0.9 meters [3 feet]), steeper slopes (greater than 30 degrees), and if possible, rapidly fluctuating water levels (see Mullens 1989, Mullens and Rodriquez 1990). Landowners and managers should coordinate with local mosquito and vector control districts to ensure management of existing water bodies that harbor vector species. 1.2.1.10 Discourage the artificial feeding of coyotes because of the potential for increasing predator abundance and consequent predation on bighorn sheep. USFWS at 80-83. We request that these recommendations be incorporated into the conditions for approval for this proposed project. B. Light Study Needed in DEIR Review While Mitigation Measure BIO-4 requires a Light Study to be performed in the future in order to evaluate how the proposed lighting plan will affect Coral Mountain, this type of study should have been provided in the DEIR. The detrimental effects of artificial night lighting on wildlife are scientifically well documented (Longcore and Rich 2004, Gaston et al. 2013, Gaston and Bennie 2014). While the proposed shielded lighting is likely to be helpful to offset impacts, until the Light Study is actually implemented and the results are identified, it may be insufficient to offset impacts to the plants and animals that reside on Coral Mountain. The results of the Light Study should be included in a revised DEIR for public review. August 6, 2021 Page 4 II. The DEIR’s Analysis of Water Supply Impacts is Inadequate California, and much of the western United States, is suffering the effects of a historic drought, the end of which is not predicted any time soon. The majority of Riverside County is experiencing either “severe”, or “extreme” drought conditions, with a small portion in the most dire, “exceptional” drought category. (U.S. Drought Monitor.) As the frequency and intensity of droughts in California increase due to climate change, it is critical that land use decision-making be made based on robust and thorough water supply analyses. Unfortunately, the DEIR completely ignores the reality in which the proposed Project would operate, and fails to include a legally adequate discussion of the Projects demand for water, the available supply, nor the environmental consequences of providing the needed supply. A. The DEIR’s Presentation of Project Water Demand is Misleading The DEIR attempts to frame the Project’s water use as an improvement compared to what could be used under different plans for the site. It’s a false comparison that distracts from the Project’s astronomically high per capita water use. The DEIR presents the Project’s water use in comparison to uses approved under the current Specific Plan, which would use a total of 1,058.4 acre-feet per year (“AFY”), compared with the Project’s water demand of 958.63 AFY. (DEIR at 4.15-28-29.) The Project site is currently undeveloped (DEIR at 3-5), and not currently receiving any water from the Coachella Valley Water District (“CVWD”), who will serve the Project. The DEIR must describe the Project’s existing conditions so that the public and decision-makers are adequately informed of the impacts of supplying this Project with water. (See Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 709-10 [“[i]n assessing the impacts of a project proposed for an undeveloped piece of property, agencies should compare project impacts against the existing environment, rather than some hypothetical, impacted future environment that might occur without the project under existing general plan and/or zoning designations” (internal quotations omitted)].) The Project is a standalone land use proposal for a site that is not developed, the water supply impacts of the Project must be presented as such, without any misleading comparisons to irrelevant preexisting land use designations. A wave park may be a more conservative use of water compared to a hypothetical golf course, but a wave park where once was parched desert earth is a different consideration all together. The DEIR fails to adequately describe the Project’s water use in terms of per capita use. The DEIR notes that CVWD’s per capita use is dropping so that in 2015 users within the CVWD service area used 383 gallons per day per capita (“gpdc”). (DEIR at 4.15-30.) As a threshold matter, this is an astonishing amount of water use, especially compared to the statewide average in 2016 of 85 gpdc.1 After noting CVWD’s purportedly positive achievement of recent reductions meaning per capita use is now only 4 times the state average of water per person, the DEIR fails to disclose what the Project’s per capita water use will be. Instead, the DEIR presents the Project’s water use in terms of AF/acre, without any explanation of why this metric is used, or what an acceptable threshold is compared to other development within CVWD’s service area. 1 Legislative Analyst’s Office, Residential Water Use Trends and Implications for Conservation Policy, available at: https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3611, viewed 8/4/2021. August 6, 2021 Page 5 (See DEIR at 4.15-31.) The Project would include 600 residential dwelling units, with 2.63 persons per units. (DEIR App. M [hereinafter “Water Supply Assessment (WSA)” at 21.) Should the public presume that the Project’s 958.63 AFY of use will be attributed to these 1,578 new residents, such that per capita use is approximately 532 gpdc? The DEIR must be revised to present the Project’s per capita water use, and it must present this information using metrics consistent with other CVWD planning documents so that the public and decision-makers can properly judge the Project’s water supply impacts. B. The DEIR Fails to Assess the Environmental Impacts Associated Providing Project Water Beyond its muddled presentation of the Project’s exceedingly high water demands, the DEIR fails to address the impacts associated with acquiring the water supplies needed for the Project and other users in the CVWD service area. CEQA requires lead agencies both to demonstrate that an adequate water supply is available for the lifespan of a project, and to analyze the environmental impacts associated with providing that supply. (See Vineyard Area Citizens v. Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 434.) A majority of the high per capita use within the CVWD service area is supplied by groundwater from the Indio Subbasin. (WSA at 29.) The Indio Subbasin has experienced historical overdraft, which CVWD has been addressing with artificial recharge using imported surface water supplies. (See WSA at 35.) The imported surface water used to replenish the historically over-taxed groundwater basin comes from the Colorado River, with annual CVWD diversions totaling more than 335,000 AF. (WSA at 41.) The WSA states that this supply will increase in the future to well over 400,000 AFY, which will be used to meet increased demand within the CVWD service area so that reliance on groundwater is lessened. (Id.) This discussion ignores the reality that the Colorado River is in a state of crisis, with the major water supply reservoirs at historically low levels. The level of Lake Mead has dropped to below the 1,075 feet mean sea level (“feet msl”) threshold where mandatory cuts to water sent to Arizona and Nevada will occur.2 If the Lake Mead levels drop further, which is predicted to occur, California will see its deliveries curtailed. The DEIR is silent when it comes to whether CVWD will be able to receive its full allocation of Colorado River water into the future, nor does it address what continued extraction to supplement CVWD’s groundwater use will mean to the environment. The DEIR creates further uncertainty to its future supply, and the impacts associated therewith, when discussing the amount of State Water Project (“SWP”) water it will import to facilitate an exchange agreement with Metropolitan Water District (“MWD”). (WSA at 42-43.) The projected SWP deliveries provided in the DEIR are misleading, as these totals represent nothing more than “paper water” allocations, not what will actually be delivered. The DEIR only lists the actual allocations up until 2018. (WSA at 43.) Table A allocation for 2020 was 20%, and only 5% for 2021.3 Existing constraints on deliveries from the SWP will only increase as climate 2 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Colorado River Operations, Lake Mead at Hoover Dam, end of months elevation. Available at: https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/hourly/mead -elv.html, viewed 8/4/2021. 3 California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 132 Management of the California State Water Project. available at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/State-Water-Project/Management/Bulletin-132. Viewed 8/4/2021. August 6, 2021 Page 6 change alters precipitation patterns and droughts intensify. The DEIR should properly recognize this reality, and revise its discussion to present how much SWP is actually received by CVWD, so that the public is adequately informed of the potential to serve the Project. III. Conclusion Given the possibility that the Center will be required to pursue appropriate legal remedies in order to ensure enforcement of CEQA, we would like to remind the City of its duty to maintain and preserve all documents and communications that may constitute part of the “administrative record.” As you may know, the administrative record encompasses any and all documents and communications which relate to any and all actions taken by the City with respect to the Project, and includes “pretty much everything that ever came near a proposed [project] or [] the agency’s compliance with CEQA . . . .” (County of Orange v. Superior Court (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) The administrative record further contains all correspondence, emails, and text messages sent to or received by the City’s representatives or employees, which relate to the Project, including any correspondence, emails, and text messages sent between the City’s representatives or employees and the project proponent’s representatives or employees. Maintenance and preservation of the administrative record requires that, inter alia, the City (1) suspend all data destruction policies; and (2) preserve all relevant hardware unless an exact replica of each file is made. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project. The Center is deeply concerned by the significant environmental and social impacts of the proposed Project. The DEIR fails to meet CEQA’s requirements for thorough, transparent and evidence-based environmental review, and is thus legally deficient. We ask the City to address and correct the deficiencies we have identified above and recirculate an updated Draft EIR for public review and comment. Please add the Center to your notice list for all future updates to the Project and do not hesitate to contact the Center with any questions at the number or email listed below. Sincerely, Ross Middlemiss Staff Attorney 1212 Broadway, Suite #800 Oakland, CA 94612 rmiddlemiss@biologicaldiversity.org Tel: (510) 844-7115 August 6, 2021 Page 7 Ileene Anderson Senior Scientist/Public Lands Desert Director Center for Biological Diversity 660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 ianderson@biologicaldiversity.org (213) 785-5407 cc: Brian Croft, USFWS, Brian_Croft@fws.gov Leslie MacNair, CDFW Leslie.MacNair@wildlife.ca.gov Elizabeth Meyerhoff, CVWD emeyerhoff@cvwd.org August 6, 2021 Page 8 References Gaston, K.J., and J. Bennie 2014. Demographic effects of artificial nighttime lighting on animal Populations. Environ. Rev. 22: 323–330 Gaston, K.J., J. Bennie, Davies, T.W. and J. Hopkins 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biol. Rev. 88: 912–927. Hurt, S. (2016, September 27) Environmental groups to sue over endangered bighorn sheep deaths. Press Enterprise. Available at: https://www.pe.com/2016/09/27/environmental-groups- to-sue-over-endangered-bighorn-sheep-deaths/ https://kesq.com/news/2019/08/22/more-fencing-possible-in-la-quinta-to-protect-bighorn-sheep/ KESQ News Team (2019, August 22) More fencing possible in La Quinta to protect bighorn sheep. Available at https://kesq.com/news/2019/08/22/more-fencing-possible-in-la-quinta-to- protect-bighorn-sheep/ Longcore, T. and K. Rich 2004. Ecological Light Pollution. Front Ecol Environ 2(4): 191–198 United States Drought Monitor, Current Map California. July 29, 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000. Recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. xv+251 pp. Available at https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/001025.pdf Monday, August 9, 2021 at 08:30:11 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort DEIR - request for late submi7al of comments Date:Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:25:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:Pert, Heather@Wildlife To:consulMngplanner@laquintaca.gov CC:Beck, Carly@Wildlife AFachments:image001.png Hello Nicole Sauviat Criste, The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is requesMng an extension to submit comments to 8/13/21 on the draX EIR for Coral Mountain Resort DEIR. We had some staffing changes around the Mme of release for this document and in combinaMon with a heavy workload were not aware of the release of the draX EIR. Our specific concerns are that the draX EIR does not adequately address the documented presence of Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS) on the project site, PBS are a California fully-protected species and a covered species under the Coachella Valley MulMple Species Habitat ConservaMon Plan. The draX EIR states "this species [Peninsular Bighorn Sheep] is not present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat" (EIR page 231), however, CDFW wildlife biologist have documented use of the area by PBS. It appears that CDFW wildlife biologist were not consulted in preparaMon of the draX EIR. In addiMon, this project is adjacent to the east side of the mountain (map on EIR page 16) where sheep are present. If the project moves forward, CDFW recommends fencing around the property to keep both sheep and people in their respecMve areas. However, our iniMal request is consultaMon with CDFW staff to discuss presence of PBS and develop appropriate avoidance and minimizaMon measures. Given the adjacency of the project site to PBS habitat, avoidance and minimizaMon measures should be included in the draX EIR that are consistent with the Coachella Valley MSHCP. We would appreciate addiMonal Mme to provide a more detailed response. Sincerely, Heather Heather A. Pert Senior Environmental ScienMst (Supervisor) California Department of Fish and Wildlife Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 858-395-9692 **Please note that due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, I will be working remotely until further notice.** State of California - Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., Governor CDFW OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, CA 91764 (909) 484-0459 www.wildlife.ca.gov Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870 August 13, 2021 Sent via email Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Dear Nicole Criste: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW ) received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of La Quinta for Coral Mountain Resort (Project), State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310, pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statute and guidelines1. Thank you for the opportunity and extension of August 13, 2021 to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish, wildlife, plants , and their habitats. Likewise, CDFW appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may need to exercise its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code (Fish & G. Code). CDFW ROLE CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a)) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Fish & G. Code, § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW provides, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on Projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. 1CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 2 of 24 CDFW may also act as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish & G. Code Sections 1600 et seq.), a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (Fish & G. Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1), and/or for administering the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP). CDFW also administers the Native Plant Protection Act, Natural Community Conservation Program, and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to California’s fish and wildlife resources. CDFW issued Natural Community Conservation Plan Approval and Take Authorization in 2008 for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), as per Section 2800, et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code. The CVMSHCP established a multiple species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and the Incidental Take of Covered Species in association with activities covered under the permit. CDFW is providing the following comments as they relate to the Project’s consistency with the CVMSHCP and the CEQA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Project Location The Project site encompasses an area of approximately 929 acres in the southeastern portion of the City of La Quinta. The local area is characterized as a developing area with a number of golf course and residential communities to the north, west, east, and southeast, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west and south, and open space and the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) percolation ponds to the south. The Santa Rosa Mountains are to the west and south and Coral Mountain is within the southwest portion of the Project property. The approximately 386‐acre portion of the Project site, to be developed under SP 2020‐0002, is bounded by vacant land and Avenue 58 to the north; Madison Street to the east; residential estates, vacant land, and the Avenue 60 alignment to the south; and Coral Mountain, and vacant land to the west. Project Description The Project area consists of 929 acres in total. Of that, 543 acres occur on the east side of Madison Street, and will continue to develop as provided under SP 03 ‐067, as a residential and golf country club. The western portion of the Project, on the west side of Madison Street, proposes the development of the approximately 386 ‐acre area and is the focus of the DEIR. This portion of the Project would be developed under a new Specific Plan (SP 2020‐0002) with up to 496 low density residential units on 232.3 acres; tourist and commercial land uses including a resort hotel with up to 150 rooms, a 16.62-acre recreational Wave Basin facility, 104 resort residential units, and 57,000 square feet of commercial development on approximately 120.8 acres; 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses on approximately 7.7 acres; and open space recreational uses on approximately 23.6 acres adjacent to Coral Mountain. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 3 of 24 Within the 386 acres west of Madison Street, the Project also requests approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019‐0002), Zone Change (ZC 2019‐0004), Specific Plan Amendment (SP 03‐067), Specific Plan (SP 2020‐0002), Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2019‐0005), Site Development Permit (SDP 2021‐0001), and Development Agreement (DA 2021‐0002), as detailed below. 1. General Plan Amendment The General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019‐0002) will amend the current General Plan land use designations from General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Open Space – Recreation to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space –Recreation. 2. Zone Change The proposed Zone Change (ZC 2019‐0004) will revise the existing zoning of the Specific Plan Area from Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Golf Course, to Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Low Density Residential (RL), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Tourist Commercial (CT). 3. Specific Plan Amendment The Specific Plan Amendment (Amendment V of Specific Plan 03 ‐067) is being processed to remove the area west of Madison Street from Specific Plan 03 ‐067, thus, creating two separate and distinct communities, “Coral Mountain Resort”, west of Madison Street, and “Andalusia Country Club”, east of Madison Street. The Specific Plan Amendment will result in only the deletion of the westerly 386 acres. No changes to land use designations, densities or intensities, development standards or guidelines are proposed for the lands east of Madison Street. It is expected that Andalusia will continue to build out under the requirements of the SPA. 4. Specific Plan Approval of the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan (SP 2020‐0002) will establish a new master plan governing the allowable land uses, design guidelines, and development standards for the 386‐acre property west of Madison Street, to allow creation of a boutique resort and master‐planned community. The Project will result in a variety of land uses on the westerly 386 acres, as shown in Exhibit 3‐5 of the DEIR. Low Density Residential land uses will occupy approximately 232.3 acres and result in a maximum of 496 dwelling units. Tourist Commercial land uses will result in 104 dwelling units, 150 hotel rooms, and 57,000 square feet of private resort‐serving commercial uses available to residents and hotel guests, on approximately 120.8 acres. General Commercial land uses will occupy approximately 7.7 acres, with up to 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses available to the general public. Open Space Recreation land uses will occur on approximately 23.6 acres in the southwest portion of the site. The Project proposes four planning areas, identified as Planning Areas (PA) I, II, III, and IV, on the 386‐acre property. PA I is designated for Neighborhood Commercial; PA II is designated for Low Density Residential; PA III is designated for Tourist Commercial; and PA IV is designated for open space Parks and Recreation located adjacent to Coral Mountain. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 4 of 24 COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW ’s comments and recommendations on the DEIR are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW has concerns regarding the completeness of the DEIR and finds the conclusion in the DEIR that Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS; Sheep; Ovis canadensis nelsoni) are not on the Project site inaccurate, and the corresponding lack of avoidance and minimization measures inadequate to protect fish and wildlife resources, specifically Peninsular bighorn sheep. Specific comments include that there is: no discussion or analysis that addresses the presence of sheep on and directly adjacent to the Project site; inadequate avoidance and minimization measures for Peninsular bighorn sheep, burrowing owl, bats, and nesting birds; questions about land ownership and adjacency to the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Area; and concerns about the adequacy and enforceability of mitigation measures proposed by the City of La Quinta (the CEQA lead agency). CDFW is concerned that the DEIR fails to adequately address Peninsular bighorn sheep and requests that the DEIR be revised and recirculated pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a). The revised DEIR should include: biological surveys to assess Peninsular bighorn sheep use of the site and the areas immediately adjacent to the Project site; clear identification of any proposed avoidance and minimization measures to avoid take of Peninsular bighorn sheep ; discussion and analysis based on documented sheep use of the Coral Mountain which demonstrates the reduction or elimination of potential impacts; and discussion on land ownership for the Coral Mountain area, specifically regarding Bureau of Land Management owned property; additional analysis of light and noise-related impacts on Coral Mountain, among other items included in the discussion below. Additional details on these comments are provided below. Mitigation Measures for Project Impacts to Biological Resources Coachella Valley MSHCP Implementation The proposed Project occurs within the CVMSHCP area and is subject to the provisions and policies of the CVMSHCP. To be considered a covered activity, Permittees need to demonstrate that proposed actions are consistent with the CVMSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency and is signatory to the Implementing Agreement of the CVMSHCP. To demonstrate consistency with the CVMSHCP, the DEIR should address, at a minimum, the City’s obligations as follows: a. Addressing the collection of fees as set forth in Section 8.5 of the CVMSHCP. b. Demonstrating how the Project complies with the CVMSHCP requirements and policies, including: 1) compliance with relevant processes to ensure application of the Conservation Area requirements set forth in Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP and thus, satisfaction of the local acquisition obligation; 2) compliance with the applicable Land Use Adjacency Guidelines set forth in Section 4.5 of the CVMSHCP; 3) compliance with the Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation Measures in Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP; and 4) implementation consistent with the Species Conservation Goals and Objectives in Section 9 of the CVMSHCP. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 5 of 24 Thus, CDFW would like to make a clarification to the following statement within the DEIR: "The construction of the proposed project will change the physical environment of the project site, which is currently vacant and undeveloped. The site is surrounded by development to the north, east, and south, and vacant land to the north, west, and south. Although the proposed project will result in the permanent loss of approximately 386 acres of vacant land, the project will be required to pay fees to assure the off ‐site conservation of habitat lands for sensitive species covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Therefore, the loss of biological resources will be less than significant with the payment of fees to avoid impacts on special status species. Additionally, the project is required to conduct burrowing owl, bat, and nesting bird surveys to determine whether roosting or nesting is occurring at the site. If roosting or nesting is discovered at the project site during the surveys, the mitigation measures include performance standards to ens ure construction of the project does not significant impact biological resources (see Section 4.3, Biological Resources)." This statement is inaccurate. Demonstrating implementation of the CVMSHCP is not simply paying the required development fee; it requires demonstrating consistency with all the CVMSHCP’s requirements that provides a permittee’s project with Take coverage through the CVMSHCP for project impacts to Covered Species and covered natural communities classified by the CVMSHCP as “adequately conserved” by the overall CVMSHCP. Please revise the DEIR to include a complete analysis of how the City ensures the Project fully implements the required terms and conditions of the CVMSHCP. Peninsular Bighorn Sheep The proposed Project occurs in or immediately adjacent to Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000) and has the potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally endangered species (Fed. Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, 1998) and a State endangered and California Fully Protected species (Calif. Dep. Fish and Game 1992), and a Covered Species under CVMSHCP. Fully Protected Mammals may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their Take except for necessary scientific research, including efforts to recover fully protected species (Fish & G. Code Section 4700). All Covered Activities of the CVMSHCP must avoid actions that will result in violations of the fully protected species provisions (NCCP Permit # 2835 -2008-001-06). Take cannot be provided under the CVMSHCP for Peninsular bighorn sheep, however, CDFW has acknowledged and agreed that if the measures set forth in the CVMSHCP are fully complied with, the Covered Activities are not likely to result in Take of these species. It is critical that to receive coverage for potential Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat that the Project properly implements the CVMSHCP. CDFW requests that the DEIR is modified to include a discussion of State Fully Protected Mammals which should clearly state that no Take is allowed of Peninsular bighorn sheep including under the CVMSHCP. The proposed Project occurs in Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000) and has the potential to impact Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 6 of 24 endangered species (Fed. Register, Vol. 63, No. 52, 1998) and a State endangered and California Fully Protected species (Calif. Dep. Fish and Game 1992), and a Covered Species under CVMSHCP. The DEIR incorrectly identifies that "this species [PBS] is not present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat" (page 231). This statement is inaccurate. CDFW has monitored PBS movement in the Santa Rosa and Santa Jacinto mountains since 2009 with GPS collars and direct observation. CDFW’s GPS data documents current and historic sheep use of Coral Mountain (Figure 1; CDFW 2020). Figure 1. Historical Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Use of Project Site and Surrounding Area. CDFW research on sheep movement, based on GPS data and direct observation, shows a trend of ewes spending a greater portion of their time in low-elevation habitat particularly during the lamb-rearing season (CDFW 2020). This temporal shift to lower elevations may be a response to long-term drought conditions. Alluvial fans and washes, where more productive soils support greater plant growth than steeper, rockier soils, tend to have more concentrated, nutritious forage (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). Following lambing, ewes have high energy needs for lactation and the time-period surrounding lambing and nursing is very demanding in terms of the energy and protein required by bi ghorn ewes. A wide range of forage resources and vegetation associations is needed to meet annual and drought related Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 7 of 24 variations in forage quality and availability. Lower elevation habitat can include alluvial fans, washes, and desert flats that provide more abundant and high-quality vegetation, such as water-rich cactus, than steeper terrain, and are crucial to the viability of bighorn sheep populations during times of drought (FWS 2000), and provide an important source of nutrition and water during lactation (Hansen and Deming 1980) and lamb -rearing (Hines 2019). CDFW is concerned that the proposed development will introduce forage and water sources that will attract rams, ewes, and lambs, where they may become at risk to injury and death from drowning in swimming pools, toxic plants poisoning, vehicle strikes, the effects of ingesting intestinal parasites present among watered lawns and grasses, and other potential urban hazards. In the City of La Quinta, existing developments (including SilverRock, PGA West, and The Quarry at La Quinta) along the wildland-urban interface have become attractive nuisances for sheep because of artificial features that attract sheep, for example grass and artificial water sources. This results in sheep habituated to urban environments, and can lead to increased mortality risk through transmission of disease, ingestion of toxic materials, vehicle strikes, and drowning in artificial water sources. These developments are adjacent to Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. As a result of these issues, the MSHCP requirement for building a fence at this interface was triggered and the City of La Quinta is currently working with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission to build a sheep fence. CDFW is concerned that this Project will create similar conditions and become an attractive nuisance to sheep that currently use Coral Mountain. Further, once the fence is built to exclude sheep in other areas of La Quinta the sheep may migrate to this Project site if it has attractive featu res. The revised DEIR should identify and implement specific measures, such as fencing, to keep sheep out of urban areas and prevent trespass of humans and domestic animals into adjacent sheep habitat. Prior to the adoption of the DEIR, CDFW requests completion surveys and a habitat use assessment of Peninsular bighorn sheep, a California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511), located within the Project footprint and within offsite areas with the potential to be affected. The surveys and assessment should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area. Focused species-specific surveys, completed by a qualified biologist and conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one- year period, and assessments for rare plants to be valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases, or if surveys are completed during periods of drought. Survey information and results in coordination with CDFW staff should be used to develop avoidance and minimization measures to avoid Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep. Based on the survey results and historic use of the Project site, Project modifications may be required to avoid Take of sheep. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 8 of 24 Recreational Effects on Peninsular Bighorn Sheep CDFW is concerned that the impacts of the increased human activity on Peninsular bighorn sheep and other sensitive resources was not adequately addressed in the DEIR. The DEIR assumes no presence of Peninsular bighorn sheep and therefore does not address edge effects on Essential Habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep. In the CVMSHCP, Species Objective 1d for Peninsular bighorn sheep is “Ensure that any Development allowed does not fragment Essential Habitat, and that edge effects from such Development are minimized.” The Project is adjacent to Essential Habitat and the Santa Rosa Mountains Habitat Wildlife Area. Addressing edge effects is a CVMSHCP requirement that has not been adequately addressed and therefore the Permittee has not ensured that the Project demonstrates compliance with the CVMSHCP. The CEQA document describes Plan Area IV as 23.6 acres of natural open space for low- impact active and passive recreational activities, including hiking, biking and rope and zipline courses. This open space area is located adjacent to Coral Mountain, which has rock outcrops known to be used as roosting habitat for several species of bats. Coral Mountain is also known to be used by Peninsular bighorn sheep. Limited details are provided in the CEQA document on the types and locations of proposed recreational infrastructure, e.g., mult i-use trails, restroom facilities, trail and other recreational lightning, etc., or the permitted recreational uses within the open space areas, and enforcement plans. Unauthorized public recreational use off trails by people, bikes, and dogs in sheep habitat within the Santa Rosa mountains may impact sheep use of the habitat. The current lack of enforcement of trail use and trail development in the adjacent conservation areas is creating undesirable conditions for the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Colby and Botta 2016). Potential issues include startling of ewes and lambs foraging in washes by mountain bikes ; off-leash dogs and dogs in areas that don’t allow dogs potentially chasing and harassing sheep ; and creation of unauthorized trespass trails by user groups that intrude into sensitive sheep habitat. While some recreationists observe the trail rules and keep their dogs on leash, many people are observed not complying with the trail use regulations. The Project should provide clear measures to avoid contributing to trespass issues and ensure a safe environment for PBS. CDFW recommends that inclusion of biological mitigation measures for sheep that identify funding and resources for enforcing trail use rules which could include signage, enforcement, public education, and removal of unauthorized trails. Most of these measures will require enforcement to ensure they are enacted and properly followed throughout the life of the Project. The trails, rope courses, and zipline may create an easy and tempting access point for the residents into the open space areas. Without enforcement of trail use rules within the Project’s open space the adjacent habitat, Coral Mountain could become saturated with unauthorized trails. Measures such as leash laws, Covenants, Conditions and Restriction for invasive plants and pets, trail regulations, and fencing requirements require constant enforcement. CDFW requests that the City revise and recirculate the DEIR to analyze impacts to sheep, burrowing owl, and bats prior to Project implementation and final approval. The level of Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 9 of 24 significance should be revised from “Less than significant” to “Significant” for biological resources unless the City provides adequate analysis to the contrary. The Lead agency must commit itself to mitigation and either adopt performance standard for future approval or analyze alternatives in detail. The strategy for identifying and evaluating the mitigation should be identified and in place before the Project is initiated. The revised DEIR should provide clear details on recreational infrastructure and permitted recreational activities; control of access to areas outside of the development; and enforcement methods to ensure trespass, lighting, and noise does not affect adjacent sheep and bat roosting habitat. The revised DEIR should identify who will be responsible for this enforcement and funding to support enforcement of the land use adjacency mitigation measures to ensure they are properly implemented throughout the life of the project. The CVMSHCP identifies a simple barrier fence as a mitigation concept to separate PBS from lethal threats in urban environments. We request coordination with CDFW to identify suitable locations for trails and fencing surrounding the property, to keep both sheep and people in their respective areas. CDFW further requests that the City add a mitigation measure for fencing along the boundaries of the property accessible to sheep to minimize potential impacts to PBS from the project development. The Recovery Plan for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep identifies that fences should be constructed to exclude bighorn sheep from urban areas where they may begin using urban sources of food and water. Fences serve several functions includin g: “(1) separating bighorn sheep from potential threats of urbanization (e.g., toxic plants, parasites, accidents, vector-borne diseases, traffic, herbicides, pesticides, behavioral habituation), (2) controlling human and pet access to remaining bighorn sheep habitat, (3) preventing bighorn sheep from becoming habituated to and dependent upon artificial sources of food and water, and (4) modifying habituated behaviors and redirection into remaining native habitat. Although fencing may be viewed as a last resort to other potential forms of aversive conditioning, prudent planning dictates that mitigation be required to offset the likelihood of future adverse effects (behavioral habituation and increased mortality rates) when new projects are approved along the urban interface. Though actual fence construction could be contingent upon future use by sheep and the ineffectiveness of other potential deterrents, the wherewithal, responsibilities, and easements for fences should be determined and secured at the time of project approval”. CDFW requests the incorporation of the following measures to help protect bighorn sheep from development effects: BIO-[XX]: Project activities and infrastructure should be designed to avoid Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep, a State fully protected species, which has the potential to be present within or adjacent to the Project area. Peninsular bighorn sheep use Coral Mountain and the surrounding conserved habitat within the Santa Rosa Wildlife Area for roaming, foraging, and lambing. To ensure no Incidental Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep, the following measures are required: 1. A biological survey and assessment of year-round habitat use by Peninsular sheep will be conducted by a qualified biologist, pre-approved by CDFW, prior to Project approval. Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 10 of 24 2. All recreational infrastructure and activities such as trails, rope courses, and zipline(s) shall be contained within the development footprint. Trails and other recreational activities will not lead into or encourage use of adjacent natural areas. 3. No plant species toxic to bighorn sheep, such as oleander (Nerium oleander), lantana (Lantana sp.) and laurel cherry (Prunus sp.), shall be used for landscaping within or around the development. Control and do not plant non- native vegetation, including grass, in the development where it may attract or concentrate bighorn sheep or invade and degrade bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., tamarisk, fountain grass). Use native vegetation in the development landscaping. Along fenced sections of the urban interface, ornamental and toxic plants should not extend over or through fences where they may be accessible to browsing bighorn sheep. The Project will use Table 4-112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping of the CVMSHCP as guidance on a landscaping planting palette. 4. To prevent sheep from entering the Project site or human intrusion into sheep habitat, fences will be placed along the western boundary of PA II and PA III including III-G (DEIR Exhibit 1.2, pg. 1-8), and PA IV; and the southern edge of PA II, PA III, and PA IV development site (Figure 2). A fencing plan and further avoidance and minimization measure shall be developed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Fences should be functionally equivalent or better than fencing designs in the Recovery Plan, which are describes as 2.4 meters (8 feet) high and should not contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. Gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. 5. Intentional enticement of bighorn sheep onto private property shall be prohibited and enforced using fines if necessary, including vegetation, mineral licks, or unfenced swimming pools, ponds, or fountains upon which bighorn sheep may become dependent for water. 6. Construction of water bodies that may promote the breeding of midges (Culicoides sp.) shall be prohibited. Water features should be designed to eliminate blue-tongue and other vector-borne diseases by providing deeper water (over 0.9 meters [3 feet]), steeper slopes (greater than 30 degrees), and if possible, rapidly fluctuating water levels, or other current best practices. As needed, coordinate with local mosquito and vector control district to ensure management of existing water bodies that may harbor vector species. 7. An educational program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the resort, open space, and low -density community programs through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 11 of 24 sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged. 8. Ensure funding for implementation, enforcement, and effectiveness assessment of the above measures, for the life of the development, to help ensure protection of sheep and to prevent trespass from the Project site into adjacent sheep habitat Figure 2. Proposed Sheep fencing plan shown in blue outline on the edge of Project site. Fuel Modification The DEIR states that the Project is not within an area mapped as “very high, high, or moderate fire hazard severity zones, therefore, no impacts are anticipated” by the development. While CDFW recognizes that the area is not classified as being within a fire hazard area, we are concerned that the Project’s design puts an additional burden on public Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 12 of 24 lands to operate as defensible space rather than include the defensible space within the development footprint. According to Public Resource Code 4291 the development should include a minimum of 100 feet of defensible space within the development footprint. Additionally, County of Riverside Ordinance NO. 695, Section 3, states that: “(1) a one hundred (100) foot wide strip of land at the boundary of an unimproved parcel adjacent to a roadway; and/or (2) a one hundred (100) foot wide strip of land around structure(s) located on an adjacent improved parcel (some or all of this clearance may be required on the unimproved parcel depending upon the location of the structure on the improved parcel). The County Fire Chief or his or her designee may require more than a one hundred (100) foot width or less than a one hundred (100) foot width for the protection of public health, safety or welfare or the environment.” As development increases within the area near or adjacent to conservation or public natural lands, the risk of wildfire increases and the need for defensible space rises. Additionally, climate change has increased the frequency and duration in which wi ldfire season occurs (Li and Banerjee, 2021). As the climate continues to change and development continues to encroach upon natural resources, wildfires will continue to increase even in areas not designated as high fire risk. Thus, CDFW requests the incorporation of the following measure to help protect natural resources on public open space and conservation lands from development effects: BIO-[XX]: With respect to defensible space and impacts to biological resources, the Project shall consult with the Riverside County Fire Department and fully describe and identify the location, acreage, and composition of defensible space within the proposed Project footprint. Base on the consultation the Project shall be designed so that impacts associated with defensible space (fuel modification, fire breaks, etc.) shall not be transferred to adjacent open space or conservation lands. Burrowing Owls A project-specific biology report in the DEIR identifies suitable burrowing habitat within the Project area. To increase the probability of detecting burrows occupied by burrowing owls, multiple surveys should be conducted depending on the proposed start of construction activities and how it coincides with the burrowing owl breeding or non-breeding seasons. To minimize the chance of Project activities resulting in Take of nesting burrowing owls, CDFW recommends that the City revise MM BIO-1 and condition the measure to include the following (edits are in bold and strikethrough): BIO-1: A bBurrowing owl clearance surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist, pre-approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, not more than 30 Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 13 of 24 days prior to any site disturbance activities (grubbing, grading, and construction). A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted following guidelines in the CDFW 2012, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. is required to use accepted protocol (as determined CDFW). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to 500 feet 150 meters outside the Project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160-foot 200-meter diameter buffer will be established during non- breeding season or a 250-foot 500-meter diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. A list of avoidance and minimization measures such as, but not limited to, the use of hay bales, daily biological monitoring, and trail cameras shall be provided to CDFW for review prior to any ground disturbance. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. ForIf the burrows isfound to be unoccupied, the qualified biologist will coordinate with CDFW on the methods to make the burrows will be made inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied and impacts to the owl(s) cannot be avoided, a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan will be developed and reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies prior to the relocation of owls. owls shall be relocated pursuant to accepted Wildlife Agency protocols. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrow within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed with the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures for CDFW to review . Nesting Birds Regarding the protection of nesting birds, it is the Project proponent’s responsibility to avoid Take of all nesting birds. The timing of birds starting and finishing nesting activities is variable from year to year based on the species, rainfall conditions, shifts in local climate conditions, and other factors. CDFW recommends that qualified biologist(s) are pre-approved by CDFW to confirm they have the experience necessary to fulfill their biological monitoring responsibilities. Additionally, biological monitoring activities are required for the duration of construction activities. CDFW recommends that at minimum, the City revise MM BIO-6 and conditions the Project to include the following (edits are in bold and strikethrough): BIO‐6: To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities shall be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31). Any vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and/or construction Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 14 of 24 activities that occur during the nesting season will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist that is pre-approved by CDFW. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 days prior to ground disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. The buffer may be modified and/or other recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by the biologist to minimize impacts. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment, or as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgement as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies to avoid Take of nesting birds. Noise The noise study in the CEQA document identifies a significant noise threshold of 85 dBH and finds that noise levels associated with the construction and operations of the Project would be close to, but not exceed, the noise threshold. CDFW requests the incorporation of the following measure to help protect wildlife from development impacts: BIO-[XX]: To reduce noise-related impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, the Project shall continue taking noise level measurements during both Project construction and post-construction operations to determine if noise levels exceed thresholds outlined in the CEQA document and inform if additional avoidance and minimization measures are required. To protect wildlife using Coral Mountain, the noise threshold affecting this area shall be reduced to 75 dBA as determined appropriate in the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in CVMSHCP Section 4.5. If noise levels exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt other minimization measures to reduce noise impacts below 75 dBA to minimize noise-related impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain. Lighting The CEQA document includes an analysis of lighting with a focus on impacts to aesthetics. A significant source of artificial nighttime lighting with the potential to impact wildlife using Coral Mountain (e.g., PBS, bats, etc.) comes from lighting associated with the Wave Basin, which includes seventeen, 80-foot-high light poles. Further, onsite lightning is planned within PA IV, the open space area adjacent to Coral Mountain. Although the CEQA document indicates that all lightning will be shielded and directed away from wildlife areas, CDFW recommends that additional lightning analysis during Project construction and operations is needed to determine that lightning impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain will be less than significant. To determine if artificial nighttime lighting associated with Project construction and operations will Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 15 of 24 result in minimal to no glare (500 or less candela) to all areas of Coral Mountain, CDFW recommends that lighting and glare impacts continue to be evaluated during both Project construction and operations. CDFW requests the inclusion of the following new measures in the DEIR: BIO-[XX]: To reduce nighttime artificial lighting-related impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, the Project shall continue taking lightning measurements during both Project construction and post-construction operations to determine impacts of nighttime artificial lightning on Coral Mountain and the wildlife it supports. To protect wildlife using Coral Mountain, project construction and operations shall result in no to minimal glare (500 or less candela) to all areas of Coral Mountain. If light or glare impacts to Coral Mountain exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt landscape shielding, dimming, lighting curfews or other appropriate measures that result in the Project causing minimal to no glare to all areas of Coral Mountain. Land Ownership A portion of the property appears to be owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and is a part of the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area which is jointly managed by BLM and CDFW (BLM and CDFG 1980). This is an area having permanent protection from conversion of natural land cover and a management plan for the preservation of the wildlife resources and their habitats. The Santa Rosa Mountains Habitat Management Plan was developed and implemented under the Sikes Act of October 18, 1974 (PL 93-452). Please clarify in the DEIR if a portion of the Project is on or adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area, owned by BLM, and identify what mitigation measures will be implemented to maintain the natural conditions of the area for wildlife resources. Please provide information in the DEIR on any coordination with BLM and CDFW on use of the Project site and how that may affect the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area. State Regulatory Environment In the State Regulatory Environment section (p. 4.3-3), the DEIR fails to identify state regulations that are applicable to the Project including: Natural Community Conservation Protection Act (Fish & G. Code Sections 2800 et seq.), Lake and Streambed Agreements (Fish & G. Code Section 1600 et seq.); Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code Section 4700), and CEQA. Please revise the DEIR to identify the above regulations and how they apply to this Project. Drought-tolerant Landscaping California is experiencing one of the most severe droughts on record. To ameliorate the water demands of this Project, CDFW recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species, and installing water-efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Local water agencies/districts, and resource conservation districts in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 16 of 24 and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website: http://saveourwater.com/what-you-can- do/tips/landscaping/ ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The completed form can be submitted online or mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: CNDDB@wildlife.ca.gov. CDFW CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER COORDINATION CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Coral Mountain Resort Project to assist in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. Our review and analysis of the DEIR identified a number of significant new Project impacts and provides corresponding mitigation and minimization measures, as described above, which would clearly lessen significant project impacts on the biological resources in the area. Therefore, CDFW requests that the City of La Quinta revise and recirculate the DEIR, for disclosure to the public, once the requested additional analyses have been prepared and the additional mitigation and minimization measures have been added to the Project, and all of these substantial modifications have been documented in the revised Draft EIR for review and comment by the citizens of California and interested public agencies. CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts. We request a meeting to discuss our comments at your earliest convenience. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Carly Beck at carly.beck@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, For Scott Wilson Environmental Program Manager Draft Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Resort State Clearinghouse No. 2021020310 Page 17 of 24 ec: Heather Pert, heather.pert@wildlife.ca.gov Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Rollie White, USFWS Dani Ortiz, BLM Literature Cited BLM (U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management) and CDFG (State of California Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game),1980. Santa Rosa Wildlife Habitat Management Plan: A Sikes Act Project. The Santa Rosa Mountains Habitat Management Plan was developed and will be implemented under the Sikes Act of October 18, 1974. (PL 93-452) Colby, J., and R. Botta. 2016. Peninsular bighorn sheep annual report 2015. California CDFW of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Region. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Bighorn- Sheep/Desert/Peninsular/Literature#312051077-annual-reports Colby, J., and R. Botta. 2019. Peninsular bighorn sheep annual report 2019 -2020. California CDFW of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Region. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Bighorn- Sheep/Desert/Peninsular/Literature#312051077-annual-reports Hanson, C. G. and O.V. Deming 1980. Growth and Development. Pages 152-171 in G. Monson and L. Sumner, eds. The desert bighorn: its life history, ecology, and management. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscan, AZ Hines, K. 2019. Post-Partum Habitat Use for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) in Southern California. (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University, San Marcos. Li, S., and T. Banerjee 2021. Spatial and temporal pattern of wildfires in California from 2000 to 2019. Scientific Reports. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-88131-9.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000. Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California. https://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/RP/20001025_RP_PBS.pdf ATTACHMENT 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the City of La Quinta, Coral Mountain Resort Project Mitigation Measures Timing and Methods Responsible Parties MM BIO-[XX]: Project activities and infrastructure should be designed to avoid Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep, a State fully protected species, which has the potential to be present within or adjacent to the Project area. Peninsular bighorn sheep use Coral Mountain and the surrounding conserved habitat within the Santa Rosa Wildlife Area for roaming, foraging, and lambing. To ensure no Incidental Take of Peninsular bighorn sheep, the following measures are required: 1. A biological survey and assessment of year-round habitat use by Peninsular sheep will be conducted by a qualified biologist, pre-approved by CDFW, prior to Project approval. 2. All recreational infrastructure and activities such as trails, rope courses, and zipline(s) shall be contained within the development footprint. Trails and other recreational activities will not lead into or encourage use of adjacent natural areas. 3. No plant species toxic to bighorn sheep, such as oleander (Nerium oleander), lantana (Lantana sp.) and laurel cherry (Prunus sp.), shall be used for landscaping within or around the development. Control and do not plant non-native vegetation, including grass, in the development where it may attract or concentrate bighorn sheep or invade and degrade bighorn sheep habitat (e.g., tamarisk, fountain grass). Use native vegetation in the development landscaping. Along fenced sections of the urban interface, ornamental and toxic plants should not extend over or through fences Timing: Prior to Project Approval. Methods: See Mitigation Measures and Sub-measures. Implementation: City of La Quinta. Monitoring and Reporting: See Mitigation Measures and Sub-measures. where they may be accessible to browsing bighorn sheep. The Project will use Table 4- 112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping of the CVMSHCP as guidance on a landscaping planting palette. 4. To prevent sheep from entering the Project site or human intrusion into sheep habitat, fences will be placed along the western boundary of PA II and PA III including III-G (DEIR Exhibit 1.2, pg. 1-8), and PA IV; and the southern edge of PA II, PA III, and PA IV development site (Figure 2). A fencing plan and further avoidance and minimization measure shall be developed in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Fences should be functionally equivalent or better than fencing designs in the Recovery Plan, which are describes as 2.4 meters (8 feet) high and should not contain gaps in which bighorn sheep can be entangled. Gaps should be 11 centimeters (4.3 inches) or less. 5. Intentional enticement of bighorn sheep onto private property shall be prohibited and enforced using fines if necessary, including vegetation, mineral licks, or unfenced swimming pools, ponds, or fountains upon which bighorn sheep may become dependent for water. 6. Construction of water bodies that may promote the breeding of midges (Culicoides sp.) shall be prohibited. Water features should be designed to eliminate blue-tongue and other vector-borne diseases by providing deeper water (over 0.9 meters [3 feet]), steeper slopes (greater than 30 degrees), and if possible, rapidly fluctuating water levels, or other current best practices. As needed, coordinate with local mosquito and vector control district to ensure management of existing water bodies that may harbor vector species. 7. An educational program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the resort, open space, and low -density community programs through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged. 8. Ensure funding for implementation, enforcement, and effectiveness assessment of the above measures, for the life of the development, to help ensure protection of sheep and to prevent trespass from the Project site into adjacent sheep habitat. MM BIO-[XX]: With respect to defensible space and impacts to biological resources, the Project shall consult with the Riverside County Fire Department and fully describe and identify the location, acreage, and composition of defensible space within the proposed Project footprint. Based on the consultation the Project shall be designed so that impacts associated with defensible space (fuel modification, fire breaks, etc.) shall not be transferred to adjacent open space or conservation lands. Timing: Prior to final plan check, or equivalent. Methods: See Mitigation Measure. Implementation: City of La Quinta. Monitoring and Reporting: See Mitigation Measure. MM BIO-1: A bBurrowing owl clearance surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist, pre-approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, not more than 30 days prior to any site disturbance activities (grubbing, grading, and construction). A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre- construction survey shall be conducted following guidelines in the CDFW 2012, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. is required to use accepted protocol (as determined CDFW). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to 500 feet 150 meters outside the Project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160-foot 200-meter diameter buffer will be established during non-breeding season or a 250-foot 500-meter diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. A list of avoidance and minimization measures such as, but not limited to, the use of hay bales, daily biological monitoring, and trail cameras shall be provided to CDFW for review prior to any ground disturbance. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. ForIf the burrows isfound to be unoccupied, the qualified biologist will coordinate with CDFW on the methods to make the burrows will be made inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied and impacts to the owl(s) cannot be avoided, a Burrowing Owl Relocation Plan will be developed and Timing: Prior to ground disturbance. Methods: See Mitigation Measure. Implementation: City of La Quinta. Monitoring and Reporting: See Mitigation Measure. reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies prior to the relocation of owls. owls shall be relocated pursuant to accepted Wildlife Agency protocols. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrow within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed with the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures for CDFW to review. MM BIO‐6: To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities shall be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31). Any vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and/or construction activities that occur during the nesting season will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist that is pre- approved by CDFW. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 days prior to ground disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. The buffer may be modified and/or other recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by the biologist to minimize impacts. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist Timing: Prior to ground disturbance and during construction activities. Methods: See Mitigation Measure. Implementation: City of La Quinta. Monitoring and Reporting: See Mitigation Measure. using their best professional judgment, or as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgement as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies to avoid Take of nesting birds. MM BIO-[XX]: To reduce noise-related impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, the Project shall continue taking noise level measurements during both Project construction and post-construction operations to determine if noise levels exceed thresholds outlined in the CEQA document and inform if additional avoidance and minimization measures are required. To protect wildlife using Coral Mountain, the noise threshold affecting this area shall be reduced to 75 dBA as determined appropriate in the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in CVMSHCP Section 4.5. If noise levels exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt other minimization measures to reduce noise impacts below 75 dBA to minimize noise-related impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain. Timing: During Project construction and post- construction operations. Methods: See Mitigation Measure. Implementation: City of La Quinta. Monitoring and Reporting: See Mitigation Measure. MM BIO-[XX]: To reduce nighttime artificial lighting-related impacts to wildlife using Coral Mountain, the Project shall continue taking lightning measurements during both Project construction and post-construction operations to determine impacts of nighttime artificial lightning on Coral Mountain and the wildlife it supports. To protect wildlife using Coral Mountain, project construction and operations shall result in no to minimal glare (500 or less Timing: During Project construction and post- construction operations. Methods: See Mitigation Measure. Implementation: City of La Quinta. Monitoring and Reporting: See Mitigation Measure. candela) to all areas of Coral Mountain. If light or glare impacts to Coral Mountain exceed this threshold, the Project shall make changes to their operations and/or adopt landscape shielding, dimming, lighting curfews or other appropriate measures that result in the Project causing minimal to no glare to all areas of Coral Mountain. Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 07:41:23 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Wave Park La Quinta Date:Monday, June 21, 2021 at 5:49:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Anne Smith To:ConsulHng Planner Dear Nicole Sauviat Criste, I am wriHng to urge you to please DENY approval of the Wave Park. We moved here just a year ago because we were impressed by the beauty of La Quinta, and the tranquility of the neighborhood of Trilogy. We love being able to enjoy the quiet here, and especially enjoy stargazing from our backyard at night as we have so liUle light polluHon. The Wave Park, with its constant noise and blaring stadium lights at night, threaten to destroy the very reason we moved to La Quinta. We are already discussing the possibility of puVng our home on the market because of this proposed project. We did not move here to live next to an amusement park for the very rich that would destroy the reason we moved from a high density area. And we do feel it would be terrible for our home value. Even more important than anything else, though, is the unmistakable, overwhelming evidence of serious unprecedented drought in the west. It is too scary and serious to ignore. All the lakes and reservoirs in the state are at disastrously low levels. This proposed man made lake would steal from our drinking water. It's just a ridiculous and incredibly harmful idea at this Hme in history. The heat and winds will evaporate huge amounts of potable water. I know that if I voted to approve something like this, I would not be able to sleep at night knowing the harm I'd be doing to our environment, and endangering people -- farmers, animals -- who desperately need that water for real life needs. I have read that 4 wave parks are in various processes of approval in the Coachella Valley. It seems preposterous that there would be this much demand for this kind of project. And if there is, why put it in an area zoned for residenHal development? And what will happen if this project is abandoned mid project for lack of funds? What an awful eyesore will remain. There's only ever been one other water park in the area, and it failed. Four wave parks?!? Please, please, listen to concerned ciHzens. Listen to your conscience and do the right thing and DO NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT. Thank you very much, Anne and Ron Smith 61120 Topaz Drive La Quinta CA. 92253 Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 07:40:00 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort DEIR Date:Monday, June 21, 2021 at 9:34:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:DINA STUART To:consulIngplanner@laquintaca.gov CC:Dina To whom it may concern, The County report that states Significant effect projected to be less than zero refer to topics like land use planning, public services etc…. That has nothing to do with the Significant effects on neighbors and nearby residents! The effect on us and our lifestyle is very Significant!!!!! Is there a place in the desert for a surf resort?…. Absolutely!!!!! But it is NOT across the street from Andalusia and Trilogy, nor nearby The Quarry and PGA West developments…. Head out by the Thermal Airport and beyond…. Plenty of locaIons! Be_er yet, improve the Salton Sea and put it out there and make it a desInaIon resort once again!!!!! Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 08:51:28 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort DEIR objec5ons Date:Tuesday, June 22, 2021 at 5:25:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Monica Harrington To:Consul5ng Planner 1. 2. Eighty-foot light poles are incompa5ble with City Code under the approved use of the proposed site for the Coral Mountain Surf Park, which is now zoned as low density residen5al, which is the same zoning that applies to surrounding proper5es. And yet, in the EIS report, we learn that the illumina5on of outdoor recrea5onal facili5es is exempt from the requirements of this sec5on and that passage is slipped in as though it's reasonable to think that the zoning should be easily transformed into Recrea5onal Use, which is the zoning that applies to amphitheaters, ball parks, etc. Why doesn't this sec5on just come out and say: "The use of 80-foot light poles is ILLEGAL under the current zoning of the property, so one way to get around this and to accommodate 80-foot light poles is to quietly change the designa5on to "Recrea5onal" and thus get the same ligh5ng requirements that might apply to a huge outdoor stadium or arena. And by the way, by doing this, you can ensure that the outdoor lights can stay on EVERY DAY un5l 10:00." The authors of this study didn't write it that way because they wanted people to come away thinking that it's reasonable that 80-foot lights opera5ng un5l 10:00 pm every night in a low density residen5al area is somehow acceptable. It's not. Some5mes, people agree to tradeoffs on sound/light because the recrea5onal benefits available to all are perceived to be worth it. E.g., in some municipali5es, outdoor summer concerts are allowed a few 5mes a year in close proximity to residen5al users, so long as the concerts end before 10:00. The idea is that for a few nights a year, the tradeoff in noise and light in an otherwise quiet residen5al area might be worth it to add to the cultural a_rac5veness of an area. Here, there is NO benefit to surrounding communi5es of 80-foot-light poles or of an event venue that is ac5ve EVERY evening un5l 10:00 pm. Surrounding communi5es get all of the light and noise intrusion, all of the 5me, with no benefit. Viewed in this way, the conversion of the exis5ng zoning for the property does not sa5sfy the zoning change requirements embedded in La Quinta Municipal Law: Required Findings. The following findings shall be made by the city council prior to approval of any zone map change: Consistency with General Plan. The zone map change is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the general plan. Public Welfare. Approval of the zone map change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. Page 2 of 2 3. 4. 5. Land Use Compatibility. The new zoning is compatible with the zoning on adjacent properties. Property Suitability. The new zoning is suitable and appropriate for the subject property. Change in Circumstances. Approval of the zone map change is warranted because the situation and the general conditions of the property have substantially changed since the existing zoning was imposed. Sincerely, M.M. Harrington, 58117 Carmona From the EIS report, Per Sec5on 9.100.150 of the LQMC, the illumina5on of outdoor recrea5onal facili5es, public and private, (i.e. the Wave) is exempt from the requirements of this sec5on with the following limita5ons: the light fixtures for outdoor recrea5onal facili5es shall meet the shielding requirements in the Municipal Code; and no such outdoor recrea5onal facility shall be illuminated by nonconforming means aher 10:00 p.m. except to conclude a specific recrea5onal or spor5ng event or any other ac5vity conducted at a ballpark, outdoor amphitheater, arena, or similar facility in progress prior to 10:00 p.m. Because the opera5on of the project is governed by the Specific Plan rather than the Municipal Code, and in order to assure that the opera5on of the Wave Basin will conclude at 10:00 p.m., compliant with the recrea5onal opera5onal hours allowed by the City of La Quinta, MiDgaDon Measure AES-3 has been added. Therefore, with the implementa5on of MiDgaDon Measure AES-3, impacts will be less than significant. !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Wave park %You replied on Thu 6/24/2021 10:29 AM %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Mon 8/23/2021 8:32 AM Thu 6/24/2021 8:32 AM ** 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. ** Please do not allow this development, it will spoil the area as far as lights noise traffic. Animals will be disturbed also. We have big horn sheep and Bob cats ion the area and we enjoy them. We purchased our home out here for our retirement for the quiet area and enjoy sitting out at night and seeing the stars afraid the added traffic and lights will interfere with this nice quiet area please let us know that this will not occur this was zoned residential correct? Why change it now, we like to bike and with the added traffic will be hard to exit our development and ride into old town la Quinta. With drivers coming back here for the wave park development. sincerely Connie Glavin 79460 Tom Fazio Lane North La Wuibta CA. 92253. We are in The Quarry Sent from my iPhone Y CG Connie Glavin <cjglavin@yahoo.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202106... 1 of 1 6/24/21, 10:30 AM Coral Mountain Resort DEIR Sarah Zappas <szappas@yahoo.com> Thu 7/1/2021 9:30 AM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>; Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Greg Zappas <cazap@cox.net> ** 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. ** Hi Nicole Sauviat Croate, I want to reach out to you as a resident of Andalusia , 58194 Aracena in La Quinta for the last 8 years. The proposed plan to put a water park “wave pool” across the street in a zoned residential neighborhood, seems like the city has sold out in favor of commercial tax revenues. My husband and I chose this development for its quiet, and remote location. We were not naive to think that one day this area around us would not be built up, certainly it would be developed. However the issues that this project brings to the neighborhood are unacceptable. First the water that this park ( wave pool) will be using on a daily basis is counter to water conservation efforts here in the Coachella Valley. The fact that recycled water can’t be used and that every day the “wave pool” will be utilizing our drinking water is negligent at best. I read this finding that designates this issue as insignificant is ridiculous. I understand it is insignificant to the developers that want this project to move forward, but greed is what their motivation is. The second was the zoning change that allows the project to develop 60,000 square feet for commercial purposes in a residential neighborhood that was originally zoned residential. In addition to that is the 23.6 acres of Recreational Open Space what is that? What will be allowed to be developed under that designation, the ability to bring in off road vehicles? The third issue of the lighting poles , 80 feet high that will illuminate the night sky, every evening 365 days a year. It will be like living next to a football stadium but instead of a couple of months out of the year , it will be every evening. I beg to differ that this is insignificant , who’s says that, obviously they aren’t living across the street. I would ask that the city of La Quinta, the City Council and the Mayor reconsider the scope of this water park, after all you represent us the people who live in the city of La Quinta. I’m sure with the demographic of this city that the population here will not be using this “Wave Pool“ but a tourist population coming to this quiet part of town to party and increase the traffic and above all destroy the land around this beautiful city. Best Regards, Sarah Zappas Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 1 of 1 7/1/21, 10:08 AM Surf park KRISTINA DAILEY <kristinam_dailey2018@aol.com> Thu 7/1/2021 8:08 AM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> ** 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. ** Dear Nicole and the LQ planning commission, This email is being written in opposition to the proposed surf park at Coral Mountain. It truly dismays me how money hungry and dollar driven this counsel has become. Have you read any of the latest articles in the Desert Sun about the water crisis in the west ? Research Lake Powell and the Glen Canyon Damn. I was there recently. The damn is one to two years away from being declared a “ dry” damn. If that happens not only will our water supplies for the Colorado River and the states that depend upon it be depleted but our electrical grid will be compromised as well. The proposed water park will depend on under ground water tables and supposedly will use less water then a golf course which is also the LAST thing this desert community needs. Build your homes if you must but do it responsibly and sustainably. Why would anyone in their right mind want to purchase a 2.5 million dollar home next to a surf club especially if there are no member benefits included ? The Coral Mountain area is a beautiful, pristine and sacred area of this valley. Let’s treat it as such and be more responsible in our choices for the future. Sincerely, Kristina M. Dailey Sent from my iPhone Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 1 of 1 7/1/21, 10:07 AM Coral Mountain Resort DEIR Diane Rebryna <drebryna@telusplanet.net> Fri 7/2/2021 12:44 PM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; cdd@la-quinta.org <cdd@la-quinta.org> 1 attachments (64 KB) July 2, 2021 DRAFT EIR CORAL MOUNTAIN RESORT DEIR.pdf; ** 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. ** Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste, Please see the following email regarding the DEIR for Coral Mountain Resort. A PDF of this letter is also attached for your reference, should the contents of the email distort during transmission. Thank you, The La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 2, 2021 Attention: Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner, City of La Quinta Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste: RE: Draft EIR Coral Mountain Resort We, the La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development, are sending this letter to express our concerns regarding the Draft EIR that was released for Coral Mountain Resort. At the outset, we wish to say that this document is beyond comprehension for the average resident of La Quinta. The DRAFT EIR (DEIR) is not in keeping with the 2021 CEQA Statute and Guidelines https://www.califaep.org /docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf, particularly those laid out in Article 10. Considerations in Preparing EIRs and Negative Declarations: The text that follows in black refers to direct excerpts from Article 10. Our concerns are laid out in RED. 15140. WRITING EIRs shall be written in plain language and may use appropriate graphics so that decision makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents. This document is replete with redundancy - paragraphs and statements, obviously boilerplate, are inserted and re-inserted throughout the document into various categories, where not necessary or where summaries might have been acceptable. We do see the summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures TABLE 1-3. While this summary is useful, the background information regarding each section MUST be presented in a manner that a reader can understand. The DEIR fails in this regard. Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 1 of 4 7/2/21, 2:20 PM 15141. PAGE LIMITS The text of draft EIRs should normally be less than150 pages and for proposals of unusual scope or complexity should normally be less than 300 pages This statement speaks for itself. The DRAFT EIR is well over 700 pages, not including Appendices. This document is unnecessarily LARGE, primarily as a result of of the way it is written - we refer you back to 15140 above. 15145. SPECULATION If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency ﬁnds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. The intrusiveness on the surrounding residential communities with, by way of example but not limited to, the: Lights (including multiple 80-foot towers and commercial glare from buildings and parking lots) Noise (during operation, and that associated with Special Events), and Aesthetics (impacts on the views of Coral Mountain) as presented in the DEIR with the pretext of supportive “scientiﬁc studies/analysis”, is difﬁcult to even read let alone understand, and therefore to allow for our interpretation. We are of the opinion that the declared “negative” impacts of the above in particular are essentially speculative and should be acknowledged as such. The failure to do this greatly concerns us and many residents that we have talked with regarding the DEIR. The phrase that comes to mind, no disrespect intended, is “smoke and mirrors”. This speaks to our concerns about the credibility of the some of the information presented in the document. 15146. DEGREE OF SPECIFICITY The degree of speciﬁcity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of speciﬁcity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the speciﬁc construction projects that might follow. We are of the opinion that the “details” of the DEIR obscure the focus on the secondary effects of the Project - in other words, we as the readers, cannot see the “forest for the trees” and therefore have trouble understanding exactly what it is that the DEIR is trying to say. Every attempt should have been made in the DRAFT EIR to ensure, going back to 15140 above, to ensure that the information contained is “rapidly understood” by the reader. We would have liked to stand back upon receipt of the EIR and, after reading, say “WE MAY NOT AGREE... BUT WE DO UNDERSTAND THE SECONDARY EFFECTS”. As the EIR stands now, we are making it known to you that we are unable to do this. 15147. TECHNICAL DETAIL Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 2 of 4 7/2/21, 2:20 PM The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufﬁcient to permit full assessment of signiﬁcant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public. Placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR. Again, to our points noted. The technical data presented in the body of the DEIR is not summarized or organized in such a manner as to allow for the understanding of the general reader. In summary, from the CEQA Guidelines ...”The DEIR serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternatives to the Project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneﬁcial effects”. This is the framework that we looked forward to and expected to receive when the DEIR was released, nearly two weeks ago. In essence, the proclamation of “no negative effects “ is evident throughout the document, but the information that is provided within the document to support those conclusions regarding the DEIR categories is virtually undecipherable to us. This is not fair. There is a timed “Process” underway and we are the residents who will be impacted by this Project. We require transparency please. We require a complete understanding of exactly what is impacting us and how. Any mitigation measures presented must make sense. If we, the general public, cannot understand the DEIR, how can we possibly respond accordingly in the manner required of us? Conjecture and opinions will carry no weight. We respectfully request that this DRAFT EIR be retracted and replaced. The replacement document should be created with the following in mind - it should be reasonable in length, with clear and concise language, and without unnecessary repetition. This would allow for “rapid” understanding by readers, and thus it would be in alignment with the CEQA guidelines. Thank you for your consideration of our request. THE LA QUINTA RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT https://www.saynotothewave.com You may direct any questions regarding this communication to: Diane Rebryna, drebryna@telusplanet.net Derek Wong, derekwong745@yahoo.com Ramon Baez, rfbaez7@gmail.com cc: Linda Evans. Mayor E-mail: levans@laquintaca.gov Robert Radi, Mayor Pro Tem E-mail: rradi@laquintaca.gov. Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Council Member E-mail: kﬁtzpatrick@laquintaca.gov Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 3 of 4 7/2/21, 2:20 PM John Pena, Council Member E-mail: jpena@laquintaca.gov Steve Sanchez, Council Member E-mail: ssanchez@laquintaca.gov Cherri Flores, Planning Manager, E-mail cdd@la-quinta.org Carlos Flores, Senior Planner, E-mail cdd@la-quinta.org Siji Fernandez, Associate Planner, E-mail cdd@la-quinta.org Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 4 of 4 7/2/21, 2:20 PM Coral Mountain Derek Wong <derekwong745@yahoo.com> Sat 7/3/2021 3:19 PM To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; rrad@laquintaca.gov <rrad@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> ** 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. ** Hello, As concerned Andalusia homeowners, we were very disappointed in the July 1 Desert Sun article by Sherry Barkas, “Study: Surf park would have little noise impact”. Please consider these concerns and plan future articles accordingly. 1. Please do not state one side’s opinion as a headline (it misleads readers...who will think it is a conclusion...instead of a self-promoting opinion based on highly questionable information by the developers and their consultants). 2. We have concerns about the neutrality of the ﬁrm – MSA Consulting in Rancho Mirage - hired to conduct the EIR. They seem to have an extremely close relationship with Meriweather, the developers of the proposed Coral Mountain project. Shouldn't the Sun be certain that there is no conﬂict of interest going on here before becoming an unwitting spreader of their biased, proﬁt-motivated position? Please research MSA to see if they have ever produced EIRs with ﬁndings unfavorable to the developer’s side. 3. The “ﬁndings” your reporter cites from the EIR are curiously similar to/almost mirror reﬂections of Meriweather's pro-development, pre-EIR claims. Therefore, we suggest you (or a Sun reporter) ask the City Planner Nicole Sauviat Criste for copies of the incredibly well-researched and well-informed complaints about the project that dozens of local citizens have submitted. These letters should help you gain a more critical, less naive stance toward the EIR's contentions and expose you to the seriousness of many of the issues surrounding this project. The letters will also provide you with the names of some local citizen experts you can contact for further elucidation. 4. PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS whenever Meriweather or MSA make claims (don’t just take their word for everything). For instance: a.Meriweather/MSA claims the project will use “less water than a golf course”. Really? Most desert golf courses use recycled or gray water. A surfpark/wave basin must use fresh water since human beings will be swimming in it. And are they honestly including the amount of water that will be used by the project’s planned single-family homes, villas/hotel rooms, restaurants, planned grocery store, spa/ﬁtness facilities, showers/stalls for surfers, landscaping, continuously needing to reﬁll the wave basin, etc.? We have NOT seen any of those ﬁgures. So their “comparisons” of their project vs. a golf- course/home project should not be trusted. b.Meriweather/MSA claims that the project will have “less than signiﬁcant” impacts on water quality, usage and depletion of groundwater supplies. DID YOU ASK ABOUT EVAPORATION...from an 18-million gallon wave basin sitting in the desert sun...and how much water they will have to use to continuously reﬁll it? c.Meriweather/MSA claims the wave basin’s LIGHTS will “only impact a small area of the scenic vista”. Really? Have you seen the video from one of the night events held at Kelly Slater’s Surfpark in Leemore? Look here - BEST Wave Pool Experience EVER! Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 1 of 3 7/6/21, 8:04 AM Kelly Slater Surf Ranch w/ Casey Neistat (START AT 34:25) - and then tell us that Coral Mountain’s seventeen 80-foot-tall light towers will not be intrusive! PLEASE GET SERIOUS ABOUT THE LIGHT POLLUTION THIS PROJECT WILL CREATE. They’ve already admitted the wave basin will operate until 10pm year-round...and probably later during their special events. How would you like that kind of lit-up amusement feature in your backyard...every day...from 7am to 10pm?!?!? It will be a MAJOR DISRUPTOR to all the nearby residents...who bought homes in surrounding communities for the peace and quiet currently afforded here. La Quinta prides itself on its starry, desert night sky!!! These outrageous light poles will create too much light...and negatively impact the night sky...for all the surrounding communities. And will be a MAJOR blight against the nearby mountains! BEST Wave Pool Experience EVER! Kelly Slater Surf Ranch w/ Casey Neistat d.Local experts claim that the proposed development – speciﬁcally the carving out of an 18-million gallon wave basin and the constant shaking created by the wave-making motors and the continuous hard pounding into the earth of the waves as they crash -- could have geologically and seismologically negative effects on the soil around Coral Mountain. There are also concerns about the damage an earthquake could cause to an 18-million gallon wave basin and the surrounding communities. PLEASE COVER THIS ANGLE. You will see scientiﬁc data about these concerns in the letters submitted to the City that we referenced above. We can also provide you with experts to talk to about these issues. e.Meriweather claims NOISE impacts will be “less than signiﬁcant during construction...and once the project is completed and the wave basin is operating”. Oh really?!? Ask any resident of Andalusia about the amount of noise that is heard from minor construction projects at the IID building on Avenue 58 – e.g., repaving their parking lot, putting on a new roof. All their projects reverberate and are heard loudly...along with the back-up beeping of all the trucks involved...throughout the Andalusia community. And these are MINOR projects – nothing like the building of homes, restaurants, a hotel, a huge wave basin, and surrounding support facilities. GET SERIOUS PLEASE! f.And what about NOISE once the project is completed? How was “less than signiﬁcant” determined? This is crazy! The wave basin will operate NON-STOP from 7am to 10pm DAILY! LOUD MECHANICAL NOISE is part of the wave-producing machines...along with the constant back & forth of jet skis to transport surfer- customers...and the PA system announcing the next waves and playing music. GET SERIOUS PLEASE! This project will be a MAJOR NOISE PRODUCER! g.Another consultant obviously in cahoots with Meriweather is called Urban Crossroads. They submitted this ludicrous claim to the EIR – “The mountain is more likely to absorb rather than deﬂect sounds from the wave basin during normal use and special events”. Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 2 of 3 7/6/21, 8:04 AM Again...ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Coral Mountain is a natural rock amphitheater...sounds that are made in its environs bounce off its walls and echo into surrounding communities. JUST ASK THE HOMEOWNER who lives at Avenue 60 and Madison. She can hear hikers at the base of Coral Mountain...and you don’t think noises created by a major machinery-driven wave-pounding water-sports basin...with loudspeakers all around...and jet skis revving...will be heard? This has not been studied properly!!! And again...we ask...since you are the community’s journalistic outlet...to investigate Urban Crossroads. ALL of its clients are cities and homebuilders. They are NOT going to say anything that would derail the development or upset their clients. WHO IS WORKING on behalf of the surrounding taxpaying homeowners? Clearly not the City...which obviously wants this development! h.Meriweather says it will hold four events per year attracting approx. 2,500 attendees each. And they have the chutzpah to say that the project will have “no signiﬁcant impact on surrounding intersections”?!? Really?? So they do not plan to make any changes to the existing intersections...which are rural/low-density/residential...at Avenue 58 and Madison...or Avenue 60 and Madison? There are just Stop signs at all these surrounding intersections. And the developer is not planning to make any contributions to improving trafﬁc control or noise issues that will result from the project or their large events? We repeat...this is a LOW-DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL neighborhood...which should NOT be changed. Once again, the Coral Mountain property is zoned for “neighborhood commercial, low- density residential and golf course” for a reason. And this zoning is part of the La Quinta General Plan...so any change should require much broader buy-in...from taxpaying homeowners and businesses...instead of just Meriweather and its consultants! Please do your due diligence for ALL future stories on this topic! You should also push back when told...or when you come across language...that refers to something as “less than signiﬁcant”...or “more likely”. Meriweather/MSA/Urban Crossroads use incredibly VAGUE language. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE when discussing such serious, life-changing concerns for those of us who live next door to this property! And the City/citizens/journalistic outlets should NOT let them get away with it! What do those terms mean? Compared to what? Show us the numbers/actual measurements! And while you’re at it...please talk to Air, Noise, Water, Planning experts about the ridiculousness of FOUR Water/surf parks being constructed in the middle of the desert! These are incredibly non-sustainable projects - in an era of water restrictions, air-health quality concerns, traffic issues, etc! Please start covering this issue more seriously. The Coachella Valley does NOT need four of these parks! And shouldn’t the desert cities get together to support the one or two that will be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC and provide income to all the communities...instead of supporting one that will be highly exclusive/private and JUST beneﬁt the developer (as Coral Mountain would)!! Thank you, Bridgett & Phil Novak Andalusia Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 3 of 3 7/6/21, 8:04 AM CORAL MT. RESORT DEIR Bobbie Fleury <bobbie@fleury.tv> Tue 7/6/2021 8 :26 AM To: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov> ** 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. ** Hello Nicole, Mayor Evans, and Council Members Radi, Sanchez, Fitzpatrick, and Pena, Mr. Castro, and Ms. Flores, Contrary to what some may believe, I am not anti-development concerning the Coral Mt. Resort. In fact, I have no issues with this parcel of land being approved for homes, a hotel and restaurant, hiking and biking trails, and perhaps even have the developer throw in a 9 hole putt-putt course for fun - on fake grass! However, I am extremely opposed to the current request for a zoning change to accommodate what amounts to an amusement park for out-of-towners in the middle of residential communities, and especially a park whose main feature is an 18 million gallon water guzzling ditch that will continuously be draining our fresh water from the aquifer due to evaporation in our hot, dry, climate. I also have to wonder if anyone at Meriwether realizes that the water in the wave pool will be uncomfortably hot for about 4 months out of the year and therefore not much fun to surf in. It's why many don't use their pools in the summer. According to the recently released draft EIR, most of what is planned for the site won't have any "significant" impact on the surrounding environment. That's like saying someone is "slightly" pregnant! The developer - Meriwether Co. - hired the people who did the DEIR. Are we supposed to believe that their report is totally OBJECTIVE? The developer continues to cite that the wave won't use more water than a golf course, while ignoring the fact that more and more courses have now gone to non-potable water, something that cannot be done with the surf park. For our City Council to approve the rezoning so this can proceed is unconscionable especially in light of La Quinta's own land and water use guidelines. Just like Slater did in Lemoore, where the wave park is in the middle of empty land, that's where this should go - and not in our desert where water use is of critical importance. Considering that California is back into a drought situation, if the developer has a conscious, or any inkling of being environmentally sensitive, they should pull back their request for the wave portion of their plans. Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 1 of 2 7/7/21, 11:26 AM And I would hope, that when it comes before you for a vote, your answer will be "no." Thank you for your consideration. Bobbie Fleury Firefox https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY1LTB... 2 of 2 7/7/21, 11:26 AM Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 08:50:37 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 3 Subject:Dra$ Environmental Impact Report Coral Mountain Date:Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 10:18:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Agnes Collins To:consulIngplanner@laquintaca.gov Dear Mayor and Council, and Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste, ConsulIng Planner City of La Quinta We, the La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development, are sending this leSer to express our concerns regarding the Dra$ EIR that was released for Coral Mountain Resort. At the outset, we wish to say that this document is beyond comprehension for the average resident of La Quinta. The DRAFT EIR (DEIR) is not in keeping with the 2021 CEQA Statute and Guidelines hSps://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf, parIcularly those laid out in ArIcle 10. ConsideraIons in Preparing EIRs and NegaIve DeclaraIons, as laid out here: 15140. WRITING EIRs shall be wriSen in plain language and may use appropriate graphics so that decision makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents. This document is replete with redundancy - paragraphs and statements, obviously boilerplate, are inserted and re- inserted throughout the document into various categories, where not necessary or where summaries might have been acceptable. We do see the summary of Environmental Impacts and MiIgaIon Measures TABLE 1-3. While this summary is useful, the background informaIon regarding each secIon MUST be presented in a manner that a reader can understand. The DEIR fails in this regard. 15141. PAGE LIMITS The text of dra$ EIRs should normally be less than150 pages and for proposals of unusual scope or complexity should normally be less than 300 pages This statement speaks for itself.page1image56365184 page1image56450752 page1image56444800 The DRAFT EIR is well over 700 pages, not including Appendices. This document is unnecessarily LARGE, primarily as a result of of the way it is wriSen - we refer you back to 15140 above. 15145. SPECULATION If, a$er thorough invesIgaIon, a Lead Agency finds that a parIcular impact is too speculaIve for evaluaIon, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. The intrusiveness on the surrounding residenIal communiIes with, by way of example but not limited to, the: Lights (including mulIple 80-foot towers and commercial glare from buildings and parking lots) Page 2 of 3 Noise (during operaIon, and that associated with Special Events), and AestheIcs (impacts on the views of Coral Mountain) as presented in the DEIR with the pretext of supporIve “scienIfic studies/analysis”, is difficult to even read let alone understand, and therefore to allow for our interpretaIon. We are of the opinion that the declared “negaIve” impacts of the above in parIcular are essenIally speculaIve and should be acknowledged as such. The failure to do this greatly concerns us and many residents that we have talked with regarding the DEIR. The phrase that comes to mind, no disrespect intended, is “smoke and mirrors”. This speaks to our concern about the credibility of the some of the informaIon presented in the document. 15146. DEGREE OF SPECIFICITY The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying acIvity which is described in the EIR. An EIR on a project such as the adopIon or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adopIon or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construcIon projects that might follow. We are of the opinion that the “details” of the DEIR obscure the focus on the secondary effects of the Project - in other words, we as the readers, cannot see the “forest for the trees” and therefore have trouble understanding exactly what it is that the DEIR is trying to say. Every aSempt should have been made in the DRAFT EIR to ensure, going back to 15140 above, to ensure that the informaIon contained is “rapidly understood” by the reader. We would have liked to stand back upon receipt of the EIR and, a$er reading, say “WE MAY NOT AGREE... BUT WE DO UNDERSTAND THE SECONDARY EFFECTS”. As the EIR stands now, we are making it known to you that we are unable to do this. 15147. TECHNICAL DETAIL The informaIon contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant informaIon sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public. Placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporIng informaIon and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR. Again, to our points noted. The technical data presented in the body of the DEIR is not summarized or organized in such a manner as to allow for the understanding of the general reader. In summary, from the CEQA Guidelines ...”The DEIR serves as a public disclosure document explaining the effects of the proposed project on the environment, alternaIves to the Project, and ways to minimize adverse effects and to increase beneficial effects”. This is the framework that we looked forward to and expected to receive when the DEIR was released, nearly two weeks ago. Page 3 of 3 In essence, the proclamaIon of “no negaIve effects “ is evident throughout the document, but the informaIon that is provided within the document to support those conclusions regarding the DEIR categories is virtually undecipherable to us. This is not fair. There is a Imed “Process” underway and we are the residents who will be impacted by this Project. We require transparency please. We require a complete understanding of exactly what is impacIng us and how. Any miIgaIon measures presented must make sense. If we, the general public, cannot understand the DEIR, how can we possibly respond accordingly in the manner required of us? Conjecture and opinions will carry no weight. We respecmully request that this DRAFT EIR be retracted and replaced. The replacement document should be created with the following in mind - it should be reasonable in length, with clear and concise language, and without unnecessary repeIIon. This would allow for “rapid” understanding by readers, and thus it would be in alignment with the CEQA guidelines. Thank you for your consideraIon of our request. THE LA QUINTA RESIDENTS FOR RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT Agnes Hilsen Collins Dear Nicole Sauviat Criste, I am a concerned citizen of the desert and am opposed to building the Coral Mountain Resort. We are in a drought emergency and not only will water be necessary to build this Resort, but adding an 18 million gallon wave pool, too? Water evaporates. Where is this water coming from—the underground aquifer? We are in the middle of climate change. Temperatures are getting hotter every year. The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act—SGMA was adopted during California’s last drought. The law states that groundwater is a shared resource. I don’t believe sharing a finite resource with more million dollar homes, a four story hotel, and another wave pool in the desert is sustainable. I conserve water but yet see projects like these springing up all over the desert and wonder why I should do my part? Sincerely, Maggie Hamilton !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Coral Mountain proposal %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Mon 9/6/2021 6:46 AM Thu 7/8/2021 6:46 AM ** 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. ** I concur with the letter written to the planning committee of the ridiculous length and unfriendly wording in the Coral Mountain proposal. If the people cannot who are going to be most affected by this super project are not given a document that can be understood by them, it ought not be written as such. Don’t make this similar to what the Washington bourgeoisie do and write a book size document filled with legaleze and vote before the document has been decimated and understood by the proletariats who pay taxes but stand to lose. Ilona Sala L IS Ilona Sala <ilona1sala@gmail.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202106... 1 of 1 7/8/21, 10:37 AM !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Coral mountain resort Nicole criste consulting planner %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Tue 9/7/2021 3:43 PM Fri 7/9/2021 3:43 PM ** 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. ** I am a full time desert and La Quinta city resident, and have been here 37 years. I am Opposed to the building of the Coral Mountain Resort with it's proposed 18 million gallon wave pool, 4 story hotel, and many new homes. We are living in a drought Again, and with climate change happening it seems irresponsible to think that such a project which would require so much of an Important resource would even be considered. According to the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, groundwater is a "shared resource" , and therefore this finite resource needs to be used appropriately. Water from our aquifer needs to be used in A sustainable and justifiable manner. Drinking water, water for crops, plants and gardens seems more important than a wave pool! Think of the evaporation factor alone. I do my part with water conservation, shouldn't we ALL be doing the same? Sincerely, Judy Carey 53380 Avenida Cardenas LQ L JC Judy Carey <rosencarey@verizon.net>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202106... 1 of 1 7/12/21, 8:05 AM !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Coral Mountain Development %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Wed 9/8/2021 2:04 PM Sat 7/10/2021 2:04 PM ** 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. ** Dear Nicole, My name is Kelly Welton and my fiancé and I live in Trilogy. We moved here in February of 2020. Tired of Los Angeles and Orange counties’ traffic and noise, we were lured to La Quinta by the open mountains, sightings of Bighorn sheep, and the quiet beauty of all the visible stars at night. We are VERY opposed to the proposed “Coral Mountain" wave park. We strongly urge you not to approve any zoning variances that would allow this project to go forward. The proposed variances effectively allow the equivalent of commercial-scale traffic, noise, lights, and pollution in a high density residential area. We understand the property will be developed someday, but when we considered and ultimately purchased our retirement home, we never dreamed the zoning could change from residential with golf course to amusement park so quickly and so quietly. Why jeopardize our “Gem of the Desert” reputation? And, to be frank, the Environmental Impact Report seems to have been prepared by the developers rather than by neutral third parties. This truly is the wrong project in the wrong place. I believe you have a responsibility to the residents of La Quinta, at the very least to acknowledge our efforts and listen to our concerns. We seem to have been ‘brushed aside’ whenever voicing our concerns for this project. Please, we urge you to fully consider the impact this development will have on La Quinta, all of La Quinta, to the ends of the city limits. Thank You. Sincerely, Kelly Welton L K kelly <kelwelrt@gmail.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202106... 1 of 1 7/12/21, 8:07 AM !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Draft EIR Wavepark %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Thu 9/9/2021 8:39 PM Sun 7/11/2021 8:39 PM ** 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. ** Please make MSA redo the Draft EIR so we can all understand what is being said as it pertains to the Wavepark proposal. Personally, I have spent hours trying to come to some understanding of what is being said or referenced. I simple cannot understand their research or early conclusions. I have given up as well as many others who have sought out help for same reason. The general public has a right to understand this document. The city has a similar obligation per Ca statute to make this document readable and understandable to the average resident. I personally have asked two land use attorneys for help in the matter and they have reached the same conclusion. If the goal by MSA is to complicate and confuse the general public then they have succeeded. In order to move forward this document needs to be understood. Unbelievable that this even needs to be brought forward. Mike Charles 81343 Andalusia La Quinta, Ca 92253 mgacharles@yahoo.com cell: 253-381-4565 L MC mike charles <mgacharles@yahoo.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202106... 1 of 1 7/12/21, 8:08 AM Dear Nicole Sauviat Criste I am writing to let you know my objection to the proposed development of the Coral Mountain Resort. I have lived in La Quinta since 1972 and have seen some good development in La Quinta and some bad. Unfortunately highway 111 has some terrible and unnecessary development, ie car lots and big box stores. There are many things to consider when planning a city. It is extremely important to consider the environmental impact of a development. With global warming and droughts in California it is responsible for the city to consider how a development would impact our water resources. The idea of having an 18 million gallon wave pool, a four story hotel and million dollar homes is not environmentally responsible. Please deny the application of this development and save our water resources. Sincerely, Dorothy Dupree 78430 Cameo Dunes Place La Quinta, Ca 92253 760 861-9442 !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Coral Mountain Resort - Draft EIR %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Fri 9/10/2021 12:51 PM Mon 7/12/2021 12:51 PM ** 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. ** Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste: I send this letter to express significant objections regarding the Coral Mountain Resort Draft EIR. In brief, the subject document fails to comport with CEQA 2021 Guidelines: https://www.califaep.org/statute and guidelines.php The subject document is 5x the volume stated in CEQA guidelines. As such the purpose and intent of the guidelines are rendered impossible of performance. The current document is - in my opinion - an affront to the audience for which it is intended. A reasonable person may ask why the developer and its agents sought to avalanche the audience with such a grossly over-written, unnecessarily complicated document. Redundancies are pervasive throughout the document. Such writing techniques are experience-proven methods to confuse, obfuscate and discourage the audience from accomplishing a complete read. One wonders why the developer and its agents would adopt this communications approach for a project they know to be controversial and objectionable to many. I respectfully request the subject DRAFT EIR be withdrawn. Further, I ask that the City of La Quinta respect and observe CEQA guidelines in publishing a replacement DRAFT EIR. In doing so, readers would have opportunity to absorb and comprehend contents presented in clear, concise, everyday terms - as intended by CEQA. A corollary benefit would accrue to the City of La Quinta in the form of reader audience appreciation for transparency. Your consideration of my request is appreciated. Thank you. Kenneth D. Jones 60179 Honeysuckle St. La Quinta, CA 92253 KenJonesMail@aol.com L KJ Ken Jones <kenjonesmail@aol.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Cc: Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; cdd@la-quinta.org ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202106... 1 of 1 7/13/21, 8:58 AM July 12, 2021 Attention: Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste: RE: Draft EIR Coral Mountain Resort I am sending this letter to express my concerns regarding the Draft EIR that was released for Coral Mountain Resort. This document is not in keeping with the CEQA 2021 Guidelines https://www.califaep.org/statute_and_guidelines.php • It is too long. The CEQA guidelines stipulate that the document for a project should be no more than 300 pages. • It is not “rapidly understood” as required by the CEQA guidelines, again due in part to its length, but particularly due to redundancy and repetition. I respectfully request that this DRAFT EIR be retracted and reissued. The replacement document should be created with the following in mind - it should be reasonable in length, with clear and concise language, and without unnecessary repetition. This would allow for “rapid” understanding by readers, and thus it would be in alignment with the CEQA guidelines. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Brenda Vatland bdvatland@gmail.com 79345 Toronja La Quinta, CA 92253 cc: Linda Evans. Mayor E-mail: levans@laquintaca.gov Robert Radi, Mayor Pro Tem E-mail: rradi@laquintaca.gov. Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Council Member E-mail: kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov John Pena, Council Member E-mail: jpena@laquintaca.gov Steve Sanchez, Council Member E-mail: ssanchez@laquintaca.gov Cherri Flores, Planning Manager, E-mail cdd@la-quinta.org Carlos Flores, Senior Planner, E-mail cdd@la-quinta.org Siji Fernandez, Associate Planner, E-mail cdd@la-quinta.org !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Draft EIR Coral Mountain Resort %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Fri 9/10/2021 10:53 AM Mon 7/12/2021 10:53 AM ** 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. ** To: Ms. Nicole Sauviate Criste, Consulting Planner, City of La Quinta We are sending this email to express our concerns regarding the Draft EIR that was submitted for Coral Mountain Resort recently. The document, as currently submitted, is not in keeping with the CEQA 2021 Guidelines, as specified at: https://www.califep.org/statute_and_guidelines.php . Most significantly: -It is too long. The CEQA guidelines stipulate that the document for a project should be no more than 300 pages. -It is not "rapidly understood" as required by the CEQA guidelines, again due in part to its length, but particularly due to redundancy and repetition. We respectfully request that this DRAFT EIR be retracted and reissued in compliance with the CEQA 2021 Guidelines. Additionally, the consultants and report preparers should be required to provide clear and verifiable supporting data for every issue of concern. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Dave Wiezel Bruce Tersiner 58540 Aracena, La Quinta, CA 92253 hnldjw@yahoo.com, tersiner@yahoo.com L DW Dave Wiezel <hnldjw@yahoo.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Cc: Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; cdd@la-quinta.org Reply Reply all Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202106... 1 of 1 7/12/21, 12:36 PM Diane Rebryna, B.Sc.,D.D.S. 60149 Honeysuckle Street, La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner BY EMAIL: Good day Ms. Sauviat Criste, Thank you for your email of this morning, July 13, 2021 with your explanation as to why the current DEIR (also “the Document”) will not be retracted and reissued, and advising us that accordingly there would be NO extension beyond the August 6, 2021 date for comments. Perhaps the City has “carefully and thoroughly reviewed the proposed Project”, but I believe that you are missing the point of my request. Please understand that while a complex Project such as this requires analysis from the City’s perspective, it must also be presented in such a manner to allow for a detailed analysis by the public and also allow for “rapid understanding”. I would again like to state that the document in its present format does not provide for this, mostly due to its length, repetitiveness and redundancy. I will not repeat again the reasoning behind our initial request of July 2, 2021. I gather from your email that you feel that the document is “not unduly scientiﬁc or complex”. For reasons that I will not go into, I respectfully disagree; however the purpose of my response herein is not to argue. ——————————————————————————————————————————- I do propose a compromise please, particularly with respect to the Sections in Chapter 4. Environmental Impact Analysis. I would like to see the 5 following items considered : 1.An expanded Table of Contents for Chapter 4. ***These 15 Sections are essentially the “meat and potatoes” of the DRAFT EIR As the document stands, the Table of Contents for a 700 plus page Document is not at all helpful. By way of example, in the Section regarding Aesthetics (4.1) which comprises 73 pages (4.1.1- 4.1.72), I note 6 Subsections. These are: 4.1.1 Introduction, 4.1.2 Existing Conditions, 4.1.3 Regulatory Setting, 4.1.4 Project Impact Analysis 4.1.5 Cumulative Impacts, and 4.1.6 Mitigation Measures However, when I go to the Table of Contents, I see ONLY “4.1 Aesthetics” referencing the entire 73 page. I ask please - why would the Sections relevant to each Chapter not be included ? - please see 2. below 2. Inclusion of the Subsections and Tables in the Table of Contents - with numbers, letters and bullets as appropriate and appropriately cross referenced to pages in the Document. It is the subsections that pose an issue for the average reader such as myself. For instance, when I proceed to go through Section 4.1.4 Project Impact Analysis, I note the following “Subsections” Thresholds of Signiﬁcance Methodology Proposed Project Character and Development Standards PA I PA I I PA II I PA IV Circulation Design Guidelines Planning Area I - Neighborhood Commercial Materials Planning Area II - Low Density Residential Materials Massing and Scale Architecture Planning Area III - Tourist Commercial Materials Massing and Scale Architecture Planning Area III - Tourist Commercial Offsite Infrastructure Project Impacts a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ? Location “A” Location”B” ….. all in different fonts, different sizes, some italics, some not, non indented, etc. ; and these are in only the ﬁrst 25 pages of the 73 for this Section ! I believe that you can see where I am going with this “illustration” above. This is not an easily readable document, but in particular it is not an easy document to reference and therefore understand. My example refers to just Section 4.1.4 - the layout therein is the same throughout the entire Document. From my particular perspective as I conduct my review, I found that I am required create my own “table of contents” for my ability to cross reference to allow for my understanding. Additionally, an expanded Table of Contents might allow me to gather data on a particular item - for instance, the lighting. In one sub - section, its says that towers are 80 feet high, in another it says that they will be lit from 7 AM - 10 PM, in another it says that there will be 17 - 80 foot towers. etc. If this data is NOT provided in one sub- section, then at least a Table of Contents as requested might be of help going forward. I can assure you that this is no easy task to begin to gather and assimilate this data - as I attempt to provide an intelligent response to the Draft EIR. An expanded table of Contents with corresponding “lists” within the document itself would go a long way to helping me do this. 3. If it is possible, I would like to see this Document re-issued as a “searchable” PDF, with hyperlinks as required to the Appendices. Modern technology easily allows for this. 4. I would like to see the entire Document proof read with respect to page numbers please. For instance, I see that Section 4.1 has pages marked 4.1 … whereas 4.2 has pages also marked 4.1, … - instead of 4.2.X.… Simple proof reading would have caught this error - I’m asking please that you have someone do this. That way, when I make my own notes to refer to, I am not going back through the document and unable able to ﬁnd what I am looking for because I am dealing with errors in the page numbering system. 5. I would like to see sub-sections entitled CONCLUSIONS limited to ONE per Section, please. Too many of these have lead to my confusion on the topics therein. In closing, I wish to say that this Project is very complex and potentially impactful to the residents around it on so many levels. There are many aging residents who reside in retirement communities near this proposed Project. Many have invested their life savings in their forever homes and feel very afraid because they cannot fully understand what this Project entails. Many can no longer concentrate to the extent that they once could and are easily overwhelmed. Many are not computer savvy. Some have told me that they feel inadequate and even “stupid” when they admit that they cannot “understand” the DEIR when they try to read it. My reply to them as been that “I feel inadequate as well ” when faced with such a lengthy and redundant document. You have indicated in your email today that redundancy “is required” for the completeness of the document. Thank you for this explanation as I now understand and accept that. However, and to that I would say … there should be extra attention on the City’s part then to ensure that as much detail is provided for the beneﬁt of all readers in such a manner as to allow for complete understanding. The acknowledgement and implementation of my 5 comments above would go a long way to providing for this. Thank you for your kind consideration of my request. I look forward to hearing back from you. Regards, Dr. Diane Rebryna Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 15:30:09 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:"Coral Mountain Resort DEIR" Date:Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 10:51:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:SSTRATTON@dc.rr.com To:'ConsulLngplanner@laquintaca.gov' CC:'levans@laquintaca.gov', 'rradi@laquintaca.gov', 'kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov', 'jpena@laquintaca.gov', 'ssanchez@laquintaca.gov' WATER SUPPLIES: Please take into serious consideraLon the Mega Drought that the Western US is experiencing. I do not believe that the reports on water available from our aquifer accurately address the water sources to replenish our aquifer to keep it at safe levels for the foreseeable future. I am a resident of Trilogy La Quinta and a California naLve. The drought is severely impacLng farmers and ranchers here and the western US. One newspaper arLcle in Oregon highlights forward thinking errors. "It was predicted that Prineville Reservoir would fill. It was predicted there would be natural flow for us with our water right in the Crooked River. It was predicted there would be natural flow for us in the Deschutes (river). NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENED." - Marty Richards, board chair for North Unit, said the drought condiLons this spring and summer forced the irrigaLon district to reevaluate its water supplies." Farmers/ranchers are losing their water supplies. The Wickiup Reservoir will be empty by August 18. My point being, why are we relying on the Colorado River without quesLon for our precious water supply here in the desert. "The Colorado River is drying up faster than federal officials can keep tract. Mandatory water cuts are looming. PlummeLng reservoir levels at Mead and Powell solidify Arizona cutbacks next year and near-future threats to all Compact states from Colorado to California" (source: The Colorado Sun) LIGHT POLUTION: Every morning and evening I sit outside and enjoy the beauLful Coral Mountain and it's changing colors at sunrise and sunset. Seventeen 80 foot tall light towers will permanently ruin everyone's views of the Coral Mountain. STVR's: The city of La Quinta has suspended permits for STVR's in residenLal zones. The impact of 600 STVR's will impact the surrounding communiLes far more that allowing them in residenLal zones. ZONING CHANGE: This area is not appropriate for Tourist Zoning. Having special events will cause more traffic, noise, rowdy parLes at the STVR's. This will turn 58th and 60th and Madison into major traffic arteries. We already have car races on 60th and cars doing doughnuts at the corner of Madison and 60th. Look at the Lre marks! Was this in a report? This will only encourage more traffic problems. To call this project a PRIVATE COMMUNITY is a joke. Only a small amount of lots, roughly 24, are private. 24 private homes vs 600 STVR's? That proporLon makes absolutely no sense. The few private lots are just a way to make the whole project look private. It's a PUBLIC VENUE!! This enLre project is totally irresponsible. This is California with 700+ miles of coastline. A surfing venue does not belong in the desert! This would be a permanent disrupLon to our quiet life in the desert, ruin our views, destroy our quiet evenings, just so promoters and surfers can make money on Special Events. Page 2 of 2 !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Wave park please no attached photos are a big horn crossing 58 where would he go if not killed by a car coming to a wave park where he lives %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Tue 9/14/2021 6:43 AM Fri 7/16/2021 6:43 AM ** 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. ** Sent from my iPhone L CG Connie Glavin <cjglavin@yahoo.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner IMG_1281.HEIC 1 MB Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 7/16/21, 9:27 AM !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Water Park %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Thu 9/16/2021 2:32 PM Sun 7/18/2021 2:32 PM ** 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. ** Who came up with this insane idea to turn our town into a Disneyland in the middle of a drought. The traffic and noise will be an Eyesore in the desert. Send this proposal down. Dan Rendino 80390 Weiskopf La Quinta CA 92253 danrendino@gmail.com 760.880.3275 L DG Dan Rendino Gmail <danrendino@gmail.com>& To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward & Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 7/19/21, 7:56 AM !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block La Quinta Wave Park %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Thu 9/16/2021 5:33 PM Sun 7/18/2021 5:33 PM ** 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. Nicole Sauviat Criste, We will make this short and sweet. Please do the right thing about the proposed Wave Park in La Quinta. We are in the worst drought in 1000 years. Do you think this Wave Park makes sense on any level? We strongly oppose this development and hope you will hear our voices. JoAnne Thompson Bob Ruehl Sent from my iPhone L JT JoAnne Thompson <joswabt555@aol.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 7/19/21, 7:55 AM 1 From:Alena Callimanis Sent:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:28 PM To:City Clerk Mail Cc:Monika Radeva Subject:Monika, my presentation without the videos that can be distributed to the Council and staff Attachments:CallimanisLaQuintaPresentation7202021withoutvideoB.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged ** 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. ** Monika, I created this file “without video” so it is very small. This way I respectfully request that it can be now distributed to the Council and staff. I still hope we can show my version with the videos. Alena Callimanis CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ALENA CALLIMANIS PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT Impact of Coral Mountain Surf Resort Alena Callimanis La Quinta CA 92253 Right after Sunset Looking at Coral Mountain from Lisa Castro’s house on 60th Night sky panorama on 60th from Guillermo’s house across Coral Mountain to Lisa’s House July 19 at 8:38pm Video of Night Sky and sound: Coral Mountain from Guillermo’s house to Lisa’s house Hearing just crickets Hearing a car on Madison which is further away than the Basin is from this point Video removed due to size. This video shows the dark Coral Mountain and features only the sound of crickets. Request copy of video from acallimanis@gmail.com Video removed due to size. This video shows the dark Coral Mountain area and and the sound of a car on Madison. Madison is further from this point than from this point to the Wave Basin. Request copy of video from acallimanis@gmail.com Picture from the 58th St near Madison –what is that light? Bagdouma Park in Coachella –Light is always diffused and visible due to particulates in our air (the light on the right is 60 feet) Please don’t let the developer insult us by saying there will be no light and noise impact to the surrounding developments This will be physically impossible considering the location with quiet nights in this area of the desert, plus the proximity to Coral Mountain with sound echoing and reverberation off the mountain and light reflection and dispersion Excerpts from La Quinta General Plan 2035 –Land Use Policy LU -3.1 Encourage the preservation of neighborhood character and assure a consistent and compatible land use pattern. GOAL LU-4 Maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods. Policy LU -4.1 Encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. GOAL SC-1: A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. GOAL OS-3: Preservation of scenic resources as vital contributors to the City’s economic health and overall quality of life. We want Low Density Residential at this Site and NOT 100% STVRs and a Wave Preserve this beauty and serenity for the five developments around Coral Mountain and for the new 100% low density residential development that should be on this magnificent this property Please no Zoning Change! 1 From:Alena Callimanis Sent:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:37 PM To:City Clerk Mail Cc:Monika Radeva; Lisa Castro Subject:Presentation by Lisa Castro for public comment session for July 20 City Council Meeting Attachments:Lisa Castro City Council Presentation.pdf ** 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. ** Here is the document that Lisa Castro will be using while speaking during the public comment period at today’s City Council meeting at 4pm. Lisa will be in person. Thank you very much. Alena Callimanis CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT LISA CASTRO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT Good Afternoon Honorable Mayor Evan, Council Members and Staff. My name is Lisa Castro and I am a resident at First I would like to thank Alena for the pictures and videos she showed you from my house. The videos just record the lack of noise from my house and that you can slightly hear a car on Madison. Think of HOW many cars will come and go through the night in a rezoned area. The point is that the wave basin is closer to me than Madison so if I can hear the car, just think of the noise every night - not just the waves crashing as the promo for the developer says and the noise of the wave machinery, but the people noise - surfing, jet skis, music etc, etc. … the “people noise” that a rezoning change will allow. And the people noise at night will increase exponentially in the summer because it will be too hot for them to “surf” during the day!! Also, water will be so hot during the summer months because it is only six feet deep at its maximum on a concrete pool. And the evaporation alone is enormous. I am a little more than halfway up the unpaved Avenue 60 toward Coral Mountain. I have lived there for 30 years. Guillermo and I are the closest houses to this development. It is fair to say the driveway into the development as well as parking areas are right next to my house. I have spoken to Garrett Simon the developer many times at my house. During the latest meeting he told me that I will not be impacted by light and noise. I asked Garrett to please sign a document to that effect and he said no. I told him that I would be severely impacted by the dust and dirt during construction, that I have asthma, and that my pool and air conditioners would get clogged with dust and dirt. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT LISA CASTRO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT His colleague with him told me to move away during construction. How insulting is that! Garrett told me that the grading on the property would be done in six weeks. I know that it is closer to six months. My family was in the grading business. Is he thinking he can push me around because I am alone? I am also concerned about the constant vibrations caused by the waves due to the tremendous weight and force of 18 million gallons of water. I am only around 600 feet from the wave pool. All the seismic records were done at the wave pool at Lemoore California which has totally different soil composition. We are above the aquifer on sandy soil. So the developer has no idea of the impact of the wave motion to our area. I can attest to the fact that I am in a wind tunnel. The wind whips around from the Quarry and I have clocked the wind at 60 mph. When I mentioned this to Garrett he acted like he didn’t believe me. That will also add to extreme evaporation. Maintenance and construction trucks will be lined up outside my house because of the restrictions that they can’t start working until 7AM. Since the wave is operating from 7AM to 10PM every day, 365 days a year, they will probably need to do maintenance during the night. And what about the heavy chlorination they will need to do during the heat? I will be exposed to chlorine in the air everyday. This project is a disaster for me as well as for our neighbors. Please do not approve the zoning change that will allow all of this to happen. Thank you very much. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT LISA CASTRO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Coral Mountain Resort DEIR %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Sat 9/18/2021 7:17 AM Tue 7/20/2021 7:17 AM ** 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. ** As a resident of Andelusia, next to the proposed wave park, I am concerned about the noise and light that the proposed development would bring to our community. I don’t think it should be tourist zoned and really don’t want the disruption that a wave park will bring to our peaceful community. Sincerely, Catherine Giles 81692 Rhonda La Quinta L C cathy <cagiles100@gmail.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 7/20/21, 12:48 PM Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 12:52:36 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:FW: The proposed Coral Mountain Resort Date:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 11:44:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:Cheri Flores To:Nicole Criste, Danny Castro Priority:High ADachments:image001.png FYI Another comment letter. Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. 760-777-7067 www.laquintaca.gov PLEASE NOTE: City Hall is now open to the public during normal business hours: Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Counter closes at 4:30 p.m. daily), with the exception of nationally observed holidays. 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. From: Holub, Richard D. <rdh@rdholub.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:14 AM To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov> Subject: The proposed Coral Mountain Resort Importance: High ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and cauXon when opening aZachments, clicking links or responding to requests for informaXon. ** Dear Mayor, Council Members and Planning Manager, I have been a LQ resident for over 15 years. My leZer to you regarding the proposed Coral Mountain Resort development is based upon over 20 years of successful real estate development experience in the Temecula Page 2 of 2 Valley - an area very similar to the economic and social environment found in La Quinta. The proposed Coral Mountain Resort with its massive wave feature and disrupXve presence (lighXng, overall use, traffic impacts, etc.) are ill-suited for that specific area and this community. Not to menXon the grossly abusive water use. The mere appearance of that issue alone should be off-pudng and give Counsel pause in the re-zoning of that area. Considering all those factors, and in my professional opinion, this proposed development is not in the best interest of the La Quinta community – in fact, it is "irresponsible development" personified. Please, listen to your conXnuants from the LQRRD and acquiesce to their demands. Thank you for reading and for your consideraXon of my opinion. Sincerely yours, Richard D. Holub C: 760.464.4643 | Skype: 760.459.4545 | E: rdh@rdholub.com This email and any files transmiZed with it are confidenXal and intended solely for the use of the individual or enXty to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please noXfy us immediately by return email to this address, or call 760.464.4643 then delete this email. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you are noXfied that disclosing, copying, distribuXng or taking any acXon in reliance on the contents of this informaXon is strictly prohibited. Thank you. Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 09:25:32 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:FW: A&en)on Cherri Flores, Planning Manager Date:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 4:56:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Cheri Flores To:Nicole Criste CC:Danny Castro AGachments:image001.png Nicole, Another comment for the Wave. Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. 760-777-7067 www.laquintaca.gov PLEASE NOTE: City Hall is now open to the public during normal business hours: Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Counter closes at 4:30 p.m. daily), with the exception of nationally observed holidays. 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. From: Rob Michiels <rmichiels@consiliumassociates.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 4:55 PM To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov> Cc: Ria Michiels <michiels.ria@gmail.com>; mike charles <mgacharles@yahoo.com>; RFBAEZ7@gmail.com Subject: A&en)on Cherri Flores, Planning Manager ** 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 Ms Flores, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the wave park project at Coral Mountain. 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. Page 2 of 2 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 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. They should be refused and refuted. Is the only underlying agenda that wants to allow this permitting process change the pursuit of a few extra dollars promised for your city coffers? As my grandmother rightly said: beware of promises! 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. !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block In opposition of a Wave park a Coral Mountain %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Sat 9/18/2021 4:24 PM Tue 7/20/2021 4:24 PM ** 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 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? L RM Rob Michiels <rmichiels@consiliumassociates.n et>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Cc: Ria Michiels <michiels.ria@gmail.com>; Mike Charles <mgacharles@yahoo.com>; Ramon Baez <rfbaez7@gmail.com ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 7/21/21, 9:22 AM !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Coral Mountain Resort DEIR” %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Sat 9/18/2021 7:05 AM Tue 7/20/2021 7:05 AM ** 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. ** We want to express our strong opposition to the planned Coral Mountain Development and Wave Park. My husband and I moved to La Quinta and purchased our retirement home here in a 55 and over community so we could enjoy our final years in peace and quiet. We specifically purchased in Trilogy La Quinta as it was far away from the hustle and bustle and traffic of the downtown area. We anticipated other housing developments and hotels would eventually be built in the surrounding open spaces, but we never imagined a Tourist/Commercially-zoned mega resort with a Wave Machine, professional competitions, and entertainment stages would be built a few blocks from our quiet retirement community. This is so unfair to the surrounding homeowners who moved here expecting a quiet and peaceful environment. We ask that you please put yourself in our place and recommend against this project. Thank you for your consideration. Eva Parker L EP Eva Parker <geneva456@hotmail.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 7/20/21, 12:46 PM Tuesday, July 27, 2021 at 15:28:58 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 3 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort DEIR (Revised/ Corrected ) Date:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 1:24:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:rstowe@farmersagent.com To:'ConsulLng Planner' AEachments:image001.png, Waterline.JPG To whom it mat concern, I built a home directly across the street from this proposed project in 2004 and have lived in the desert full Lme for 28 years. I have 5 SurToards hanging in my garage right across the street waiLng for me to pull one down to make the 6 hour round trip to San Onofre just to surf for 2 hours. One might think I would be the greatest proponent of the surf park, but no I am not. I must admit I was super excited when I heard the news about the surf park. Kelly Slater is one of my hero’s and I actually had the chance to meet him in Hawaii not to long ago. I will probably become a member of one of the surf parks in the desert for sure. But This is definitely not the area for one. The impact on the beauLful environment nestled up against the BLM Santa Rosa Range is much more important than an Amusement Park aka Surf Park. Whenever I get a chance, I tell all my friends and visitors about the Ancient Lake Cahuilla and the Waterline. I show them proof with all the Lny sea shells I have collected that I found in my yard. I tell them about the story of the misnomer of Conchilla Valley vs Coachella Valley (www.coachella.org/about-us/history). I remember when there was talk about a nature park slated next to Lake Cahuilla, I was so excited. I am sorry that never transpired. People from all over come up here to hike and camp at Lake Cahuilla to enjoy the serenity we offer. Clients, Visitors and Residents all tell me how nice it is to come here and actually see the stars, something they do not see anymore where they come from. Some local homeowners speculate it will increase property values other think it will decrease. I believe the values will increase either way with or with out the amusement park. I didn’t build here, raise my family, and stay here because of property values. I bought and built here because of the beauty and serenity. So did everyone else. La Quinta does not need the money that bad. We (The City, Business Owners, and Residents) do not need this development bad enough to destroy such a historic and serene area. Another country club, resort home community with minor commercial at this locaLon would be ideal, not an Amusement Park aka Surf Park. I raised two children in La Quinta, right across the street. I have owned a business in the desert for 31 years. I know there is not much for young people to do here other than Golf or Tennis. A surf park is a great idea, just not next to the waterline and MulL Million Dollar Homes, really? There is plenty of vacant land around the desert. Just because they got a good deal on the land doesn’t make it right. They do not have the right to destroy our scenic night skies and bring thousands of daily visitors to a quiet neighborhood. You at the city are our last defense. You must make a difficult decision I know. You cannot let these developers snowball you to think this is a good idea, it’s not! Let them move over to the other side of Monroe and let Indio have this one. Indio needs this more than La Quinta. It will be just like the FesLvals, they will visit the Amusement Park then dine and stay in all of our nice restaurants, hotels and rentals. We do not need this in La Quinta. It is not good for La Quinta. It will change the neighborhood in a very negaLve way. Ajer the excitement of the new project wears off it would go down as one of the worst decisions the City La Quinta has ever made. Akached you will see a painLng I have hanging in my foyer right across the street from the proposed project. Feel free to zoom and take a close look at it. I had this commissioned back in 2004. I asked the painter to paint that land/ waterline like it looked years ago so my grandchildren would know what it looked like knowing it would be developed someday. Let it be a responsible development please. I never thought it would end up being a surf park! Really? Please do not let this happen. Thank you! From: rstowe@farmersagent.com <rstowe@farmersagent.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:30 PM To: consulLngplanner@laquintaca.gov Page 2 of 3 Subject: Coral Mountain Resort DEIR To whom it mat concern, I built a home directly across the street in 2004 and have lived in the desert year around for 28 years. I have 5 SurToards hanging in my garage waiLng for me to pull one down to make the 6 hour round trip to San Onofre just to surf for 2 hours. One might think I would be the greatest proponent of the surf park, but no I am not. I must admit I was super excited when I heard the news about the surf park. Kelly Slater is one of my hero’s and I actually had the chance to meet him in Hawaii not to long ago. I will probably become a member of one of the surf parks in the desert for sure. But This is definitely not the area for one. The impact on the beauLful environment nestled up against the BLM Santa Rosa Range is much more important than an Amusement Park aka Surf Park. Whenever I get a chance, I tell all my visitors about the Ancient Lake Cahuilla and the Waterline. I show them proof with all the Lny sea shells I collected that I found in my yard. I tell them about the story of the misnomer of Conchilla Valley vs Coachella Valley (www.coachella.org/about-us/history). I remember when there was talk about a nature park slated next to Lake Cahuilla. I am sorry that never transpired. People from all over come up here to hike and camp at Lake Cahuilla to enjoy the serenity we offer. Clients, Visitors and Residents all tell me how nice it is to come here and actually see the stars, something they do not see anymore where the come from. Some local homeowners speculate it will increase property values other think it will decrease. I believe the values will increase either way with or with out the amusement park. I didn’t build here, raise my family, and stay here because of property values. I bought and built here because of the beauty and serenity. So did everyone else. La Quinta does not need the money that bad. We (The City, Business Owners, and Residents) do not need this development bad enough to destroy such a historic and serene area. Another country club, resort home community with minor commercial at this locaLon would be ideal, not an Amusement Park aka Surf Park. I raised two children in La Quinta, right across the street. I have owned a business in the desert for 31 years. I know there is not much for young people to do here other than Golf or Tennis. A surf park is a great idea, just not next to the waterline and MulL Million Dollar Homes, really? There is plenty of vacant land around the desert. Just because they got a good deal on the land doesn’t make it right. They do not have the right to destroy or scenic night skies and bring thousands of daily visitors to a quiet neighborhood. You at the city are our last defense. You must make a difficult decision I know. You cannot let these developers snowball you to think this is a good idea, it’s not! Let them move over to the other side of Monroe and let Indio have this one. Indio needs this more than La Quinta. It will be just like the FesLvals, they will visit the Amusement Park then dine and stay in all of our nice restaurants, hotels and rentals. We do not need this in La Quinta. It is not good for La Quinta. It will change the neighborhood in a very negaLve way. Ajer the excitement of the new project wears off it would go down as one of the worst decisions the City La Quinta has ever made. Akached you will see a painLng I have hanging in my foyer right across the street from the proposed project. Feel free to zoom and take a close look at it. I had this commissioned back in 2004. I asked the painter to paint that land/ waterline like it looked years ago so my grandchildren would know what it looked like. We know it would be developed someday. But let it be a responsible development. I never thought it would end up being a surf park! Really? Please do not let this happen. Thank you! Robert Stowe 760-578-9089 Insurance Agent rstowe@farmersagent.com “We take pride in the customer service we provide…give us a try!” Page 3 of 3 Robert Stowe Insurance Agency, Inc. 79710 Hwy 111, Ste 100 La Quinta, CA 92253-6516 (760) 342-2786 office (760) 342-6803 fax CA License #0E20458 NOTICE: PRIVILEGED AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. This e-mail and any files transmiEed with it are the property of the Robert Stowe Insurance Agency, Inc. and/or the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies. This email message and any aEached documents may contain informa_on that is privileged, confiden_al and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. This email message and any aEachments are for the use of the named recipient, employee or agent it is addressed to and can only be used for its intended purpose; any other use is prohibited. Any recipient of this email is no_fied that dissemina_on, distribu_on or copying this email or any aEached documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communica_on in error, please no_fy the sender immediately. We value your privacy. The law requires that we disclose the categories ofpersonal informaLon that Farmers representaLves may collect during interacLons with you to provide service, or for other purposes as explained on the Farmers website. The categories of informaLon that may be collected include financial, historical, internal, external, social and tracking. If you would like addiLonal informaLon about our privacy pracLces, please see the following website: www.farmers.com/privacy-center. 1 From:Alena Callimanis Sent:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 12:40 PM To:City Clerk Mail Cc:Monika Radeva; Sheila Warren Subject:Presentation today by Sheila Warren at the public comments section of today's City Council meeting Attachments:Sheila Warren City Council Presentation.pdf ** 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. ** Here is the document that Sheila Warren will be using during today’s City Council meeting. Sheila will be at City Hall in person. Thank you very much. Alena Callimanis CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SHEILA WARREN PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT Good day Honorable Mayor Evans, Council Members and Staff. My name is Sheila Warren and I am a Trilogy Resident. I have two quick things to cover with you today. The first is that we are getting tired of the developer justifying his water use for the wave basin by saying that he will use only 25% of the water used by a golf course. What he fails to mention is that golf courses can use gray or recycled water and that he must used potable water from our aquifer. If you haven’t read it, there was an excellent article in the July 18 Desert Sun, Golf Courses prepare for water shortages. I would like to highlight just a few of the key points of that article: There is a 15% voluntary request in reduction of water use across the state, New level of drought emergency declaration will be coming by 2022. Unlike many golf courses elsewhere in the State which rely heavily on groundwater, Coachella Valley golf courses have sought to reduce reliance on the local aquifer. Protecting that groundwater, the main source of water for households and businesses in the desert is a focus of the Golf and Water Task Force. “Because the aquifer is literally the lifeblood of everything that happens in the desert, as important as it is reducing the overall water usage footprint over time, we do put more emphasis on the health of the aquifer. Desert courses have been moving away from aquifer water in the last decade. Desert courses have been removing turf. “We have to recognize that we are in a desert and the aquifer isn’t endless.” CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SHEILA WARREN PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT So how will the wave pool move away from use of the aquifer? It can’t. How can a wave pool cut water use by 15%? It can’t because it will not be able to operate. And what about evaporation? When we asked the developer, they tried to compare evaporation at the Kelly Slater pool in Lemoore California with this one. Once we reminded them that Lemoore had 40 days over 100 in 2020 and we have 143 days over 100, that their high was 107 and our high was 124, that their lows were mostly in the 60s with a few 70s during those hot days, and our nights were always in the 100s, or high 90s and 80s, they stopped comparing evaporations. And finally, I would just like to mention about the 7AM to 10PM operation of the wave basin, 365 days of the year. Up to and including our face to face meeting with the developer on June 16, when asked, the developer always told us that it would be 12 hours of operation, 7AM to 7PM so we had nothing to worry about with noise or light at night. Two days later on June 18, the draft of environmental impact report that had the hours of 7AM to 10PM, 365 days of the year. Seems awfully strange they did not know that two days earlier… But who is going to be surfing during the day in this heat? With water temperatures in the 90s and air temperatures in the 100s, that is a recipe for heat stroke. This project is in the wrong place at the wrong time. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT SHEILA WARREN PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT 1 From:Alena Callimanis Sent:Tuesday, July 20, 2021 10:50 AM To:City Clerk Mail Cc:Carolyn Winnor; Monika Radeva Subject:Carolyn Winnor will do Zoom public comments today at 4pm Attachments:Carolyn Winnor City Council Meeting.pdf Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged 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. Carolyn Winnor, Trilogy resident at 81134 Barrel Cactus Road, LQ will be speaking over Zoom about Coral Mountain Resort during the public comment session. This is Carolyn’s document. Thank you very much. Alena Callimanis CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CAROLYN WINNOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT Good Afternoon Honorable Mayor Evans, Council Members & Staff My name is Carolyn Winnor, I live in Trilogy La Quinta moved here in August 2005. I am opposed to the Coral Mountain Wave Project and the Re Zoning of this property for many reasons: Water Usage – Couple of weeks ago on the news I heard a representative from Coachella Valley Water District, speak regarding the water they currently have in reserve. I believe it was 6 billion gallons. How did CVW get this large reserve? From homeowners and businesses, conserving water since last drought that affected the Coachella Valley. Also due to water efficient toilets, faucets & appliances. The residents of the Coachella Valley is the reason CVWD has a large reserve and I am against using the reserve to fill a Wave Pool with 18 Million Gallons of Drinking Water, for People to surf on. We changed our habits to be assured the residents of the Coachella Valley would have water for the future. Lights/Lighting – 17 80’ Poles with 70 fixtures on each Pole. Be like living next to LQ High School football field or the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, the lights will be on until 10 pm, 365 days a year. Noise, Traffic - If La Quinta City Council approves the Coral Mountain Wave Project, the residents of South East L Q will be living near or next door to an amusement park. My biggest fear: in 3 to 5 years no one is interested in surfing in a Wave Pool and the Wave will close down. What will the City of La Quinta and the neighbors near Coral Mountain be left with a BIG HOLE, measuring in length over 12 football fields? Thank You. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JULY 20, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT CAROLYN WINNOR PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT La Quinta City Council Meeting July 20, 2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/b8db2190‐d39c‐4f0d‐b9ad‐cd3b449dc821 Speakers discussing the Coral Mountain Resort Project and time of appearance in video linked above. In‐Person Comments Alena Callimanis (Transcribed); 0:45 – 6:25 minutes Lisa Castro (Transcribed); 6:40 – 9:00 minutes Sheila Warren (Transcribed); 9:00 – 13:36 minutes Francine Roy (Transcribed); 13:40 – 15:00 minutes Verbal Comments via Teleconference Carolyn Winnor (Transcribed); 19:50 – 22:10 minutes City Council Meeting 7‐20‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/b8db2190‐d39c‐4f0d‐b9ad‐cd3b449dc821 Located at: 0:45 – 6:25 minutes Speaker: Alena Callimanis Callimanis: Honorable Mayor Evans I am vaccinated may I take this [indicating mask] off? Mayor: You may. Callimanis: Thank you. So um, Mayor Evans, Council members. I especially want to, and staff, I especially want to thank Monica and Nicole who helped me get my presentation up and going because I have videos in this presentation. So, I’m very excited. And of course, I am speaking about the Coral Mountain surf resort if you haven’t figured that out yet. So, the first – Mayor: You should have your own clicker there, right? Callimanis: Yes, yes. Hopefully I will do it better this time. So, this is a picture that is right after sunset last night, I took these pictures from Lisa Castro’s house which is on 60th, on the um, on the single lane, dirt, 60th road. So um, with beautiful dark sky. This is hard to see [indicating new slide with photo], but what I tried to do here is do a panorama on my iPhone from the left is Guillermo’s house, I went across Coral Mountain and the right side where the light is back to Lisa’s house. So just to show you what the night sky and what it looks like at night. So um, this and, will you folks get this going? Great. So um, be very quiet. [Plays video]. You hear the crickets? Okay, that’s Lisa’s house, so it started from Guillermo’s to Lisa’s house again. And this second one is after I heard a car going on Madison. So, this might be more difficult to hear. [Plays second video]. So, the significance of that video is, there was the car on Madison and that’s what we heard. Madison is further from where I took this than the surf pool. So that was the sound that we heard. So um, and I guess you can hear, you can see that it really was very, very quiet there. Uh this next one was as I was at 58th right by Coral Mountain, I saw that light, and I said oh what is that light? So, I followed the light. I went in and out of tra‐ you know the roads, and this is what I came to, Bagdouma Park in Coachella, those were the lights I saw from 58th from Coral Mountain. And the light pole on the right is 60 feet. The light pole that are going to be at this development will be, excuse me, 80 feet. So, they will be 20 feet higher than the one on the right. Like, I can’t even imagine lights being held up on a pole that high. So that’s what going to be surrounding that. And if I go back to the prior picture, oops, oh I’m not going backwards. Oh, this way, sorry. If I go back to this picture here, the reason we see that is because the particles in our air, there’s dust and sand, all these small particles diffusing the light and they will be doing the same thing by Coral Mountain. So that light will be seen. So, what I wanted to say is please don’t let the developer keep insulting us, and you, by saying there will be no light and no noise impact to the surrounding developments. This will be physically impossible considering the fact that the location has quiet nights in this area, the proximity to Coral Mountain, sound echoing and reverberation off the mountain, and the light reflection and dispersion. I think these prior charts show that very clearly. Now this is your City of La Quinta General map, and I circled the land use areas where we are and it’s very compatible to the developments that are around. And on the next page, I wanted to say these are excerpts from the La Quinta General Plan 2035 Land Use. Policy LU‐3.1, encourage the preservation of neighborhood character and assure a consistent and compatible land use pattern. Next one, maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods. Next one, encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. And preservation of scenic resources as vital contributors to the City’s economic health and overall quality of life. So that’s from the master plan. We want Low Density Residential at this site. We want development. We’re not saying no development. And we’re ‐ but we’re saying not 100% STVRs and a Wave. Preserve the beauty and serenity for the five developments around Coral Mountain, and for the new 100% low density residential development that should be on this magnificent property. Please do not approve, when it comes up, a zoning change that will take away all of that. Thank you very much. City Council Meeting 7‐20‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/b8db2190‐d39c‐4f0d‐b9ad‐cd3b449dc821 Located at: 6:40 ‐ 9:00 Speaker: Lisa Castro Yes, I am the neighbor; I am closer to this wave park than anybody. I’ve been there 30 years, um, first of all, thank you for hearing this, thank you for the video and everything that Alena did. Mr. Garrett and I have met several times in my home, and he’s a wonderful gentleman, but I’m just not sure that, um, things he tells me, every time he tells me something, things change. But um, I’m worried about the water evaporation, I’m worried about our aquifer, you know, every day on the news all we hear about is the drought. I’m worried about the light and the noise. I’m worried about traffic. I am going to be right next door to the secondary entrance, and I don’t believe they are even aware of the 7 am entrance that most of our country clubs have. People are going to be lining up down the street even after development, after its completed to get in. I don’t think they’re going to allow me to get in and out of my own home. So um, I’m worried about, like I said, the light, and the noise and the wave impact, the motion of that water. Is that going to have ‐ create cracks in my foundation? I’m east to it. I’m going to be closest to the end. Is that going to affect my home? My pool? Um, I’m concerned, very concerned. I’ve been there forever, before anything else was out there, and I know the quality of life that I have now will be destroyed. That quiet is why we built out there. And with a surf park, a private community that no one else can access to, is going to destroy that. So please consider, reconsider, or consider not changing the zoning. City Council Meeting 7‐20‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/b8db2190‐d39c‐4f0d‐b9ad‐cd3b449dc821 Located at: 9:00 – 13:36 Speaker: Sheila Warren Good afternoon Mayor Evans, City Council Members and Staff. My name is Sheila Warren and I’m a resident of Trilogy in La Quinta. I have two things to cover with you today. The first is, we’re getting tired of the developer justifying the water use for the wave basin by saying that he‐it will use only 25% of the water used by golf courses. What he fails to mention is that golf courses use gray water or recycled water, and that the wave basin must use potable water from our aquifer. If you haven’t read it, there was an excellent article in the July 18th Desert Sun, stating that golf courses are preparing for water shortages. I would like to highlight just a few of the points:  There is a 15% voluntary request in reduction of water use across the state;  A new level of drought emergency declaration will be coming in 2022. Unlike many golf courses elsewhere in the State which rely heavily on groundwater, Coachella Valley golf courses have sought to reduce reliance on the local aquifer. Protecting that groundwater, the main source of water for households and businesses in the desert is a focus of the Golf and Water Task Force. Quote: “Because the aquifer is literally the lifeblood of everything that happens in the desert, as important as it is reducing the overall water usage footprint over time, we do put more emphasis on the health of the aquifer. Desert courses have been moving away from aquifer water in the last decade.” Desert courses have been removing turf. We have to recognize that we are in a desert and the aquifer is not endless. So how will the wave pool move away from use of the aquifer? It can’t. How can a wave pool cut water usage by 15%? It can’t because it will not be able to operate. And what about evaporation? When we asked the developer, they tried to compare evaporation at the Kelly Slater pool in Lemoore California with this one. Once we reminded them that Lemoore had 40 days over 100 degrees in 2020 and we had 143 days over 100; that their high was 107 and our high was 124; that their lows were mostly in the 60s with a few 70s during those hot days, and our nights were always in the 100s, or high 90s and 80s, they stopped comparing evaporation. And finally, I would just like to mention about the 7AM to 10PM operation of the wave basin, 365 days of the year. Up to and including our face‐to‐face meeting with the developer on June 16, when asked, the developer always told us that it would be 12 hours of operation, 7AM to 7PM so we had nothing to worry about with noise at night or light at night. Two days later on June 18, the draft of environmental impact report listed hours of operation as 7AM to 10PM, 365 days of the year. Seems awfully strange they did not know that two days earlier… But who is going to be surfing during the day in this heat? With water temperatures in the 90s and air temperatures in the 100s, that is a recipe for heat stroke. This project is the wrong place and the wrong time. Thank you very much. City Council Meeting 7‐20‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/b8db2190‐d39c‐4f0d‐b9ad‐cd3b449dc821 Located at: 13:40 – 15:00 Speaker: Francine Roy Hello, I just had some general questions. I am kind of new to this project and I just moved here a year ago. One question is when was the current zoning established for this parcel? Mayor: So, this is the part of public comment where you are able to address, but we will not respond per se to every question. So, you can rattle off your questions, you’re welcome to do that and probably a lot of that is covered in the EIR or it could be in the General Plan that’s available on our website. But feel free. I would like to hear your questions, so we have an understanding. Roy: And exactly what she was talking about was what I was going to mention. And thirdly, I was curious that with all the climate change and drought conditions that are going on and the future I think we can expect this to continue. There’s a lot of emphasis on the aquifer as already discussed. Wouldn’t it be a good time to maybe reconsider a change in the zoning that might not allow a golf course even? Which is taking water. Something to think about. So that’s it. City Council Meeting 7‐20‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/b8db2190‐d39c‐4f0d‐b9ad‐cd3b449dc821 Located at: 19:50 – 22:10 Speaker: Carolyn Winnor I am unmuted. Can you hear me? Good afternoon Mayor Evans, Council Members & Staff. My name is Carolyn Winnor, I live in Trilogy La Quinta. My husband and I moved here in August 2005. I am opposed to the Coral Mountain Wave Project and the Re Zoning of this property for many reasons: Water Usage – which you’ve heard multiple times this afternoon. A couple of weeks ago on the news I heard a representative from Coachella Valley Water District, speak regarding the water they currently have in reserve. I believe it was 6 billion gallons. How did Coachella Valley Water get this large reserve? From homeowners and businesses, conserving water since last drought that affected the Coachella Valley. Also due to water efficient toilets, faucets and appliances. The residents of the Coachella Valley is the reason the Coachella Valley Water District has a large reserve and I am against using the reserve to fill a Wave Pool with 18 million gallons of drinking water, for people to surf on. We changed our habits to be assured the residents of the Coachella Valley would have water for the future. Another one of my concerns is the lighting. The project is proposing 17, 80‐foot light poles with 70 fixtures on each pole. Be like living next to La Quinta High School football field or the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, the lights will be on at the Coral Mountain Wave until 10 pm, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Noise and Traffic ‐ If La Quinta City Council approves the Coral Mountain Wave Project, the residents of southeast La Quinta will be living near or next door to an amusement park. And what happens in 3 to 5 years that no one is interested in surfing in a Wave Pool in the desert and the Wave would close down. What will the City of La Quinta and the neighbors near Coral Mountain be left with? A big hole, measuring in length over 12 football fields? Thank You. Tuesday, 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. Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 12:45:07 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 3 Subject:RE: Coral Mountain Resort Date:Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:46:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:Cheri Flores To:Dan Rendino Gmail CC:Danny Castro, Nicole Criste, Jon McMillen AHachments:image001.png Mr. Rendino, Thank you for your comments. Have a lovely day. Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. 760-777-7067 www.laquintaca.gov PLEASE NOTE: City Hall is now open to the public during normal business hours: Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Counter closes at 4:30 p.m. daily), with the exception of nationally observed holidays. 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. From: Dan Rendino Gmail <danrendino@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 11:18 AM To: Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>; Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Coral Mountain Resort ** 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. ** City Officials, I a]ended by a zoom mee[ng last night a presenta[on by the developers on the proposed development of the Coral Mountain Resort. My first impression is how in the world did this circus proposal advance to the city council for purposes of trying to get a variance. It is an embarrassment to admit to friends and neighbors that this is even being considered. We moved here because La Quinta was a place that afforded us the opportunity to re[re from the hec[c city life that we were brought up in. Had this project been known to us when we moved here, we would be living somewhere else. This is exactly what we were trying to get away from when we bought here. These are some of the reasons that this project should be deep - sixed. 1. La Quinta does not need to be a haven for an addi[onal STRV units (600 addi[onal units with an average of 3 bedrooms) at a [me the town and its developments (PGA West where we live), are trying to remedy the exis[ng problems that already exist. La Quinta unlike some other valley towns has allowed widespread STRV units to be permi]ed with the problems associated with them. I do do appreciate the effort the town has put in to remedy the situa[on. Now is not the [me to reverse the work done to correct the issues. I personally know people who have not bought property in our town because of the widespread STVR’s. They have chosen other towns that are more strict in this area. Page 2 of 3 because of the widespread STVR’s. They have chosen other towns that are more strict in this area. 2. Traffic is already a problem in La Quinta. There are only 3 entry points into La Quinta (Washington, Jefferson and Madison). Traffic on these streets are already bad in the season. 600 three bedroom apartments means 1800 addi[onal vehicles on our streets 365 days a year. They claim this issue will be remedied by the town. Pujng up addi[onal stop lights does not fix the traffic problem but makes it worse by increasing delays. This is not something that we need. 3. The proposed plan does not include facts and data but are really just hopes, wishes and supposi[ons. They only presented “goals”. What happens when these goals are not met. Does the town propose to shut them down? These hopes and dreams are applicable to noise, ligh[ng, traffic, water consump[on, electrical overload etc. Pie in the sky! Anyone could see through what they were trying to do, it doesn’t pass the smell test. Throw out a bunch of hopes and wishes with nothing to back it up, and hope that it s[cks. 4. Do the city officials and these developers realize that all of California is being stressed by a terrible drought which predic[ons say will only get worse. We are being asked to limit the use of water for household use, golf courses are being forced to find different means of irriga[on and these people want to fill a pool with 18 million gallons of precious drinking water so that someone could go surfing 150 miles away from the ocean. Who comes up with these ideas? What city would approve this. The water in this pool in the summer will be almost 100 degrees. In this climate how much evapora[on takes place? What happens when the pool repairs are needed and the pool has to be drained? Why should my water rate be raised so that these people can live out their dreams of a Disneyland in the Desert? They claim Imperial Irriga[on says out is possible. Because it is possible does not mean it should be done! The en[re West is under draught condi[ons and you have a proposal in from of you to make it worse. 5. They also want to be able to have “special events”! Four [mes a year! 4 days per event! That is 16 Coachellas a year! One thing about the pandemic that was good was that there was no Coachella. Enough said. La Quinta does not need to be another Coachella with the disrup[on it brings. 6. They “think” that noise will not be an issue because their model tells them so. No independent data just hopes, wishes and dreams. They claim that Coral Mountain will be an absorber of the noise. Really? Having 80 foot light towers and wave machines going off every 3 minutes from 7AM to 10PM is just not something we should allow. 7. Homes will start at $2.5 million. Do you know anyone who would buy a home to live in in the middle of a water park? These homes will never be built and sold and the project will have a 16 million gallon pool in a hole in the middle of the desert. The tax revenue you hope to get will not ever happen. I am really surprised that this project has risen to the point where it is even being considered. I would be embarrassed to tell someone that the town of La Quinta is even considering this project. I am conﬁdent that you city ofﬁcials will put an end to this madness and get on to serious issues facing the town. I thank you for your consideration. Dan Rendino Page 3 of 3 80390 Weikopf La Quinta 92253 danrendino@gmail.com 760.880.3275 !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block I oppose the wave park proposed for La Quinta %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Wed 9/22/2021 11:53 AM Sat 7/24/2021 11:53 AM ** 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. ** I have read the proposed plan and EIR. I oppose the project. I bought my house across Madison from this project in full knowledge that that undeveloped parcel was zoned for golf and low-density homes. I never would have bought here if I thought that property would become a higher-density development, with hundreds of short-term renters coming for events at least four times a year. This project obviously would require rezoning for commercial, hotel, and amusement facilities. There is absolutely no reason why the City of La Quinta should approve such a rezoning. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and it’s a terrible misuse of a wonderful parcel. That parcel should be developed for low-density properties as planned and promised. Frederick Roth 58002 Aracena 760-564-8499 RR Rick Roth <ricodoco@gmail.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 7/26/21, 9:17 AM !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Coral Mountain %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Sat 9/25/2021 12:19 PM Tue 7/27/2021 12:19 PM ** 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. ** July 27, 2021 Linda Evans, Mayor Robert Radi, Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Council Member John Pena, Council Member Steve Sanchez, Council Member Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consultant Planner RE: Coral Mountain A fundamental shift in how we live our lives is occurring on a magnitude beyond the headlines…the full import of this catastrophic drought has yet to take effect as it continues to unfold daily. There is no way to determine its duration but it is said that a full 10 years of solid seasonal rain will be required before we “return to normal.” Repeat: 10 years! It has been publicized ad nauseam that the reservoirs are at their lowest levels ever, that the Colorado River supply will cease and that wells throughout the state are being over-pumped, agricultural ﬁelds are increasingly fallow, wildlife decimated, wildﬁres burning without end and towns left dried and barren… …and yet, we continue to discuss the building of Wave pools, golf courses, private lagoons and lakes as if there is no crisis at all. To even consider this project and others like it is irresponsible and borders on deliberate shortsightedness… with proﬁt as the motivator. Slick marketing that promises an economic paradise with hints of environmental concerns tossed in for appeasement. I ﬁnd it foolish and exceedingly hypocritical for the developer to continue touting the beneﬁts of this playground while ignoring the havoc that encircles us all. The wealthy can go to any beach in the world for water sports, many La Quinta residents live here full time and to betray their peace and serenity for this playground is just wrong. Be responsible citizens, build responsibly, do not rezone Coral Mountain. Sincerely, Derek Wong Trilogy, La Quinta DW Derek Wong <derekwong745@yahoo.com>&’"() To: Linda Evans; Robert Radi; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; John Pena; Steve Sanchez; Consulting Planner Reply Reply all Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 7/28/21, 9:10 AM !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Re: Proposal for Surf Park Development at Coral Mountain %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Sun 9/26/2021 2:53 PM Wed 7/28/2021 2:53 PM ** 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. ** Dear Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner, City of La Quinta Further to my letter of opposition to the above noted proposal sent to you on March 8, I have reviewed the environmental report and other pertinent information. I remain strongly opposed to a surf park development in our area for the same reasons outlined in my March 8 letter as follows: We have owned our property in Puerta Azul at 57th and Madison for the past 10 years. During that time, we have immensely enjoyed hiking, walking and cycling in our quiet peaceful community. We chose our home in La Quinta because we loved the beautiful natural environment. We have been informed about the proposal to build a surf park just a short distance from us at 58th and Madison. We are stunned to hear that this could actually happen in our quiet neighborhood. Apart from our very serious concerns about the environmental impact of this type of development, this is just the wrong area for a tourist/commercial development of this nature. While some may say it will increase the value of nearby properties, that is not the reason most of us purchased in this area. The proposed development will destroy the character of our quiet tranquil community. A Disney-like surf park may be desirable to developers, provide recreational opportunities for short term visitors and will no doubt increase the tax base but the increased noise, traffic and pollution will destroy the very reason that we moved to the area. Apart from these issues, we are even more concerned about the environmental sustainability of building such developments in the desert. We have read the developer’s publications attempting to address environmental issues but we are also aware of the dire warnings of experts in the environmental field. Now is not a time for excess consumption, economic growth-seeking or projects disconnected from the environmental issues we face today. The reality of climate change should force us to rethink our growth models to reduce natural resource consumption and reconcile our relationship with nature. Please protect our community and our environment and do not allow this proposal to proceed. Respectfully Submitted Agnes Collins 80921 Calle Azul La Quinta, 92253 250-738-0545 Sent from my iPhone AC Agnes Collins <ascollins1@telus.net>&’"() To: Consulting Planner; Council ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink/read/AAMkAGJiMWY1OTY... 1 of 1 7/28/21, 4:43 PM !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block EIR: Coral Mountain Surf and Wave Amusement Park Development %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Sun 9/26/2021 4:19 PM Wed 7/28/2021 4:19 PM ** 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. ** July 28, 2021 To City of La Quinta Government Leaders and Planning Department It frightens me to think that there may be a zoning change from residential to commercial that would allow a Wave Machine/Amusement Park Development below the Coral Mountains in La Quinta. This Surf and Wave ride would use millions of gallons of fresh drinking water to ﬁll and refresh the ride in a time of catastrophic drought here in California. The massive amounts of treatment chemicals needed and continual reﬁll of this pool will destroy the ecology of the site. How could we even be considering such a monster project that would use our precious fresh drinking water and tax an already overburdened electrical grid that would be needed to operate the wave action. If this project is approved, it would send the signal that water conservation is no longer needed. That the drought is nothing but fake news spewed by a corrupt government. Is this the message you want to send? As an aside, his project also shows extreme disrespect for our residential community by blocking the walking path at the base of the Coral Mountains. The developer representative has emphasized multiple times that they will block this path from neighbors to use; to be used only by their privileged, rich guests......even though the US Bureau of Land Management currently welcomes hikers by multiple signs permanently posted on the pathway. So many of us in La Quinta enjoy this quiet, peaceful walk each day. How can you possibly allow public space to be handed over to private interests. This shows the out of state Developer just doesn't care about being a good neighbor. Please Mayor Evans, I beg you, don't turn this quiet neighborhood into a noisy, traffic congested, water wasting theme park. It is truly the wrong development, in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Do not support a change of zoning. Thank you. Sincerely, Duncan Woodﬁn 60482 Desert Shadows Dr La Quinta, CA 92253 442 400 3524 DW Duncan Woodfin <hawaii4dunc@yahoo.com>&’"() To: Linda Evans ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 7/28/21, 4:44 PM To: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Planning Consultant, City of La Quinta From: Martin Brewer Subject: Coral Mountain Resort DEIR July 29, 2021 I am submitting the following comments/concerns about the contents of this document. (1) The DEIR correctly describes the effect of the project on aesthetics as “Significant and Unavoidable” even after mitigation. I agree with this assessment, and as the report notes, there will be adverse effects on scenic vistas, “degradation of the visual character or quality of the site,” and light and glare. Of particular concern to me are the numerous 80’ light poles that will be on from dusk to 10:00 p.m. There are residential communities very nearby, and this issue alone should be of great concern to the City. (2) The report states that there will be a “Less than Significant” impact on energy. With a huge wave pool making waves on a daily and continuous basis, this conclusion seems ridiculous to me. The report states that no mitigation is required pursuant to the criterion of “Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.” In my judgment, the operation of a wave pool in the middle of the desert is the epitome of wasting energy. (3) The report states that Greenhouse Gas emissions will be “Significant and Unavoidable.” The mitigation recommended is that the “Project Applicant” purchase a large amount of carbon credits as an offset. I would suggest that a better and more environmentally sound solution would be denial of the project. (4) Under “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the report states the project’s impact is “Less than Significant.” This section includes, “Deletion of Groundwater Supplies…” I do not under stand how a wave pool that will reportedly use millions of gallons of potable water a year is a “Less than Significant” issue. (5) Under noise, the report talks mostly about construction noise, and then states, “The operation of the Wave Basin and associated machines shall be limited to daytime and evening hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., compliant with the recreational operational hours allowed by the City of La Quinta.” This is a “non-answer” answer, as it does not address the actual amount the wave pool, employee jet skis, any loudspeakers, alarms, music, etc., will make. (6) The report states the impact of the project on “Transportation” will be “Less than Significant.” This is a very large development, so it is difficult for me to accept this assessment, but it certainly does not appear that will be the case during the minimum of four large “Special Events’ per year. The City should look into this in much more detail. Last, as I understand it, this project would require a change in zoning of the property essentially from residential to tourist commercial. Given the heavily STVR orientation of the project, its hotel, and its commercial components, this is entirely incompatible with the surrounding developments and will forever change the nature of this community. The City should not allow that to occur. Respectfully submitted, Martin Brewer 81625 Rustic Canyon Drive La Quinta 92253 martincbrewer@comcast.net (408) 410-9127 Monday, August 2, 2021 at 15:21:23 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Wavepark in viola-on of City's Noise Ordinance Date:Monday, August 2, 2021 at 12:28:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:bnovak26@comcast.net To:'Consul-ng Planner' CC:levans@laquintaca.gov, rradi@laquintaca.gov, kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov, jpena@laquintaca.gov, ssanchez@laquintaca.gov, cdd@la-quinta.org, jake.ingrassia@kesq.com, freda.moon@sfgate.com, 'Derek Wong', 'Ramon Baez', 'Diane Rebryna', 'Kathy Weiss', novak@dominican.edu, 'Chris-na Gamez' TO: Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste & other concerned parties Please consider this part of the overwhelming opposition to the proposed Wavepark project at Madison and Avenues 58/60 in La Quinta. This project is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the City of La Quinta’s current Noise Ordinances. The City limits construction hours from 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday thru Friday and 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M. Saturday, and prohibits construction noise entirely on Sundays and Holidays. This means that this Wavepark/Surfamusement Park project will VIOLATE the current Noise policies from day one!! To exist as currently planned...it has to be considered a “Special Event”...and not just for the four times a year they claim they will request...but for every day they operate! Please be serious about this! What they are proposing is to operate a noisy Amusement feature 7 days a week, from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM...in TOTAL violation of the City’s current regulations. This is another reason why Meriweather’s requested zoning change from residential to commercial should definitely NOT be allowed! Bridgett Novak La Quinta homeowner Bnovak26@comcast.net Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 09:34:50 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Opposi&on to DEIR for Coral Mountain Surfamusement Park Date:Monday, August 2, 2021 at 12:43:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:bnovak26@comcast.net To:'Consul&ng Planner' CC:levans@laquintaca.gov, rradi@laquintaca.gov, kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov, jpena@laquintaca.gov, ssanchez@laquintaca.gov, cdd@la-quinta.org, jake.ingrassia@kesq.com, freda.moon@sfgate.com, 'Derek Wong', 'Ramon Baez', 'Diane Rebryna', 'Kathy Weiss', novak@dominican.edu, 'Chris&na Gamez' AEachments:DEIR Opposi&on (Aug 2 2021).docx TO: Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste & other concerned parties The current Draft EIR for the Coral Mountain Surfamusement Park must be rejected and Meriweather’s request for a zoning change be denied. Bridgett Novak La Quinta homeowner Bnovak26@comcast.net P.S. Please add the attached to the documents I already submitted via email on 3/31/2021 and 4/2/2021. All should be considered part of the Public record and Official opposition to this project and any related zoning change request. August 2, 2021 Attention: Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner City of La Quinta ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov RE: The current Draft EIR for the Coral Mountain Surfamusement Park must be rejected Please add this submission to the documents I already submitted in writing (via email) on 3/31/2021 and 4/2/2021. I have seen lots of DEIRs and never seen one so devoid of actual measurable data (on which conclusions are supposed to be drawn). This DEIR i nstead relies on conjecture and vague statements like “no significant issue”. That is NOT acceptable...and the City Council is NOT doing its job if it does not toss this document back to Meriweather and its obviously-biased consultant MSA. PLEASE TAKE THIS PROJECT AND CITIZENS’ CONCERNS SERIOUSLY. In this document, I will address 3 of my primary concerns (though I’m concerned about many others, too). LIGHT POLLUTION For the developers to casually claim that their 80-foot light towers will have “directional” lights pointed towards the water is totally insufficient. A study needs to be conducted with actual water and a backdrop of a rock-wall mountain (like Coral Mountain) to determine how much deflected light will bounce off the water and the mountains...and from how far away the light towers, their bulbs, their direct and diffused light, and their poles will be visible. Our home is deep within Andalusia and we can see the entire face of Coral Mountain from our backyard. Those light towers and their bulbs will be visible. That is NOT acceptable and not properly addressed in the DEIR. What about other lights throughout the development? There are walking paths, outdoor dining/entertainment areas, bike paths, homes, a hotel, a restaurant, etc. planned for this project. All will have outdoor lighting that has to be measured and evaluated. Are there going to be big screens (aka jumbotrons) showing surfers every day the wave basin is open and broadcasting big images of entertainers for their special events? Thos e light emissions will also have to be evaluated. The ability to see surrounding mountains, palm trees, the sky, and stars at night is a HUGE part of what makes La Quinta the “gem of the desert”. This is a very serious issue and MUST be carefully studied in the DEIR and EIR process, NOT just surmised by Meriweather and MSA (or whoever else they hire to issue “expert” opinions). DEIRs and EIRs are not supposed to be based on opinions...but on measurable facts. Please do your job and demand this be done properly! NOISE We also believ e the developer is far too cavalier with regard to NOISE concerns. It is really laughable that the developer points to noise studies that were conducted at Lemoore. As La Quinta resident Kathy Weiss said during the 3/30/2021 Zoom meeting, “that’s apples an d oranges”. First of all, Lemoore is surrounded by flat agricultural fields and no residential developments. They apparently intend to build this wave basin right up against Coral Mountain. Noises created in that basin will echo off the rock face and rever berate far and wide!!! And what about the grinding sound of the train-like rail system that moves back and forth or the hydrafoils that help create the waves? All of this needs to be carefully measured and evaluated for this particular site!! And what about the tower where the Public Announcer sits and from where he/she broadcasts upcoming waves, musical choices, safety warnings, etc.? It will be a public announcement system with loud speakers! And what about the jet ski(s)? used to run surfers back to the beginning of the wave experience? A “Travel & Leisure” article says the basin will accommodate 25 surfers at a time...so there will have to be multiple jet skis routinely ferrying surfers back & forth. And there will likely be other jet ski-type devices in the water to rescue people who are injured and to take photographs of the surfers (since everyone will, no doubt, want a visual memory of their experience...and which will likely be another way for the developers to make money). The DEIR needs to include measurements of the PA and jet ski noise...at this particular location. In addition, this project is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the City of La Quinta’s current Noise Ordinances. The City limits construction hours from 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Monday thru Friday and 8:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M. Saturday, and prohibits construction noise on Sundays and Holidays. This means that this Wavepark/Surfamusement Park project will VIOLATE the current Noise policies from day one!! To exist as currently planned...it has to be considered a “Special Event”...and not just for the four times a year they claim they will request...but for every day they operate! Please be serious about this! What they are proposing is to operate a noisy Amusement feature 7 days a week, from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM...in TOTAL violation of the City’s current regulations. This is another reason why Meriweather’s requested zoning change from residential to commercial should definitely NOT be allowed! UTILITY OVERLOAD Will the project’s need for huge amounts of continuous power affect the cost, availability and/or dependability of electricity, water, gas, Internet and WiFi in surrounding neighborhoods? Will the current IID facility on Avenue 58 have to be expanded? As local residents, we regularly receive requests from IID to “restrict usage” and get news about “rolling outages”, which occur regularly throughout the summer. This project is likely to put huge amounts of additional stress and draw on our current grid. THIS NEEDS TO BE CAREFULLY MEAS URED...which is another reason to REJECT THE CURRENT DEIR and deny the zoning change request. Monday, 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 Dear Ms Sauviat Criste, Planning Consultant RE: Coral Mountain Resort DEIR 1.2.1 Proposed Project “Meanwhile, the project area west of Madison Street, is the subject of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, new Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map, Site Development Permit, and Development Agreement proposed for the project and discussed in greater detail below.” There are six major changes proposed. Why did this project make it this far through planning and the City Council? Where is the explanation of when and how this first proposed to amend the City’s General Plan? What was the justification to proceed further? The city council should provide its residents with a written and public justification of its intent, so there can be no misunderstanding of facts, history and responsibilities. In addition the city council should certify that THEY PERSONALLY have studied this report and responses from residents. “Existing residential communities occur to the north, south, and east. Avenue 58 and residential properties define the project’s northern boundary; Madison Street and the Andalusia community define the eastern boundary; Coral Mountain defines the property’s southwestern boundary; and vacant land and residential properties define the southern and western boundaries.” The residential properties mentioned are not only Andalusia, but Trilogy to the Southeast, PGA West Weiskopf to the Northeast, The Quarry to the West, Santerra to the North, Coral Mountain Estates to the North. These existing communities house a significant population and conform to the current LQ General Plan. All of the residents of these communities along with the SFR on Avenue 60 should have been advised by mail in 2019 of their opportunity to comment at that time. “Development Agreement (DA 2021‐0002) would vest the applicant’s right to develop the Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan area pursuant to the entitlements described above, address short‐term rentals within all planning areas of the project, ensure that the project has a net positive fiscal impact on the City despite the lack of property tax revenue to the City through 2035, and ensure the timely completion of infrastructure to serve the project and surrounding area, and ensure that the project design features and mitigation measures identified in this EIR are enforceable by the City as project requirements. “ STVR’s will increase the traffic, noise and population. The City will not receive tax revenue through 2035! While approving STVR’s which are being curtailed in the rest of the City, this is insane that it would be allowed with NO TAX REVENUE! What exactly is a “net positive fiscal impact” without revenue? This needs further explanation. ”Zone Change (ZC 2019‐0004) will revise the existing zoning from Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Golf Course, to Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Low Density Residential (RL), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Tourist Commercial (CT). “ La Quinta Zoning Code Section 9.240.010 states the following required findings shall be made by the City Council prior to approval of any specific plan or specific plan amendment: 1. Consistency with the General Plan – IT IS NOT 2. Public Welfare – The noise, traffic, light pollution is detrimental to the general welfare. “Significant and Unavoidable” as shown on EIR 3. Land Use Compatibility – IT IS NOT compatible with surrounding low density adjacent communities. 4. Property Sustainability – The existing specific plan for this property is sustainable. It is unknown if a Wave Basin will survive. All of Kelly Slater’s recent Surf Ranch proposals have not come to fruition. He has not exhibited that his business model will survive, much less open. Why should the City of LQ be the test case? What will happen to a dry, abandoned wave pool community? PR and CT zoning is completely inconsistent with the neighborhood. This is nothing more than a glorified amusement park. “The Coral Mountain Resort Specific Plan (SP 2020‐ 0002) will establish a new master plan governing the allowable land uses, design guidelines, and development standards to allow creation of a boutique resort and master‐ planned community. The Specific Plan includes four Planning Areas which are coterminous to the General Plan and Zoning designation boundaries described above.” This is anything but a BOUTIQUE RESORT AND MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITY! It is not private! It cannot be private and generate enough attendance to justify the cost of this wave pool. It is clearly open to the public who reserve a room at the hotel or rent one or two days at the STVR’s. Master Planned Communities do not invite 2500 people to attend events, four times a year. “Planning Area I (PA I) – Neighborhood Commercial is located on 7.7 acres at the southwest corner of Avenue 58 and Madison Street, and allows for the construction of 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible neighborhood commercial building space with affiliated circulation and infrastructure improvements.” The opposite corner of Avenue 58 and Madison has been available for commercial development for the 11 years I have lived in Trilogy. For most of that time it was posted with a sign to attract c ommercial tenants. Nothing was ever developed. Meriwether must also find commercial tenants in order to build commercial space. It seems unlikely. “PA III‐ G – Back of House: The Back of House subarea contains approximately 26.5 acres that will be graded as level, largely open land south of the Wave Basin. This subarea will provide unprogrammed gathering and staging space for temporary equipment such as port‐a‐ potties, shade structures, tenting for inclement weather, and catering equipment that might be used during events.” This area will cause significant traffic on Avenue 60. Andalusia and Trilogy have spent and continue to spend significant funds to landscape and maintain the beauty of this street between our communities. It will be a direct conduit for trucks hauling everything for these events. That is unacceptable. The developer is directed to map out a route for all of the construction traffic. Given that Trilogy has not been considered in any evaluation, the route will likely go along 60th from Monroe to the site. “PA III‐ B – The Wave: The Wave subarea contains approximately 31.2 acres containing an artificial surf Wave Basin and associated infrastructure. PA III‐ C – Wave Club: The Wave Club subarea contains approximately 3.2 acres fronting the Wave Basin and will fu nction as a private clubhouse with amenities for exclusive use by the Coral Mountain community.” “1.4 Areas of Controversy ; the potential for a significant change in the visual character of the area from a single‐ story residential and golf environment to a hotel and Wave Basin facility; and the potential impacts of proposed 80‐ foot light standards surrounding the Wave Basin on the night sky, light and glare. Visual simulations, line‐of‐ sight analyses and photometric analyses were conducted for the project. 4.1 AESTHETICS Table 1-3 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation states the level of Significance and Mitigation clearly is “Significant and Unavoidable”. Page 136 of 738 includes the line of sight analysis. LINE OF SIGHT SECTION ‘E’ FROM AVENUE 60 The viewpoint does not include views from Trilogy. It was taken west of the intersection of 60th and Madison at street level. Many houses along 60th (Barrel Cactus Rd) are elevated above 60th. Detail “A” Wave Basin/Light. The line of sight on Exhibit 4.1-12 shows that the tops of the 80 foot light poles will be above the line of sight from street level. That does not take into consideration any of the homes in Trilogy which are higher in elevation. To state they will only be on from dusk to 10 pm is absurd! That is not a mitigation. The poles will be visible 24 hours a day. I personally live in Trilogy and my backyard on the golf course faces the southwest corner of this community where the wave basin and lights are located. C urrently I enjoy every morning and evening looking directly at Coral Mountain and enjoy the change in colors. No six foot fence is going to cure anything. I already can look over the fences surrounding Andalusia. (Photos attached) In conclusion the Line of Sight Analysis is inadequate as it does not take into consideration the line of sight from the northern and western boundaries of Trilogy. The City needs an independent analysis. Coral Mountain Coral Mountain partially lies within the southwest corner of the project property. Coral Mountain extends over 400 feet above sea level and provides a scenic resource for the surrounding area. The Mountain is currently viewed without significant obstructions from the public roadways, Avenue 58 to the north, and Madison Street to the east. This section of the EIR gives no consideration to views from Trilogy. We have over 1200 homes many of which have excellent views of Coral Mountain. To give our community no consideration is irresponsible. Views from the streets alone is not a thorough analysis. A drive-by view from the street is inadequate. Many views are from homes on the golf course inside the community. The citizens of Trilogy deserve adequate consideration and an accurate analysis of the views and noise. 4.11 Noise The sounds from the waves, wave riding vehicles which accompany the surfers, competition broadcasts/music and the public cheering will all be very disturbing. Viewing platforms on top of the hotel will be visible and add to the light pollution. The sounds will bounce off Coral Mountain. I can hear a car drive along 60th, stop at the Madison corner, turn right and continue to a stop at 58th. You cannot tell me that the sounds created by all of the traffic and venue will not be noise pollution. LAND USE • Land use compatibility throughout the City. A WAVE BASIN IS NOT COMPATIBLE. •Changes and variations from the Zoning Ordinance in a Specific Plan will be offset by high quality design, amenities and mix of land uses. A WAVE BASIN AMUSEMENT AND STVR’S DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CHANGE. • A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City. THE RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES DOES NOT BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. A FEW HIGH PRICED LOTS FOR SFR’S – THERE ARE PLENTY ALREADY IN LA QUINTA. • Consider changes in market demand in residential product type to meet the needs of current and future residents. THERE IS NO DEMAND FOR A TOURIST RESORT FOR NON-RESIDENTS. •A balanced and varied economic base which provides a broad range of goods and services to the City’s residents and the regio n. A SMALL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE CORNER OF 58 AND MADISON DOES NOT SATISFY THIS POLICY. •Maintain commercial development standards in the Zoning Ordinance including setbacks, height, pad elevations and other design and performance standards that assure a high quality of development. 17-80 FOOT LIGHT POLES CREATE LIGHT POLLUTION AND ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. • Support and encourage the expansion of the resort industry as a key component of the City’s economic base. SILVERROCK RESORT HAS BEEN IN PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION FOR MANY YEARS AND IS SUFFICIENT TO SATISFY “EXPANSION”. LIVABLE COMMUNITY A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT SEVERAL COMMUNITIES WITH THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Land Use Element shall maintain a balance of land use designations to address economic needs, meet market demand, and assure a wide range of development opportunities. WHERE IS THE MARKET DEMAND FOR A WAVE BASIN FOR SURFERS IN THE DESERT. The continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in the City. THIS IS THE WRONG LOCATION FOR A PUBLIC RESORT. HOUSING Provide housing opportunities that meet the diverse needs of the City’s existing and projected population. Identify adequate sites to accommodate a range of product types, densities, and prices to address the housing needs of all household types, lifestyles, and income levels. Conserve and improve the quality of existing La Quinta neighborhoods and individual properties. MILLION DOLLAR LOTS FOR SFR’S ARE READILY AVAILABLE IN LQ. STVR’S ARE ALREADY OPPOSED BY THE CITY. THERE IS NO LOW INCOME HOUSING PROPOSED. WATER RESOURCES The project promotes water conservation through the use of drought tolerant plant materials and water efficient irrigatio n techniques. The project will comply with all City and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) regulations and building code s for water conservation. Additionally, recycled water will be used for common area irrigation for landscaping. The Wave Basin provides a recreational amenity to support the proposed resort and residential uses, and does so with substantially less water demand than required for alternatives amenities, such as an 18‐hole golf course. DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS AND IRRIGATION ARE ALREADY USED ALL OVER LA QUINTA. THIS IS NOT A MOTIVATION TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT. RECYCLED WATER FOR IRRIGATION vs THE FRESH WATER TO FILL A WAVE BASIN IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION. MOST GOLF COURSES ALREADY USE RECLAIMED WATER NOT FRESH WATER. One cannot ignore the daily headlines from e-news, TV reports, newspapers and magazine articles declaring a state-of-emergency with the reservoirs servicing the western states all reporting historic lower than normal levels. Drought monitoring maps show most of Riverside County is in the severe drought category but is edging closer to the extreme drought classification which is thought to be inevitable. Whether this summer or next spring, a full state drought declaration could be ordered and restrictions enacted. How will wave pools or lagoons operate then? How will these wave basins and oasis lagoons be replenished factoring in the enormous daily evaporation rates and the heavy winds inherent in our valley? Answer: by drawing ever more potable water from the aquifers of course. Just last year in 2020, the entire Coachella Valley endured 140 confirmed days of 100 degree plus temperatures. Additionally, IID has recently published warnings that rolling brownouts for this summer are likely to occur which will affect homes, businesses, and wave pools/lagoons equally. However, downtime for surf parks and lagoons is lost revenue. ”In order to assure that everyone in the region has sufficient water, it is important that La Quinta, as one of the stewards of the local water supply, manages and conserves this important resource” (quote from Water Resources III -57). ”The City’s goals, policies and programs relating to water resource management are important to the District’s continued ability to provide domestic water to new and existing developments in the City and the Sphere of Influence”. (quote from Water Resources III-57). ”Continued growth in the City and the region has resulted in an increased demand for domestic water. As a result, CVWD extracts more water from the Lower Thermal sub-area than is naturally recharged into it every year – a condition known as overdraft. "(quote from Water Resources III-58)." An ”effective manner to reduce overdraft in the aquifer is through water conservation. The City and CVWD have implemented a number of conservation programs in recent years which have reduced consumption of domestic water. It is critical that these programs continue and expand, as possible, through build out of the General Plan”. (quote from Water Resources III-60 Just because a deemed water usage may have been acceptable in the past, it does not mean that responsible changes need not be made going forward as new environmentally challeng ing conditions might dictate. It's unacceptable that the residents of La Quinta be required to conserve water with respect to their personal use (which we would willingly comply with in the interest of being good citizens and stewards of our water resources), while a commercial venture such as this wave/surf park continues to draw extraordinarily on our aquifers and power supply for an essentially private recreational outlet. The developer has repeatedly stated that the Coral Mountain Project will use less water than a golf course. It is common knowledge that golf courses, both existing and new, have many water conservation options and measures available, wave pools and lagoons have no such alternatives. Wave Pools must use clean, fresh drinking water from the two sub-basins servicing our valley. These sub-basins rely on replenishment from the Colorado River but La Quinta cannot count on that source for our aquifers anymore, especially in a historic drought. NOISE Why was there no noise receiver location in Trilogy? Trilogy is closer to the wave basin than those residents on 58th. In conclusion I firmly believe that the draft EIR is slighted heavily in favor of the developer and has not considered the residents of Trilogy who are closer to the wave basin are and associated structures than any of the communities on 58th. The city council should provide its residents with a written and public justification of its intent, so there can be no misunderstanding of facts, history and responsibilities. In addition the city council should certify that THEY PERSONALLY have studied this report and responses from residents. Unlike many politicians who vote without reading a word of a bill, I trust that our City Council will do its duty and study the draft EIR and all responses from the citizens of La Quinta before voting. Regards, Sandra Stratton 81302 Barrel Cactus Rd. La Quinta, CA 92253 sstratton@dc.rr.com !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Coral Mountain Resort DEIR %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Sat 10/2/2021 8:41 AM Tue 8/3/2021 8:41 AM ** 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. ** Hi, La Quinta don't have a lot of recreation space left. It is this space and south of La Quinta Cove. California suffer from a severe drought which get worse for every year. It doesn't sound well to put a water park in. If the contractor want land for a water park, there is plenty over by Classic Club and the the new sports arena that is planned. Terje Berger 52705 Avenida Obregon La Quinta TB Terje Berger <terjeberger@yahoo.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 8/3/21, 9:13 AM 1 From:Wcl Sent:Monday, August 2, 2021 3:33 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:Request to speak in person/public comment: joint meeting City Council/Planning Commission Attachments:City Council presentation W.Clarke Final 08_21.docx 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. Good Afternoon, Monica and Nicole I respectfully request to speak in person during the joint meeting of City Council and the Planning Commission’s public session tomorrow, Aug 3 @ 7 pm. My written presentation is attached for distribution. Thank you for your help. Let me know if there is anything else you need.I look forward to meeting you. Best regards, Wendy Wendy Clarke La Quinta Public Comment/non agenda item Opposition to Coral Mountain Wave rezoning - non agenda item Written presentation attached, request to speak during public session. Good afternoon Mayor Evans, Council members, Planning Commission,and staff. Thank you for your service. Mayor, it is good to see you and other familiar faces. My name is Wendy Clarke; My Family has lived full-time in the desert for 34 yrs.; 16 years ago, I moved to Trilogy. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________ I am here to speak to the Coral Mountain Wave rezoning request. Exempt from pass-through property tax $$ due to the agreement with The Thermal Redevelopment Project, this undeveloped land provides little revenue. I trust, you, the current city council, might have negotiated something different. If rezoned, LQ gains TOT and South LQ residents’quality of life is permanently, negatively impacted. John Gamlin, project president, recently shared that he has managed S.LQ, luxury, low-density residential neighborhoods. The CMWR will not be similar in any way with a massive artificial surf wave, stadium lighting,broadcast system, music, and STVRenters. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 3, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT WENDY CLARKE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT 2 Beyond the 4 proposed annual events, additional temporary-use permits are likely. Kelly Slater has made public his support of artificial surf waves for The Ultimate Surfer, for Olympic training and competition. LA is the 2028 Summer Olympic host. What will one special event look like? Chaos for 1,000s of residents. Our neighborhoods are not transient or a tourist destination. We intentionally purchased homes away from the commercial corridor. We relax after a busy workday, exercise, retire, enjoy nature, socialize. When we drive down Madison nearing home, there is a sense of calm. We deserve protection of this paradise. Today, we are environmentally mindful and face a life-threatening drought: lakes reaching historic lows. Supplying 80% of the world, California’s almonds are no longer being planted due to water shortages. We have beenasked to reduce water consumption by 15%. Any governing body approving any project that uses a significant amount of water, is irresponsible. This Surf Wave will deplete drinking water from our Colorado River supplied Aquifer. NPR reports, “The Colorado River is tapped out.Extremely dry conditions like the region is experiencing in 2021, make clear that the Colorado River is unable to meet all the demands communities in the Western U.S. have placed on it, and it's up to its biggest users to decide who has to rely on it less”. What are our mutual responsibilities? Everyone reduces water consumption CVWD transitions remaining golf courses to grey water and denies all nonessential, requests requiring water sourced from the Colorado River. The city supports independent studies that evaluate local evaporation rates, actual site noise, and traffic studies post pandemic. The city observes its General Plan 2035 “Livable community” thatspeaks to “long- term quality of life of its residents”. It is great to think big; change is inevitable. Meriwether has spent millions, aligning with Kelly Slater and Michael Schwab. It does not justify their project. Please honor S. La Quinta’s established communities and reject The Wave, rezoning request. It will have permanent, quality-of- life consequences for many 1000’s of residents. Respectfully, Wendy Clarke CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 3, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT WENDY CLARKE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT 1 From:Diane Rebryna Sent:Monday, August 2, 2021 4:31 PM To:City Clerk Mail Subject:WRITTEN COMMENTS CC MEETING August 3, 2021 re: Coral Mountain Resort - Diane Rebryna and Anast Demitt wish to verbally address City Council during the open session. Attachments:PDF FINAL REBRYNA DEMITT August 3 PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCILand the PLANNING COMMISSION .pdf 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. Hello again, Further to my email of earlier today, please find the written version of our comments to be presented in the Open Session in front of City Council attached. We wish these to be part of the public record. Thank you again for your assistance with this; again, please feel free to reach out with any questions or comments. Kind regards, Diane On Aug 2, 2021, at 3:36 PM, Diane Rebryna wrote: Hello, My name is Diane Rebryna My husband’s name is Anast Demitt. We reside at , La Quinta CA 92253 Our phone number is . We wish to address City Council during the open session re the Coral Mountain Resort ‐ Diane would like to speak first using her 3 minutes, and to correlate, Anast would like to follow immediately thereafter with his allotted 3 minutes. Thank you for accommodating our request. If there is anything else that you require at this time, please do not hesitate to reach out. Kind regards, Diane CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 3, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS DIANE REBRYNA, AND ANAST DEMITT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT 2 I will be forwarding a written record of these same comments to your attention tomorrow. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 3, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS DIANE REBRYNA, AND ANAST DEMITT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT Good afternoon Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Thank you for allowing me to speak today regarding Coral Mountain Resort, which I will refer to going forward as “the Project”. My name is Diane Rebryna, and my husband Anast Demitt and I are very blessed to have our winter home here at Trilogy in La Quinta. Please know that we truly love this city, particularly its tranquil and beautiful southeast corner, which is why we chose to settle there. At the outset, I wish to say that we’ve spent an inordinate amount of time reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report - which at over 1500 pages was very challenging and intimidating to the average reader to say the least. There were so many topics, with this and that “study” and these and those “mitigating factors” that were covered. Some of the DEIR was formulated with conjectures as evidenced by the statements such as “are not anticipated to”,” would not signiﬁcantly impact”, etc. I certainly felt overwhelmed as I tried to extrapolate all of the potential impacts of this Project on life as we know it in South La Quinta. To help me understand the DEIR, I also reviewed the the 2021 CEQA guidelines - a reference document based on the CA Environmental Quality Act to which is used to develop Environmental Impact Reports. It was here that I had my “eureka” moment ! This document, as part of the DEIR checklist speaks to a topic called “Mandatory Findings of Signiﬁcance” where the following is asked: “Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly”? That is when it hit me ! - this Project, as a result of the request for REZONING to allow for it deﬁnitely has many known and potentially unknown environmental domino type effects on the “human beings” - those being us - the residents of the communities nearby. 1. First of all, the Developer has asked for Sub - Phase Development based on “market and consumer demand”. I am overwhelmed as I think of how plans for our lives will be totally predicated on the fact that the waves and phases of construction noise and trafﬁc could go on for years and years. We may never see the completion of this Project in our time here ! CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 3, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS DIANE REBRYNA, AND ANAST DEMITT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT 2. As a result of the rezoning change, Special Events asked for by the Developer could be permitted through the use of TUPs. What’s to prevent the 4 that are being asked for from turning into 8, or more, per year ? City noise ordinances will be altered to accommodate these. There will deﬁnitely be access and egress challenges to most of the surrounding communities - this could impact our safety and well being, should there be trafﬁc tie ups both during as well s before and after Special Events to allow for prep and take down days. 3. Finally, I am totally perplexed as to how this Project with its enormous water usage with 18 million gallons of water to ﬁll it from our aquifers would even be considered in our desert environment with its high temperatures, high evaporation rate and winds, especially during a mega-drought. I know of no other “recreational activity’ which would even be considered if there was an equivalent current and potential future threat to the environment as a consequence. There is a global movement under way to conserve water, with good reason, and we must think of our children and grandchildren. —————————————————————————————————————————- My name is Anast Demitt and Diane is my wife. Thank you for allowing me to continue on with our presentation. This topic is of such concern to me that I felt I needed to travel here to speak to Council today and express my concerns on this proposed Development. 1. Trafﬁc - Once the Tourist Commercial aspect of Coral Mountain Resort is “up and running” there will trafﬁc changes that will signiﬁcantly impact our day to day lives as we know them. The trafﬁc study included in the DEIR is ﬂawed in my opinion as it was conducted during COVID when many seasonal residents chose not to return to the valley. The base trafﬁc volumes used in the analysis are therefore an underestimation of the actual volumes. The study shows that levels of service in some of the affected areas will be reduced to level F, the lowest possible level of service in trafﬁc engineering. That means long delays at intersections and increased commute times regulating in more GHG emissions. The DEIR recommends that changes be implemented to reduce the impacts on the level of service. The developer indicates that they will pay for “their proportional share”. The citizens of LQ Quinta are then stuck with the remainder of the costs. This does not seem to be a fair trade off as we the citizens are subsidizing a private development that we will not see any beneﬁt from. CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 3, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS DIANE REBRYNA, AND ANAST DEMITT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT 2. Lighting - The Developer proposes seventeen 80 foot tall light towers and lighting with variances in parking lots and visitor areas. The effect of this lighting is another unknown that cannot be quantiﬁed at this location. The proposed development will be similar to what I see when I drive by the Indian Wells Tennis Gardens at night. Furthermore, from the proposed project site, the illumination from a public park in Coachella is clearly visible in our skies. This project, with its seventeen light towers and commercial glare, is not the place that I would choose to observe the beautiful dark skies that our desert is known for. We will say good bye to that here as well. 3. Short Term Vacation Rentals - One of the biggest concerns that I have relates to the potential approval of over 700 STVR’s for the site, should rezoning occur. Every room in the hotel and casitas and every house will be approved as an STVR. The proposed $2.5M dollar homes - AND UP - will have multiple bedrooms with multiple people sharing a house. Add in a full hotel for one of the Special Events or even for Coachella or Stagecoach, and this development rapidly becomes nothing more than a large scale B&B with a rotating door. That could mean literally 5 to 6 thousand additional transient visitors in and out of the Project each day. Is this the type of intrusive commercial development that we want “inserted” amongst the established communities of the Quarry, Trilogy, PGA West, Andalusia and Santerra, to name a few residential districts close by ? All for the sake of the TOTS that will be collected on the STVRs? What happened to the highly touted goals for quality of life in the LA Quinta 2035 plan? Is this development and all that it brings along with it really worth the adverse impact it creates on the residents and citizens of South La Quinta? I’m respectfully asking you today to to please “stick to the plan”, that is, the 2035 La Quinta General Plan - particularly the component that speaks to the “livable community” which addresses the “long- term quality of life of its residents.” CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 3, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS DIANE REBRYNA, AND ANAST DEMITT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT This PROJECT is a square peg in a round hole! I encourage you to do as we did and please read the entire 1500 plus page DEIR. You will see that there is not enough certainty from the information presented to allow for rezoning with conﬁdence, and to ensure that there will not be long term life impacting consequences for we, those residents - ‘those human beings” - who live nearby. Thank you for allowing us to provide our perspective today to you. Please say no to the rezoning of this Parcel of land to Tourist Commercial. Respectfully submitted on August 2, 2021 by: Diane Rebryna & Anast Demitt , La Quinta, CA 92253 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 3, 2021 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENTS DIANE REBRYNA, AND ANAST DEMITT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - OPPOSING THE WAVE PROJECT Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 09:18:32 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort DEIR Date:Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 4:57:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:ancalawest@yahoo.com To:consulHngplanner@laquintaca.gov As a full-time resident of La Quinta - and as someone who does not surf and has absolutely no ties or economic interests in this proposed project - I wanted to express my support for the Coral Mountain Resort, the proposed luxury, private, residential community, including its surfable wave pool. My support comes from these perspectives - but mostly from making numerous visits to similar surfable pools across the U.S. I made these visits as a marketing executive on behalf of my employer to evaluate potential sponsorship participation in events taking place at these surfable wave pools. My observations from these visits gives me conﬁdence in lending my support for the proposed La Quinta project as one that is consistent with the type of community La Quinta aspires to be - a resort town that offers an exceptional level of high quality amenities. My personal experiences visiting surfable wave pools across Texas and California taught me that these facilities attract serious athletes and avid surﬁng enthusiasts of every age and gender who are every bit as similar to the kinds of people you'll see golﬁng, playing tennis, or enjoying polo on any given day across the communities of La Quinta and across the Coachella Valley. I would consider the atmosphere of these surf parks to be akin to any golf range - participants were quiet, cerebral, and focused on improving their game - passionate about the sport. I never once saw rowdy, party, or raucous behavior. I even saw diverse groups of local kids taking surf lessons on several occasions. A surfable wave pool can only hold a relatively small number of participants at any given time - not unlike a golf course. Just like golf, it's not a cheap sport - for example, at Kelly Slater’s Surf Ranch 2021, a day of private activities and lessons begins at $3,100.00: https://fulcrumsurf.com/shop/surf-ranch/ La Quinta has an opportunity to continue to diversify its "quality" outdoor recreational amenities and appeal for continued economic prosperity and relevancy, including outdoor activities that drive economic activities during "off season" periods when it's too hot for traditional La Quinta diversions such as tennis, golf, even hiking. Surﬁng is one such high-quality amenity, especially when combined with the resort itself. Competitive surﬁng events are every bit as serious as a polo or golf tournament. Should competitive events take place, expect the audiences to be as well behaved as those who attend one of the numerous pro and amateur golf, polo and tennis events in our communities. I would encourage anyone with serious reservations about to make a visit to a surfable wave park. If you can't make it, check Kelly Slater's Surf Ranch online: Kelly Slater Wave Company Page 2 of 2 Dan Stiel PO Box 437 La Quinta, CA 92247 Kelly Slater Wave Company The Kelly Slater Wave Company combines cutting edge science, engineering and design to create the longest, ridea... Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:47:01 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort DEIR Date:Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 5:25:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Thomas E Swope Jr To:consulGngplanner@laquintaca.gov Hello, My name is Thomas Swope Jr, and I live in Cathedral city CA. I do realize that I am not a La Quinta resident, but I wanted to write to you, or someone and express my concerns about building a wave park in our desert. Our desert is always in a constant state of drought, and that situaGon is most likely never going to change. We all are dependent on our aquifer for our drinking water, and or other water needs, and I really think that filling a wave pool with my, and everyone else’s DRINKING WATER!! Is a really bad and stupid idea. How exactly do you jusGfy asking everyone to conserve as much water as possible, and then you allow a wave pool to be built that will consume millions of gallons of water to full, and to keep full. I honestly can’t believe that this project is being entertained by your city council. The answer should be elementary to each and every one of you. WE DON’T HAVE THE WATER FOR SUCH A PROJECT, so the answer should be NO!! Please, for every residents sake in our or valley, do the right thing and DO NOT allow this project to move forward. It’s a form of waste that we all cannot afford. Thank you for taking the Gme to read my le‘er. !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Coral Mountain Resort DEIR %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Sat 10/2/2021 4:12 PM Tue 8/3/2021 4:12 PM ** 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. ** As a year-around resident at Trilogy and close to the corner of Madison and 60 were quite concerned about this project in terms of noise,traffic, night light pollution, water usage, etc. Perhaps even more, we’re worried as to what could happen if this thing goes belly up in a couple years. That would be an albatross hard to dispose. Please do not authorize the zoning changes necessary to locate this project in our residential area. There are many, many available parcels throughout the Valley where such a project would have little to no negative impact on the residential community. Jan Wm. Talbott Terry Ann Holst Sent from my iPhone JT Jan Talbott <talbott58@sbcglobal.net>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 8/3/21, 4:46 PM Kathy Weiss comments to LQ City Council Meeting Aug 3,2021 Honorable Mayor Evans, Members of the Council, staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Coral Mountain project. My name is Kathy Weiss . I am a homeowner /resident at the Quarry. #1. Location Many of you might think The Quarry won’t be impacted because the DIR said there was nothing to The West of the project. For the record, The Quarry is to The West of the proposed Wave Basin at Coral Mountain. #2. Noise Everyone who lives near Coral Mountain knows that sound reverberates throughout this area. I can hear the murmur of simple conversations between the hikers in Coral Mountain Park, and at Lake Cahuilla Camper Park. From my home at The Quarry, I can hear the music, the bass beat, and the roar of the crowds during Coachella and StageCoach. In fact, from inside my home, I can tell you if the vehicle rumbling down west of 58th & Madison has a gasoline or diesel engine. Just like my neighbors, I hear the sounds of coyotes and hoot owls every evening. I ask any sound engineer, that has NOT been hired by the Developer, to demonstrate sound trajectory to La Quinta Mayor & City Council members. The finding of “no significant” noise impact in the DIR illustrates what a one-sided publication this is. #3 Side effects of Tourist/Commercial Zoning Louder noise allowances, longer business hours, overnight stays, special events, bigger and taller buildings, and public safety commercial lighting are permitted, and sometimes required under Tourist/Commercial zoning. Here is just one example- the Wave Basin requires an audible (not visual) 30- second alarm if there is an emergency, followed by another 30-second audible alarm to signal the emergency has ended. California State mandated Alarm can be as loud as it needs to be in order to be heard over “The Tub and The Train,” (nickname given to the Wave Basin by Kelly Slater’s peers), the screaming and cheering crowds, the crashing of waves onto concrete flooring, and the jet skis zipping up and down the Basin. As the Tub is geared for the Novice Surfer Tourist, the alarms could be going off several times a day. If I had wanted to live in a noisy, tourist/commercial neighborhood, I certainly wouldn’t have built a home at The Quarry. #4 STVR’s As La Quinta City Council and its residents know, STVR’s are a big nuisance, not only here in La Quinta, but elsewhere in Coachella Valley, and wherever people want to Vacation. The vast majority of people who propose short term vacation rentals do not live in this town. Most are out of towners or Commercial investors. If City Council choses 750 more STVRs over our tranquil South La Quinta Community, you are voting against your own Community. Are we a community or a Commodity to you? To remind everyone, the Development Agreement proposes: “Short term vacation rentals will be an allowable use in all planning areas within the Project “. In “Developer Speak”- That means 100% of the 600 “Dwelling Units” (per the Developer’s words) built on this property can be STVR’s. In essence an overnight Hotel Room with a shared kitchen. The developer states “Dwelling Unit” prices will start at $2.5 million and go to $5 million. That tells me the Dwelling Units are going to be McMansions w/ 3 to 10 bedrooms each. Add the massive 150 room key hotel and we have “Surf City Party- land” with (a potential overnight) population of 4-5,000 lodgers at our doorsteps. Simply put, 750 STVR dwellings and 4-5,000 lodgers will be throbbing in the middle of Andalusia, Trilogy, The Quarry, Santerra, Puerta Azul and PGA West (which has a section on 58th), plus the other resident communities lining 58th Street West of Madison. This Meriwether project goes against every single zoning statement in the La Quinta General Plan 2035. The developer, when asked about the noise and light pollution, has been very careful to always reply, “we don’t want the noise to impact our residents.” From reading the DIR and the DA, this project is not catering to have many residents. I want to emphasize the developer plans to build the Wave Basin, Hotel and Casitas first. After completion in 2-5 years down the road, only then will developer construct dwelling units on the sold Lots. A “Dwelling Unit “- per the developer’s own words, in the DIR, has an Owner(s), but not necessarily a Resident. A Rental has an “Owner”, a Home has a “Resident.” Keep in mind, The “Dwelling Unit” owners that chose to buy and build at Coral Mountain Wave Park, plus the tourists booking a stay, do so knowing that the “Tub and Train”, announcer, jet skis, crowds, entertainment venues, etc. will be going non-stop 15 hours daily with 1,000’s of tourist/lodgers milling around outside all over the place. It’s easy for the Wave Park lodgers to leave and go back home when tired of the noise, crowds, and commotion. For the neighboring homeowners, it is not so easy. WE will have to soundproof our lives, unable to hear the birds, bees and other native wildlife. We will be stuck in a nightmare that never ends. The surrounding neighborhood property owners and I bought &/or built homes in South La Quinta because we wanted a peaceful, low-key residential atmosphere. We enjoy the light traffic, no hustle-bustle, being outside listening to the sounds of nature. Our homes and daily life will be impacted negatively in which way. Before I chose the location of where I live in La Quinta, I asked my realtor what the West Andalusia parcel was zoned for. The realtor told me “Low -Density Residential w/18 -hole golf course. It is planned to be Andalusia’s higher-end homes with their own golf-course.” I did more due diligence by visiting the Andalusia Sales site, looked at their Master Plan 3-D model and confirmed the zoning with the Developer’s representative. Finally, after studying the LQ City zoning map, I felt confident to purchase my lot and commence building a home at The Quarry. If any of us wanted to live next door to a “Surf City Mega- Event Complex” we would have done so. The majority of the homeowners in South La Quinta moved here by choice, (as we were not born and raised in La Quinta.) Permitting this Zone change is slap in the Face to every single person that chose to live, buy, and/or build in South La Quinta. LQ City Council would be showing us that we, your South La Quinta residents, just don’t matter. I thought City Governments were designed to protect its residents and their properties, and make its Residents pleased to be living there. You can call me naive, because I never thought our local government would cater to an out of state rookie-developer, that has only been in business for 8 years. For the record- This developer has already pulled the plug on one La Quinta based, City owned development: SilverRock. La Quinta Government should stand by their thousands of residents. Not the Out-of-Town developer that has a dubious history w/ La Quinta. #5. Developer Agreement For the record, the developer’s proposed time frame, as proposed in the DA, is 40 years. That is 4 – 0. F O R T Y. I quote this 6- year old article from the Desert Sun dated October 21, 2015, regarding the SilverRock project. “Robert Green Jr., of Robert Green Co., and John Gamlin, of Sofia Investments, will keep SilverRock moving forward after Meriwether Co. withdrew to pursue other interests, city Economist McMillen said.” (For the record, this is the same John Gamlin we heard speak on Meriwether’s behalf at the last open City Council Meeting) In other words, Meriwether, the same developer that dropped Silver Rock to pursue “Other interests”, wants a 40- year time frame in the Development Agreement. That is alarming. What if Meriwether drops this one too? Yes, I am well aware that Developers, City, State & Public entities, Planning Business, Consultants, Realtors, etc. have interacted, networked & fraternized with each other on a daily basis for many, many years. In fact, most of LQ City Council members are involved in these types of pursuits. When it comes to assembling DIRs for City Review, it is definitely a stacked deck in favor of the Developer. The “no significant impact” stated over and over in the DIR clearly illustrated this bias. LQ Government’s easy acceptance of the more than 1,000- page DIR cemented the fact. The repetitive “No significant Effect” would be laughable if the thousand pages+ plus DIR wasn’t so blatant in its lack of transparency, readability, and comprehension. Having personally met and known many Developers, a good, responsible, and successful Developer looks to invest and “develop” where there is a real need, the timing is right, and there is an overwhelming neighborhood desire for the “Development” to happen. That is certainly not the case here. All which makes me ask why the Developer and their financial backers bought a parcel that did not have the desired Zoning already in place for their Project? Who, in LQ government, gave them the “greenlight”? Why would La Quinta government even think this is “in character” of the existing neighborhood zoning? In summation, I beg of you, Mayor Evans, and La Quinta City Council Members to vote NO on granting the Property Commercial/Tourist zoning. A zone change permit would be absolute disaster in the making for the many thousands of residents close to this proposed Tourist/Commercial Mega-development. Sincerely, Kathy Weiss La Quinta City Council Meeting August 3, 2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/81158bc2‐9a14‐47c8‐9a20‐7c4e88cea5e6 Speakers discussing the Coral Mountain Resort Project and time of appearance in video linked above. In‐Person Comments Alena Callimanis (Transcribed); 0:45 – 7:35 minutes Kelly Welton (Transcribed); 7:46 – 9:15 minutes Wendy Clarke (Transcribed); 9:20 – 14:06 minutes Diane Rebryna and Anast Demitt (Transcribed); 14:15 – 23:49 minutes Verbal Comments via Teleconference Kathy Weiss (Transcribed); 27:35 – 38:45 minutes City Council Meeting 8‐03‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/81158bc2‐9a14‐47c8‐9a20‐7c4e88cea5e6 Located at: 0:45 – 7:30 minutes Speaker: Alena Callimanis Hello. My name is Alena Callimanis. What should I do about this [indicating mask]? Mayor: Your choice. Callimanis: I can? Alright, that way I can make sure you hear me. Okay, they are bringing up my presentation, and uh. It’s only going to be up there? [indicating one screen] Okay. There we go, great. Uh, so the first thing I want to do, and I’m not saying this to brag, or anything like that, but, I mean, I do have a bachelors in physics, I have a masters in physics. So, I take my research in whatever I do very seriously. So, when I put my name on something, that means I really looked into it and feel 100 percent confident that I am giving the correct information. So, I wanted to make sure that I covered that upfront. Alright, um. This is the WADI Adventure Park in the U.A.E. It’s the only other surfing park in a desert environment that maps to what we have. And I think I talked about it before. But what I did was, I contacted the operations manager at that pool so that I could understand the challenges they have by having a surf pool in the heat like we do. Uh, the first thing of course is that, you know, they had a 140‐ mile pipeline from the coast that brings desalinated water to the, um, to them because they don’t have an aquifer where they are. Um, but, one of the things that’s really important is that they told me they cool the pool to 85 degrees for a number of reasons are listed here.  Pools in the 90s, plus hot temperatures like we’re having in the 110s and so on, uh create potential for heat stroke. And that has happened.  Uh, warmer pools can incubate Protozoa and viruses. So, this is what they actually told me is that one of the key reasons they want to cool their water to 85 because they want to keep it safe for their, um, surfers.  Um, the other thing I did miss was that surfers acknowledge that by riding on the artificial waves, they really exerting a lot more energy than regular wave because it goes on for a much longer extended period of time. So that raises the chance, if you’re doing, during the day in a hot water pool for heat stroke.  Algae buildup significantly increases in hot water, with hot water and hot weather. So, chlorine requirement increase the pool, to make it safe away from chlorine away from this protozoas and everything, um, it just increases to the point where it may be unusable for swimmers in it. The Coral Mountain base, uh, people, developers base their chlorine needs on Lemoore Surf Park, and I will in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and I’ll go over that in the next page real quick. When I left the house, my pool was 95 degrees today. So that’s really hot. Um, on the next page [indicating PowerPoint]. Uh, very quickly, the CVWD water assessment said that they would need 39 million gallons yearly to replenish the evaporation from the surf pool. Um, unfortunately that was not based on any knowledge of surf pools, we didn’t have that kind of data. So they did it based on a standard factor of 1.2 for moving waters and pan evaporation numbers 2005 when we only had 99 days over 100. So that’s that the calculations are based on. However, luckily, the World Surf League, which purchased Kelly Slater wave technology, that’s going to make up our pool here in La Quinta, wrote that on very hot days, the Lemoore Surf Ranch, the pool lost 250,000 gallons a day. Okay now, they had – I went through and calculated how many days over 100 they had – they had 27 days over 100 degrees in 2020, with the hottest temperature last year of only 107. We had 143 days over 100. Um, so I used that as a number from basing my calculations for evaporation. So, 250,000 gallons times 143 days equals 36 million gallons lost to evaporation in 143 days. If you look at line number one, CVWD has in their water assessment they only need to replenish 39 million for a whole year. I calculated based on the Kelly Ranch evaporation, 100‐uh, 36 million gallons only in 143 days. That leaves us with – oh we also had 56 days over 110 degrees. What does that now mean for the 250,000 gallons? How much of a factor is it above that for more evaporation right? We don’t know that. uh, could it be 300,000 dollars on the days over – 300,000 gallons on the days over um, 110 degrees? Uh, what about the rest of the 222 days of the year where we have evaporation due to wind? Due to heat? We had 51 days last year over 90. That’s another large amount of, of days over it. You’ll quickly see that the 39 million gallons calculation by CVWD is wrong. I hate to say that, but. Uh, again, so golf courses versus surf pools. I gave you those numbers so that you see, you stop believing the developer that a surf basin will use 25 percent of what a golf course will do. These evaporation figures show that we don’t even know how much more it’s going to be. Um, and golf courses use recycled and grey water; surf pools can’t. Uh, last year local golf course decrease their water usage by 17 percent over the summer without a law being in place to say please reduce it. They’re able to do that. You know, you can’t – surf park can’t decrease their water or they close. Golf courses have new designs that are environmentally friendly. I’m not advocating another golf course here. I want to have a family‐friendly development here. You could have rock wall climbing, bike trails, hiking trails, community pools, miniature golf, playgrounds, tennis, pickleball, all that, I think are, in lines of what you want for residential community. So um, and finally, I just wanted to show you a picture of the conception. Uh, how can they say no noise impact? Look where that pool is in relation to Coral Mountain. So, thank you very much. City Council Meeting 8‐03‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/81158bc2‐9a14‐47c8‐9a20‐7c4e88cea5e6 Located at: 7:46 – 9:15 Speaker: Kelly Welton Welton: Good afternoon my name is Kelly Welton, I live in Trilogy, and I just wanted to raise some concerns that we weren’t really satisfied by the answers given to us by Merriwether and Garrett Simon on, I believe the first call that we had. One question asked was ‐ what about the noise factor, if they are going to be in operation until 10 o’clock in the evening? If we have noise concerns at 10 o’clock in the evening, who can we call? And his answer was “oh the hotel staff will take care of that.” So, I’m not exactly sure what that meant or how that will happen, but I would like to then ask – if we don’t get any satisfactory problem solving by the hotel staff for noise 5 pm, when no one is here, who do we call? What is the plan B? Will La Quinta Police come? Will Riverside County sheriff come? And my second one kind of tags on Alenas picture, and I didn’t know I could send a PowerPoint, but I’ll pass this around so you can see it, but the proposed wave pool that they have in proportion to. Mayor: You can start over here, actually with City Clerk. Welton: If you look at the size of that Wave pool, in proportion to the size of the about 8 blocks of Trilogy, you can’t tell me that whatever contraption they’re going to use to make a wave in that pool, won’t be heard. That’s a huge pool. It’s 8 blocks of Trilogy. Thank you. City Council Meeting 8‐03‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/81158bc2‐9a14‐47c8‐9a20‐7c4e88cea5e6 Located at: 9:20 – 14:06 Speaker: Wendy Clarke Hi Mayor Evans, Council members, Penya Fitzpatrick, Randy Sanchez and staff. I really appreciate your service. Good to see everybody. My name is Wendy Clarke, and my Family has lived in the Valley here for 34 years.; 16 years ago, I moved to Trilogy. And I am here to speak today about the request for Coral Mountain to rezone land adjacent to many of the communities surrounding where I live. Currently, we all know the land provides little revenue for the City, basically due to the Thermal Redevelopment Project. And I trust maybe City Council would have negotiated something different years ago, but it is what it is. And if it’s rezoned, the City realizes Transient Occupancy Taxes, what happens to the residents? Our quality of life is negatively and permanently impacted. I had an opportunity to hear John Gamlin on a Zoom call recently and he shared that he’s managed some south La Quinta luxury properties, uh, in residential neighborhoods. This project is in no way like any of those neighborhoods. With a huge amounts of surf waves, broadcast system, music, short term rentals. Beyond the 4 annual events that they propose, there is additional temporary‐use permits I believe it can be requested. Kelly Slater has made public that he supports the artificial surf waves for Olympic training and competition. LA is hosting the 2028 Olympics. What will one special event look like? Chaos for 1,000s of residents. Our neighborhoods are not transient, and they are not a tourist destination. We intentionally purchased homes away from the commercial corridor. And to relax after a busy workday, some of us have retired, we like to exercise, enjoy nature, socialize with our neighbors. It’s funny when I drive down Madison on the way home from errands, there is a calm that comes over me. Um, this paradise deserves to be protected. Today, environmentally mindful we face a life‐threatening drought, and I won’t go into all the details because we’ve talked about this a lot, but lakes are at historic lows. California supplies 80% of the world’s almonds, and trees aren’t being planted because there is no water. We have been asked to reduce water by 15%. Any governing body approving any project that uses a significant amount of water, is irresponsible. This Surf Wave will deplete water from our aquifer supplied by the Colorado River. NPR reports, “The Colorado River is tapped out. Extremely dry conditions like the region is experiencing in 2021, make clear that the Colorado River is unable to meet all the demands the Western U.S. have placed on it. It's up to its biggest users to decide who has to rely on it less.” In closing, what are our mutual responsibilities?  Everyone reduces water consumption.  CVWD transitions remaining golf courses to grey water and denies all nonessential, requests requiring water sourced from the Colorado River.  The city requires studies that evaluate local evaporation rates, the actual noise of the site, and traffic studies that are post pandemic.  The City observes its General Plan 2035 “Livable community” that speaks to “long‐ term quality of life of its residents.” It is great to think big; change is great and inevitable. Having lived in La Quinta is wonderful. It’s real exciting to see young people moving here. Meriwether has spent millions. They’ve aligning with Kelly Slater and Michael Schwab. Their project is beyond unreasonable. Please honor south La Quinta’s established communities and reject The Wave, rezoning request. It will have permanent, quality‐of‐life consequences for many 1000’s of residents. Thank you. City Council Meeting 8‐03‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/81158bc2‐9a14‐47c8‐9a20‐7c4e88cea5e6 Located at: 14:15 – 23:49 Speaker: Diane Rebryna and Anast Demitt Good afternoon Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, staff, and fellow attendees. Thank you for allowing me to speak today regarding Coral Mountain Resort, which I will refer to going forward as “the Project”. My name is Diane Rebryna, and my husband Anast Demitt and I are truly blessed to have our winter home here in Trilogy in La Quinta. Please know that we truly love this city, particularly its tranquil and beautiful southeast corner, which is why we chose to settle there. At the outset, I wish to say that we’ve spent an enormous amount of time reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report ‐ which at over 1,500 pages was very challenging and intimidating to the average reader, to say the least. There were so many topics, with this study and that “study” and these and those “mitigating factors” that were covered. Some of the DEIR was formulated with conjectures; there were statements like “are not anticipated to”, “would not significantly impact”, and I felt overwhelmed as I tried to extrapolate all of the potential impacts of this Project on life as we know it in South La Quinta. To help me understand the DEIR, I also reviewed the 2021 CEQA guidelines – this is a reference document that’s based on the CA Environmental Quality Act to which is used to develop Environmental Impact Reports. And it was here that I had my “eureka” moment! This document, as part of the DEIR checklist speaks to a topic called “Mandatory Findings of Significance” where the following is asked: “Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly”? That is when it hit me, yes we are the human beings that will be impacted. So this Project, as a result of the request for rezoning to allow for it, will have many known and potentially unknown environmental domino type effects on the “human beings” ‐ those being us ‐ the residents of the communities nearby. 1. First of all, the Developer has asked for Sub‐Phase Development based on “market and consumer demand”. I am overwhelmed as I think of how plans for our lives will be totally predicated on the fact that the waves and phases of construction noise and traffic could go on for years and years. We may never see the completion of this Project in our time here. 2. As a result of the rezoning change, Special Events asked for by the Developer could be permitted through the use of TUPs. What’s to prevent the 4 that are being asked for from turning into 8, or more for the City? City noise ordinances can be altered to accommodate these special events. There could definitely be access and egress challenges to most of the surrounding communities, and this could impact our safety and wellbeing, should there be traffic tie ups both during as well as before and after Special Events to allow for prep and take down days. 3. And finally, I am totally perplexed as to how this Project with its enormous water usage with 18 million gallons of water to fill it from our aquifers would even be considered in our desert environment with its high temperatures, high evaporation rate and winds, and especially during a mega‐drought. I know of no other “recreational activity’ which would even be considered if there was an equivalent current and potential future threat to the environment as a consequence. There is a global movement under way to conserve water, with good reason, and we must think of our children and grandchildren. Thank you very much. Mayor: And Anast Demitt. Demitt: Mayor Evans, Mayor Pro Tem Radi, Council members, City staff, fellow La Quintans. My name is Anast Demitt and I am a semi‐retired forensic structural engineer. My 45 years of engineering training has allowed me to learn how to read technical documents. That Draft EIR that I read was one of the worst technical documents I’ve ever read. It is not to the point, it is full of conjecture, tends to cloud the issues, and what’s very disappointing ‐ everything has little to no impact. there’s no cumulative analysis as to what happens. One of the areas that concerns me on this proposed element is the section of the DEIR related to traffic. 1. Once the Tourist Commercial aspect of Coral Mountain Resort is “up and running” there will traffic changes that will significantly impact the day to day lives of many La Quintans and affect their lives as we know them today. The traffic study included in the DEIR is flawed, because in my opinion, it was conducted during COVID when many seasonal residents chose not to return to the Valley. The base traffic volumes used in the analysis are therefore an underestimation of the actual number of vehicle trips on those roads. The study shows that levels of service in some of the affected areas will be reduced to level F. Now in engineer speak – A is good level of service and F is absolutely the worst. As a consequence, that means there will be long delays at intersections and increased commute times regulating in more GHG emissions, and longer delays in getting to our homes. The Report recommends that changes be implemented to reduce the impacts on the level of service. The Report recommends widening the roads, adding signalization to 8 intersections. When I asked the developer how this is ‐ who is going to bare this cost, their comment is that they are going to pay “their proportional share”. What is their proportionate share? I would submit the citizens of La Quinta will be paying a significant portion of these costs. This does not seem to be a fair trade off as we the citizens are subsidizing a private development that we will not see any benefit from. 2. I would also like to talk about the lighting ‐ The Developer proposes to use seventeen 80 foot tall light towers with lighting with variances in parking lots and visitor areas. The effect of this lighting is another unknown that cannot be quantified. The developer had a light study done, and that is low and behold from the company that sells them lights. Not much of a conflict in my opinion. The proposed development will be similar to what I see when I drive by the Tennis Gardens in Indian Wells. Furthermore, from the proposed project site, the illumination from a public park in Coachella is visible. So even though the light may not directly reflect off the water surface, into the adjacent communities, the glow above the park will certainly be visible. I think we can kiss our dark La Quinta skies good‐bye, if that is the case. 3. And finally, I want to talk about the Short Term Vacation Rentals [STVR]. Potentially we can have 700, over 700 STVRs on that site. The DEIR asks that every room in the hotel, casitas, and every house will be approved as a STVR. The proposed $2.5M dollar homes will have multiple bedrooms with multiple people sharing a home. Add in a full hotel for one of the Special Events or even for Coachella or for Stagecoach, and this development rapidly becomes nothing more than a large scale B&B with a rotating door. That could mean literally 5 to 6 thousand additional transient visitors in and out of the project each day. Is this the type of intrusive commercial development that we want inserted among the established communities of the Quarry, Trilogy, PGA West, Andalusia, Santerra, just to name a few. All for the sake of the TOTs that will be collected on the STVRs? What happened to the highly touted goals for quality of life in the La Quinta 2035 Plan? Is this development and all that it brings along with it really worth the adverse impact it creates on the residents and citizens of South La Quinta? I’m respectfully asking you today to please “stick to the plan”, that is, the 2035 Plan ‐ particularly the component that speaks to the “livable community” which addresses the “long‐ term quality of life for its residents.” This project is a square peg in a round hole. I encourage you to do as we did and please read the entire 1,500 plus page DEIR, it cures insomnia. You will see that there is not enough certainty from the information presented to allow for rezoning with confidence, and to ensure that there will not be long term life impacting consequences for we, those residents ‐ ‘those little human beings’ ‐ who live nearby. Thank you for allowing us to provide our perspective today. Please say no to the rezoning of this parcel to Tourist Commercial. City Council Meeting 8‐03‐2021 Public Comment on Matters Not on the Agenda. Available at: https://laquinta.12milesout.com/video/meeting/81158bc2‐9a14‐47c8‐9a20‐7c4e88cea5e6 Located at: 27:35 – 38:45 Speaker: Kathy Weiss Honorable Mayor Evans, Members of the Council, and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Coral Mountain project. My name is Kathy Weiss, and I am a homeowner and resident at the Quarry. #1. Location Many of you might think The Quarry won’t be impacted because the DIR said there was nothing to the West of the project. For the record, The Quarry is to the west of the proposed Wave Basin at Coral Mountain. #2. Noise Everyone who lives near Coral Mountain knows that sound reverberates throughout this area. I can hear the murmur of simple conversations between the hikers in Coral Mountain Park, and at Lake Cahuilla Camper Park. From my home at The Quarry, I can hear the music, the bass beat, and the roar of the crowds during Coachella and StageCoach. In fact, from inside my home, I can tell you if the vehicle rumbling down west of 58th & Madison has a gasoline or diesel engine. Just like my neighbors, I hear the sounds of coyotes and hoot owls every evening. I ask any sound engineer, that has NOT been hired by the Developer, to demonstrate sound trajectory to La Quinta Mayor & City Council members. The finding of “no significant” noise impact in the DIR illustrates what a one‐sided publication this is. #3 Side effects of Tourist/Commercial Zoning Louder noise allowances, longer business hours, overnight stays, special events, bigger and taller buildings, and public safety commercial lighting are permitted, and sometimes required under Tourist Commercial zoning. Here is just one example ‐ the Wave Basin requires an audible (not visual) 30‐second alarm if there is an emergency, followed by another 30‐second audible alarm to signal the emergency has ended. California State mandated Alarm can be as loud as it needs to be in order to be heard over “The Tub and The Train,” by the way the tub and the train is a nickname given to the Wave Basin by all of Kelly Slater’s peers, the screaming and cheering crowds, the crashing of waves onto concrete flooring, and the jet skis zipping up and down the Basin. As the Wave Basin is geared for the Novice Surfer Tourist, the alarms could be going off several times a day. On, off, on, off. If I had wanted to live in a noisy, tourist commercial neighborhood, I certainly wouldn’t have built a home at The Quarry. #4 STVR’s As La Quinta City Council and its residents know, STVR’s are a big nuisance, not only here in La Quinta, but elsewhere in Coachella Valley, and wherever people want to vacation. The vast majority of people who propose short term rentals do not live in this town. Most are out of towners or Commercial investors. If City Council choses 750 more STVRs over our tranquil South La Quinta Community, you are voting against your own community. Are we a community or a commodity to you? To remind everyone, the Development Agreement states: “Short term vacation rentals will be an allowable use in all planning areas within the Project “. In “Developer Speak”‐ That means 100% of the 600 “Dwelling Units” – those are the Developer’s words not mine ‐ built on this property can be STVR’s. In essence an overnight Hotel Room with a shared kitchen. The developer states “Dwelling Unit” prices will start at $2.5 million and go to $5 million. That tells me the Dwelling Units are going to be McMansions with 3 to 10 bedrooms each. Add the massive 150 room key hotel and we have “Surf City Party‐land” with a potential overnight population of 4‐ to 6,000 lodgers at our doorsteps coming and going on a daily basis. Simply put, 750 STVR dwellings and 4,000 to 500 lodgers will be throbbing in the middle of Andalusia, Trilogy, The Quarry, Santerra, Puerta Azul and PGA West (which does have a section on 58th), plus the other resident communities lining 58th Street West of Madison. This project goes against every single zoning statement in the La Quinta General Plan for 2035. The developer, when asked about the noise and light pollution, has been very careful to always reply, “we don’t want the noise to impact our residents.” From reading the DIR and the DA, this project is not catering to have many residents. I want to emphasize the developer plans to build the Wave Basin, Hotel and Casitas first. After those are completed in 2 to 5 years down the road, then will developer will start to construct dwelling units on the sold lots. A “Dwelling Unit “‐ per the developer’s own words again, not mine, in the DIR, has an Owner, but not necessarily a Resident. A Rental has an “Owner”, a Home has a “Residence.” There is a big difference between an owner and resident. All the communities I mentioned to you are residential communities. Now, keep in mind, The “Dwelling Unit” owners that chose to buy and build at Coral Mountain Wave Park, plus the tourists booking a stay, do so knowing that the “Tub and Train”, the announcer, the jet skis, the crowds, the entertainment venues, etc. will be going non‐ stop 15 hours a day, that’s why they want to be there. And there will be all those 4‐ to 5,000’s of tourist/lodgers milling around outside everywhere. The Wave Park lodgers can leave and go back home when tired of the noise, the crowds, and the commotion. We, the neighboring homeowners, cannot. We will be stuck in a nightmare that never ends. The surrounding neighborhood property owners and I bought and/or built homes in South La Quinta because we wanted the peaceful, low‐key residential atmosphere currently there. Before I chose the location of where I live in La Quinta, I asked my realtor what the West Andalusia parcel was zoned for. The realtor told me “Low‐Density Residential with 18‐hole golf course. It is planned to be Andalusia’s higher‐end homes with their own course.” I did more due diligence by visiting the Andalusia Sales site, looked at their Master Plan 3‐D model and confirmed the zoning with the Developer’s representative. Finally, after studying the LQ City zoning map, I felt confident enough to purchase my lot and commence building a home at The Quarry. If any of us wanted to live next door to a “Surf City Mega‐Event Complex” we would have done so, we didn’t. The majority of the homeowners in South La Quinta moved here by choice; meaning that we were not born and raised here. Permitting this Zone change is slap in the face to every single person that chose to live, bought, and build in South La Quinta. LQ City Council would be showing us that we, your South La Quinta residents, just don’t matter. I always thought City Governments were designed to protect its residents and their properties, and make its residents happy to be living there. You can call me naive, because I never thought our local government would cater to an out of state rookie‐ developer, that has only been in business for 8 years. For the record ‐ this developer has already pulled the plug on one La Quinta based, City owned development: SilverRock. La Quinta Government should stand by their thousands of residents in south La Quinta. Not the Out‐of‐Town rookie developer that has a dubious history with La Quinta. #5. Developer Agreement For the record, the developer’s proposed time frame, as written in the DA, is 40 years. That is 40. F. O. R. T. Y. I quote this account from the Desert Sun – uh, this 6‐year‐old account from the Desert Sun dated October 21, 2015, regarding the SilverRock project. “Robert Green Jr., of Robert Green Co., and John Gamlin, of Sofia Investments, will keep SilverRock moving forward after Meriwether Co. withdrew to pursue other interests, city Economist McMillen said.” For the record, this is the same John Gamlin we heard speak on Meriwether’s behalf at the last open City Council Meeting. In other words, Meriwether, the same developer that dropped Silver Rock to pursue “Other interests”, wants a 40‐ year time frame in the Development Agreement. That is alarming. What if Meriwether decides to drop this one too? Yes, I am well aware that Developers, City and Public entities, Planning Business, Consultants, Realtors, etc. have interacted, and networked, and fraternized with each other on a daily basis for many, many, many years. In fact, most of LQ City Council members are involved in these types of pursuits. When it comes to assembling DIRs for City Review, it is definitely a stacked deck in favor of the Developer. The “no significant impact” stated over and over in the DIR clearly illustrated this bias. The repetitive “No significant effect” would be laughable if the thousand pages plus DIR wasn’t so blatant in its lack of transparency, readability, and comprehension. Having personally met and known many Developers, a good, responsible, and successful Developer looks to invest and “develop” where there is a real need, the timing is right, and there is an overwhelming neighborhood desire for the “Development” to happen. That is certainly not the case here. All which makes me ask why the Developer and their financial backers bought a parcel that did not have the desired Zoning already in place for their Project? Who, in LQ government, gave them the “greenlight”? Why would La Quinta government even think this is “in character” of the existing neighborhood zoning? In summation, I beg of you, Mayor Evans, and La Quinta City Council Members to vote “no” on granting the Property Commercial/Tourist zoning. A zone change permit would be absolute disaster in the making for the many thousands of residents close to this proposed Tourist/Commercial Mega‐ development. Sincerely, Kathy Weiss. Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 13:01:12 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort Date:Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:07:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Jeffrey Lisa To:consulGngplanner@laquintaca.gov Hi Nicole, My husband and I moved into The Citrus as permanent (year round) residents in May 2021. As we were considering moving to La Quinta one of my biggest concerns is the availability of water for the future. We moved here from the Bay Area and have gone through a few years of severe drought. It is very scary to have to limit your use of water and a sobering reminder of how precious a resource water is. We must use it wisely! I recently learned of Coral Mountain Resort and I’m shocked that this would even be a consideraGon here. California is in a drought now and we need to conserve water. Please don’t build a water park! I personally would like to see Silver Rock development finished and eliminate the water features in the landscape. La Quinta has beauGful desert landscape. Let’s emphasize that. We must change our a\tude toward our natural resources or we won’t have a planet to live on. Thank you. Lisa Jeffrey 79375 Mandarina La Quinta 925-872-7796 Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:51:31 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Wave Park Date:Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 6:50:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:RoseDe To:ConsulFng Planner Hello I am informing you once again to my opposiFon to the Wave Park. The dire water drought is a major priority. We will run out of water for our agriculture as well as our personal use. The other problem is the impact on our tranquility at Trilogy. That would be traffic congesFon as well as noise polluFon. Do not all allow this Water Park to open. Sincerely RoseDe Kivel 61345 Fire Barrel Dr La Quinta, Ca 92253 Sent from my iPhone Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:58:29 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Coral Mountain wave pool - water concern Date:Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 11:49:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:Natalie Maupin To:consulFngplanner@laquintaca.gov CC:julia.wick@laFmes.com Hello, I am a resident of Palm Desert and have been watching the news publicaFons about the wave pool tentaFvely approved for the Coral Mountain area in La Quinta. I find it ironic that the LA Times published an arFcle, “As drought worsens, regulators impose unprecedented water restricFons on California farms” while there are mulFple recreaFonal water parks under planning and/or construcFon in the Coachella Valley. I don’t understand the logic in using hundreds of thousands of gallons of our precious table water in a wave pool. This project should be placed on an indefinite hold unFl water levels are back to where we are not “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. Personally I think our farmers have a right to this water before we build a wave pool. I can find mulFple arFcles about farmers who have basically let their farms go because they can’t maintain the crops with the amount of water they are allocated. Not all of these farms are located in the Coachella Valley, but we are home to a variety of farms that provide food and jobs to our residents. Can you explain and jusFfy how a recreaFonal venue warrants water over our farmers? For reference, here is the arFcle from the LA Times. https://apple.news/AN29YMV06R8mVx1nHiqsy0A Sincerely, Natalie Maupin Palm Desert, Ca 92211 760-668-6690 Address can be provided however I do not want it published. !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block La Quinta surf park %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Mon 10/4/2021 9:44 AM Thu 8/5/2021 9:44 AM ** 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. ** Dear La Quinta Planning Commision, I am writing to you as a citizen of La Quinta. I moved to south La Quinta after extensive research seeking a crime free and quiet neighborhood. The location for the misguided “surf park” is presently zoned for low-mid density housing, not a tourist and AIRBNB destination that would be NO benefit for the local community. It is inconceivable that this “surf park” is being considered with the drought conditions. We have been asked to limit our water consumption and every day on the news this is an important topic. In addition we often get alerts from IID to reduce our electric consumption. Please do not allow this to happen. It is up to you and would be very disappointed if this were to come to fruition. I was on a ZOOM call with the developers recently who addressed the EIR reports that were so biased and incomplete. The developer was rude and not very interested in listening to the valid concerns of local experts. Please do not change the zoning for this property. I read on some of the city council bios that they were here for the citizens of La Quinta so here is a chance to prove it. I appreciate your time, Best, Liz Ervin -- Liz Ervin 949. 280-7695 mobile lizervin05@gmail.com LE L E <lizervin05@gmail.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 8/5/21, 10:20 AM Page of 1 11 August 5, 2021 Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 BY EMAIL: ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov SUBJECT LINE: Coral Mountain Resort DEIR RE: Comments re: DRAFT EIR for Coral Mountain Resort Applicant Meriwether Developments request for zoning change in South La Quinta from “Low Density Residential w/golf course”(LDRw/G) to “Tourist Commercial” (T/C) Ms. Sauviat Criste, I am writing today as a concerned Trilogy resident to respond to the Draft Environmental Report as well as to voice my opposition to the rezoning application above which would allow for the Coral Mountain Resort development ( “the Project”) in South La Quinta. PREAMBLE: The key to the color coding within this response to the DEIR is here: 1. My comments, as the writer, are in BLACK 2. The reader will see comments in RED: These are supportive documentation for that section and are excerpts from CA Environmental Quality Legislation (w/ writer’s emboldening/ underlining). This legislation drives the CEQA Guidelines which in turn provide the framework for the Draft Environmental Impact Report. PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE - Public Resources Code DIVISION 13. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY [21000 - 21189.70.10] ( Division 13 added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1433. ) CHAPTER 1. Policy [21000 - 21006] ( Chapter 1 added by Stats. 1970, Ch. 1433. ) 3. The reader will see comments in PURPLE: These are excerpts from the 2021 CEQA Guidelines. https://www.califaep.org/docs CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf 4. The reader will see comments in BLUE: These are excerpts from the 2035 La Quinta General Plan (“the Plan”) (w/ writer’s emboldening/underlining)… https://www.laquintaca.gov/business/design-and-development/planning-division/2035-la- quinta-general-plan which is the ”…plan …crafted as the guiding policy document for the City per the vision expressed by its citizens and established by the City Council.” I-1…The General Plan includes …“Goals, polices, and programs (that) are all supported by factual data, community opinion, background information, and detailed maps. Together, these constituent parts paint a picture of the community’s future development” Page of 2 11 My comments with respect to the DEIR for the Project will be laid out in 3 parts: A.Those regarding the DRAFT Environmental Impact Report Document B.Those regarding the Project relevant to the DEIR, and C.Conclusion ——————————————————————————————————————————- A. My comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report Document for Coral Mountain Resort - issued June 22, 2021: Section 21003 of the Legislation addresses the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports. The Legislature ﬁnds and declares that it is a policy of the state that… …(b) Documents prepared pursuant to this division be organized and written in a manner that will be meaningful and useful to decision makers and to the public. …(c) Environmental impact reports omit unnecessary descriptions of projects and emphasize feasible mitigation measures and feasible alternatives to projects. My concerns with the DEIR document itself are as follow: I, and many other concerned residents, are of the opinion that this document was not organized and written in a manner that was meaningful and useful to the public. Whether it will be useful to the decision makers remains to be seen. 1.In short, the document was not succinct. The sections in the DEIR with respect to the “technical studies” contained complex language that would have been better placed in appendices, to allow for “a ﬂow” in the main document and encourage a “rapid understanding” of the DEIR by the average reader as required by the CEQA guidelines. 2.I have strong objections to the multiple vague statements that appear throughout the DEIR ( regarding identiﬁed factors)…” are not anticipated to”, “would not signiﬁcantly impact”,” would not substantially change”, “would not be signiﬁcant” , “minimally impacted”, “would be imperceptible”, “are not fully compliant”, etc. These are SUBJECTIVE comments that are not scientiﬁc and neutral. As a reader, comments like this do not inspire my conﬁdence in the ﬁndings. 3.I also have concerns with “elaborate and ornate descriptive language” used in what should be presented as a neutral “for information” document. Often times such language was used to describe the Project. For example, on page 7-57 of the DEIR, the following statement is made: “Develop a high‐ quality private wave basin (The Wave) that provides unique recreational opportunities Page of 3 11 for future residents of the project, and that attracts resort guests and creates a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s reputation as the “Gem of the Desert”. Only PLAIN SIMPLE LANGUAGE should be allowed, regardless of the context. Language like this belongs in a promotional brochure for the Project - not in a DEIR. I compared other DEIRs for other Projects in the Coachella Valleyand and could n ot see examples of this type of language in the others. 4.Many of the tables were redundant and confusing in their layout; they should have been placed in the appendices for easy reference, and not allowed to clutter the document. 5.At 1500 plus pages including appendices, the document was too long as per the CEQA guidelines ( 300 pages is recommended for a complex project ), and ﬁlled with redundant and repetitive sections that were repeatedly “cut and pasted” throughout the entire document. In fact, entire sections were literally repeated several times throughout the document. 6.Then document did not include an organized and detailed Table of Contents to allow for easy reference by the reader and some of the numbering on the pages was not in sequence. There were too many sections entitled “Conclusion(s)” throughout the document, contributing to further confusion for the average reader. There were page numbering errors in some sections; some intended citations were not cited. I would like it on record that I, and others, communicated the above concerns to the Consulting Planner, and her response on July 13, 2021 was the following: “Although the CEQA Guidelines suggest page limits, the complexity of this project requires that it be analyzed thoroughly, resulting in a longer document. The language in the document, although technical, is not unduly scientiﬁc or complex. CEQA documents usually are highly detailed and cover many variables. Likewise, the various environmental impact areas may have some redundancy of analysis, all in an effort to make the document as complete as possible. The City has completed the EIR to address all currently known aspects of the project, and to provide decision makers and the public with a comprehensive analysis of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with its implementation. The City will not be retracting the document or reissuing it.” Why this DEIR as presented is of concern: This Project is very complex and its completion would be impactful to the residents around it on many levels. There are aged residents who reside near this proposed Project in retirement communities. Many can no longer can concentrate to the extent that they once could and are easily overwhelmed. Some said they were intimidated by the DEIR and wondered how to respond when they could not understand it. Could a document like this discourage the average reader to persevere and provide a public response that is meaningful, organized and to the point ? … again, that remains to be seen. It will be interesting for the city officials to compare the number and nature of responses to the DEIR to those regarding the Notice of Preparation. —————————————————————————————————————————— Page of 4 11 B. My comments and concerns regarding the Project relative to its presentation in the DEIR In order to fully understand the intent and ramiﬁcations of a DEIR, I went to the Legislation and the CEQA 2021 Guidelines, as referred to above. I sought the deﬁnition of the “Environment”… which was deﬁned as follows in 15360 of the CEQA guidelines: 15360. ENVIRONMENT (NOTE: emboldening is writer’s) “Environment” means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, ﬂora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic signiﬁcance. The area involved shall be the area in which signiﬁcant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project. The “environment” includes both natural and man-made conditions. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21060.5, Public Resources Code. (NOTE: emboldening is writer’s) I ﬁnd it interesting that the “environment” includes reference to both natural and man-made conditions. This deﬁnition of ENVIRONMENT will form the basis for my comments going forward. —————- The legislative background for the following section of my comments provided as an Overview, is important: The Legislature ﬁnds and declares as follows in Environmental Quality Section 21000: (a) The maintenance of a quality environment for the people of this state now and in the future is a matter of statewide concern. …(b) It is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man …d) The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached The key words in the legislation are “high” and “quality" environment, and “threshold for the health and safety” of the people. These statements are similar in concept to the 2035 La Quinta General Plan. “The long term Quality of Life” for La Quinta residents is emphasized repeatedly, particularly in the Livable Community Element and Land Use Element of the 2035 La Quinta General Plan. Also, I refer the reader speciﬁcally to the following goals and policies that are laid out in the Plan: Page of 5 11 GOAL SC-1: A community that provides the best possible quality of life for all its residents. GOAL LU-3 (II-26) Safe and identiﬁable neighborhoods that provide a sense of place. Policy LU-3.1…II-26 Encourage the preservation of neighborhood character and assure a consistent and compatible land use pattern. Program LU-3.1.b: Apply the City’s discretionary powers and site development review process consistently to assure that subdivision and development plans are compatible with existing residential areas. GOAL LU-4… (II-26) Maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods. Policy LU-4.1… (II-26) Encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. How do I see this Project? Rezoning from Low Density Residential w/ golf (“LDR w/G”) to Tourist Commercial (“TC”) is NOT consistent with the City of La Quinta’s own plan and will lead to a “domino effect” that will negatively and forever impact the existing surrounding residential communities and their residents. TC zoning now will open the door to future TC development in SE La Quinta. An entire quadrant of the City could change forever. Would the possibility of collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes supersede the City’s responsibility to ensure that “subdivision and development plans are compatible with the existing residential areas, as per the 2035 Plan? The salient points follow: 1.The Developers, as stated in the DEIR, are asking for Sub Phase Development based on “consumer and market demand”. This in itself is one of the most disconcerting aspects of this whole proposal. I am overwhelmed as I think of how plans for our lives will be totally predicated on the fact that the “waves and phases” of construction noise and traffic could go on for years and years. Residents of the surrounding residential communities may never see the completion of this Project in our time here. How does this ensure that we the residents will continue to enjoy the best possible quality of life - particularly with the uncertainty with respect to the timing of completion of the Project that we would be facing ? (GOAL SC-1) 2.Rezoning to TC, as stated in the DEIR, will essentially permit the majority (at 600 with a minimum of one night’s stay) of La Quinta’s Short Term Vacation Rentals allowed for to be concentrated at THIS Resort. Page of 6 11 As per the City Ordinance No. 591, “no new STVR permits will be issued until further notice unless the property is located within TC zones"…https://www.laquintaca.gov/ connect/short-term-vacation-rentals. The large number of STVRs will allow for a constant revolving door of strangers and we, the residents nearby, will not know our neighbors as we do now. Further, this resort will be open 24 hours per day, again with strangers entering and exiting and milling about. We will think twice about those recreational runs, walks, hikes or bike rides outside of our gated communities, particularly earlier in the morning or later in the day. Also, it is a known fact that crime increases in communities where there is a signiﬁcant transient population. What will happen to our “safe and identiﬁable neighbourhoods that provide a sense of place”? (see GOAL LU-3 {II-26} above). Will these be “sacriﬁced” for the sake of TOTS for the City of La Quinta ? 3.Rezoning from LDRw/G to T/C will allow the Developers to apply for Special Events via Temporary Use Permits. PAGE 3-35 of DEIR states the following…”Temporary Use Permits are required by the City accommodate special, unique or limited duration activities that might otherwise be outside of the provisions of normal zoning … are reviewed administratively by the Design and Development Director and do not require a public hearing” What’s to prevent “the 4” that mentioned in the DEIR from turning into 8, or even more, per year ? One the rezoning takes place, the residents nearby will never have further say on this matter. There will likely be major access and egress challenges to emergency management vehicles around most of the limited roadways of the surrounding communities during these Special Events ( think of the La Q Festivals). This could impact our safety and well being, should there be traffic tie ups both during and before and after Special Events for the “prep and take down days” that will “bookend” the Special Events themselves . The community of Trilogy, for example, has ONLY two access and egress roads - Madison and Monroe. That will never change - whether or not this Project proceeds. Why compromise the “safety” of the local residents with this Project ? We are entitled to safe neighborhoods and all that this entails. If one is to stand back and consider the entire concept of Rezoning in this location, it is easy to see that this Project makes no sense. This is deﬁnitely not in keeping very important component of the 2035 La Quinta General plan - that which speaks to the “maintenance and protection of existing neighborhoods” and a “consistent and compatible land use pattern ” (see GOAL LU-3 {II-26} above and policies) (see GOAL LU-4 above{II-26}). Further, and from a practical perspective, this Project does not and will never beneﬁt the average La Quinta resident. It is essentially for the rich and it is a private destination for its residents and guests. An hour of private surﬁng at Lemoore CA for celebrities runs $10,000.00. In other words, this recreational outlet is NOT available to and NOT affordable by the average La Quinta resident, is it? Page of 7 11 We, the residents of the communities around it, would be required to absorb the negative aspects of this destination resort without any of the beneﬁts. If I lived in Anaheim near Disneyland, at least I could plan an outing there with my kids and grandkids. Not so here. Coral Mountain Resort does NOT ﬁt - it is an entirely different concept of life - it will not be residentially focused - which will basically be “injected” amongst the quiet residential communities that surround it. This Project will be a “square peg in a round hole” ! —————— Additional Legislative background for the following section is important when considering the CEQA categories of Noise, Aesthetics (lights) and Hydrology: The Legislature ﬁnds and declares as follows in Environmental Quality Sections … 21000 (b) …it is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. 21001(b) …all action necessary to provide the people of this state with clean air and water, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise. I would like to provide comments on some of the DEIR categories and the related issues that present as follow: 1. NOISE Section 21000(b) of the Legislation speaks to “…freedom from excessive noise”. From a practical perspective, we the residents of the surrounding communities are faced with some very tangible aspects of surrounding aberrant noise, despite what the DEIR says. In Trilogy, we can hear the music, thumping and beats of the festivals Coachella and Stagecoach. We can hear the racing cars at Thermal. Coral Mountain Resort will be close by and what we will hear will be much different from ambient noise of quiet residential communities. First of all, many of the DEIR studies, such as the operational noise are based on unknown local conditions. WE know that there is noise from reverberation at Coral Mountain. What truly will the operational noise of the Project be ?… with its train and tracks, that is the wave making apparatus, as well as the noise generated by the greatly increased number of people in attendance ? What about the noise that will occur during operational hours from 7 AM - 10 PM every day, 365 days per year? What about increased noise from traffic during the regular operation of the Project? There will be increased noise when Special Events are held. What would a Special Event be without music and more people in attendance ? More people equates to more traffic. Additionally, noise ordinances are always lifted for Special Events. These will deﬁnitely impact the quiet residential communities around the Project. Page of 8 11 I should also point out that the construction of a 1/2 mile long concrete wave basin could take many many months with its use of larger, heavier and ultimately noisier construction equipment than would be required for Low Density Residential construction. Commercial development is also included in this category; again, this would be subject to Sub Phase Development considerations being asked for by the Developer. Finally, from its own 2035 Plan …”The City’s ongoing efforts to preserve the quality of life for all its residents, present and future, must include the protection of a quiet noise environment” (NOISE IV-15) Regardless of the Developer’s “studies”, there is NO good reason to allow for this kind of noise in a quiet residential community. There are too many unknowns. The noise issues raised would only come about as a result of rezoning. 2. LIGHTS Sections 21000(b) and 21001(b) of the Legislation speak to “healthful and pleasing to the senses” and "enjoyment of the aesthetic and scenic qualities” 17 (seventeen) 80 foot light towers on until 10 PM and the nighttime glare from the commercial development - both as a result of the rezoning - are other unknowns that cannot be studied at this location. Think of the Indian Wells Tennis Gardens at night; then, please compare to the Cove in La Quinta. A T/C zoning change, along with the Developer’s request for variances, will also allow for many other types and heights of lights. Commercial glare in La Quinta is appropriately saved for Hwy 111 and it muted there due to lighting ordinances. Again, please compare Hwy 111 and the Cove. Additionally, there is the matter of light diffusion in the nighttime skies in the presence of particulate matter. This was not accounted for in the “studies” presented in the DEIR. We, as residents close by have the beautiful dark desert skies now and we will forever be deprived of this… and all of the variances being asked for as mitigation measures, including walls and setbacks, will not change this in any way. 3. HYDROLOGY / WATER Section 21000(d) of the Legislation states…“The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legislature that the government of the state take immediate steps to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached”. Section 21000 (g) of the Legislation states …”It is the intent of the Legislature that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are found to affect the quality of the environment, shall regulate such activities so that major consideration is given to preventing Page of 9 11 environmental damage, while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian” I am totally perplexed as to how this Project with its enormous water usage with 18 million gallons of water to ﬁll it from our aquifers would even be considered in our desert environment with its high temperatures, evaporation rate and winds, especially during a mega-drought. Additionally, there is the issue of the Reasonable Use of Water - in CA law: From Professor Gray’s paper entitled The Reasonable Use Doctrine in California Law and Policy (2015 Brian E. Gray , UC Hastings College of the Law) https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/987/ … , comes the following (note: italics and underlining are writer’s) ...”the cardinal principle of California water law is that all water rights, and all uses of water, must be reasonable“... and that the Doctrine of “reasonable use” is both a policy mandate AND a limitation on water rights, which applies to All branches of government, All levels of government administration of state’s water resources, and Public and private users of the State’s waters. ...”because all uses of water must be consistent with this interdependent and variable deﬁnition of reasonable use, the law renders all water rights fragile. A water right that was reasonable when ﬁrst recognized, and which may have been exercised reasonably for many years, may become unreasonable as hydrologic conditions change, as California’s economy evolves, as population grows and new demands for water arise, as ecological needs are better understood, and as the environmental laws that protect the state’s aquatic ecosystems and native species are applied in ways that limit the impoundment and diversion of water for consumptive uses” Further, the City of La Quinta lays out the following in the 2035 Plan, where water conservation is stressed to protect future resources ; to wit, the following… Conservation of Natural Resources II-136 …The conservation of natural resources is a major component of a livable community… Imported water from the Colorado River and new replenishment programs implemented by the CVWD have helped alleviate declines, but both rely on outside sources of water. In 2010, approximately 300,000 acre-feet of water per year have been allocated from the Colorado River to the eastern Coachella Valley, primarily for agricultural irrigation. Although continued importation of water will help to replenish the aquifer, a more resourceful alternative is to reduce the amount of water pumped by the CVWD, which will have a direct impact on overdraft. Conservation techniques have already been implemented, and new measures are being developed to lower the amount of water used by each household and business in the City. II-137 Water conservation in La Quinta is essential to reduce the overdraft of local groundwater, and protect future resources. II-138 Water conservation must include all types of water use – from landscaping to indoor ﬁxtures, and must include new and existing development. The programs described above provide the foundation for reducing water demand. This Element can allow the City to expand programs that promote water conservation now and into the future II-138 Page of 10 11 Policy UTL-1.2 The City should encourage the conservation of water. (V-15) GOAL WR-1: The efficient use and conservation of the City’s water resources. (V-16) Two additional concerns with respect to Hydrology of this Project must be addressed: 1. As an aside, but still on the topic of water usage for a Project like this in the desert, I would like the reader to compare this Project to another responsibly developed and sustainable desert surf park in the world that is located in the United Arab Emerites (WADI). It has a dedicated 124 mile pipeline built to pipe ocean water to the area which is then cooled to address high water temperature concerns for humans AND the proliferation of micro-organisms, both which can cause signiﬁcant human illness and even death. https://surfparkcentral.com/wadi-adventure-wave-pool-and-surf-park-in-al-ain-uae/ Please see Appendix A attached to this letter which is a copy of my letter dated July 19, 2021 to the Public Health Officer of Riverside County with questions regarding the ﬁltration, cleaning and disinfecting regimes, including required documentation regarding the protocols. Please include this letter in the the public comments part of my response to the DEIR. Hopefully these questions raised in the letter to Dr. Leung will be clearly addressed in the Final EIR. and, 2. The Developer repeatedly argues that a golf course uses more water than the wave basin will use. I say - leave the existing zoning in place and negotiate with a Developer to construct alternative recreational outlets for the residents who purchase there. Alternatively, a responsible developer can construct a golf course that observes contemporary conservation measures such as extensive xeriscaping (as has been accomplished via conversion in many California golf courses) and recycled water. This is the “wave” of the future !. Supportive legislation for 2. above is as follows: Section 21002 of the Legislation states… “The Legislature ﬁnds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the signiﬁcant environmental effects of such projects, …and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the signiﬁcant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such signiﬁcant effects”. Water is a VITAL component to the health and safety of the people. There is no other “recreational activity’ which would even be considered if there was an equivalent current and potential future threat to the environment looming in our midst. A development that uses water in this capacity is an irresponsible development. Page of 11 11 There is a global movement under way to be respectful of our natural resources and to conserve water; all with good reason, and we must as the City of La Quinta has stressed in its own plan, protect future resources as we think of our children, their children and all future generations. —————————————————————————————————————————— C. Conclusion: In closing, I would like to refer to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, where it is stated (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneﬁcial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole record before the lead agency, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, Mandatory Findings of Signiﬁcance, (4) where it is stated that consideration should be given to “The environmental effects of a project … ( and whether they can ) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly”… We, the residents of the communities nearby, are the “human beings” that will be impacted by all of the aforementioned effects of the proposed rezoning of this parcel of land to Tourist Commercial. With respect to the irresponsible use of water, especially during this unpredictable MEGA drought, it must be recognized that on a global level all “human beings” are being impacted. It is acknowledged that change is necessary and often desirable when considering urban planning issues. It is also understood that a City that is responsive to its residents needs to look to additional sources of revenue. Please note that the residents who live by this Parcel of land are not against development, they are against development that is incongruous and irresponsible with respect to water usage. As in all things in life, there must be a balance established - pros and cons must carefully be weighed. The cons outweigh the pros with respect to this Project. On the basis of what has been presented in the DEIR, please say NO to the rezoning of this parcel of land to Tourist Commercial. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Diane Rebryna 60149 Honeysuckle Street, La Quinta, CA Attachment; Appendix A Letter to Dr. Geoffrey Leung, July 19, 2021 Riverside County Public Health Officer Department of Public Health July 19, 2021 Dr. Geoffrey Leung M.D. Riverside County Public Health Officer, Department of Public Health, Health Administration 4065 County Circle Drive Riverside, CA 92503 BY REGISTERED MAIL Dear Dr. Leung: RE: Coral Mountain Resort Wave/Surf Basin ( the “ Project”) Questions / Concerns re: proposed water treatment for safety I am writing to you on behalf of a number concerned residents who reside in La Quinta, CA. There is a proposed Development called Coral Mountain Resort and its “anchor” is a surf wave basin that is almost 17 acres in size and ﬁlled with 18 million gallons of water from the aquifer - so in other words, potable water. The DRAFT Environmental Report was recently released for this Project and public comment in invited until August 6, 2021. It is here: https://www.laquintaca.gov/our-city/city-departments/design-and-development/planning- division/the-wave-at-coral-mountain We have questions for Riverside County Department of Public regarding the following please: 1.Background Information Articles abound online regarding the death of a young man who apparently contracted the “brain eating ameba” also known as Naegleria fowleri from a surﬁng experience at Waco TX. The water in this wave basin had apparently been described as a “pathogen soup”. https://www.tracksmag.com.au/news/surfer-dies-from-brain-eating-amoeba-513336 https://raisedwaterresearch.com/bsr-covers-up-evidence-in-surfers-death-lawyer-alleges/ The CDC describes Naegleria fowleri “ as a free-living microscopic ameba that can cause a rare and devastating infection of the brain called primary amebic meningoencephalitis”. https:// www.cdc.gov/parasites/naegleria/index.html. The website also goes on to say that this microorganism usually infects people when contaminated water enters the body through the nose. WEB MD says “Naegleria loves very warm water. It can survive in water as hot as 113 degrees Fahrenheit”… “most cases of N.fowleri disease occur in Southern or Southwestern states…”The nose is the pathway of the amoeba, so infection occurs most often from diving, water skiing, or performing water sports in which water is forced into the nose”. https://www.webmd.com/brain/ brain-eating-amoeba Given that this young man’s death occurred, ostensibly from an exposure to the parasite while surﬁng in an artiﬁcial basin, the Developers and operators of surf/wave parks apparently are “ramping up their efforts” to prevent this from occurring again. Some public health agencies have also stepped in to ensure that this is the case with enhanced ﬁltration requirements, as well as the requirements for daily testing with water quality reports, detailing chlorine, pH, sediment and E. coli levels. 2. The reasons for our letter and for my contacting you are as follow: A. The desert is HOT (120 days over 100 degrees last year) and the hottest months are June, July and August. We have been told repeatedly that there are NO plans by the Developer to cool the surf/wave basin in the summer months. We have concerns about the increased potential for proliferation of micro- organisms in the heat of summer in the desert. The only other desert pool that we know of is in WADI UAE where a 100 plus mile dedicated pipeline is built to bring desalinated water in that is then cooled onsite for use at its surf / wave basin. We have concerns about the health and safety of the people who recreate in this very hot water. B. We have reviewed the DRAFT EIR to determine if there is evidence of a detailed cleaning and disinfection plan in place for the ongoing maintenance of the pool, particularly with number of hot days that we have here in the desert; there is none. There is also no information on the presence of a ﬁltration system that swimming pools require. From a public safety perspective, we would feel much more reassured about the operation and maintenance of this surf/wave basin if a detailed maintenance protocol was made publicly available, given this extraordinarily unusual HOT environment for his type of recreational outlet. There is nothing in the DEIR that outlines the required cleaning and maintenance schedules or whether or not periodic complete pool emptying and reﬁlling is required. There seems to be a somewhat perfunctory description of the intended disinfection regime (4.8.18… Coral Mountain Resort DRAFT EIR) There is a generalized reference made to Section 65529 (Public Pool Disinfection of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations CCR) in that the pool must be “disinfected continuously”. We see evidence of “materials” that will be used in June July and August (with particular reference to sodium hypochlorite - NaClO ) as well as halogens, however no evidence of a plan per se. How is the contamination of the water with bodily ﬂuids addressed ? … e.g. blood, urine, feces C. We also question whether the operator of the wave basin will be able to maintain an accurate concentration of the required disinfecting agents particularly because of high rates of water evaporation due to the extraordinary heat, high winds and the wave action itself in these desert conditions. How will accurate records be kept of the conditions that are present at the pool? As stated above, the standard of care looks more and more like records MUST be kept, with frequent assessment and input data for surf/wave basin water. D. Who will administer the records and data ? Who will ensure compliance ? E. We are concerned that Kelly Slater et al has essentially stated in the past that “treating and ﬁltering water pursuant to existing regulations makes a public surf park in California not viable”, as per a quote from the inertia https://www.theinertia.com/surf/kelly-slater-wave- company-pool-regulations-surf-pool-wave-basin-california/. Thus our question - if this was argued before by this surf ranch pool, will this aspect of pool maintenance now be taken seriously by the operators ? It appears that it wasn’t in WACO, prior to that young man’s death. —————————————————————————————————————————— Thank you for allowing me to lay out our concerns regarding the maintenance of the surf wave basin with respect to appropriate cleaning and disinfecting regimes, particularly as related to the possibility of proliferation of pathogens in water that is not cooled and/or properly treated in this hot desert environment. Because of the lack of cooling, we are also concerned about the safety of the people who surf in that type of hot desert environment. I can be reached at 403 870-2109 should you have any questions. Kind regards, Dr. Diane Rebryna B.Sc., D.D.S 60149 Honeysuckle Street La Quinta, CA 92253 cc: Kim Saruwatari, MPH, Director Health Administration Building 4065 County Circle Drive, Riverside, CA 92503 Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 12:22:10 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort DEIR Date:Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 11:57:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:Harvey Reed To:consulFngplanner@laquintaca.gov AAachments:Wave Park LocaFons.jpg, Wave Park Nland_AusFn.jpg Please accept this email as notification of my opposition to the proposed location of the Coral Mountain Resort. Changing the zoning of the proposed location from “Low Density Residential-Open Space Recreation” to “Tourist-Commercial” is inconsistent with current and planned land use. A zoning change will also negatively affect the quality of life for thousands of La Quinta residents who live adjacent to the proposed location. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) describes the proposed private resort as having 80-foot tall light poles, a public address system, an immense hydraulic and mechanical system pulling a wave sled and other industrial equipment operating from 7:00AM – 10:00PM, 365 days a year. Based on operations at the developer’s other wave park resorts, jet skis will also operate on the wave basin during the same time. According to the DEIR, this private resort will host special events throughout the year lasting up to four days in length with an estimated 2,500 outside attendees per day. It should be noted that the developers have built wave park resorts in areas that are not surrounded by residential communities (please see attached photos). They now desire to build what they describe as “The world’s largest wave basin” in the center of a residential area in La Quinta. In the DEIR, the developers briefly admit that, “The project site is surrounded by developed residential communities…” What the DEIR does not articulate is that the residential communities of The Quarry, Santerra, Coral Mountain Estates, Andalusia, and Trilogy are adjacent to the proposed location. New home developments are currently planned immediately south of the proposed location including the Estate Collection at Coral Mountain and the 1,200 residential Travertine community. When those developments are completed, the proposed wave park will literally be surrounded by residential communities. The location of the proposed wave park is currently zoned “Low Density Residential, Open Space- Recreational” which is consistent with the design and use of existing adjacent residential communities and those being planned. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of this proposed project are not compatible with existing and future land uses. Furthermore, the project will create traffic, lighting and noise conditions which will negatively impact thousands of La Quinta residents living in the adjacent residential communities. Please consider different locations that are appropriate for this project. Sincerely, Harvey Reed 60595 Living Stone Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 989-1528 P: (626) 381-9248 F: (626) 389-5414 E: info@mitchtsailaw.com Mitchell M. Tsai Attorney At Law 155 South El Molino Avenue Suite 104 Pasadena, California 91101 VIA E-MAIL August 5, 2021 Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Em: consultingplanner@laquintaca.gov RE: Coral Mountain Resort (SCH #2021020310) – Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Nucole Sauviat Criste, On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Commenters” or “Southwest Carpenters”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of La Quinta’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) (SCH No. 2021020310) for the proposed Coral Mountain Resort Project (“Project”). The City proposes to adopt the Project, carving out 386 acres of a 929-acre area of the City, to promote future development of the Coral Mountain Resort. The Project would allow for the development of 600 residential units, a 150-room resort hotel plus complementary uses and amenities, a recreational surf facility, 57,000 square feet of commercial development, 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and 23.6 acres of recreational uses. As part of the Project, the City would initiate a general plan amendment and zoning change to designate the Project area for “Tourist Commercial” uses; a specific plan amendment to exclude the Project area from a previous specific plan; the adoption of the Project’s specific plan; the adoption of a tentative tract map; site development permits; and the adoption of a development agreement with the Project applicant. The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 2 of 33 Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts. Commenters expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121. Commenters incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties). Moreover, Commenters request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body. The City should require the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California. Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 3 of 33 length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note: [A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling. Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded: . . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1 Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on- the-High-Road.pdf 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/Agendas/Governing- Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10 City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 4 of 33 achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3 In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008: People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6 In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note: In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward- ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf. 5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs-housing.pdf 7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs-Housing Balance or Retail- Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT-825.pdf. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 5 of 33 city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits. The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts. The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current 2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals. I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA has two basic purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”) § 15002(a)(1).8 “Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’ [Citation.]” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal. App. 3d 795, 810. 8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 150000 et seq, are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the state Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 204, 217. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 6 of 33 Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when possible by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3). See also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A–B). While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club v. Cnty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th at 1355: A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 7 of 33 made. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal. App. 4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450). B. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an Environmental Impact Report When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 … but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information. CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5. Significant new information includes “changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information” that “deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative).” CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a). Examples of significant new information requiring recirculation include “new significant environmental impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure,” “substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact,” “feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed” as well as when “the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.” Id. An agency has an obligation to recirculate an environmental impact report for public notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the agency opts to include it in a project’s environmental impact report. Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report disclosing potentially significant impacts to groundwater supply “the EIR should have been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the environmental impact report. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 8 of 33 C. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts CEQA requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a Project may cause a significant adverse effect on human beings. PRC § 21083(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15065(a)(4). Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High- risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-19.9 SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency adopt additional CEQA mitigation measures to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. SWRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site. In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work practices, SWRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site: Construction Site Design: • The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points. • Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open. • The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening. • A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening. 9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 CASES AT CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 9 of 33 • The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details. • There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening. • Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site. Testing Procedures: • The temperature screening being used are non-contact devices. • Temperature readings will not be recorded. • Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual. • Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before temperature screening. • Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be refused access to the Project Site. • Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate [ZONE 2] • After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [ZONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors. • If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading. • If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 10 of 33 allowed to enter the Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A. Planning • Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.10 The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site. D. The DEIR’s Project Objectives are Unduly Narrow and Circumscribe Appropriate Project Alternatives A project description must state the objectives sought by the proposed project. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project, and it should be clearly written to guide the selection of mitigation measures and alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15124(b).) An EIR's description of the underlying purpose of the project is the touchstone for its identification of specific project objectives, and the statement of project objectives can help to define 10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/ default/files/NABTU_CPWR_Standards_COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and- safety/docs/pw_guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 11 of 33 the contours of the project's purpose. (Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4th 326, 347.) While a lead agency has discretion to formulate the project objectives, they cannot be so narrowly defined that they preclude discussion of project alternatives that could still achieve the underlying purpose of the project. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal. App. 4th 647, 668.) This is so because project alternatives that do not achieve the project’s underlying purpose need not be considered. (In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Envt'l Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1166.) And the statement of objectives should be based upon the underlying purpose of the project—not the nature of the project itself. (Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1299.) Here, the DEIR inappropriately narrows the objectives of the project based upon the nature of the project, and not on any underlying purpose. The Project’s objectives include the “[development of] a high-quality private wave basin (The Wave) that provides unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project, and that attracts resort guests and creates a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s reputation as the ‘Gem of the Desert.’” (DEIR, 3-8.) If this remains a project objective, the DEIR need not consider project alternatives that do not provide “high- quality private wave basins.” Certainly, there is no specific requirement that the tourism or residential housing needs of the City or region demand a surf simulation facility. The Objective should be reformulated so that a meaningful analysis of project alternatives can be considered. E. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings with Substantial Evidence When new information is brought to light showing that an impact previously discussed in the DEIR but found to be insignificant with or without mitigation in the DEIR’s analysis has the potential for a significant environmental impact supported by substantial evidence, the EIR must consider and resolve the conflict in the evidence. See Visalia Retail, L.P. v. City of Visalia (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 1, 13, 17; see also Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1109. While a lead agency has discretion to formulate standards for determining significance and the need for mitigation measures—the choice of any standards or thresholds of significance must be “based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data and an exercise of reasoned judgment based on substantial evidence. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b); Cleveland Nat'l Forest Found. v. San Diego Ass'n of Gov'ts City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 12 of 33 (2017) 3 Cal. App. 5th 497, 515; Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Inv. & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 160, 206. And when there is evidence that an impact could be significant, an EIR cannot adopt a contrary finding without providing an adequate explanation along with supporting evidence. East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal. App. 5th 281, 302. In addition, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v. Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1; see also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (fact that Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for specific timber harvesting project). 1. The DEIR Fails to Support its Findings on Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality Impacts with Substantial Evidence. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4 allow a lead agency to determine the significance of a project’s GHG impact via a qualitative analysis (e.g., extent to which a project complies with regulations or requirements of state/regional/local GHG plans), and/or a quantitative analysis (e.g., using model or methodology to estimate project emissions and compare it to a numeric threshold). So too, CEQA Guidelines allow lead agencies to select what model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions so long as the selection is supported with substantial evidence, and the lead agency “should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(c). CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b) allow a lead agency to consider a project’s consistency with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5(b)(1) make clear qualified GHG reduction plans or CAPs should include the following features: (1) Inventory: Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities (e.g., City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 13 of 33 projects) within a defined geographic area (e.g., lead agency jurisdiction); (2) Establish GHG Reduction Goal: Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; (3) Analyze Project Types: Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; (4) Craft Performance Based Mitigation Measures: Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project- by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (5) Monitoring: Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP progress toward achieving said level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; Collectively, the above-listed CAP features tie qualitative measures to quantitative results, which in turn become binding via proper monitoring and enforcement by the jurisdiction—all resulting in real GHG reductions for the jurisdiction as a whole, and the substantial evidence that the incremental contribution of an individual project is not cumulatively considerable. Here, the DEIR’s analysis of GHG impacts is unsupported by substantial evidence, as it relies on outdated modeling. The DEIR’s analysis of air quality and GHG impacts throughout the DEIR relies on data created using CalEEMod version 2016.3.2. (See, e.g., DEIR, 4.1-13). A newer version of this software (currently CalEEMod version 2020.4.0) became available prior to the release of the DEIR. The DEIR provides no discussion or justification for use of the outdated 2016 version of the software. The use of outdated modeling software may result in underestimation of the Project’s GHG emissions, calling the DEIR’s conclusions into question. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 14 of 33 The DEIR’s reliance on inaccurate modeling also affects its analysis of air quality impacts and energy impacts. The DEIR potentially vastly undercounts the Project’s air pollutant emissions. Moreover, in its discussion of the GHG impact Significance Threshold chosen for its GHG analysis, the DEIR chooses to use a target of 3.65 MTCO2e/yr per service population, stating that this screening target was chosen as a linear interpolation between the 2020 and 2030 2017 Scoping Plan reduction/efficiency targets based on the projected 2026 buildout of the Project. (DEIR, 4.7-10). However, the DEIR fails to provide any reasoning for this choice in either the DEIR itself or the Appendix I Greenhouse Gas Report. Given that the 2017 Scoping Plan has a target of 2.88 MTCO2e/yr to be attained by 2030,11 it is unclear how a proration of GHG emissions targets between 2020 and 2030 would be consistent with meeting the goals of AB 32 and SB 32. 2. The DEIR is Required to Consider and Adopt All Feasible Air Quality and GHG Mitigation Measures A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project's significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project's significant environmental effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible”12 and find that ‘specific overriding economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.”13 “A gloomy forecast of environmental degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the impacts and restore ecological equilibrium.” Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039. Here, the DEIR finds that the Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, yet proposes mitigation measures that fall 11 Representing an emissions deduction of 40% from 1990 levels. 12 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(A). 13 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(B). City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 15 of 33 short of the “all feasible mitigation measures” standard set by CEQA. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires future developments to employ U.S. EPA Tier 3 construction equipment. However, it fails to justify with substantial evidence why U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final-compliant should not be required. Further, Mitigation Measure AQ-3 demands the use of low-VOC architectural coatings within the Project area, but the DEIR does not contemplate the feasibility of a requirement that “Super-Complaint” architectural be utilized to further decrease Air Quality impacts. Additionally, the DEIR notes that the Project will require the “design [of] building shells and building components… to meet 2019 Title 24 Standards,” (DEIR, 4.1-14), but does not specify which standards it is specifically referring to—energy efficiency standards or CalGreen building standards. Though the DEIR states that both should apply, it does not state the Project’s level of compliance with Tile 24 standards. The Title 24 “CalGreen” building standards include two different standard “tiers” (Tier 1 and Tier 2) for both residential and non-residential buildings. (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11, Appendix A4 at A4.601 and Appendix A5 at A5.601). The DEIR does not address which tier is applicable within the Project’s specific plan area, and does not state that that the more stringent Tier 2 standards for residential and non-residential development should be followed. The City should reevaluate the mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR to ensure the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures as required by CEQA. 3. The DEIR Improperly Labels Mitigation Measures as “Project Design Features” The DEIR improperly labels mitigation measures for “Project Design Features” or “PDFs” which the DEIR purports will reduce environmental impacts. (See, e.g., DEIR, 4.1-13 through 4.1-15 (Air Quality); see also DEIR, 4.5-18 through 4.5-19 (Energy); DEIR, 4.7-11 through 13 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions).) Many of the DEIR’s conclusions regarding mitigation of environmental impacts below levels of significance rely on the implementation of these PDFs, and that as such no additional mitigation is required. However, it is established that “’[a]voidance, minimization and / or mitigation measure’ . . . are not ‘part of the project.’ . . . compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue . . disregards the requirements of CEQA.” (Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 645, 656.) City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 16 of 33 When “an agency decides to incorporate mitigation measures into its significance determination, and relies on those mitigation measures to determine that no significant effects will occur, that agency must treat those measures as though there were adopted following a finding of significance.” (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 652 [citing CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1) and Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1).]) By labeling mitigation measures as project design features, the City violates CEQA by failing to disclose “the analytic route that the agency took from the evidence to its findings.” (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21081.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093; Village Laguna of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal. App. 3d 1022, 1035 [quoting Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 506, 515.]) The DEIR’s use of “Project Design Features” further violates CEQA because such measures would not be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA requires lead agencies to adopt mitigation measures that are fully enforceable and to adopt a monitoring and/or reporting program to ensure that the measures are implemented to reduce the Project’s significant environmental effects to the extent feasible. (PRC § 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines § 15091(d).) Though they are presumably enforceable by the City pursuant to the terms of the Project’s Development Agreement, the PDFs should be properly adopted as mitigations and subject to a mitigation monitoring and reporting program under CEQA. 4. The DEIR Fails to Support Its Findings on Population and Housing and Recreation with Substantial Evidence The City’s Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) concluded that the Project will have a less than significant impact on population and housing, and thus precluded the DEIR from undertaking any further analysis of the direct or indirect effects of the Project on population growth in the City. Thus, the DEIR does not analyze the issue. Analysis of Population and Housing impacts was ruled out by NOP, on the grounds that projected population growth related to the Project still puts the City under its 2035 population forecast. (DEIR, Appendix A, NOP at pp. 39-40.) La Quinta’s General Plan Environmental Impact Report forecasts a population of 46,297 people by 2035 (Id.), whereas predicted growth related to the project is 1,698 new residents, (DEIR, 6-6), raising the population to 42,358 (2,181 new residents in the NOP (raising the population to 42,841)). However, SCAG’s comment on the City’s NOP forecasts a City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 17 of 33 lower population of 45,034 by 2035. (DEIR, Appendix A, Letter from Southern California Association of Governments to Nicole Sauviat Criste (April 1, 2021) at p. 4.) The Project will ultimately result in a net increase in housing, and may have cumulatively considerable impacts with other housing projects in the area, especially the adjacent Andalusia project. An EIR’s discussion of cumulative impacts is required by CEQA Guidelines §15130(a). The determination of whether there are cumulative impacts in any issue area should be determined based on an assessment of the project's incremental effects “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3); Banning Ranch Conservancy v City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1228; see also CEQA Guidelines §15355(b).) The DEIR demurs on any cumulative impacts analysis based on the assumption that the Project “is not anticipated to result in an indirect growth inducing impact vecause the existing infrastructure has been sized to accommodate long term growth… and because the projected population growth is already included in the City of La Quinta’s General Plan.” (DEIR, 6-7). The DEIR cannot simply ignore the fact that 1,698 new residents will potentially be drawn to the City by the Project and not consider the cumulative effect of that projected population growth with that of other pending projects. This is a potentially significant impact that the DEIR should analyze. In addition, neither the DEIR nor the NOP contain any substantive discussion of Recreation impacts. (See NOP at pp. 41-42; DEIR, 6-7 through 6-8). The CEQA Guidelines identify a threshold of significance related to whether or not a project will include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project dedicates 23.6 acres of previously-open space to the development of recreational facilities on in the Project area, including the potential development of rope courses. This has reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts and requires analysis in the DEIR. Payment of Quimby fees (a mitigation) does not excuse the DEIR from analysis of environmental impacts the Project will have via the creation of recreational spaces. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 18 of 33 F. The DEIR Fails to Demonstrate Consistency with SCAG’s RTP/SCS Plans Senate Bill No. 375 requires regional planning agencies to include a sustainable communities strategy in their regional transportation plans. Gov. Code § 65080, sub.(b)(2)(B).) CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d) provides that an EIR “shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and…regional plans. Such regional plans include…regional transportation plans.” Thus, CEQA requires analysis of any inconsistencies between the Project and the relevant RTP/SCS plan. In April 2012, SCAG adopted its 2012-2035 RTP/ SCS (“2012 RTP/SCS”), which proposed specific land use policies and transportation strategies for local governments to implement that will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions of 9 percent per capita in 2020 and 16 percent per capita in 2035. In April 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (“2016 RTP/SCS”)14, which incorporates and builds upon the policies and strategies in the 2012 RTP/SCS 15, that will help the region achieve GHG emission reductions that would reduce the region’s per capita transportation emissions by eight percent by 2020 and 18 percent by 2035.16 SCAG’s RTP/SCS plan is based upon the same requirements outlined in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan and SB 375. On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020 – 2045 RTP / SCS titled Connect SoCal (“2020 RTP/ SCS”).17 The 2020 RTP / SCS adopts policies and strategies aimed at reducing the region’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 8% below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2020 and 19% below 2005 per capita emissions levels by 2035. 18 For both the 2012 and 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG prepared Program Environmental Impact Reports (“PEIR”) that include Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (“MMRP”) that list project-level environmental mitigation measures that directly and/or indirectly relate to a project’s GHG impacts and contribution to the region’s 15 SCAG (Apr. 2016) 2016 RTP/SCS, p. 69, 75-115 (attached as Exhibit D). 16 Id., p. 8, 15, 153, 166. 17 SCAG (Sept 2020) Connect Socal: The 2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, available at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176 18 Id. At xiii. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 19 of 33 GHG emissions.19 These environmental mitigation measures serve to help local municipalities when identifying mitigation to reduce impacts on a project-specific basis that can and should be implemented when they identify and mitigate project-specific environmental impacts.20 Here, the DEIR fails to analyze the Project’s is consistency with any of SCAG’s aforementioned RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR must demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the RTP/SCS Plans’ project-level goals, including: Land Use and Transportation • Providing transit fare discounts 21; • Implementing transit integration strategies 22; and • Anticipating shared mobility platforms, car-to-car communications, and automated vehicle technologies.23 GHG Emissions Goals 24 • Reduction in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines,25 such as: o Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed. 19 Id., p. 116-124; see also SCAG (April 2012) Regional Transportation Plan 2012 – 20135, fn. 38, p. 77-86 (attached as Exhibit E). 20 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (attached as Exhibit E), p. 77; see also SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, fn. 41, p. 115. 21 SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, pp. 75-114 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (Mar. 2012) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 6-2—6-14 (including mitigation measures (“MM”) AQ3, BIO/OS3, CUL2, GEO3, GHG15, HM3, LU14, NO1, POP4, PS12, TR23, W9 [stating “[l]ocal agencies can and should comply with the requirements of CEQA to mitigate impacts to [the environmental] as applicable and feasible …[and] may refer to Appendix G of this PEIR for examples of potential mitigation to consider when appropriate in reducing environmental impacts of future projects.” (Emphasis added)]),; see also id., Final PEIR Appendix G (including MMs AQ1-23, GHG1-8, PS1-104, TR1-83, W1-62),; SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS (Mar. 2016) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 11–63 (including MMs AIR-2(b), AIR-4(b), EN- 2(b), GHG- 3(b), HYD-1(b), HYD-2(b), HYD-8(b), TRA-1(b), TRA-2(b), USS-4(b), USS-6(b)). 25 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F-Energy Conservation, http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/ guidelines/Appendix_F.html. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 20 of 33 o The potential siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy. o The potential for reducing peak energy demand. o Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. o Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts. • Off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions. • Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to: o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production; o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse; o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy; o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible; o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; • Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs. • Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high- occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles; • Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including: o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 21 of 33 constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse. Hydrology & Water Quality Goals • Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating water quality/supply requirements, such as: o Reduce exterior consumptive uses of water in public areas, and should promote reductions in private homes and businesses, by shifting to drought-tolerant native landscape plantings(xeriscaping), using weather- based irrigation systems, educating other public agencies about water use, and installing related water pricing incentives. o Promote the availability of drought-resistant landscaping options and provide information on where these can be purchased. Use of reclaimed water especially in median landscaping and hillside landscaping can and should be implemented where feasible. o Implement water conservation best practices such as low-flow toilets, water-efficient clothes washers, water system audits, and leak detection and repair. o Ensure that projects requiring continual dewatering facilities implement monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on groundwater for the life of the project. Comply with appropriate building codes and standard practices including the Uniform Building Code. o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimized new impervious surfaces to the greatest extent possible, including the use of in-lieu fees and off-site mitigation. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 22 of 33 o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible. o Where feasible, do not site transportation facilities in groundwater recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious surface. • Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating and enforcing water quality and waste discharge requirements, such as: o Complete, and have approved, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) before initiation of construction. o Implement Best Management Practices to reduce the peak stormwater runoff from the project site to the maximum extent practicable. o Comply with the Caltrans stormwater discharge permit as applicable; and identify and implement Best Management Practices to manage site erosion, wash water runoff, and spill control. o Complete, and have approved, a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan, prior to occupancy of residential or commercial structures. o Ensure adequate capacity of the surrounding stormwater system to support stormwater runoff from new or rehabilitated structures or buildings. o Prior to construction within an area subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, obtain all required permit approvals and certifications for construction within the vicinity of a watercourse (e.g., Army Corps § 404 permit, Regional Waterboard § 401 permit, Fish & Wildlife § 401 permit). o Where feasible, restore or expand riparian areas such that there is no net loss of impervious surface as a result of the project. o Install structural water quality control features, such as drainage channels, detention basins, oil and grease traps, filter systems, and vegetated buffers to prevent pollution of adjacent water resources by polluted runoff where required by applicable urban stormwater runoff discharge permits, on new facilities. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 23 of 33 o Provide structural stormwater runoff treatment consistent with the applicable urban stormwater runoff permit where Caltrans is the operator, the statewide permit applies. o Provide operational best management practices for street cleaning, litter control, and catch basin cleaning are implemented to prevent water quality degradation in compliance with applicable stormwater runoff discharge permits; and ensure treatment controls are in place as early as possible, such as during the acquisition process for rights-of-way, not just later during the facilities design and construction phase. o Comply with applicable municipal separate storm sewer system discharge permits as well as Caltrans’ stormwater discharge permit including long- term sediment control and drainage of roadway runoff. o Incorporate as appropriate treatment and control features such as detention basins, infiltration strips, and porous paving, other features to control surface runoff and facilitate groundwater recharge into the design of new transportation projects early on in the process to ensure that adequate acreage and elevation contours are provided during the right-of- way acquisition process. o Design projects to maintain volume of runoff, where any downstream receiving water body has not been designed and maintained to accommodate the increase in flow velocity, rate, and volume without impacting the water's beneficial uses. Pre-project flow velocities, rates, volumes must not be exceeded. This applies not only to increases in stormwater runoff from the project site, but also to hydrologic changes induced by flood plain encroachment. Projects should not cause or contribute to conditions that degrade the physical integrity or ecological function of any downstream receiving waters. o Provide culverts and facilities that do not increase the flow velocity, rate, or volume and/or acquiring sufficient storm drain easements that accommodate an appropriately vegetated earthen drainage channel. o Upgrade stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate any increased runoff volumes. These upgrades may include the construction of detention basins or structures that will delay peak flows and reduce flow City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 24 of 33 velocities, including expansion and restoration of wetlands and riparian buffer areas. System designs shall be completed to eliminate increases in peak flow rates from current levels. o Encourage Low Impact Development (“LID”) and incorporation of natural spaces that reduce, treat, infiltrate and manage stormwater runoff flows in all new developments, where practical and feasible. • Incorporate measures consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater Management Act and implementing regulations, such as: o For projects requiring continual dewatering facilities, implement monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on groundwater for the life of the project, Construction designs shall comply with appropriate building codes and standard practices including the Uniform Building Code. o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimize to the greatest extent possible, new impervious surfaces, including the use of in- lieu fees and off-site mitigation. o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible. o Avoid construction and siting on groundwater recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious surface. o Reduce hardscape to the extent feasible to facilitate groundwater recharge as appropriate. • Incorporate mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and local floodplain regulations, consistent with the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program, such as: o Comply with Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management, which requires avoidance of incompatible floodplain development, restoration and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 25 of 33 maintenance of consistency with the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program. o Ensure that all roadbeds for new highway and rail facilities be elevated at least one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation. Since alluvial fan flooding is not often identified on FEMA flood maps, the risk of alluvial fan flooding should be evaluated and projects should be sited to avoid alluvial fan flooding. Delineation of floodplains and alluvial fan boundaries should attempt to account for future hydrologic changes caused by global climate change. Transportation, Traffic, and Safety • Institute teleconferencing, telecommute and/or flexible work hour programs to reduce unnecessary employee transportation. • Create a ride-sharing program by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. • Provide a vanpool for employees. • Provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan containing strategies to reduce on-site parking demand and single occupancy vehicle travel. The TDM shall include strategies to increase bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and carpools/vanpool use, including: o Inclusion of additional bicycle parking, shower, and locker facilities that exceed the requirement. o Direct transit sales or subsidized transit passes. o Guaranteed ride home program. o Pre-tax commuter benefits (checks). o On-site car-sharing program (such as City Car Share, Zip Car, etc.). o On-site carpooling program. o Distribution of information concerning alternative transportation options. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 26 of 33 o Parking spaces sold/leased separately. o Parking management strategies; including attendant/valet parking and shared parking spaces. • Promote ride sharing programs e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for high-occupancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces to accommodate vans used for ride-sharing, and designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas. • Encourage the use of public transit systems by enhancing safety and cleanliness on vehicles and in and around stations, providing shuttle service to public transit, offering public transit incentives and providing public education and publicity about public transportation services. • Build or fund a major transit stop within or near transit development upon consultation with applicable CTCs. • Work with the school districts to improve pedestrian and bike access to schools and to restore or expand school bus service using lower-emitting vehicles. • Purchase, or create incentives for purchasing, low or zero-emission vehicles. • Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-emission vehicles. • Promote ride sharing programs, if determined feasible and applicable by the Lead Agency, including: o Designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles. o Designate adequate passenger loading, unloading, and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles. o Provide a web site or message board for coordinating shared rides. o Encourage private, for-profit community car-sharing, including parking spaces for car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transit. o Hire or designate a rideshare coordinator to develop and implement ridesharing programs. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 27 of 33 • Support voluntary, employer-based trip reduction programs, if determined feasible and applicable by the Lead Agency, including: o Provide assistance to regional and local ridesharing organizations. o Advocate for legislation to maintain and expand incentives for employer ridesharing programs. o Require the development of Transportation Management Associations for large employers and commercial/ industrial complexes. o Provide public recognition of effective programs through awards, top ten lists, and other mechanisms. • Implement a “guaranteed ride home” program for those who commute by public transit, ridesharing, or other modes of transportation, and encourage employers to subscribe to or support the program. • Encourage and utilize shuttles to serve neighborhoods, employment centers and major destinations. • Create a free or low-cost local area shuttle system that includes a fixed route to popular tourist destinations or shopping and business centers. • Work with existing shuttle service providers to coordinate their services. • Facilitate employment opportunities that minimize the need for private vehicle trips, such as encourage telecommuting options with new and existing employers, through project review and incentives, as appropriate. • Organize events and workshops to promote GHG-reducing activities. • Implement a Parking Management Program to discourage private vehicle use, including: o Encouraging carpools and vanpools with preferential parking and a reduced parking fee. o Institute a parking cash-out program or establish a parking fee for all single-occupant vehicles. Utilities & Service Systems City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 28 of 33 • Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (Title 24, part 11), U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes, and the California Green Builder Program into project design including, but not limited to the following: o Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris and diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities. o Inclusion of a waste management plan that promotes maximum C&D diversion. o Development of indoor recycling program and space. o Discourage exporting of locally generated waste outside of the SCAG region during the construction and implementation of a project. Encourage disposal within the county where the waste originates as much as possible. Promote green technologies for long-distance transport of waste (e.g., clean engines and clean locomotives or electric rail for waste- by-rail disposal systems) and consistency with SCAQMD and 2016 RTP/SCS policies can and should be required. o Develop ordinances that promote waste prevention and recycling activities such as: requiring waste prevention and recycling efforts at all large events and venues; implementing recycled content procurement programs; and developing opportunities to divert food waste away from landfills and toward food banks and composting facilities. o Develop alternative waste management strategies such as composting, recycling, and conversion technologies. o Develop and site composting, recycling, and conversion technology facilities that have minimum environmental and health impacts. o Require the reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). o Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, institutional and commercial projects. o Provide recycling opportunities for residents, the public, and tenant businesses. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 29 of 33 o Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services. o Implement or expand city or county-wide recycling and composting programs for residents and businesses. This could include extending the types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste recycling) and providing public education and publicity about recycling services. The DEIR fails to mention or demonstrate consistency with the above listed measures and strategies of the SCAG RTP/SCS Plans. The DEIR should be revised to indicate what specific project-level mitigation measures that will be followed to demonstrate consistency with the RTP/SCS Plans. G. Failure to Include Consultation and Preparation Section CEQA requires all EIRs contain certain contents. See CEQA Guidelines §§ 15122 – 15131. CEQA expressly requires an EIR “identify all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and private individuals consulted in preparing the draft EIR, and the persons, firm, or agency preparing the draft EIR, by contract or other authorization.” CEQA Guidelines § 15129. This information is critical to demonstrating a lead agency fulfilled its obligation to “consult with, and obtain comments from, each responsible agency, trustee agency, any public agency that has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project, and any city or county that borders on a city or county within which the project is located ….” PRC § 21104(a). Failure to provide sufficient information concerning the lead agency’s consultation efforts could undermine the legal sufficiency of an EIR. Courts determine de novo whether a CEQA environmental document sufficiently discloses information required by CEQA as “noncompliance with the information disclosure provisions” of CEQA is a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. PRC § 21005(a); see also Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 515. Here, the DEIR fails to identify which federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, or other organizations, if any, that were consulted in the preparation of this DEIR. The DEIR should be revised to identify the organizations the City consulted with in the preparation of the DEIR in compliance with Section 21104(a) of the Public Resources Code. City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 30 of 33 II. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law Each California city and county must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan governing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352, citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300. The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future development. DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773; Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540. General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law.” See Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 1204, 1213. State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally or “horizontally” consistent: its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” See Gov. Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704. A general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal.4th at 796 fn. 12. Second, state law requires “vertical” consistency, meaning that zoning ordinances and other land use decisions also must be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2) [land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the [general] plan.”]; see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184. A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. See Lesher, 52 Cal.3d at 544. State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2); Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at 1184. A project cannot be found consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is consistent with other general plan policies. See Endangered Habitats League v. County of City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 31 of 33 Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341-42 (“FUTURE”). Moreover, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan’s policies and objectives. See Napa Citizens, 91 Cal.App.4th at 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal.3d at 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth- oriented policies of general plan). As explained in full below, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan. As such, the Project violates the State Planning and Zoning law. B. The Project is Inconsistent with the General Plan, and thus the DEIR’s Conclusions Regarding Impacts on Land Use and Planning are Unsupported by Substantial Evidence The DEIR fail to establish the Project’s consistency with several General Plan goals, policies, and programs including the following: • Policy LU-2.3: The City’s outdoor lighting ordinance will be maintained; • Goal LU-3 and associated policies and programs: Safe and identifiable neighborhoods that provide a sense of place; • Policy LU-5.1: Use development incentives to achieve a mix of housing, including affordable housing; • Policy CIR-1.14: Private streets shall be developed in accordance with development standards set forth in the Municipal Code, relevant Public Works Bulletins, and other applicable standards and guidelines; • Policy SC-1.2: Reduce water consumption at a minimum consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality Element); • Policy SC-1.4: Reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions at a minimum consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (also see Air Quality Element); • Goal H-2 and associated policies and programs: Assist in the creation and provision of resources to support housing for lower and moderate income households; • Goal H-3 and associated policies and programs: Create a regulatory system that does not unduly constrain the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing affordable to all La Quinta residents; City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 32 of 33 • Goal H-5 and associated policies and programs: Provide equal housing opportunities for all persons; • Goal AQ-1 and associated policies and programs: A reduction in all air emissions generated within the City; • Goal BIO-1 and associated policies and programs: The protection and preservation of native and environmentally significant biological resources and their habitats; • Policy WR-1.6: Encourage the use of permeable pavements in residential and commercial development projects; • Goal OS-2 and associated policies and programs: Good stewardship of natural open space and preservation of open space areas; • Goal OS-3 and associated policies and programs: Preservation of scenic resources as vital contributions to the City’s economic health and overall quality of life; • Policy UTL-1.3: New development shall reduce its projected water consumption rates over “business-as-usual” consumption rates. The Project fails to discuss its conformity with each of the aforementioned Goals, Policies, and Programs laid out in the City’s General Plan, even though the Project will have reasonably foreseeable impacts on land use, traffic, housing and population, biological resources, vehicle trip generation, air quality, and GHG emissions. This discussion is relevant not only to compliance with land use and zoning law, but also with the contemplation of the Project’s consistency with land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts. The DEIR should be amended to include analysis of the Project’s comportment with the Goals, Policies, and Programs listed above. Further, the DEIR should be revised to analyze the Project’s consistency with the City’s upcoming 6th Cycle Housing Element Update and its related Regional Housing Needs Assessment. III. CONCLUSION Commenters request that the City revise and recirculate the Project’s DEIR and/or prepare an environmental impact report which addresses the aforementioned concerns. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office. Sincerely, City of La Quinta – Coral Mountain Resort DEIR August 5, 2021 Page 33 of 33 ______________________ Mitchell M. Tsai Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Attached: March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C); EXHIBIT A 1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg. (949) 887-9013 mhagemann@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD (310) 795-2335 prosenfeld@swape.com March 8, 2021 Mitchell M. Tsai 155 South El Molino, Suite 104 Pasadena, CA 91101 Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai, Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts. Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2 The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3 1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4 Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below): “VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where: n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5 Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below): “Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant Where: Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise. Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the 4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are: “[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13 Worker Trip Length by Air Basin Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles) Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8 Lake County 16.8 10.8 Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8 Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8 Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8 North Central Coast 17.1 12.3 North Coast 16.8 10.8 Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8 Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8 Salton Sea 14.6 11 San Diego 16.8 10.8 San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8 San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8 South Central Coast 16.8 10.8 South Coast 19.8 14.7 Average 16.47 11.17 Minimum 10.80 10.80 Maximum 19.80 14.70 Range 9.00 3.90 9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location. Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C). Local Hire Provision Net Change Without Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024 Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17% As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site. This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location. 14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 5 Disclaimer SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties. Sincerely, Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. EXHIBIT B SOIL WATER AIR PROTECTION ENTERPRISE 2656 29th Street, Suite 201 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attn: Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Mobil: (310) 795-2335 Office: (310) 452-5555 Fax: (310) 452-5550 Email: prosenfeld@swape.com Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 1 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Chemical Fate and Transport & Air Dispersion Modeling Principal Environmental Chemist Risk Assessment & Remediation Specialist Education Ph.D. Soil Chemistry, University of Washington, 1999. Dissertation on volatile organic compound filtration. M.S. Environmental Science, U.C. Berkeley, 1995. Thesis on organic waste economics. B.A. Environmental Studies, U.C. Santa Barbara, 1991. Thesis on wastewater treatment. Professional Experience Dr. Rosenfeld has over 25 years’ experience conducting environmental investigations and risk assessments for evaluating impacts to human health, property, and ecological receptors. His expertise focuses on the fate and transport of environmental contaminants, human health risk, exposure assessment, and ecological restoration. Dr. Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled emissions from unconventional oil drilling operations, oil spills, landfills, boilers and incinerators, process stacks, storage tanks, confined animal feeding operations, and many other industrial and agricultural sources. His project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on workers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding communities. Dr. Rosenfeld has investigated and designed remediation programs and risk assessments for contaminated sites containing lead, heavy metals, mold, bacteria, particulate matter, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, pesticides, radioactive waste, dioxins and furans, semi- and volatile organic compounds, PCBs, PAHs, perchlorate, asbestos, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFOA/PFOS), unusual polymers, fuel oxygenates (MTBE), among other pollutants. Dr. Rosenfeld also has experience evaluating greenhouse gas emissions from various projects and is an expert on the assessment of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance impacts and technologies for abatement of odorous emissions. As a principal scientist at SWAPE, Dr. Rosenfeld directs air dispersion modeling and exposure assessments. He has served as an expert witness and testified about pollution sources causing nuisance and/or personal injury at dozens of sites and has testified as an expert witness on more than ten cases involving exposure to air contaminants from industrial sources. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 2 of 10 June 2019 Professional History: Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE); 2003 to present; Principal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public Health; 2007 to 2011; Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Public Health; 2003 to 2006; Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program; 2002-2004; Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment, 2001-2002; Research Associate Komex H2O Science, 2001 to 2003; Senior Remediation Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-2004; Lecturer San Diego State University, 1999-2001; Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp., San Diego, 2000-2001; Remediation Project Manager Ogden (now Amec), San Diego, 2000-2000; Remediation Project Manager Bechtel, San Diego, California, 1999 – 2000; Risk Assessor King County, Seattle, 1996 – 1999; Scientist James River Corp., Washington, 1995-96; Scientist Big Creek Lumber, Davenport, California, 1995; Scientist Plumas Corp., California and USFS, Tahoe 1993-1995; Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts, West Indies, 1991-1993; Scientist Publications: Remy, L.L., Clay T., Byers, V., Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) Hospital, Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires, Richmond, California 2007 and 2012. Environmental Health. 18:48 Simons, R.A., Seo, Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property Value. Journal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):321-342 Chen, J. A, Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J., Molmen, D.R., Chow, B. S., Wu, L. E., Rosenfeld, P. E., Hesse, R. C., (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compound Exposure To A Community In Texas City Texas Evaluated Using Aermod and Empirical Data. American Journal of Environmental Science, 8(6), 622-632. Rosenfeld, P.E. & Feng, L. (2011). The Risks of Hazardous Waste. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2011). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Agrochemical Industry, Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Gonzalez, J., Feng, L., Sutherland, A., Waller, C., Sok, H., Hesse, R., Rosenfeld, P. (2010). PCBs and Dioxins/Furans in Attic Dust Collected Near Former PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Sauget, IL. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 113–125. Feng, L., Wu, C., Tam, L., Sutherland, A.J., Clark, J.J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wood Treatment Facilities in the United States. Journal of Environmental Health. 73(6), 34-46. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Cheremisinoff, N.P., & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009). Handbook of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Petroleum Industry. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, Air Pollution, 123 (17), 319-327. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 3 of 10 June 2019 Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Blood Lipid Concentrations Of Tetrachloro-p-Dibenzodioxin (TCDD) Toxicity Equivalency Quotients (TEQ) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 002252-002255. Tam L. K.., Wu C. D., Clark J. J. and Rosenfeld, P.E. (2008). Methods For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins And Other Environmental Contaminants In Attic Dust: A Review. Organohalogen Compounds, 70, 000527- 000530. Hensley, A.R. A. Scott, J. J. J. Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Attic Dust and Human Blood Samples Collected near a Former Wood Treatment Facility. Environmental Research. 105, 194-197. Rosenfeld, P.E., J. J. J. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Suffet. (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Compost Facilities. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 345-357. Rosenfeld, P. E., M. Suffet. (2007). The Anatomy Of Odour Wheels For Odours Of Drinking Water, Wastewater, Compost And The Urban Environment. Water Science & Technology 55(5), 335-344. Sullivan, P. J. Clark, J.J.J., Agardy, F. J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2007). Toxic Legacy, Synthetic Toxins in the Food, Water, and Air in American Cities. Boston Massachusetts: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash. Water Science and Technology. 49(9),171-178. Rosenfeld P. E., J.J. Clark, I.H. (Mel) Suffet (2004). The Value of An Odor-Quality-Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. Water Environment Federation’s Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC) 2004. New Orleans, October 2-6, 2004. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet, I.H. (2004). Understanding Odorants Associated With Compost, Biomass Facilities, and the Land Application of Biosolids. Water Science and Technology. 49(9), 193-199. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Suffet I.H. (2004). Control of Compost Odor Using High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science and Technology, 49( 9), 171-178. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M. A., Sellew, P. (2004). Measurement of Biosolids Odor and Odorant Emissions from Windrows, Static Pile and Biofilter. Water Environment Research. 76(4), 310-315. Rosenfeld, P.E., Grey, M and Suffet, M. (2002). Compost Demonstration Project, Sacramento California Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6), Sacramento, CA Publication #442-02-008. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Characterization of odor emissions from three different biosolids. Water Soil and Air Pollution. 127(1-4), 173-191. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2000). Wood ash control of odor emissions from biosolids application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 29, 1662-1668. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry and D. Bennett. (2001). Wastewater dewatering polymer affect on biosolids odor emissions and microbial activity. Water Environment Research. 73(4), 363-367. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (2001). Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption of Wastewater, Compost, and Biosolids Odorants. Water Environment Research, 73, 388-393. Rosenfeld, P.E., and Henry C. L., (2001). High carbon wood ash effect on biosolids microbial activity and odor. Water Environment Research. 131(1-4), 247-262. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 4 of 10 June 2019 Chollack, T. and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Compost Amendment Handbook For Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond, Washington State. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1992). The Mount Liamuiga Crater Trail. Heritage Magazine of St. Kitts, 3(2). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993). High School Biogas Project to Prevent Deforestation On St. Kitts. Biomass Users Network, 7(1). Rosenfeld, P. E. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions From Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Doctoral Thesis. University of Washington College of Forest Resources. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1994). Potential Utilization of Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Land. Masters thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic Council. Sierra County, California. Rosenfeld, P. E. (1991). How to Build a Small Rural Anaerobic Digester & Uses Of Biogas In The First And Third World. Bachelors Thesis. University of California. Presentations: Rosenfeld, P.E., Sutherland, A; Hesse, R.; Zapata, A. (October 3-6, 2013). Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from multiple natural gas wells in Decatur, TX. 44th Western Regional Meeting, American Chemical Society. Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA. Sok, H.L.; Waller, C.C.; Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sutherland, A.J.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Atrazine: A Persistent Pesticide in Urban Drinking Water. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Feng, L.; Gonzalez, J.; Sok, H.L.; Sutherland, A.J.; Waller, C.C.; Wisdom-Stack, T.; Sahai, R.K.; La, M.; Hesse, R.C.; Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 20-23, 2010). Bringing Environmental Justice to East St. Louis, Illinois. Urban Environmental Pollution. Lecture conducted from Boston, MA. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Perfluoroctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluoroactane Sulfonate (PFOS) Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting, Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Rosenfeld, P.E. (April 19-23, 2009). Cost to Filter Atrazine Contamination from Drinking Water in the United States” Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF) at Airports in the United States. 2009 Ground Water Summit and 2009 Ground Water Protection Council Spring Meeting. Lecture conducted from Tuscon, AZ. Wu, C., Tam, L., Clark, J., Rosenfeld, P. (20-22 July, 2009). Dioxin and furan blood lipid concentrations in populations living near four wood treatment facilities in the United States. Brebbia, C.A. and Popov, V., eds., Air Pollution XVII: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Modeling, Monitoring and Management of Air Pollution. Lecture conducted from Tallinn, Estonia. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Moss Point Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). The Repeated Trespass of Tritium-Contaminated Water Into A Surrounding Community Form Repeated Waste Spills From A Nuclear Power Plant. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 5 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-18, 2007). Somerville Community Exposure To Contaminants From Wood Treatment Facility Emissions. The 23rd Annual International Conferences on Soils Sediment and Water. Lecture conducted from University of Massachusetts, Amherst MA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Studies of 1,2,3- Trichloropropane (TCP). The Association for Environmental Health and Sciences (AEHS) Annual Meeting . Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Rosenfeld P. E. (March 2007). Blood and Attic Sampling for Dioxin/Furan, PAH, and Metal Exposure in Florala, Alabama. The AEHS Annual Meeting. Lecture conducted from San Diego, CA. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (August 21 – 25, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. The 26th International Symposium on Halogenated Persistent Organic Pollutants – DIOXIN2006. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scandinavia Hotel in Oslo Norway. Hensley A.R., Scott, A., Rosenfeld P.E., Clark, J.J.J. (November 4-8, 2006). Dioxin Containing Attic Dust And Human Blood Samples Collected Near A Former Wood Treatment Facility. APHA 134 Annual Meeting & Exposition. Lecture conducted from Boston Massachusetts. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals. International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants. Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust. Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona. Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019 Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners. Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association. Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California. Rosenfeld, P. E., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants.. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California. Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration. Northwest Biosolids Management Association. Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington.. Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conference. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland. Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California. Rosenfeld, P.E. (2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019 Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington. Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California. Teaching Experience: UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants. National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks. National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites. California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design. UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation. University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability. U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10. Academic Grants Awarded: California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment. Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001. Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University. Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000. King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998. Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997. James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996. United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995. Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019 Deposition and/or Trial Testimony: In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant. Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant. Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636 Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857 Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19 In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018 In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481 Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017 In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295 Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154) Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018 In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019 In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5 Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017 Trial, March 2017 In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115 Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015 In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187 Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015 In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al. Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000 Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015 In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015 In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980 Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015 In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant. Case Number CACE07030358 (26) Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014 In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014 Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019 In the County Court of Dallas County Texas Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant. Case Number cc-11-01650-E Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012 In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant. Case 3:10-cv-00622 Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012 Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013 In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013 EXHIBIT C 1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa Santa Monica, California 90401 Tel: (949) 887‐9013 Email: mhagemann@swape.com Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP Geologic and Hydrogeologic Characterization Industrial Stormwater Compliance Investigation and Remediation Strategies Litigation Support and Testifying Expert CEQA Review Education: M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984. B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982. Professional Certifications: California Professional Geologist California Certified Hydrogeologist Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner Professional Experience: Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring. Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques. Positions Matt has held include: •Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); •Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014; •Senior Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); • Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998); • Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998); • Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and • Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986). Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst: With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included: • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever. • Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA. • Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells. • Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California. • Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant. With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following: • Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation. • Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York. 2 • Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators. Executive Director: As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council. Hydrogeology: As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows: • Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater. • Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases. • Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum. At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui. As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following: • Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water. • Managed the Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation. 4 • Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer. Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows: • Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements. • Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S. EPA legal counsel. • Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites. With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks: • Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park. • Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup. • Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup. • Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan. Policy: Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following: • Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies. • Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs. • Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process. • Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 Geology: With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows: • Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability. • Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection. • Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon. As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following: • Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests. • Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal. Teaching: From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels: • At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination. • Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin. Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014. Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations: Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon. Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S. EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California. Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles. 6 Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee). Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant. Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association. Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report. 7 Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report. Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report. Hagemann, M.F., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina. Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada. Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City. Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996. Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61. Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. Hagemann, M.F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater. Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35. Other Experience: Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011. 9 Friday, August 6, 2021 at 17:02:03 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort DEIR Date:Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:58:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Sally Arroyo To:consulGngplanner@laquintaca.gov CC:Kimberly Cuza, Bob Arroyo Dear Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste, ConsulGng Planner, City of La Quinta: Thank you allowing us again to be part of the process in assessing the suitability of the Coral Mountain Resort "The Wave." AYer reading through the enGre DEIR carefully many Gmes it is clearly apparent that although it seems that the consulGng firms and the City of La Quinta think they have done their due diligence with their studies, they failed to consider the human factor --- their residents, their consGtuents and this beauGful area. They are apparently only concerned with development, revenues and the allure of world-wide recogniGon. We also found the alternaGve comparisons interesGng in that based on the findings there really is only one alternaGve and that is the alternaGve that the developer and the City of La Quinta want, The Wave Basin and Resort. We also found that many of the findings were deemed "less than significant." This may be the standard term/language used within the parameters of Federal, State, County and City study mandates, but we nearby ciGzens and homeowners and our opinions are not less than significant and absolutely reject the conclusions of these findings. The developer purchased this property knowing the current zoning. Promises and projecGons were then made at meeGngs held for local residents to drum up support for the project. Those who a]ended those meeGngs have reported that they now feel they were misled. The words in some of the correspondence were "bait and switch." The City of La Quinta appears to have bought into this bad idea and has gone along with it by moving to allow proposed zone changes, special events and everything else that nearby homeowners find unacceptable. This development will have no advantage for La Quinta residents who will not reside in the resort or use its ameniGes, only disadvantages such as more traffic, more noise, more water usage from our aquifer, more light polluGon, etc. It does feel like the City and the developer are a]empGng to sell us on what we absolutely don’t want. Let's reject the tourist commercial zoning as well as this whole project. In an era of massive climate change the City of La Quinta should sGll be asking the major quesGon of where the water would come from to sustain the resort. Surf parks require massive amounts of water and this resort will waste even more. This is irresponsible. We have seen esGmates of 18 million gallons to fill the pool. In addiGon, this project will have to recover/refill water lost to evaporaGon that nearly equals the amount used to fill the pool. Add this to the amount of water used by residents, guests and commercial establishments as well as the golf course. Golf courses have the advantage of being able to use desertscaping and grey water for non-potable uses, resulGng in less water use. Also, the DEIR did not validly compare best water uses for golf courses. The surf park will not be using grey water in their pool and while they should have a filtraGon system, that sGll does not lessen the water lost through evaporaGon. CVWD recommends that two new wells be drilled. These wells would tap into our aquifer, which is not being replenished fast enough so it is a finite resource that people living here desperately need. CVWD is not thinking far enough into even the near future. Climate change is drying up the enGre West. We need the aquifer to augment receiving less river water. We have had recently two of our ho]est days on record for the Coachella Valley. ProjecGons are that it is only going to get worse and this represents what is happening everywhere in the West. The light comparison alleging that 17 extremely bright lights, strong enough for water safety and lighGng up waves, mounted atop 80 foot poles are similar to 17 palm tree landscape lights pointed up at tree trunks is ficGon. Anyone who has seen the difference will tell you that there is no comparison. Not only will these lights cause light polluGon for our area and obliterate any California and La Quinta dark sky ordinances, but the toll on wildlife such as bats, night birds, night wildlife and migraGng birds would be extremely harmful. These lights would be especially harmful Page 2 of 2 because the resort borders the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains NaGonal Monument and "flying" wildlife will conGnue to fly over this project area. The sound study tries to minimize the impact of noise by asserGng that Coral Mountain will absorb equipment noises. But Coral Mountain covers a Gny part of the project perimeter so nearly all of the neighborhoods around the development would get noise from surf-purposed loudspeakers that will be nearly always on and noise from planned special events. The planned sound from the Wave Basin will travel throughout our corridor from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week and Coral Mountain will not absorb it. Then add in the sounds from the loudspeakers for the surfing and for the events and there will be a constant barrage of noise. Combine that with traffic noise. Most of our traffic is from maintenance workers going to and from work, weekdays early in mornings and aYernoons. One cannot really call our traffic scenario rush hour traffic. We also have a low level of 24-hour traffic from 58th and Madison and occasional distant dayGme target pracGce from the range near Lake Cahuilla. At night we get some traffic noise, but while even that is irritaGng we are fortunate to hear mostly wildlife sounds. We have consistent traffic now which increases during "The Season" but regardless with a development of this scale, our traffic and noise will be much worse. Medical studies have shown that exposure to noises, while subjecGve, is detrimental to one's health. This is especially true for those who already suffer hypertension. Most older adults have high blood pressure and many of those who own homes here are older. More noise and the stress related to the noise leads to a host of medical issues. Simultaneous noise from different sources, like individual cars, crowds and loudspeakers can mulGply many Gmes by factors of 10. Noise from all the separate sources from this project could increase total noise logarithmically, meaning by factors of 10, on a constant daily basis, especially in evenings when we all love our desert quiet. Think of living near a freeway and barely noGcing noise made by a few cars versus the jet engine roar made by many cars. This is the type of situaGon that this project could cause. It must be noted that this area is generally very quiet so even one speeding car on 58th or Madison is graGng. It would be totally unacceptable to spoil the general silence of the desert. In the DEIR it was pointed out that there will be no property tax revenue to the City through 2035. Nothing about this project will contribute to the enjoyment of life for the residents of La Quinta. What happens, if as one resident wrote, this ends up being an empty hole in the ground and a failed development. We can see the headlines now "The City of La Quinta Gem of an Empty Promise and a Concrete Hole." Word to the wise, think before you buy into this fad. If the City of La Quinta wants the Wave Basin so badly then perhaps they should make arrangements to have the Wave Basin at their SilverRock Resort. We could go on and on but will stop here. Thank you for your consideraGon. Sally and Bob Arroyo Coral Mountain Estates 57712 Salida del Sol La Quinta, CA 92253 Memo to: Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner, City of La Quinta Copies to: La Quinta City Council TLQMA: Board of Directors From: Fritz E. Bachli, Professor / Consultant of Global Economics and Environmental Science Subject: Coral Mountain Wave Project / Draft EIR / Citizen Comment, Dead-Line: 8/6/2021 Date: August 6, 2021 Ladies and Gentlemen, The following perspective on the “Wave Project” is based on my educational background in the field of Environmental Sciences and thirteen years of living experience here at Trilogy. I am not surprised about the many concerns residents are voicing in opposition to the “Wave Park”? The City of La Quinta must be concerned about the environmental complaints which are piling up at the City Hall? Even re-zoning appears not a welcoming answer to accommodate the “Wave Park!” However, common sense reminds us: “If it’s not a fit – leave it!” It’s surprising that the Project applicant has not been able to locate a suitable alternative location in our city or elsewhere? The purpose of zoning is simple. It is designed to ensure balanced communities. Zoning allows the government to control development of the land and ensure the public is satisfied with their community. The Draft EIR claims that improving community health is one of the priorities of city government in order to sustain life which can be enjoyed by residents? If citizens believe it’s not a fit – the city hall should listen and not promote it! Hopefully my contributions will support the NOPs (Notice of Preparation) filed by concerned citizens. Following are three key points taken directly from the Draft EIR which are of major concern to me as a Trilogy Resident? 1. NOISE -The project will not generate operational noise levels that have any significant impact on any sensitive receptors including residents in the surrounding communities. Areas in the vicinity of the planned project are repeatedly defined as “Golf Course and Residential Communities!” Trilogy, perhaps other communities as well, belong to a category of housing which is not recognized as such in the Draft EIR? Trilogy with 1238 homes, housing approx. 2500 residents, existed long before the planned construction of a Wave Park! The City Council of LQ should recognize that 55+ Communities are the choice for many aging people who want to focus attention to their mental, emotional and physical wellbeing. These adults enjoy the serenity of quiet neighborhoods. 55+ adults often decide that the value of time is for elderly individuals the greatest asset that they possess. Disappointing enough, the Draft EIR does not recognize the needs expressed by residents who selected a 55+ community? Trilogy residents are accustomed to noise levels of approx. 30 dBA! It will literally be a “bad awakening” when they must live in an environment where 60 to 80 dBA is defined as the new normal! (Measuring Instrument: METERK / MK 09 / Sound Level Meter) 2. AIR QUALITY The National Heart Association classified the Southern Californian Counties as some, if not the worst, air quality regions in our nation! -The Wave Park is seven miles of the 1-10 freeway. The site is found outside the designated “blowsand” area but is still exposed to seasonal wind activities capable of producing fugitive dust from undeveloped ground conditions?” The Draft EIR is incomplete without reporting available Health Data documented in the annual Eisenhower Hospital and Imperial County Health Assessments and Improvement updates? This is a substantial oversight and a sign of ignorance towards the constituents exposed and complaining about an ever-increasing air contamination problem in the area? Fugitive dust readings on my own patio and tests conducted at locations of Trilogy residents who are hypersensitive to dust and suffering from pulmonary diseases are often exposed to PM-2.5 particles at a level of 31.0 mg/3 and in terms of PM-10 particles of 110.2 mg/m3. (Measuring Instrument: Dylos 1700) Such levels can be compared with a very bad “hair day” in Beijing / China! Elevated PM-10 and PM- 2.5 levels are associated with increases of asthmatic conditions, increase in Emergency Room visits and increased mortality rates. Air Quality Standards considered safe and obtained from AQMD are taken from monitoring stations in Palm Springs 18 miles southeast from the project, the Indio station is 6 miles away and the distance to Mecca amounts to 11 miles. Air quality is a very local phenomenon and measurements taken miles away from the project are not representative of the actual situation as it is occurring at the project site and at individual sites of sensitive receptors. Special events, four times a year, with a daily expectancy of 2500 “Wave Park” guests, thousands of visitors per year will unquestionably contribute to a further overload of environmental conditions for the area right across the street from the Trilogy community! Mobile measuring devices which provide immediate on-site particle readings are becoming household items! Some time ago, I demonstrated to an AQMD team from the City Hall of La Quinta during a visit to the Golf Course Perimeter a slide presentation and test methods I used to measure PM-10 and PM-2.5 particle loads at the Trilogy community. They were surprised about the immediate results with handheld high quality measuring devices and the accurate readings when compared with fixed measuring stations. -SCAQMD has the legal obligation to enforce air pollution regulations!” From the moment a legitimate complaint is filed, and actions taken by the AQMD may literally take weeks, months or even years. Very frustrating process which might have been improved when compared in previous years? -LST’s (Localized Significance Threshold) limits were developed in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding the exposure to individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. Is Trilogy qualifying for such an exemption? 3) WATER --The Wave Park could result in cumulatively significant impacts to water supplies and infrastructure if not reviewed by the City and CVWD? I wish there would be more concrete definition in the (Draft EIR) like this one. An eye opener for ordinary residents without in depth knowledge in the field of water issues! A surfer confessed to me that Wave Parks are fun. But pulling ground water especially in the desert and deleting aquifers is against all common-sense Environmental principles. Such water is not being used to benefit a society. It’s being used for middle, upper financial elite classes for leisurely escapism. AKA a vacation while the world burns, farm animals have to be slottered due to lack of food and water. The greenhouse effect takes its tall! CONCLUSION/ REASON: Fugitive Dust from Project Site to Trilogy Dylos Particle Meter / Model 1700 THE PROJECTED WAVE PARK IS NOT A PLANNED COMMUNITY THAT COMPLIMENTS EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE ALREADY EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL OVERLOAD IN THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT. This Photo by Unknown Author Friday, August 6, 2021 at 16:10:47 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:Opposi&on to the DEIR of the Coral Mountain Resort Date:Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:03:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Ramon Baez To:consul&ngplanner@laquintaca.gov CC:kellymbaez@gmail.com ADachments:MORE RE: In opposi&on of a Wave park a Coral Mountain.eml, Wave Park Development at Coral Mountain .eml Reference: email from Ramon Baez dated 3/10/2021 (aUached); email from Mr. Rob Michiels dated 7/21/2021 (aUached) Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste, As I stated in the aUached referenced email dated March 10, 2021, we enjoy the tranquility and serenity of the Andalusia Country Club. Prior to the scoping mee&ng, we were opposed to this project and now a\er a careful review of the DEIR and having discussions with the developer representa&ves we are even more opposed to many facets of this project. We believe it will be incompa&ble to the 2035 General Plan and the culture of the community within the South East La Quinta area. We actually do not believe it is compa&ble to any residen&al area of the Coachella valley. We are not NIMBY type people. My wife and I are big supporters of development but it needs to be compa&ble to the overall community and provide value to the overall community. We believe that this project will have a significant nega&ve impact to the overall environment with everything we have read from a traffic, noise and light pollu&on. By rezoning this area to tourist commercial, we will no longer have a similar community adjacent to us but will have a Surf Amusement Park with planned surf fes&vals and tournaments several &mes a year. We are sure that there is not one planned community in the La Quinta area that would want such a project to be erected adjacent to them. We respecdully request that the Planning Commission and the City Council not approve the rezoning being requested by the developers to allow the construc&on of the Wave Basin and providing them the ability to build 750 STVRs in the middle of a low-density residen&al area which are truly neighborhoods. My fellow Andalusia resident, Mr. Rob Michiels, submiUed ques&ons concerning the DEIR (see aUachment dated July 21, 2021) that we believe need to be answered for all of us that are very concerned about this very complex project. Sincerely, Page 2 of 2 Ramon and Kelly Baez, Resident 81245 Andalusia La Quinta, CA 92253 Friday, August 6, 2021 at 16:11:19 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. Friday, August 6, 2021 at 16:11:38 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 1 Subject:Wave Park Development at Coral Mountain Date:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 7:32:39 PM Pacific Standard Time From:Ramon Baez To:consulGngplanner@laquintaca.gov CC:kellymbaez@gmail.com ADachments:Andalusia Backyard Southen West view .jpg, Public NoGce - Coral Mountain Resort NOP.pdf, Coral Mountain Resort NoGce of PreparaGon Document.pdf ATn: Nicole Sauviat Criste, ConsulGng Planner City of La Quinta, CA Re: Coral Mountain Resort Amendment V Dear Ms. Criste, My name is Ramon F. Baez, a homeowner at Andalusia Country Club for over 4 years. My wife, Kelly and I fell in love with the ambience of Andalusia the moment we drove through the gates in July of 2016. We are here now a good part of the year and we love the peaceful quiet, and beauGful canopy of stars that we enjoy each evening. The views of the Coral Mountains in the foreground of the Santa Rosa Mountains, coupled with the serene beauty and quiet of the desert sky is a true natural marvel. I am not a fan of the Wave Park development on many levels, but most significantly I am concerned about the light polluGon from the 80' towers that would spoil the night sky in this area. This would ruin the tranquil desert evenings. I have aTached a view from our backyard and it would have a deleterious effect to this lovely view, especially at night. It would be like having a high school football stadium built adjacent to us and would be like having Friday night lights every night of the week. The City has prudently required an Environmental Impact Report be prepared in compliance with CEQA guidelines. I respecbully request that the public comment period for this development be extended to at least 30 days from receipt and distribuGon of the EIR so everyone can assess the impact this project will have on all our dear friends and neighbors at Andalusia and surrounding communiGes. Thank you for your consideraGon. Kind Regards, Ramon and Kelly Baez 81-245 Andalusia La Quinta, CA 92253 August 6, 2021 Via Email & U.S. Mail Jon McMillen (jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov) City Manager, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Cheri Flores (clflores@laquintaca.gov) Planning Manager, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Nicole Sauviat Criste (ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov) Consulting Planner, City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: The Wave Festival Project / Comments to Draft Environmental Report Dear Mr. McMillen, Ms. Flores and Ms. Criste: Our office represents residents in the City of La Quinta (City), La Quinta Residents for Responsible Development (LQRRD), who are rightfully concerned about the development of a proposed project within the City that portends fundamental changes in the character of the City. That proposed project, described below, is the subject of a Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2021020310, prepared by MSA Consulting Inc. (DEIR). Please consider the enclosed comments with respect to that DEIR and consider, in particular, the concerns we have raised concerning the issues of traffic, noise, air quality, water, and the Applicant’s request to amend the City’s General Plan. I. THE PROPOSED WAVE FESTIVAL PROJECT The subject of the DEIR is a proposal to be build an enormous development on land that is currently slated in the City’s General Plan for low-density residential development. The existing local area is characterized by developed golf course and residential communities to the north, west, east, and southeast, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the west and south, Monroe Street and vacant and agricultural BRUCE T. BAUER ATTORNEY ADMITTED IN CA REPLY TO: 1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 T (760) 322-2275 • F (760) 322-2107 bauer@sbemp.com Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 2 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 2 lands to the east, and open space to the south. (DEIR, p. 14, Section 1.2.1.) The area is in keeping, then, with what most people expect in the residential areas of a beautiful desert city in the Coachella Valley: (1) low density; (2) quiet; (3) low traffic; and (4) unencumbered mountain vistas that are illuminated by the stars at night. Instead of this low-density, and low-key, development that residents of the City were told would be developed nearby, The Wave Development, LLC (Applicant), proposes a large-scale commercial enterprise, replete with recurring festivals, that includes a 150-room hotel and 600 residential units (all of which will be permitted to have short-terms rentals1). As part of this project, the focal point of all of these short-term rental units will be an enormous 18 million gallon2, 16-acre, artificial surf basin that will have artificial waves generated by a large locomotive-like engine. This wave basin will be, in turn, illuminated with 80-foot light towers, lighting up the darkened desert night sky, encircling the basin. Additionally, Applicant proposes, as part of the Wave Festival Project, large scale commercial development including, separately, 57,000 square feet and 60,000 square feet of commercial uses. DEIR, p. 67, Section 2.51. The project will be referred hereinafter to the “Wave Festival Project.” The Wave Festival Project’s wave basin will be the focal point of a parade of at least four (4) events a year of a four-day duration. As indicated by Applicant, there will be four (4) entertainment/special events (of four (4) days duration or 16 days and nights of special events per year) (the “Special Events.) Each day of these Special Events might easily bring in thousands of visitors per day (with each such event the Applicant would be permitted to have 2,500 guests per day – this would be in addition to the guests that are staying at the resort’s villas and hotel, myriad employees and vendors attending to all those guests, and does not include the days that will be needed for staging and dismantling of each of the Special Events.) 1 In the DEIR it references these short-term rentals at p. 117: “Ownership and occupancy of these units may include primary, secondary and fractional ownership, along with short term vacation rentals.” (See, DEIR at p. 117.) These short-term rentals are only mentioned four times in the 738- page DEIR document. Even then the impact of these short-term rentals is not studied. Rather, the DEIR mentions that “potential increase of traffic as a result of the resort use and allowance of short- term rentals at the project; . . . “ (See, DEIR, at p. 26.). The allowance for these short-term rentals is further spelled out, at page 6, of the Coral Mountain Resort – Development Agreement Developer’s Proposed Terms For Amendment: “Analysis completed by the City, short term vacation rentals will be an allowable use in all planning areas within the Project, consistent with the recently enacted provisions in the LQMC, § 3.25.055.” 2 https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/local/la-quinta/2020/02/26/kelly-slater-surf-technology- part-of-proposed-la-quinta-coral-mountain-development/4884466002/ Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 3 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 3 Applicant then is seeking permission to allow approval of the Wave Festival Project with an enormous amount of overnight guests in excess of 4,000 per night ((one can estimate that it might have 600 overnight guests for its planned 150-room hotel (4 pillows per room x 150 rooms), plus 3,600 overnight guests for the planned 600-villas (averaging 3 bedrooms each, 6 pillows X 600=3,600 overnight)), for a total over 4,000 overnight guests coming and going. There will then also be the 2,500 allowed visitors coming and going. The Wave Festival Project then promises to bring significant changes to the City and its surrounding and adjoining communities compared to what was previously approved for this area. Naturally, a project of this nature, that will continue to morph and increase exponentially, should be given additional scrutiny. The proposed Wave Festival Project is both out of scope of the nature of its proposed setting as set forth in the City’s General Plan as discussed below. The enormity of this request, and the scale of change from the City’s existing land use designation for the proposed site, is evidenced by the fact that Applicant is seeking an extraordinary number of approvals including as follows: (1) a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019‐0002); (2) Zone Change (ZC 2019‐0004); (3) Specific Plan (SP 2020‐0002); (4) Tentative Tract Map (TTM 2019‐0005); (5) Site Development Permit (SDP 2021‐0001); and, (6) a Development Agreement (DA 2021‐0002). It is clear that the Wave Festival Project bears NO relationship to the development that had been originally entitled for that area. The Wave Festival Project is not akin to a low-density golf- centered master-planned community. No one can seriously contend such. The Wave Festival Project is, in reality, a commercial entertainment-based venue endeavor and not a residential development. The Wave Festival Project will be comprised of a commercial /high-density project that will cause far more impact on the surrounding communities that could ever have been conceived in prior entitlements and is being severely understated by the Applicant so that approval can be obtained. The quiet and serene atmosphere currently enjoyed by the City’s residents will forever be destroyed. As such, we do not believe the Wave Festival Project, as proposed, should move forward with the City, as analyzed, since it is not in keeping with the character and entitlements envisioned by the City and its residents. However, should the City consider the Wave Festival Project it must do so under only the most exacting review standards. II. CEQA AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state and local government agencies to inform decision makers and the public about the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects, and to reduce those environmental impacts to the extent feasible. CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report (“EIR”) (except in certain limited circumstances ). See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21100. Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 4 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 4 The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Dunn-Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Comms. For a Better Env’t. v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.) CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decisionmakers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(a)(1).) Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR ‘protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.’” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at 564.) The EIR has been described as “an environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comm’rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810). Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when “feasible” by requiring “environmentally superior” alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.) The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15002(a)(2).) If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment were feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21081; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15092(b)(2)(A) and (B).) The DEIR that has been submitted is 738-page document that has not afforded the public a reasonable manner to decipher it, nor has it properly analyzed the Wave Festival Project for a myriad of reasons as discussed below. III. THE DEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE, ANALYZE, AND MITIGATE ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. As discussed below, and in the attached expert comment letters of traffic (comment letter dated August 3, 2021) and sound (comment letter dated August 2, 2021) experts, Minagar & Associates, Inc., the DEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the Wave Festival Project’s impacts. CEQA requires that a lead agency analyze all potentially significant environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)(1); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126(a); Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 5 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 5 Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1354.) The EIR must not only identify the impacts but must also provide “information about how adverse the impacts will be.” (Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 831.) The lead agency may deem a particular impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence justifying the finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692.) While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 1355, quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, 409, fn. 12.) A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.” (San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 722; Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1117.) A. Traffic Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. Traffic impacts have not been adequately analyzed or mitigated in the DEIR. The DEIR greatly understates traffic counts. It is well known that festivals of the nature that the Applicant proposes with the Special Events bring in large crowds. Given the short-term rental nature of the residences to be constructed, it is likely they will be densely occupied during those timeframes. Therefore, the reliance on existing data of traffic counts is not reliable and trustworthy information. In normal developments in the City, many neighborhoods are thinly occupied because they are often second homes. Therefore, data utilizing existing traffic counts only reflect that sort of development. However, the development sought in connection with the Wave Festival Project should more closely be attuned to traffic counts for like developments (here a commercial entertainment development) and particularized times of the year such as when festivals such as Coachella and Stagecoach occur. Also, the DEIR has not considered when the Special Events will occur. The timing of the Special Events is especially important given other busy events that occur during the calendar as pointed out above. Traffic counts utilized in the DEIR include Thursday, August 15, 2017, Tuesday, April 9, 2019, Tuesday, May 7, 2019, and Tuesday, September 10, 2019. These counts were not taken during either during the busiest part of the year, for City residents, i.e., the “High Season” in the middle of the winter months when snowbirds have returned to the City (from October through March.) Those more realistic dates should have been utilized to conduct a meaningful traffic analysis. The base traffic volumes used in the analysis are therefore an underestimation of the actual volumes. As opined by Minagar & Associates in their comment letter of August 3, 2021 (see, Exhibit 2 hereto), the analysis contained in the DEIR is also defective in several key respects: Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 6 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 6 • For a large mixed-use of the size contemplated by the Wave Festival Project, utilization of traffic counts from Thursday, August 15, 2017, Tuesday, April 9, 2019, Tuesday, May 7, 2019, and Tuesday, September 10, 2019 is not prudent. Current traffic counts could have been easily taken right after the scoping agreement on February 12, 2020, and before the start of COVID-19 pandemic on March 15, 2020. It goes without saying that the traffic volumes are the foundation of every traffic impact study. Once their validity is questioned, then the public trust is eroded. • For the trip generation estimation for the Special Events during weekends, since the national ITE Trip Generation Manual does not provide the required rates, why surveys of similar facilities weren’t used to establish the rates? • Why for the 2,500-Guest Wave Basin Facility, the old trip generation rates from SANDAG Manual for a recreation park (developed) from over 20 years ago was used to generate new traffic estimates? Surveys of similar facilities could have been performed. • There are a number of discrepancies among the land use sizes of The Wave Basin Facility, The Wave Village, The Farm and related uses for the purposes of trip generation calculations in different reports. • For the claimed VMT mitigation reductions, the specific source and category from the State of California's CAPCOA Manual must be documented for verification. B. Water Supply Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. The seriousness of the state’s water concerns means that large-scale projects like this in the middle of the desert must be carefully planned to ensure adequate supplies of water, even in times of severe drought. Cities and counties are required to verify that adequate long-term water supplies exist for large development projects. (Water Code § 10910; Gov. Code § 66473.7.) These laws, working in conjunction with CEQA, force municipalities to consider how they will supply water to new projects. Thus, when an agency considers a detailed project proposal that would require additional water, the public must have an opportunity to consider, in a detailed EIR, the project’s water supply and mitigation measures and alternatives that would lessen the related impacts. (Pub. Res. Code § 21093(a); 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15152(a)-(c).) This detailed analysis is referred to as a Water Supply Assessment (“WSA”). Water supply for the proposed project would be provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). (DEIR, at 4.9-19.) Coachella Valley relies on groundwater for its primary supply sources. Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 7 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 7 (DEIR, at 4.9‐19.) The proposed project is expected to consume approximately 958.63‐acre feet per year (AFY), which equates to an alarming 312,163,558 gallons of water per year. (DEIR, at 4.9‐ 19.) The DEIR vaguely states without any details that the groundwater basin can meet the water demands of the Coachella Valley for extended normal and drought periods. (DEIR, at 4.9‐28.) However, the WSA admits repeatedly that the Coachella Valley relies on groundwater for its primary supply source, and that “the amount of water in the acquifer has decreased over the years due to heavy pumping to serve urban, rural and agricultural development in the Coachella Valley, which has withdrawn water from the aquifer at a rate faster than its natural rate of recharge.” (WSA, p. 30.) The solution has been to import the majority of the water supply, primarily from the Colorado River. This is not a sustainable model as Californians have acutely learned over the last decade of drought-like conditions. Coachella Valley’s water conservation plans rely on source substitution with the Colorado River, but the Colorado River is also experiencing historically low levels and drought conditions. Countless other communities also rely on the Colorado River as a water source, so this practice is not sustainable in the long term. In fact, the WSA only analyzes and accounts for the water supply for the next 20 years, which is relatively soon. (DEIR, at 4.9‐28.) With exponential population growth expected, and the continuing effects of climate change, this analysis needs to account for a much longer period. Recent climatic developments, and the increasing impact of drought in the State and in the Western state, especially an historic drought in the Colorado River basin of 20 years, demand that the City not review water usage with “business as usual” calculations. See, e.g., California water regulators took unprecedented action this week, passing an emergency regulation that will bar thousands of Californians from diverting stream and river water as the drought worsens. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-04/california-drought-water-restrictions-how- bad-is-it ). Elsewhere, in the Colorado River basin, water levels in the water reserves held by Lake Powell and Lake Mead, two of the US’s largest reservoirs that both sit along the Colorado River relied upon more than 40 million (including the Coachella Valley) are at record lows3. https://www.popsci.com/science/lake-mead-lake-powell-drought/ As set forth above, the Wave Festival Project (even with water conservation measures) would have a total water demand of 958.63 acre-feet per year (AFY). It is important to note that the DEIR fails to equate the AFY by gallons of water per year. This was done purposefully. It does not want the public to know just how many gallons of water this project will use on a yearly basis. Projects that allow for 312,163,558 gallons of wasted resources should not be permitted to put pressure on 3 Lake Powell, which stretches along Utah and Arizona, dropped to 3,554 feet this week—the lowest depth since its initial filling in the 1960s. Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir by water capacity, is also at its lowest level since it was filled in the 1930s. It’s currently at a depth of 1,067 feet, holding just one third of its potential capacity. Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 8 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 8 already declining aquifers. This is especially true when the climate crisis is creating an uncertain future where sustainability and demand on aquifers are getting harder and harder to predict. C. Noise Has Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. Noise pollution, like air pollution, has significant health implications. In analyzing the Wave Festival Project, Applicant has utilized its existing wave facility in Lemoore, California as a barometer of certain issues including noise. (See, DEIR at p. 4.11-45.) For example, Applicant states as follows: Additionally, the noise expert stated that agricultural fields and desert floors are considered soft surfaces for the purposes of sound propagation. Additionally, the noise expert stated that Coral Mountain is likely to absorb, rather than reflect noise back towards sensitive receiver locations. Only hard surfaces, such as pavement, would change the sound attenuation characteristics of the project. In addition, the worst‐case reference noise level conditions were taken during peak wave noise events at 12 feet, as stated above, whereas Coral Mountain is located approximately 650 feet from the Wave Basin. The reference noise level measurements themselves do not include any sound attenuation for the agricultural fields. Therefore, although the proposed project is located on the desert floor and adjacent to Coral Mountain, the noise measurements from the Lemoore site provide an accurate comparison of noise levels to occur at the project site. Id. The absurdity of the suggestion that conditions of the Lemoore facility could be likened to the proposed site of the Wave Festival Project can be seen clearly in an aerial photograph of that facility: Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 9 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 9 The Lemoore facility is in a rural, agricultural area that is devoid of nearby residential development. The Wave Festival Project is proposed to be built next to adjoining large and well-developed residential communities. The concerns that arise in an agricultural area are not the same as they are in a residential up-scale area like the one that will surround the Wave Festival Project. The comparison, for analysis purposes, of data from the Lemoore facility is therefore faulty since it is akin to comparing “apples to oranges.” Moreover, the assertion that Coral Mountain is “likely to absorb, rather than reflect noise back towards sensitive receiver locations” was never tested or analyzed and is contrary to common sense and the experience of residents of the City. They know well that noise is AMPLIFIED off the hard surfaces of the surrounding mountains that are largely devoid of vegetation that might absorb sound as it does in an agricultural setting like Lemoore, California. Construction and traffic noise are some of the largest producers of noise pollution. Prolonged exposure to noise pollution can lead to hypertension and heart disease, hearing loss and consequential sleep disturbances. Wave Basin/Wave machine activity, outdoor pool/spa activity, outdoor activity, and neighborhood commercial land use activities will run from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (DEIR, at 4.11-44.) Finally, and most importantly, the Wave Festival Project is also projected to host Special Events as pointed out above. The Applicant must also properly analyze and mitigate significant impacts from noise from the Wave Festival Project considering these Special Events. Special consideration as to Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 10 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 10 when they will be scheduled must also be analyzed. Moreover, special consideration must be given to the fact that all the proposed residential development will be in the nature of short-term rentals which are known to create additional noise and havoc in a community. Indeed, the City knows these problems exist with respect to short-term rentals. (See, https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/local/la-quinta/2021/07/21/la-quinta-considers-noise- monitor-mandate-str-properties/8033933002/.) The DEIR has not analyzed these impacts from the short-term rentals that will be pervasive as the Wave Festival Project. This impact allowing these rentals is significant since there are no nearby short-term rentals since most are prohibited in nearby communities4. The former project, where the Wave Festival Project is proposed, envisioned a quiet golf-based community with little noise emanating from that project. The City generally enjoys a quiet noise environment, with existing community noise being dominated by highway and local traffic, intermittent aircraft flyovers, and commercial operations. The City enjoys an enviable quiet environment that must be considered and not compromised in the manner sought by Applicant. Low noise levels are a major economic asset of the City’s resort and residential atmosphere and it is precisely that reason that residents have relocated to the City. The Wave Festival Project, however, anticipates that the Applicant will conduct Special Events including concerts and hosting large-scale surfing venues with music. These issues have not been properly addressed or analyzed in the DEIR. All these elements will contribute heavily to noise pollution in the area. Noise pollution does not only adversely affect human lives. Wildlife, especially birds, are heavily impacted by increased noise pollution. Communication, mating behavior, hunting and survival instincts of animals are altered by excessive noise. As such, the City should carefully review proposals such as the Wave Festival Project which we believe to be incompatible with the quiet environment present in the City. D. Air Quality Has Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. The Wave Festival Project will also result in significantly compromised air quality in the area throughout the construction process, and potentially once the development is completed. Removal of stabilized soils and biological soil crust creates a destructive cycle of airborne particulates and erosion. As more stabilized soils are removed, blowing particulates from recently eroded areas act as abrasive catalysts that erode the remaining crusts thus resulting in more airborne particulates. 4 These short-term rentals are additionally a health concerns highlighted by the Covid-19 epidemic. Indeed, the City recently issued an executive order in connection with such rentals. (see, https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/44617/637474189355200000) In issuing this Executive Order, the City cited increased short term rental complaints and violations during Covid-19 and a desire to “retain the quality of life for City residents.” Additionally, the City had issued a moratorium on such rentals. None of these concerns have been addressed by the Applicant. Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 11 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 11 The Coachella Valley is in the Salton Sea Air Basin (“SSAB”) under South Coast Air Quality Management District jurisdiction. (DEIR, at 4.1-2.) The regional climate, as well as the temperature, wind, humidity, precipitation, and amount of sunshine significantly influence the air quality in the SSAB. Currently, state and federal air quality standards are exceeded in most parts of the SSAB. (DEIR, at 4.1-16.) Construction activities associated with the Wave Festival Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, which includes site preparation, grading, building construction paving, and architectural coating. (DEIR, at 4.1-18.) A development with this effect on emissions is unacceptable amidst the current state of our climate crisis. The Wave Festival Project could result in significant impacts health effects from air quality emissions as well considering the significant nature of the Special Events as has been outlined above. In Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (Friant Ranch, L.P.) (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, the Court held that air quality analysis must make a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences. Any consideration of air quality must address the health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from the large quantity of idling vehicles consistent with a development of the type sought by Applicant. As pointed out above, because of the transient nature of the visitors to the Wave Festival Project because of short-term rental and the significant impact of the Special Events, there will likely be many idling vehicles. The analysis of the DEIR, to actually demonstrate that there are no significant impacts to air quality, is required to “connect” adverse human health effects to the levels of pollutants that would be emitted by the Wave Festival Project. The DEIR fails to do so. E. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. The DEIR needs to go further in addressing the spike in greenhouse gas emissions during the potentially multiple year construction and because of the Special Events and short-term rentals. The Wave Festival Project will be constructed in three phases and will take approximately six (6) years to complete. (DEIR, at 4.1-19.) Due to the use of heavy construction equipment, unsafe levels of air pollutants would have an impact on the surrounding community and wildlife during that time. The presence of toxic air contaminants during construction is discussed in relation with the sensitive human receptors but ignores construction pollutant impact on wildlife and the ecosystem. For example, alpine and subalpine ecosystems could decline by as much as 60 to 80% by the end of the century because of increasing temperatures. (DEIR, Appendix I [GHG Report], p. 20.] The City may not hide behind a self-serving threshold to avoid this significant impact. F. Cumulative Impacts Have Not Been Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. As written, the DEIR also glosses over the aggregate environmental impacts of the Wave Festival Project and misleads the reader through words such as “may” and “potentially.” This Project cannot Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 12 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 12 be viewed independently from other planned developments in the region. The EIR needs to address the cumulative effects of the Wave Festival Project in relation to other nearby projects and planned developments. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15355(b).) Traffic, water demands, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and air pollution are aggregate and have cumulative effects. It would be disastrous oversight for the City to allow the Wave Festival Project to move forward without fully analyzing this Project impact in relation to the overall impact of other projects in the region that are currently in development or in the planning stages. This is especially true given the fact that the DEIR did not consider the scheduling of Special Events (not defined or discussed in the DEIR), and their otherwise enormous impact vis-à-vis other festivals in adjoining communities such as Coachella and Stagecoach and the impact of the short-term rentals (again, not addressed in the DEIR.) IV. THE DEIR IS INCONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN PROGRAMS AND LAND USE POLICIES. CEQA requires that environmental impact reports analyze the consistency of a project with applicable local plans, including General Plans. (See Napa Citizens for Honest Govt. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 386-87; 14 Cal. Code Regs. Appendix G, § IX(b).) Inconsistencies with a General Plan or other local plan goals and policies that were enacted to protect the environment are significant impacts in themselves and can also be evidence of other significant impacts. (See id.; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 929.) “The general plan is more than the legal underpinning for land use decisions; it is a vision about how a community will grow, reflecting community priorities and values while shaping the future.” (See, General Plan Guidelines; Published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf )). The City must abide by its general plan since it is, in essence the “Constitution” of the City: “[T]he general plan [is] a ‘ “constitution” for future development’ [citation] located at the top of ‘the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use’ [citation]. Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 13 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 13 The general plan consists of a ‘statement of development policies … setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals.’ [Citation.] The plan must include seven elements—land use, circulation, conservation, housing, noise, safety and open space—and address each of these elements in whatever level of detail local conditions require [citation]. General plans are also required to be ‘comprehensive [and] long[]term’ [citation] as well as ‘internally consistent.’ [Citation.] The planning law thus compels cities and counties to undergo the discipline of drafting a master plan to guide future local land use decisions.” (DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 772–773 [38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019], fn. omitted.) Since it is essentially the Constitution of the City, a general plan cannot be lightly amended. Much thought and deliberation go into the formation of the general plan and any amendment thereto. The City is well of aware of this fact and its last update its general plan took place over a period of years. (See, https://www.laquintaca.gov/business/lq2035-general-plan/documents) Key to any such updates is community participation which is integral to the update process. The City’s general plan is the 2035 La Quinta General Plan (General Plan). Here, Applicant seeks an extraordinary request from the City in connection with the Wave Festival Project, i.e., an amendment to the City’s General Plan. This request skirts and short circuits the normal procedure that the City undertakes when it amends its General Plan which involves years of deliberations and community input. Moreover, such a request short circuits the expectations of residents of the City who invest their life savings in the City in purchasing residences based on their belief that the values of the General Plan will hold true for the foreseeable future. It is for that reason the City must tread lightly and consider the request of the Applicant with great concern. Here, the Applicant requests a dramatic change to the City’s General Plan. The General Plan Amendment (GPA 2019‐0002) will amend the current General Plan land use designations from General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Open Space – Recreation to Neighborhood Commercial, Low Density Residential, Tourist Commercial, and Open Space. (DEIR, at 3.5.2.) The Wave Festival Project bears NO relationship to the development that had been originally entitled for that area. The request of the Applicant is for a wholesale change in the character of the land where they propose to build. The DEIR briefly states, “The project site is surrounded by developed residential communities…” A serious examination of the area shows The Quarry, Santerra, Coral Mountain Estates, Andalusia, and Trilogy residential communities surround the proposed location. Additionally, new home developments immediately south of the proposed location have been approved or are in review including the 57 residential Estate Collection at Coral Mountain and the 1,200 residential Travertine community—a fact omitted from the EIR. Clearly, the Wave Festival Project is a “horse of a different color” entirely and is primarily a commercial enterprise where low-density housing is slated to be built. The DEIR's analysis of the Wave Festival Project's consistency with the General Plan is fundamentally flawed. The DEIR takes the position that because amendments and minor Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 14 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 14 adjustments to the General Plan are proposed, the Wave Festival Project would be consistent with both documents, and, therefore, any conflicts with plans would be less than significant. (DEIR, at 4.10-1.) To evaluate the accuracy of this statement and the Wave Festival Project's consistency with the General Plan, the DEIR must identify the "minor adjustments" to the plan's policies. Unfortunately, the DEIR fails to provide this critical information. Moreover, in its analysis, the DEIR glosses over numerous, glaring inconsistencies to reach the contrived conclusion that the Wave Festival Project is somehow consistent with the General Plan. In addition to misinforming decision-makers and the public about the Wave Festival Project's consistency with the General Plan, this analysis underestimates the actual impacts of the Wave Festival Project and ignores some of the Wave Festival Project's most significant impacts.5 The DEIR must be revised and recirculated to provide a comprehensive and accurate analysis of all General Plan inconsistencies. Numerous goals and policies within the City are relevant to the Wave Festival Project. Many of these goals and policies are directly at odds with the Wave Festival Project. Some of the most egregious violations are discussed below. A. The Wave Festival Project is Inconsistent with General Plan Policies Pertaining to Water Usages. The General Plan embodies values and principles that recognize the importance of the water resources in the area, including maintaining water availability to provide domestic water to existing developments in the City. Despite these important principles, the DEIR fails to provide any General Plan consistency analysis for water. The following goal is indisputably linked to protecting the environment through avoiding impacts on water resources: GOAL-WR-1 GOAL-WR-1 states: “The efficient use and conservation of the City's water resources.” The General Plan acknowledges that continued growth in the City and the region has resulted in an increased demand for domestic water. As a result, CVWD extracts more water from the lower thermal subarea than is naturally recharged into it every year — a condition known as overdraft. (General Plan, p. III-58.) It further states that increased development will contribute to greater demand for water resources and the potential for continued overdraft. (Id.) 5 Additionally, the DEIR's conclusion that the Project is consistent with various General Plan goals and policies is fatally undermined by the fact that the DEIR does not contain an adequate discussion of the Project's impacts on the resources which those goals and policies are meant to protect. (See Napa Citizens for Honest Govt., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at 381.) Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 15 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 15 This Project is enormous and will require significant amount of the City’s valuable water resources. At project buildout, the Wave Festival Project could accommodate approximately 7.77 acres of Neighborhood and Wave Farm Commercial uses; 232.07 acres of Low Density Residential; 117.70 acres of Hotel/Resort uses comprised of the hotel, the Wave Lagoon, attached residential uses and various resort related amenities; and 27.01 acres of Open Space. The low-density residential land use will include 496 units of detached residential. The hotel resort land use proposes 150 hotel keys, 104 attached resort residential units and 55,000 square feet of commercial uses The 16-acre surf wave basin and lagoon will serve as the focal point of the development. The estimated total domestic water demand for indoor and outdoor use is approximately 941.03 acre- feet per year (AFY), or 2.45 acre-feet per acre. The residential indoor demand estimate is 97.22 AFY, the non-residential indoor use estimate is 42.34 AFY, and the outdoor estimate is 801.47 AFY. (WSA, p. 20.) The majority of the water use is the outdoor water demand, which equates to an outrageous 260,986,749.15 gallons of water per year. With precious water resources, a huge surf lagoon in the middle of the desert clearly does not comply with General Plan GOAL-WR-1 as an efficient use of water. The Wave Festival Project's inconsistency with this General Plan Goal constitutes a significant impact. B. The Wave Festival Project is Inconsistent with General Plan’s Policies Pertaining to Aesthetics and Light Pollution. It is undisputable that the Wave Festival Project — given the height, bulk, and scale of its proposed structures — would irreparably alter the community's character and views of the surrounding mountains. By the DEIR's own admission, the Wave Festival Project's impacts on scenic vistas, the visual character or quality of the site, scenic resources, and light and glare would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR at 1-15.) The DEIR's conclusion that the Wave Festival Project would not conflict with the General Plan policies pertaining to aesthetics would be laughable if the implications were not so ominous. Certain of the most egregious violations include: Guiding Principle: One of the guiding principles of the General Plan is to reduce light pollution. (General Plan, p. 1-3.) The Wave Festival Project is blatantly inconsistent with this principle. The Wave Festival Project proposes 80-foot-high light fixtures. The 80‐foot light fixtures proposed for the project would be located around the Wave Basin to illuminate the recreational facility during the evenings. (DEIR, at 4.1-56.) The Wave Festival Project proposes seventeen (17) 80‐foot lights, separated approximately 20 feet from each other. The light poles lie within the line of sight for motorists and pedestrians, and visible to the properties south of the Wave Festival Project. (DEIR, at 4.1-39, 4.1-41.) Even worse, the lights will operate from dust to 10 PM. (Id.) As opined by Minagar & Associates in their comment letter of August 2, 2021 (see, Exhibit 3), the analysis contained in the DEIR is defective in several respects: Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 16 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 16 Providing the right lighting solution for an exterior application should take into consideration glare, along with the specific site requirements for spacing, efficiency, and visual comfort. Current means of measuring glare in exterior applications are not fully defined or comprehensive. Ways to is by the following: Shielding, diffusion, selection of warm CCTs, and reducing contrast of the Effective Luminous Area. Reducing glare may reduce the efficiency of the luminaire and the spacing, height which were not addressed in this DEIR report nor in Appendix B due to cost and potential redesign of the project. We have to bear in mind that, the level of glare that an individual experiences is highly subjective. Therefore, the designers should install mock-ups in order to confirm adequate performance and visual comfort of the concerned parties affected by such installation. Shielding and Diffusion in LED Luminaires has not been explored in the DEIR report nor in Appendix B. There is no alternative solution/ study provided for the intensity from the luminaire, the number of luminaires, the size of the luminaire, and the height or the angle of the luminaire. The proposed lighting plan does not provide any gradients. It immediately changes between dark and bright. For older residents/visitors in the surrounding area of the proposed project site, it will inevitably create a lot of discomforts especially bothering some individual’s eyes. Nor does the DEIR address concerns that are specific to the City and desert conditions. The City is regularly buffeted by high winds. As a result, there is silica particulate blown about in the area of the proposed project. That particulate is highly reflective. Nowhere in the DEIR does the Applicant address this important issue. The DEIR did not, then, properly analyze the light and glare emanating from the enormous 80-foot towers that will be constructed. There are no actual mockups of the proposed towers that would provide real and credible analysis of their impacts, for example. Moreover, the analysis of the DEIR did not consider the darkened skies of the surrounding environment in the Coachella Valley. It is a much-hallowed quality that municipalities and homeowner’s associations go to great lengths to make certain that ambient light is dampened or eliminated, e.g., some communities prohibit or limit light posts. This darkened atmosphere opens the night skies to the beauty of illuminating stars. These darkened skies then are a particularly bad backdrop from the glare that will most assuredly emanate from the 80-foot light towers that Applicant proposes especially when windstorm lift reflective particulate into the air. The light and glare generated from the fixtures would result in significant impacts and is in direct contrast to the City’s principle to reduce light pollution. GOAL OS-3: Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 17 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 17 Goal OS-3 states the importance of the preservation of scenic resources as vital contributors to the city's economic health and overall quality of life. (General Plan, at 11-30.) The Wave Festival Project causes a significant change in the visual character of the area from a single‐ story residential and golf environment to a hotel and Wave Basin facility. As determined in the line-of-sight analyses and visual simulations, the project site will result in the partial obstruction of views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains, depending on location and viewpoint. Therefore, development of the project property would result in obstructed and partially obstructed views of these scenic resources. (DEIR, at 4.1-44.) The Wave Festival Project's clear inconsistency with this General Plan Goal constitutes a significant impact. Policy LU-2.3: Policy LU-2.3 states that the City's outdoor lighting ordinance will be maintained. The La Quinta Municipal Code (“LQMC”) Section 9.100.150, Outdoor Lighting, is intended to provide standards for outdoor lighting which allow adequate energy efficient lighting for public safety while minimizing adverse effect of lighting, such as lighting which has a detrimental effect on astronomical observations; inefficiently utilizes scarce electrical energy; and/or creates a public nuisance or safety hazard. As set forth above, the Wave Festival Project site, which is currently undeveloped and vacant, provides largely unobstructed views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains from public rights‐of‐ways. (DEIR, at 4.1-72.) However, because of the enormous light poles around the Wave Basin, it will create an unsafe glaring off the roads where cars travel. The Wave Basin lights will be projected until 10 p.m. at night. The bright lights at the Wave Basin in the evening hours will clearly conflict with the City’s policy for public safety under the LQMC outdoor lighting ordinance. C. The Wave Festival Project is Inconsistent with General Plan Policies Pertaining to Noise Pollution. Notwithstanding the fact that the Wave Festival Project would result in significant noise pollution, the DEIR identifies it as “less than significant.” Moreover, it never bothers to analyze the Wave Festival Project's consistency with the following General Plan policies: Guiding Principle: One of the guiding principles of the General Plan is to reduce noise pollution. (General Plan, p. 1- 3.) The City's ongoing efforts to preserve the quality of life for all its residents, present and future, must include the protection of a quiet noise environment. The Wave Festival Project is clearly inconsistent with this principle. There are both operational and construction noise impacts associated with this Project. For example, the Wave Basin and associated machinery/facilities will cause operational noise impacts. Prior to Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 18 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 18 each wave, the control tower announces the event over the public address system. (DEIR, Appendix K.1 [Noise Study], at p. 73.) This is followed by the noise generated from the movement of the sled and an increase in noise levels from the mechanical equipment buildings. As the sled moves through the lagoon, noise from the cable and metal rollers is clearly audible. (Id.) During peak wave events, the Wave Basin generates noise levels ranging from 62.6 dBA Leq at end of the lagoon, 73.8 dBA Leq in the lifeguard tower and 75.7 dBA Leq near the cable roller system. (Id.) There are also serious noise levels concerns associated with outdoor hotel pool and spa activity. These noise activities include the waterfall, people talking, and children and adults swimming and playing in a pool. The measured reference noise level at 50 feet is 57.8 dBA Leq. (Id. at p. 75.) In addition, there is noise level impacts associated with the Wave Festival Project’s outdoor or beach club activities, including parents speaking on cell phones, kids playing, and background youth soccer games, with coaches shouting instructions and people cheering and clapping. The special events will also contribute to additional noise. The Noise Study estimated the playground activity noise level to be 43.4 dBA Leq. (Id.) Finally, there is noise level impacts associated the proposed neighborhood commercial center. The noise level measurements collected show a peak hourly noise level of 54.8 dBA Leq when measured at 50 feet. (Id.) All the operational noise impacts exceed 219.3 dBA Leq. There are also construction-related impacts associated with the Wave Festival Project, which includes combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to more than 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet. (Id. at p. 81.) Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. The Wave Festival Project is inconsistent with this general principle of reducing noise pollution. As discussed above, the operational and construction noise impacts would affect human lives, as well as wildlife. The DEIR cannot simply ignore this very real threat to public safety. GOAL N-1 GOAL N-1 states as follows: “A helpful noise environment which complements the City's residential and resort character.” The primary source of noise in the City is traffic. (General Plan, p. IV-4.) Traffic generated by the operation of the Wave Festival Project will influence the traffic noise levels in surrounding off-site areas. (DEIR, Appendix K.1 [Noise Study], at p. 1.) The DEIR acknowledges that the Wave Festival Project-related noise level increases are considered “potentially significant” for Avenue 58 and Madison Street. (Id.) In addition to the resort itself, there will be increased traffic from construction and special events. The Wave Festival Project's inconsistency with these General Plan principles and goals constitutes a significant impact. Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 19 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 19 D. The Wave Festival Project is Inconsistent with General Plan Policies Pertaining to Transportation. If implemented, the Wave Festival Project would be directly at odds with the General Plan's fundamental principles that development only be allowed in areas where the circulation and transportation system capacity can accommodate such development. One of the guiding principles in the General Plan is to “[p]romote and encourage a broad range of transportation opportunities, especially those that reduce the impact to our environment, as well as effectively moving people and goods. Continue to work closely with neighboring communities and regional agencies to address regional transportation issues.” (General Plan, at p. I-3.) The General Plan includes numerous guiding policies centered on these themes, including, but not limited to: Policy CIR-1.12 Policy CIR-1-1.12 states as follows: “As a means of reducing the vehicular traffic on major roadways and to reduce vehicle miles traveled by traffic originating in the City, the City shall pursue development of a land use pattern that maximizes interactions between adjacent or nearby land uses.” (General Plan, at p. II-126.) In direct violation of Policy CIR-1.12, if the Wave Festival Project is approved, the City would be allowing significant and unavoidable traffic impacts on local and regional highways. The Wave Festival Project is inconsistent with this General Plan Policy which also constitutes a significant impact. Policy CIR-2.1 Policy CIR-2.1 states as follows: “Encourage and cooperate with SunLine Transit Agency on the expansion of routes, facilities, services and ridership especially in congested areas and those with high levels of employment and commercial services and encourage the use of most energy efficient and least polluting transportation technologies.” (General Plan, at p. II-128 — II-129.) Within this Policy are several program goals, including: Program CIR-2.1.a: Consult and coordinate with the SunLine Transit Agency on immediate and long-term transit issues and assure pro active representation on the Agency Board and its decision making process. * * * Program CIR-2.1.c: When reviewing development proposals, consult and coordinate with SunLine and solicit comments and suggestions on how bus stops and other public transit facilities and design concepts, including enhanced handicapped access, should be integrated into project designs. Program CIR-2.1.d: When reviewing large-scale development proposals, consult and coordinate with SunLine to encourage the development of rideshare and other Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 20 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 20 alternative, high occupancy transit programs for employers with sufficient numbers of employees. (Id. at II-129.) The DEIR simply states that “bus facilities are not located within the project study area.” (DEIR, at 4.13-8.) It makes no mention of consulting with the SunLine Transit Agency or evaluating on ways that transit services could be incorporated into the Wave Festival Project. In fact, the DEIR provides no indication that the Wave Festival Project would result in an increase in transit mode share. Based on the Coral Mountain Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis (Appendix L.2), the Wave Festival Project has an estimated service population (SP) of 1,698 residents, 434 employees associated with the hotel use, 240 employees associated with the retail use, and approximately 300 hotel occupants for a total service population of 2,672. (DEIR, at 4.7-9.) With this type of large-scale project, it is imperative that transit programs are evaluated in more detail. Policy CIR-2.2 Policy CIR-2.2 states as follows: “Encourage reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by reducing vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours of delay by increasing or encouraging the use of alternative modes and transportation technologies, and implement and manage a hierarchy of Complete Street multimodal transportation infrastructure and programs to deliver improved mobility and reduce GHG emissions.” (General Plan, at p. II-129.) As set forth above, the DEIR is inadequate in its evaluation of alternative modes of transportation. The DEIR states that the Wave Festival Project includes Project Design Features (PDFs) that effectively reduce air quality and GHG emissions. (DEIR, at 7-6.) It goes on to list a few programs, such as employer-sponsored shuttles, and commute trip reduction program. (Id.) However, the DEIR provides very little detail on how these programs would be implemented. Without providing any details, it is unclear whether it complies with Policy CIR-2.2 of the General Plan. The Wave Festival Project is in clear violation of these General Plan Policies. The DEIR provides no indication that the Wave Festival Project would result in an increase in transit mode share. Rather than meeting recreational demand with transit service, the Wave Festival Project would likely be completely auto-based. In addition, the Wave Festival Project would result in a significant impact on local transit service providers for which the DEIR does not identify adequate mitigation. The Wave Festival Project is inconsistent with this General Plan Policy which also constitutes a significant impact. CONCLUSION Jon McMillen, City Manager Cheri Flores. Planning Manager Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner August 6, 2021 Page 21 SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP Palm Springs, CA T (760) 322-2275 Indian Wells, CA T (760) 322- 9240 Costa Mesa, CA T (714) 435-9592 San Diego, CA T (619) 501-4540 Princeton, NJ T (609) 955-3393 New York, NY T (212) 829-4399 www.sbemp.com 21 We are concerned on several fronts that a project of the magnitude and impact of the Wave Festival Project is being considered without sufficient consideration being given to its significant environmental impact to the City and its residents. Moreover, we are concerned that the City is running afoul of its requirements to conduct a thorough and meaningful analysis of the Wave Festival Project as required by California law and by its own General Plan. Before the Wave Festival Project can even be considered, then, there must be a credible analysis of its environmental impact. That critical analysis has not been performed. Sincerely, Bruce T. Bauer, Esq. Enclosures Ex. 1 – Minagar & Associates, Inc. Resume Ex. 2 - August 3, 2021, Minagar & Associates, Inc comment letter re traffic Ex. 3 - August 2, 2021, Minagar & Associates, Inc comment letter re sound CC: Linda Evans, Mayor (levans@laquintaca.gov) Dr. Robert Radi, Mayor Pro Tem (rradi@laquintaca.gov) John Peña, Council Member (jpena@laquintaca.gov) Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Council Member (kfitzpartick@laquintaca.gov) Steve Sanchez, Council Member (ssanchez@laquintaca.gov) Comments regarding DEIR Section 4.15 Utilities and Service Systems In the CVWD Water Assessment, Coral Mountain surf pool replenishment is listed at 39 million gallons yearly. CVWD does not have knowledge of coefficients to account for evaporation due to Wave Action at the time of their Water Assessment. In addition, the increasing number of days of wind action in the Coachella Valley will cause additional evaporation. (If required, Alena Callimanis can provide additional information on the number of high wind days in Coachella Valley). Water evaporation calculations by CVWD are based on a standard factor of 1.2 for moving water and pan evaporation numbers from 2005. In 2005, when these calculations concluded, we only had 99 days over 100 degrees. Therefore, in order to determine the amount of water required, the DEIR must look at the following information: 1) The World Surf League, which purchased Kelly Slater wave technology, wrote that on very hot days at Lemoore Surf Ranch, the pool lost 250,000 gallons a day. It is valid to accept this as a minimum number to be used for La Quinta, because Lemoore is in Kings County where the evapoTranspiration rate is lower than our area. Since the La Quinta evapoTranspiration Rate would dictate a higher rate of evaporation than Lemoore, we are actually looking at higher than 250,000 gallons per day of evaporation. Lemoore had 27 days over 100 degrees in 2020 with hottest temperature of 107 degrees. La Quinta had 143 days over 100 degrees in 2020. The first part of a new calculation can use 250,000 gallons a day times 143 hot days. This equals 36 million gallons lost to evaporation in 143 days. This does not account for an additional 222 days of the year. But considering we had 56 days over 110 degrees in 2020, it should be reasonable to expect that on the days over 110 degrees, evaporation should be higher than 250,000 gallons. Should we calculate that at 300,000 gallons? Especially considering our ETo is higher than Lemoore. What about the rest of the 222 days of the year? We had 51 days over 90 degrees as part of that 222 days. The DEIR must use numbers that reflect actual wave pool evaporations and not outdated evaporation methods. It must include calculations based on known evaporations from wave pools. 2) The DEIR must account for the additional windy days which add to evaporation. Many sites on line provide ways to account for actual wind evaporation. This must be included. Respectfully, Alena Callimanis 81469 Rustic Canyon Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 919 606-6164 acallimanis@gmail.com We have been told that there will be no “light pollution”. However, this picture was taken from 58th Street and shows the light impact from Bagdouma Park in Coachella, over five miles from the Coral Mountain site. Due to the nature of fine sand particles in the air in the Desert, light will always appear like this. And since the residents are significantly closer to Coral Mountain than Bagdouma Park we will have significant light pollution from the seventeen 80 feet light poles. By the way, the poles at the Park are only 60 feet height. So the light impact will be significant to the surrounding developments In addition, please also provide information on wind tunnel tests that have been performed on the lights to ensure that during our wind events, the poles will not snap or bend and cause injuries. Lisa Castro, the resident adjacent to the surf basin, has stated for the record to the City Council that Coral Mountain causes a wind tunnel effect in this area. She has recorded significant wind events and can provide that information if requested. Respectfully, Alena Callimanis 81469 Rustic Canyon Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 919 606-6164 acallimanis@gmail.com Section 4.6 Geology and Soils A full study must be completed on this site due to the fact that the surf lagoon has a still water level that is as much as 9 ft (2.75 m) deep in the center. 9 ft of water weighs 562 pounds per square foot (psf), which is a very heavy load (a uniform freeway load is only 250 psf, as comparison). The load will fluctuate with the wave and will cause a dynamic loading. A geotechnical engineer needs to provide an analysis to determine the potential impact of this loading on the soil at this site. The site is located in relatively close proximity of potentially active seismic faults and pressures due to seismic forces. The geotechnical engineer needs to address equivalent fluid pressure for lateral seismic forces at this site, and to be added to the geology and soils discussion. Meriwether has discussed that they recorded the Kelly Slater wave pool in Lemoore for seismic information and found no impact. This is not what is required here at the Wave Basin site in La Quinta. An independent geotechnical engineer, who has not worked with Meriwether in the past and has been vetted by us, must provide the information requested above that is required to be included in the EIR due to this location, not Lemoore. Alena Callimanis 81469 Rustic Canyon Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 919 606-6164 acallimanis@gmail.com Section 4.5 states that the project would be .19 percent of IID’s total estimated demand in 2031. We are not interested in the demand in 2031. We are interested in the demand when the Wave Park is operating 7AM to 10pm, 365 days a year, in 2023. Please provide information from IID that states that power will be available at that rate required for the wave machinery in 2023. In addition, with IID’s aggressive peak demand energy efficiency programs, we would like to see incorporated into the EIR that IID understands that the Wave Park’s peak hours of energy demand will be 6pm to 10pm, especially in the summer during our extreme heat and how IID and the Coral Mountain project plans to address that. In addition, section 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, references greenhouse gas credits but bypasses the actual discussion of the significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions as the result of the huge amount of electricity that is required to be produced to generate waves by the Wave Pool machinery, from 7AM to 10PM, 365 days per year. We want a full accounting in the EIR of the greenhouse gas emissions, both from electrical power creation, and from the cement production required for the 16.7 acres wave basin. Alena Callimanis 81469 Rustic Canyon Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 919 606-6164 acallimanis@gmail.com With regards to the project noise levels, Section 4.11, we demand a noise evaluation to be conducted on the Coral Mountain site, in order to determine the actual noise impact of the project. There has been a significant amount of La Quinta City Council Public Hearing Comments on noise that is propagated currently throughout the communities that are around Coral Mountain, including hikers conversations, shooting noises from the Lake Cahuilla Police Shooting range, car noises, and numerous other examples. The Urban Crossroads Noise Memo, dated April 20, 2020, states that Coral Mountain is likely to absorb, rather than reflect noise. This is an Environmental Impact Report. A speculative comment like that has no place in the EIR. The new noise evaluation must be made directly on site so that the noise impact can be properly evaluated, both during the day and during the hours of 8pm to 10pm. There must be an independent sound advisor available during the study so that we are comfortable with the results. The importance of this cannot be brushed aside by an evaluation that is determined by computer simulations. Even though sensors were placed around the Coral Mountain site to record pre-existing sound conditions, that cannot be used to predict the actual noise levels on site. Please inform me when this is scheduled so that we make sure an independent noise consultant will be able to join the analysis. Respectfully, Alena Callimanis 81469 Rustic Canyon Dr. La Quinta, CA 92253 919 606-6164 acallimanis@gmail.com I have significant concerns about the undercalculation of the use of chlorine at the Wave Basin. With our excessively high temperatures, the risk of warmer water means more chlorine demand. Both living and non-living contaminants are more prevalent in warmer water. Algae, bacteria and brain-eating amoebas, for instance, are living contaminants that chlorine must kill. Warmer water means those microorganisms can reproduce more rapidly, therefore problems like algae and bacteria are more prevalent in the summertime. To kill any living organism, chlorine needs a certain amount of contact time (CT). Hotter days mean more non-living organics in the water, like sunscreen and body oils. Between these organics and the living contaminants like algae and bacteria, warm water has a higher chlorine demand than cold water. For example, dosing at 5ppm/day, chlorine consumption could be 1,100lbs/day of 68% briquettes. This is a significant amount of chlorine that needs to be kept on site. What are the precautions that are being taken to safely house this significant amount of chlorine? To keep it cool? I am concerned that the filtration systems will not be able to circulate the water an adequate amount. In our excessive high temperatures, if full pool circulation through the filtering system takes significantly longer than once per day, there is a high risk of not properly removing all contaminants. This poses a danger to the health and safety of surfers and people in the pool. I would like to understand more fully in the EIR how the developer will address the chlorine and filtration required at the excessively hot water temperatures found here (pool temperatures have been between 93 and 97 degrees, with no cooling relief overnight). This is a big risk to the health and safety of all surfers/people in the water, that must be addressed. Respectfully, Alena Callimanis 81469 Rustic Canyon Dr La Quinta, CA 92253 919 606-6164 Friday, August 6, 2021 at 15:02:00 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort - WavePark - Response/Comments to the EIR Date:Friday, August 6, 2021 at 2:51:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Mary Greening To:consulLngplanner@laquintaca.gov CC:Dan Greening, Mary Greening Thank you for the opportunity to provide commentary on the EIR for the Coral Mountain Wave Project. As 15 year homeowners at Andalusia CC, we have enjoyed the serenity of this part of La Quinta, and believe the proposed waterpark development is not in sync with other developments in the area. We support the following alternaLve considered for evaluaLon, in order of preference: AlternaLve #2 – No Project/ExisLng EnLtlements AlternaLve 4 – The Golf/Resort Hotel AlternaLve AlternaLve 5 – The lake amenity/No Hotel AlternaLve 3 – Reduced Density AlternaLve If the project conLnues, we would like to voice the following issues/concerns: Visibility/LighFng: We are very concerned about the lights that will be visible from the top viewing levels of the hotel. A 4-story structure is significantly above the predominantly single level only housing in the area, and the top of the building and its lights would be visible from adjacent neighborhoods. We are even more concerned about the 80’ proposed lights over the wave park. These towers would not only be visible from a distance, even unlight, but would also impact views of the mountain and the night sky. Noise This neighborhood is very quiet. We can hear the cars from the Thermal Club, which is much further away than the proposed project. Our concerns are: - Traffic noise on Madison - Noise from the filtering and heaLng system for the wave park (which we couldn’t find addressed in the EIR). The waterpark will need to be heated much of the year, and filtering will be constant - Noise from the announcers - Noise from spectators - Noise from special events Traffic We believe there should be 2 main entrances into the development – one as proposed, which would serve only residents, and a second, which would be off Madison in the south end of Sec. II, which would serve the hotel, wave park, tourists. We are very concerned about the increased traffic levels, parLcularly during special events. We also do not want traffic light(s), now or in the future, on Madison at 58th, 60th, or inbetween Hours of OperaFon The hours of operaLon should be reduced. We would propose an opening no earlier than 8 am, with a closure from Page 2 of 2 October through February no later than 7 pm, and from March through September of 8 pm. With lights doused at the wavepark and on the viewing area of the hotel at these hours, there would be much less impact of lights on nearby communiLes. Special Events We would prefer no special events, but if they are to be allowed, we would propose that they never be held during any concert, art, or other main event at the polo grounds, and not during athleLc events like the bike tour, triathalons, etc. OperaFons during Wind Events Cancel operaLons if winds are > 20 mph or gusts > 25 mph. We have high gust rates in this area even when winds are in the 20's due to the currents coming down the mountains Border Wall and Landscaping A wall higher than normal would help reduce noise. PlanLng of large trees such as palms, Lpuana’s, etc. on the exterior and interior would reduce visibility of the hotel, lights, etc. Thank you. We look forward to receiving updates on the review and approval process. Please add us to your mailing list. Dan Greening - dan@dmgreening.com Mary Greening - mary@dmgreening.com 58385 Mijas La Quinta, CA 92253 -- Mary Greening mary@dmgreening.com 760-777-1831 (home) 760-238-1911 (cell) !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Coral Mountain Resort DEIR %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Tue 10/5/2021 2:32 AM Fri 8/6/2021 2:32 AM ** 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. ** Attn: Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta It is with great dismay I begin this letter in response to the DEIR on the proposed Coral Mountain Resort. I really don't know where to begin. The DEIR is way too long for the La Quinta average citizen to read which I believe is by design. There are so very many things wrong about this project but when speaking specifically about the DEIR, I am seeing way too many statements of the impact in any given category being unknown or only being projected based on years old data. The drought situation alone should be enough to stop this project. Farmers will not have enough water to grow food in CA. This translates to hunger, unemployment, and a tanked economy. Why approve a project that will leave a hole in the ground when there is no water to be had? Will LQ residents need to conserve and thirst, not bathe, so we can have a recreational wave park? Everything is wrong about this proposed project, everything. From water waste to increased noise to a horrendous number of STVRs, which are already a huge problem for La Quinta, this project cannot go forward. What about the 2035 La Quinta report, written and approved by the Mayor and Council, that states good use of valuable resources as a prime goal? This project would not comply with any good use of resources, especially water. Sincerely, Carol Jensen La Quinta Homeowner J J <lqtampico@yahoo.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 8/6/21, 8:00 AM !"Reply all #Delete $Junk Block Re: Wave Park Development %You replied on Fri 8/6/2021 12:40 PM %Label: 60 Days Delete (60 days) Expires: Tue 10/5/2021 11:56 AM Fri 8/6/2021 11:56 AM ** 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. ** On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:54 AM Suzanne Kahn <suzanne@coral-zone.com> wrote: Please do not approve the Wave Park development. Increased use of water, increased traffic resulting in increased emissions will simply increase the stress on an environment that is already growing drier and hotter. Please plan for being responsible and sustainable in the long term. Suzanne Kahn 56885 Mountain View La Quinta, CA 92253 SK Suzanne Kahn <suzanne@coral-zone.com>&’"() To: Consulting Planner Reply Forward ) Mail - Consulting Planner - Outlook https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=202107... 1 of 1 8/6/21, 12:41 PM Friday, August 6, 2021 at 13:36:25 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:Re: Coral Mountain Resort DEIR Date:Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:35:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:FRANCINE Roy To:ConsulFng Planner Hi, I am making a correction to my letter. I erroneously referenced the IID ... I meant the Coachella Valley Water District. Sorry about that. Francine Roy On 08/06/2021 12:54 PM ConsulFng Planner <consulFngplanner@laquintaca.gov> wrote: Ms. Roy, Thank you for your comments. Nicole Sauviat Criste ConsulFng Planner City of La Quinta From: FRANCINE Roy <fmroy@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 11:01 AM To: ConsulFng Planner <ConsulFngPlanner@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Coral Mountain Resort DEIR ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and cauFon when opening aYachments, clicking links or responding to requests for informaFon. ** Dear Planning Commission, I am writing this letter to you because I am in a state of shock.... Why would you even CONSIDER changing the current zoning to allow a project Page 2 of 2 that goes against ALL COMMON SENSE? The residents who purchased homes near this project site BELIEVED that the "worst case scenario" they would ever have to deal with was what the current zoning allows: "LOW-DENSITY residential use, as well as a golf course and some commercial use." The proposed change to allow "tourist commercial" zoning violates the 2035 general plan for La Quinta. So, tell me, what was the point of spending all of the time, money and effort to come up with the 2035 general plan if you were going to be tempted to go against that plan when a project came along that dangled a couple of million dollars of tax revenue in front of you that doesn't make any sense on MANY levels! We all choose to live here because we enjoy the night sky, the quiet, the nature, the landscape, the small amount of trafﬁc we have, etc. But, the reality of climate change is that we are all very concerned about how long we will have drinking water available to us. The IID has asked us all to conserve water and I know I am doing my share to USE LESS than their recommended amount. This wave park will require 18,000,000 gallons of DRINKING WATER JUST TO FILL IT UP. This does not include "topping it off" every day because of evaporation loss. This does not sound like "conserving water" to me. Since I moved here, I have been reading about the issues with Short Term Rentals. This project is planning on making all 600 homes available as Short Term Rentals!!!! How can you justify allowing this? At the very least, 600 homes does not sound like "low density" to me!. What this beautiful parcel of land needs is a developer who wants to put in some beautiful energy efﬁcient homes, some hiking and biking trails that WE CAN ALL ENJOY, maybe a beautiful park with drought tolerant natural landscaping (no golf course .... there are already too many golf courses that are using up water resources) and a small commercial area where there could be a market, a cafe, a restaurant, etc. for the residents that live in that part of La Quinta since it's a drive just to get groceries. Please, please realize that this developer is "slick." He seems to have an answer for everything. The project doesn't make sense for our community nor do I think it even makes sense for him but that's a different discussion ... Last but not least, I'm very conﬁdent that the City of La Quinta would be "featured" on the CBS Evening News if this project is approved. I can hear it now ... "City of La Quinta approves a private wave park project in the midst of a historical drought and climate change!" Do we really need that kind of negative publicity??? I'd rather we be admired for spearheading energy-efﬁcient projects and protecting our decreasing natural resources. Page 3 of 2 This is not the right place nor the right time for this project. Respectfully, Francine Roy 80028 Silver Sage Lane La Quinta, CA 92253 Friday, August 6, 2021 at 13:44:33 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 4 Subject:RE: Response to Dra. EIR Coral Mountain Date:Friday, August 6, 2021 at 1:41:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time From:Cheri Flores To:Carolyn Winnor CC:Nicole Criste, Linda Evans, Robert Radi, Kathleen Fitzpatrick, John Pena, Steve Sanchez, Danny Castro, Jon McMillen ADachments:image001.png Hello Ms. Winnor, Thank you for your comments. They will be included with the materials providedfor the Planning Commission and the City Council when the project is scheduledfor public hearings. Have a wonderful day. Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Ph. 760-777-7067 www.laquintaca.gov PLEASE NOTE: City Hall is now open to the public during normal business hours: Monday through Thursday from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Counter closes at 4:30 p.m. daily), with the exception of nationally observed holidays. 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. From: Carolyn Winnor <cwinnor@dc.rr.com> Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 1:22 PM To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov> Cc: cdd@la-quinta.org; Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>; Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>; Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>; John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>; Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Response to Dra. EIR 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. ** August 6, 2021 Sent VIA Email Cherri Flores, Planning Manager clflores@laquintaca.gov Page 2 of 4 Response to Dra. EIR Coral Mountain Dear Ms. Flores My name is Carolyn Winnor and my husband and I have lived in Trilogy La Quinta, for 16 years. Moved to La Quinta a.er we re^red to get away from the conges^on of Los Angeles County, having lived in Santa Clarita for 24 years. I am strongly Opposed to the rezoning of Coral Mountain from low density residen^al to Tourist/Commercial. I have read por^ons of the DEIR and I believe the City needs to do addi^onal research regarding the Ligh^ng, Noise and Water Usage that a project of this magnitude requires. I am sure you are aware of the La Quinta General Plan 2035. Below are some excerpts from the plan and you may consider my opinions as NIMBY; not sure how they couldn’t be, when the developer wants to have the property rezoned to Tourist/Commercial in the middle of a Low Density Residen^al area. I understand the need for the City to look for addi^onal tax dollars, but I think considera^on is required on how this will affect your cons^tuents and even you, if you lived in or near South East La Quinta. The DEIR considers the items below: Significant and Unavoidable (Execu^ve Summary Page 1-15) Table 1-3. These are admi_ed faults that cannot be addressed or mi^gated. 4.1 Aesthe^cs 1. Adverse effect on scenic vistas 2. Degrada^on to the visual character or quality of the site. 3. Light and Glare La Quinta General Plan 2035 Land Use Zoning Consistency To assure consistency and compa^bility between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance Table II--2 shows the Zoning districts that correspond to each land use designa^on. Tourist Commercial This land use designa^on is specifically geared to tourism- related land uses, such as resort hotels, hotels and motels, and resort commercial development, such as conference centers, restaurants, resort-- suppor^ng retail and services (including day spas and similar personal services). Time share, frac^onal ownership or similar projects may also be appropriate in this designa^on, with the approval of a Condi^onal Use Permit. For this project to be built on the land purchased by Meriwether it will need to be rezoned to Tourist Commercial. The developments surrounding this land are zoned Low Density Residen^al. Based on LQ 2035 Land Use, there is no consistency or compaNbility between T/C & Low Density ResidenNal. Ligh^ng Page 4-1-54 Table 4-1-8 PA The ligh^ng for this project is consistent with commercial property located on Highway 111. Lights le. on during nighome hours, height, in the Resort 25’, Wave Club 25’, Farm 40’ and Back of House 40’. The only lights currently addressed that will be on un^l 10 pm, are the 80’ Wave lights. The LQ Municipal Code for Ligh^ng, pole height 8’. Is this consistent or compa^ble with Low Density Residen^al Property? NO. The DEIR considers, this is significant and unavoidable. Building Heights Page 4-1-54 Table 4-1-8 PA The Resort 4 stories at 40’, Wave plaqorm 4 stories at 45’, Wave Club 3 stories at 40’ E &.W Resort Residen^al 3 stories at 30 ‘, Farm 3 stories at 40’ and Back of House 2 stories at 30’. The LQ Municipal Code 2 stories at 28’. Is this consistent or compa^ble with Low Density Residen^al Property? NO. The DEIR considers, this is significant and unavoidable. Page 3 of 4 Noise – The DEIR used the dBA recorded at the Kelly Slater Le Moore Wave Pool, not on the proposed property, next to Coral Mountain. The DEIR states the surface of Coral Mountain is so. and sound will not travel (totally erroneous). I live in Trilogy, La Quinta and I can hear gun shots from the shoo^ng range near Lake Cahuilla. On Sunday mornings I can hear the cars on the track at the Thermal Race Track. Sound carries in the desert and especially during the evenings and at night. I believe the City needs to address how the sound will carry near Coral Mountain. Not just the sounds that make the Wave, but record the dBa of jet skis, music at the volume they plan on using, any announcements from loud speakers, etc. I have watched many videos of Wave Pools and they put music on the videos, or voice overs, people making commentaries but NEVER do you hear the actual sounds at the Wave Pool and its surroundings. Why? Appendix K.2 Noise Memo Report Urban Crossroads See Page 76 Table 10-1 Reference Noise Level Measurements. Please read where and when these noise levels were measured. Why hasn’t the noise levels been measured on the proposed site? Noise Level Chart: 4/13/2020 Surf Ranch Lemoore, Ca 3/16/2005 Wes^n Hotel Rancho Mirage, CA 10/8/2014 Founder’s Park in County of Orange 4/18/2018 Ramon Commercial Center See Page. 93-94 9.100.210 La Quinta Municipal Code Non ResidenNal Noise RegulaNons The quiet low density residenNal neighborhoods, will now have to live with NON ResidenNal Noise standards? Water Usage – I believe the evapora^on of water needs to be addressed by the City, so we will actually know the water consump^on of the Wave. The developer claims Los Angeles is only 2 hours from La Quinta, who then will be coming to La Quinta during the summer months where the temperature ranges from 110-120 degrees and the lows are between 85-95 degrees at night? Individuals can go surfing at the beach with water and air temperatures between 65-70, actually closer than 2 hours from Los Angeles. What happens if the fad of the Wave is over in 3 to 5 years or financially without summer usage the Wave fails? What is La Quinta and the residents of South East La Quinta le. with? Who will be responsible to rehab the land? If this project goes forward, it will forever change South La Quinta from a quiet residen^al area to a bustling Tourist area, with lights 25’ to 80’ tall, unnecessary water usage, addi^onal traffic, 600 STVR, 150 Hotel Rooms, noise (Jet skis, music, loudspeakers and alarms) 24/7/365 days a year, not to men^on a minimum of 4 Special Events, did I say addi^onal traffic? Please listen to the Residents that will be forced to live in this constant fes^val like environment and say NO to rezoning the property to Tourist/Commercial. Thank you, Carolyn Winnor 81134 Barrel Cactus Rd. La Quinta, CA 92253 La Quinta Planning Commission E-mail: cdd@la-quinta.org La Quinta City Council Linda Evans. Mayor E-mail: levans@laquintaca.gov Robert Radi, Mayor Pro Tem E-mail: rradi@laquintaca.gov Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Council Member E-mail: kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov John Pena, Council Member E-mail: jpena@laquintaca.gov Steve Sanchez, Council Member E-mail: ssanchez@laquintaca.gov Page 4 of 4 Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 08:54:38 Pacific Daylight Time Page 1 of 2 Subject:Coral Mountain Resort DEIR Date:Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 8:47:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time From:Brian Levy To:Nicole Criste To: Ms. Nicole Criste City of La Quinta - Planning Department This email is from Brian and Gail Levy - we live in Trilogy at Avenue 60 & Madison. We reSred to live here in 2014 to enjoy the beauSful, quiet, and peaceful La Quinta neighborhood in and about Trilogy. We previously spent many years as part-Sme Palm Springs vacaSoners, and have owned property there since 1979. Having spent decades vacaSoning in and about Palm Springs, we decided to reSre to live in our beauSful and quiet La Quinta neighborhood. We are vehemently opposed to the proposed wave park for a number of reasons, which are summarized below: 1: We are living in a criScal drought situaSon while experiencing increasing wildfires. Water for firefighSng and sustaining life is in an increasingly short supply. We believe that building a wave park during an increasing water shortage while experiencing increasing wildfires is irresponsible and self-serving to the financial interests of a few, rather than the greater good of the La Quinta community; 2: We believe that the addiSonal noise and added traffic will negaSvely impact our residenSal neighborhood forever. Can our neighborhood tolerate more traffic and noise? Maybe. Is addiSonal traffic and noise from a commercial resort within our residenSal community a good idea? NO. Residents frequently walk and bike ride on Madison between Avenue 60 and the fire department. More traffic from the proposed commercial wave park is not a good idea for this residenSal neighborhood. Further, the proposed size of this wave park in this specific mountain locaSon is unlike any other in existence, and as a result, reliable and predictable noise paberns hypothecated in the pending DEIR are extremely speculaSve and therefore unreliable. The DEIR in and of itself was not well wriben, and the assumpSons uSlized were not clearly spelled out; 3: What if the developers are wrong, and the wave park is not a financial success? What if the project cannot be financially sustained long term, and the wave park shuts down? What then? What will be led behind will be a blight on our community, and a regreeul legacy for this city who valued proposed addiSonal revenue over quality of life for its residents; 4: When we purchased our home in Trilogy, we intended to spend our reSrement living in this community and enjoying the many benefits that our La Quinta neighborhood has to offer. The approval of the commercial wave park project will be a permanent change to our residenSal neighborhood and signal to us that we should no longer conSnue to live in La Quinta because La Quinta no longer values the quality of our lives and this neighborhood. It is our belief that the only good that can come from the commercial wave park will be the potenSal financial gain for the developers and investors. This may be a good commercial project for the investors, but this residenSal neighborhood is the wrong locaSon for a commercial development such as this wave park. Given the variables, the misuse of our precious water resources, and the high financial risks associated with pugng this commercial development in our residenSal neighborhood, when you consider this proposal, please ask yourselves the following quesSons: What is the legacy that I want to leave for this community? What is the downside to the community if the project is approved, goes forward, and then fails to pan out financially? Does this project represent a wise use and conservaSon of our dwindling water resources? Is the high risk associated with this venture worth taking for the city and for the La Quinta residents affected by this proposed commercial project in a residenSal neighborhood? Thank you for your consideraSon. Page 2 of 2 Brian & Gail Levy 81214 Santa Rosa Court La Quinta, CA 92253 August 6, 2021 City of La Quinta 78-945 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Ms. Nicole Saviat Criste Dear Ms. Saviat Criste: RE: Response to Draft EIR Coral Mountain Resort I am writing in response to the Draft EIR for the Coral Mountain Resort development. I have owned a home in La Quinta for 20 years. When my husband and I first built a home in La Quinta I loved that the city motto was “Gem of the Desert” and “Growth with Charm”. You don’t see the “Growth with Charm” anymore and this development certainly flies in the face of that motto! I have many concerns about the development but I think it must be said that this DEIR was so long, convoluted and hard to understand it was almost unreadable. The fact that the entire report was hired and paid for by the developer also presents huge concerns to its validity. Another concern is that most of the study was completed during COVID which certainly affects the traffic study and noise to some degree. Here are my concerns: Lighting – Seventeen 80 foot tall lights surrounding the wave pool will certainly have an effect on everyone living around this development. Most homes in the neighborhood with mountain views look towards Coral mountain. What they will see in the future is light poles during the day and light glow at night. What happened to the Dark Sky ordinance? Well, the City Council voted to remove the Dark Skies ordinance from the Municipal Code in May, 2021. How convenient! Yet the people living here say that the night skies are precious part of their community. Ads on the internet extolling La Quinta’s many virtues talk about the Dark Sky ordinance. So much for all the people who live here and visitors too! Noise – The noise study found no issues with noise whether it be construction or the operation of the Wave pool. They studied the noise of traffic (during COVID) and did theoretical studies of other aspects of the operation. One of their conclusions was that sound would be absorbed by rock. Really? Since when does rock absorb sound? And if it did, why can I hear hikers near Coral Mountain when I’m standing on the corner of 58th and Madison? Theoretical studies don’t replicate reality and this area needs real world study. Traffic – As mentioned before the studies were done during COVID. In my development (Puerta Azul) none of the Canadians made it to La Quinta in the winter of 2020 which is a significant number of owners. The rate of COVID in early winter was also very high keeping some homeowners from coming as well as visitors. I heard a presentation from the developer admitting that the study may not reflect non COVID traffic amounts but if there are stop lights needed they would help pay for them. For a light at 58th and Madison, which I can’t see NOT having, they would contribute 10%. If that is correct then the homeowners living around this PRIVATE development end up paying for a light that wouldn’t have been needed. How in the world is that fair?! This development is in a land locked area with very few roads to get people to it. Someone needs to really look at what will happen with traffic especially with planned events of 2500 people. I can think of the traffic jams from the PGA concerts a couple of years ago as perfect examples of what happens when thousands of people try to squeeze into an area with few roads. If this were to happen on Madison thousands of people would be unable to leave their developments. Any emergency vehicle would have trouble reaching any destination on that route. This needs serious attention. Water – We are in a serious drought. The entire west coast and beyond is suffering in ways no one anticipated happening for many years because of Global Warming. The water numbers in the DEIR are calculated using information from the Lemoore surf park. The climate there is different from La Quinta, we have many more and hotter days, the proposed pool is bigger than Lemoore (more area to evaporate) yet no one attempted to extrapolate what that would mean for water consumption. I heard an engineer at the City Council this week say that the development was at 99% of their total water allotment. That’s not much of a cushion! What happens if they need more water? And let’s be clear: this is drinking water! Someone needs to look at this carefully. Bats – No one mentions the bats when they talk about this project but the bat study in the DEIR says that night time light is the biggest concern for the multiple bat species living on and near the proposed development site. Light disrupts feeding, roosting, maternity and raising of the young. The study recommends that all lighting be “dark sky compliant”. Does La Quinta care about this anymore since they removed Dark Sky from Municipal Code? And how compliant can the custom 80 foot lights be? At that height they will disrupt any creature flying anywhere near the wave pool. What mitigation can be made for bats, a protected species? Is there really any reason people need to surf at night? You certainly can’t do that at the beach, why should this be any different? Zoning – I realize that zoning isn’t part of the DEIR but it must be addressed. What homeowner buys a house where they’re researched all things that could impact that important, expensive decision, only to have something like this happen? How can a homeowner trust their Mayor and City council to look out for their best interests when a developer comes along with a proposal to change a swath of land located in the middle of a number of neighborhoods zoned low density, residential to Commercial, tourist? I don’t see another area in La Quinta that is as quiet and residential as this area. It defies logic why this would be the place to build something like what is proposed and to allow a zoning change along with it. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to read my concerns. I hope that all parties involved in the decision making will take the time to study the issues, be open minded and see that this development belongs in another area. Sincerely, Nancy Bruce nbruce@me.com 80843 Calle Azul La Quinta, CA 92253 Copies to: 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 La Quinta Planning Commission cdd@laquintaca.gov Ms. Cheri Flores, Planning Mgr. cflores@laquintaca.gov We are 10 year homeowners at Andalusia at Coral Mountain. We enjoy the quiet environment the southern La Quinta border provides. We are proponents of property rights but wonder if the wave park is consistent with development of this area of La Quinta. Alternative uses for the property are well defined in the EIR. We support alternatives (in descending order of preference): • Alternative #4 Golf/Resort Hotel • Alternative #2 No project / Existing Entitlements • Alternative #3 Reduced density Additional areas of concern are: • Traffic – We are concerned event related traffic will overload the corridor resulting in gridlock. The 4 way stop at Madison and 58th will be overwhelmed during events. The memory of Ironman I’s paralyzing of La Quinta streets is still fresh. Additional access to the property would provide additional ingress/egress on alternatives to Madison alone. • Noise – The area is a quiet, serene neighborhood. We are concerned about noise from equipment required to heat, treat the pool in addition to the wave making machinery. • Lighting – 17 80’ towers will create a “ball park” type of illumination immediately adjacent to the beautiful mountains. We understand the desire for specific light angles but ask consideration be given to lighting standards of 30’ or less to reduce the lighting glare. • Hours of operation – reduce end time to 8 pm. • Special events – 4 special events drawing attendees and traffic to La Quinta’s southern edge has the potential to create traffic gridlock. Dennis & Jackie Miller 58131 Carmona La Quinta, CA 92253 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Coral Mountain Resort, La Quinta CA 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐1 February 2022 Chapter 3.0 Revisions to the Draft EIR 3.1 Purpose The following provides changes to the Draft EIR being made as a result of the Response to Comments (Chapter 2.0) of this Final EIR. Typographical errors and other editorial modifications are also provided below. Please note that deletions are indicated in strikethrough and additions are underlined text. Location & Page Revision EIR Preparers, Page i‐ 3 The following revision adds a list of agencies and organizations consulted during the writing of the Draft EIR document. The Draft EIR provided a list of EIR Preparers after the EIR cover page. The list included the City (as the Lead Agency), authors of the document, and subconsultants commissioned to provide their expertise on environmental topics such as biology, cultural resources, air quality, etc. The list below expands on the EIR Preparer list in the Draft EIR by including agencies who where informally or formally contacted, and agencies that responded to the NOP or commented on the Draft EIR. Page i‐3 is revised to state the following: “Additional Agencies and Organizations Consulted Along with a list of EIR prepares, a list of public agencies, organizations and persons consulted for the EIR is included below, compliant with CEQA Guidelines Section 15129. The following list includes agencies that were informally or formally contacted, as well as agencies that responded to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) or commented on the DEIR (listed in alphabetical order). ‐ Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ‐ Air Resources Board ‐ Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians ‐ Cabazon Band of Mission Indians ‐ Cahuilla Band of Indians ‐ CAL FIRE ‐ California Department of Fish and Wildlife ‐ CalTrans District #8 ‐ Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy ‐ Colorado River Board ‐ Fish and Game Region #6 ‐ Imperial Irrigation District ‐ Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐2 February 2022 ‐ Morongo Band of Mission Indians ‐ Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) ‐ Public Utilities Commission ‐ Regional WQCB #7 ‐ Ramona Band of Cahuilla ‐ Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) ‐ Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ‐ Samuel A. McLeod, Ph.D. (Vertebrate Paleontology) ‐ Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians ‐ Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians ‐ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) ‐ Torres‐Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians ‐ Twenty‐Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians” Chapter 3.0, Project Description, Page 3‐5 The following revision addresses Comment Number 10‐c, located in Chapter 2.0, Responses to Comments, where CVWD requests that the on pages 3‐5 of the Draft EIR “CVWD Levees” be changed to “USBR Levees”. “South  Avenue 60  Developed and Undeveloped Single Family Residences and Communities  Golf Course, including Trilogy  Vacant Land  CVWD Levee USBR Levees” Chapter 3.0, Project Description, Page 3‐ 29 The following revision addresses Comment Number 10‐a, located in Chapter 2.0, Response to Comments, where CVWD corrects the Conceptual Water Plan exhibit in the Draft EIR. “Water and sewer service for the Specific Plan area is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The CVWD provides domestic water from wells. Pursuant to an existing agreement with CVWD, the project will develop two onsite wells sites, one of which will be equipped with a well pumping plant as required by CVWD to serve the project. The project will also drill a private well to provide an additional source of water for non‐domestic (outdoor) purposes. The exact location of the wells and well sites will be subject to CVWD approval. The project proposes to connect to the existing water lines located on Avenue 58 (north) and Madison Street (east). The proposed water lines will consist of 18‐inch, 12‐inch, and 8‐inch public water lines. In accordance with an existing agreement with CVWD, CVWD also requires an offsite pipeline in Avenue 60. This is indicated in the Conceptual Water Plan. Sewer lines in the are currently exist along Avenue 58 and along a portion of Avenue 60 (southeast of the project). The project proposes 15‐inch, 12‐inch, and 8‐ 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐3 February 2022 inch sewer lines that will connect to the existing sewer lines and provide sewer service to the project. The project will be required to conform to the requirements of the CVWD’s programs and standards pertaining to water management and conservation.” Chapter 3.0, Project Description, Page 3‐ 30 (Exhibit 3‐11) Please see the updated Conceptual Water Plan exhibit below to replace Exhibit 3‐11 in the Draft EIR, per CVWD’s comment (Comment Letter No. 10 in Chapter 2.0 of this Final EIR. Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1‐ 8 Revisions to page 4.1‐8 of Section 4.1, Aesthetics, is indicated in the table below. This revision corrects Table 4.1‐1, Development Standards Planning Area I, in the Draft EIR, which states that the maximum pole height in Planning Area I would be 25 feet. The pole height has been lowered to the maximum allowed under LQMC Section 9.100.150 of 18 feet. The table below indicates this change. Table 4.1‐1 Development Standards Planning Area I Neighborhood Commercial Project Max/Min Max. Structure Height 35 ft 1,2 Max. No. of Stories 2 Min. Front Setback 10 ft Min. Rear Setback 10 ft Min. Parking 1/250 ft GFA. Max. Building Floor Area in PA I 60,000 SF Min. Building Setback to Avenue 58 25 ft Min. Building Setback to Madison Street 25 ft Min. Setback from Interior Property Line3 0 ft Min. Building/Landscape Setback from Residential PA4 40 ft/20 ft Max. Wall Height 6 ft Max. Light Pole Height 25 18 ft Min. Parking Provided Per Code Min. Parking Dimension 9’ X 19’ Min. Bicycle Parking Per Code Min. Golf Cart / NEV Parking Per Code Min. Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces Per Code Notes: 1. Height is limited to 22' within 150' of the Madison & Avenue 58 R.O.W. 2. Architectural and roof projections, such as chimneys, spires, finials and similar features not providing habitable or otherwise unusable space shall be permitted to extend up to fifteen feet above the maximum structure height. 3. Mechanical equipment to have a minimum 3‐foot setback from interior property lines. 4. Landscape setback occurs within the building setback. 6. 25 % of Planning Area I is 1.9 acres (7.7 acres x 25%). The property proposes a building floor area of 60,000 square feet, which is approximately 1.4 acres of the site. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐4 February 2022 7. Five bicycle parking spaces for each tenant having over twenty thousand square feet of gross floor area. Section 4.1, Aesthetics, Page 4.1‐ 52 Revisions to page 4.1‐52 of Section 4.1, Aesthetics, is indicated in the table below. This revision corrects Table 4.1‐7, PA I Development Standards Comparison, in the Draft EIR, which, like Table 4.1‐1 addressed above, states that the maximum pole height in Planning Area I would be 25 feet. The pole height has been lowered to the maximum allowed under LQMC Section 9.100.150 of 18 feet. The table below indicates this change. Additionally, Section 9.100.150 of the Municipal Code allows 18‐foot light poles in parking lots. This is indicated in footnote 5. Table 4.1‐7 PA I Development Standards Comparison Neighborhood Commercial Project Max/Min Municpal Code5 Max. Structure Height 35 ft 1,2 35 Max. No. of Stories 2 2 Min. Front Setback 10 ft 10 ft Min. Rear Setback 10 ft 10 ft Min. Parking 1/250 ft GFA. 1/250 ft GFA Max. Building Floor Area in PA I 60,000 SF 25 %6 Min. Building Setback to Avenue 58 25 ft 30 ft Min. Building Setback to Madison Street 25 ft 30 ft Min. Setback from Interior Property Line3 0 ft 0 ft Min. Building/Landscape Setback from Residential PA4 40 ft/20 ft 40 ft/20 ft Max. Wall Height 6 ft 6 ft Max. Light Pole Height 25 18 ft 8 18 ft Min. Parking Provided Per Code 1 space per 300 sq Min. Parking Dimension 9’ X 19’ Min. Bicycle Parking Per Code Five Bike Parking 7 Min. Golf Cart / NEV Parking Per Code 2 Min. Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces Per Code 2 Notes: 1. Height is limited to 22' within 150' of the Madison & Avenue 58 R.O.W. 2. Architectural and roof projections, such as chimneys, spires, finials and similar features not providing habitable or otherwise unusable space shall be permitted to extend up to fifteen feet above the maximum structure height. 3. Mechanical equipment to have a minimum 3‐ foot setback from interior property lines. 4. Landscape setback occurs within the building setback. 5. This column compares the project’s proposed development standards in PA I, compared to the development standards in CN Zones as established in Section 9.90.040 (Table 9‐6) of the La Quinta Municipal Code. Section 9.100.150 of the La Quinta Municipal Code allows 18‐foot light poles in parking lots in Neighborhood Commercial zones. 6. 25 % of Planning Area I is 1.9 acres (7.7 acres x 25%). The property proposes a building floor area of 60,000 square feet, which is approximately 1.4 acres of the site. 7. Five bicycle parking spaces for each tenant having over twenty thousand square feet of gross floor area. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐5 February 2022 Section 4.2, Air Quality The page numbers provided in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR were incorrectly indicated as “4.1‐X” instead of “4.2‐X” in the document when published for public review. The pages with Section 4.2, should have been indicated as “4.2‐X”. The revision addresses Comment Number 34‐f, located in Chapter 2.0, Response to Comments, in the Final EIR. Section 4.3 Biological Resources, Page 4.3‐8 Revisions to page 4.3‐8 of Section 4.3, Biological Resources, is indicated by the text below. This revision is in response to Comment Letter No. 13 from the CDFW (Comment 13‐f). “No take of the Peninsular bighorn sheep is allowed because the species is a federally endangered species and a California Fully Protected Species.” Section 4.3 Biological Resources, Page 4.3‐15 Revisions to page 4.3‐15 of Section 4.3, Biological Resources, is indicated by the text below. This revision is in response to Comment Letter No. 13 from the CDFW (Comment 13‐g). “Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsonii) (peninsula Distinct Population Segment): This species occurs on open desert slopes below 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) elevation from San Gorgonio Pass south into Mexico. Optimal habitats include steep‐walled canyons and ridges bisected by rocky or sandy washes, with available water. This species is not present at the site due to the absence of suitable habitat. This species is not present on the development portion of the site due to the absence of suitable habitat. While a small portion of the project site includes the northeastern most edge of Coral Mountain and PBS have been tracked by monitoring devices on Coral Mountain itself, no development activities of any kind are proposed or allowed on that portion of the property, which will be separated from all development by an 8‐foot‐high sheep barrier. While the proposed project development does not occur in or adjacent to the CVMSHCP designated conservation area for PBS, Coral Mountain and other adjacent BLM land were identified as Essential Habitat for the PBS in the USFW Recovery Plan (2000) that preceded the CVMSHCP. To avoid any impacts to this essential habitat, and because the sheep are known to travel outside the designated Conservation Area for sources of forage and water, the project will comply with the Adjacency Guidelines relating to PBS.” 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐6 February 2022 Section 4.3 Biological Resources, Page 4.3‐16 Revisions to page 4.3‐16 of Section 4.3, Biological Resources, is indicated by the text below. This revision is in response to Comment 13‐m in Comment Letter No. 13 from the CDFW. The revision explains the reasoning for the inclusion of Mitigation Measures BIO‐9 and BIO‐10, included at the request of the CDFW. “Seven federally/state listed species were identified as having the potential to occur in the project vicinity. These include the Coachella Valley milkvetch, triple‐ribbed milkvetch, Casey’s June beetle, desert pupfish, desert slender salamander, Coachella Valley fringe‐toed lizard and the Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS). As previously stated, the project does not provide suitable habitat for PBS, however, monitoring devices tracked PBS on Coral Mountain (not within the project boundaries). To ensure that PBS do not enter the project site, an 8‐foot high s heep barrier is proposed. In addition to the sheep barrier, the onsite lakes will be designed and maintained to reduce the breeding of vector species. This is required by Mitigation Measures BIO‐9 below. The project also proposes the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐10 which requires the project educate the public of bighorn sheep habitat and ecology, threats to PBS and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. The development of the sheep barrier and the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO‐9 and BIO‐10 will reduce threats to PBS to less than significant levels.” Section 4.3 Biological Resources, Page 4.3‐18 Revisions to page 4.3‐18 of Section 4.3, Biological Resources, is indicated by the text below. This revision includes additional mitigation prepared in coordination with the project’s biologist. “The project site contains suitable roosting and foraging habitat for multiple bat species. Native and non‐native ornamental palms on and surrounding the project site could provide suitable roosting habitat for bats, including the western yellow bat. Roosting habitat suitable for use as maternity roosts, which are native wildlife nursery sites, is also present in rock outcrops associated with the portions of Coral Mountain that is situated within and adjacent to the project site. Locations of suitable roosting habitats are illustrated in Exhibit 4.3‐1. In April 2021, a nighttime acoustic and emergence survey was conducted by LSA as part of a larger focused bat survey effort. The nighttime survey included a combination of acoustic and exit count methods and took place during the early phase of the bat maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachell a Valley) to enable detection of maternity‐roosting bats. However, not all bat species are fully aggregated in their maternity roost sites in April, when the initial survey was conducted. Therefore, to avoid impacts to all potential bat species which may occur on the site, additional maternity‐ 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐7 February 2022 season surveys will be performed in June 2021 to maximize the probability of detection of maternity roosts for all bat species, as provided in Mitigation Measure BIO‐2. If maternity roosts are identified within the project area, a significant impact would occur. To reduce these impacts to less than significant levels, Mitigation Measure BIO‐3, BIO‐4, BIO‐5, and BIO‐8 are provided below. They require that the biologist coordinate with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to implement avoidance measures during the bat maternity season in accordance with CDFW’s established standards. No construction will occur within a 300‐foot buffer of maternity roost sites during the bat maternity season unless concurrence is received from CDFW to reduce that buffer distance based upon the bat species present and the activities occurring. In addition to roosting habitat, foraging habitat supporting multiple bat species was identified onsite. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO‐8 requires that existing native vegetation, particularly palo verde trees, will be retained where feasible. Landscaping shall include native desert species. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO‐ 2 through BIO‐5 and BIO‐8 impacts to roosting bats will be reduced to less than significant levels.” Section 4.3 Biological Resources, Page 4.3‐21 Revisions to page 4.3‐21 of Section 4.3, Biological Resources, is indicated by the text below. This revision, located in discussion e/f, explains further the project’s consistency with the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines. Threshold discussion e/f analyzes whether the project conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, or conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. “The project site’s native vegetation consists of desert saltbush scrub, tamarisk scrub, and mesquite hummock. There is a stand of blue palo verde in the eastern portion of the project site. The removal of this vegetation and trees as the result of the proposed project will not conflict with any local policy relating to these species, because the City does not have a tree preservation policy or ordinance that protects any of these species. The project lies within the boundary of the CVMSHCP which outlines policies for conservation habitats and natural communities and is implemented by the City of La Quinta, and establishes no policies applicable to the removal of these species of trees and habitat, except that the project will be required to pay the CVMSHCP mitigation fee to mitigate the loss of habitat for covered species in the Coachella Valley. Compliance with the CVMSHCP also requires compliance with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines specified in Section 4.5 of the Plan. The 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐8 February 2022 CVMSHCP defines “adjacent” as “sharing a common boundary with any parcel in a Conservation Area” (see page 4.176 of Plan). No part of the project satisfies this definition because the project is located approximately 0.62 miles to the east of the nearest designated Conservation Area. Although the project is not located adjacent to a conservation area, and consistent with the identified presence of PBS on Coral Mountain, the project will comply with all provisions of those Guidelines for all areas adjacent to Coral Mountain or other BLM open space, and this requirement is being made enforceable through the project Development Agreement. As stated on page ES‐12 of the CVMSHCP, ‘[t]he purpose of the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines is to avoid or minimize indirect effects from Development adjacent to or within the Conservation Areas. Such indirect effects are commonly referred to as edge effects, and may include noise, lighting, drainage, intrusion of people into the adjacent Conservation Area, and the introduction of non‐native plants and non‐native predators such as dogs and cats.’ Here, all project lighting will be required to be shielded and directed to avoid light spillage onto Coral Mountain (see Mitigation Measure BIO‐4). In addition, the lighting system analysis conducted for the project demonstrates that there will be no light spillage outside the Wave Basin planning area, including toward Coral Mountain or other BLM open space. The lighting system analysis determined that light levels would drop to 0.01 foot candles or below at least 375 feet from the nearest portion of Coral Mountain. The Draft EIR analyzed potential construction and operational noise impacts. As explained on pages 4.11‐32 ‐ 4.11‐35 in Section 4.11, Noise, construction noise can range from approximately 68 dBA to in excess of 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet from the source, with a reduction of 6 dBA for every doubling of distance. The closest project construction to Coral Mountain will be the Wave Basin, and the highest projected noise level is 76.5 dBA (see Table 4.11‐15, Phase 1 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary). Therefore, when considering the noise attenuation resulting from distance, construction noise will not exceed 75 dBA at 100 feet from the location of construction activities. The closest any construction activity will be to Coral Mountain is approximately 100 feet at the northwest corner of the project site. Based on the configuration of the project site, most construction activity will be located at least 300‐400 feet from Coral Mountain. Although the DEIR demonstrates that noise levels during construction will also be below this threshold, in order to assure that no impact to wildlife utilizing Coral Mountain occurs during the construction period, Mitigation Measure BIO‐7 is included. BIO‐7 requires noise monitoring to occur for all 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐9 February 2022 construction activities using heavy equipment within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. The highest projected operational noise levels is 64.5 dBA at location P‐10 in the tourist commercial portion of the site next to the hotel and Wave Basin (see Table 4.11‐25, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels and Exhibit 4.11‐2, Noise Source and Receiver Locations). Accordingly, the project will not exceed the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines for noise levels at Coral Mountain. The Land Use Adjacency Guidelines also prohibit planting invasive, non‐ native plant species in and adjacent to Conservation Areas, and include tables of recommended and prohibited species (see CVMSHCP p. 4‐177 and Tables 4‐112 and 4‐113). Section 2.5.2 has been added to the Specific Plan to prohibit all species listed on Table 4‐113 in all portions of the project adjacent to Coral Mountain and the other BLM open space (see Specific Plan pp. 35‐36 and Figure 13). This requirement will be made enforceable through the project Development Agreement and will be enforceable for the life of the project through the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) that will be recorded against all portions of the project site that are subject to the plant palette restrictions. Finally, Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines requires the incorporation of barriers to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, and dumping in a Conservation Area. The Specific Plan has been revised to expressly include a protective sheep barrier which complies to the requirements for PBS barriers in the CVMSHCP along the western boundary (covering all areas adjacent to Coral Mountain and other BLM open space property). The protective sheep barrier will be 8‐feet high, with the final design and location subject to City approval in consultation with CDFW. With the foregoing, the project will be consistent with the guidelines in the CVMSHCP and avoid any impacts to PBS or any designated PBS conservation areas or essential habitat. The project will also pay the CVMSHCP fee, and implement avoidance and minimization measures, design features, as well as mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the CVMSHCP. Impacts will be less than significant. There are no other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans currently in place other than the CVMSHCP that are applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, the project will have no impacts on local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.” 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐10 February 2022 Section 4.3 Biological Resources, Pages 4.3‐22 to 24 Revisions to the Mitigation Measures provided in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, were amended to address comments received by public agencies in coordination with the project’s biologist. Revisions to the Mitigation Measures are provided below: “BIO‐1: A bBurrowing owl clearance surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist approved by the City not more than 30 days prior to any site disturbance activities (grubbing, grading, and construction). A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre‐construction survey shall be conducted following accepted protocol and the requirements specified in the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4‐168 & 4‐169). is required to use accepted protocol (as determined CDFW). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to 500 feet outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160‐foot diameter buffer will be established during non‐breeding season or a 250‐foot diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. If the burrow is found to be unoccupied, the burrow will be made inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied, owls shall be relocated pursuant to accepted Wildlife Agency protocols. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. A burrow is assumed occupied if records indicate that, based on surveys conducted following protocol, at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow on site during the past three years. If there are no records for the site, surveys must be conducted to determine, prior to construction, if burrowing owls are present. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. Active relocation and eviction/passive relocation require the preservation and maintenance of suitable burrowing owl habitat 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐11 February 2022 determined through coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP. BIO‐4: Although no construction will occur at the rock outcrops where occupied bat roosts were identified during the April 2021 surveys, bats roosting in that area could be subject to potential adverse effects from project related light overspill. To avoid permanent impacts to roosting bats from the installation of new light fixtures associated with the proposed development, all lighting fixtures shall have light shields or similar devices (e.g., dark sky compliant lighting) installed to ensure that there is no minimize light trespass overspill on‐to Coral Mountain and surrounding open space. A supplemental light study will be performed to collect nighttime lighting measurements and confirm that no light trespass onto Coral Mountain is occurring; this will be submitted for City approval prior to issuance of any permit for occupancy or use of the Wave Basin. BIO‐6: To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation removal and ground‐disturbing activities shall be conducted outside the general bird nesting season (January 15 through August 31). Any vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and/or construction activities that occur during the nesting season will require that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist that is pre‐approved by the CDFW. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 days prior to ground‐disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using his or her best professional judgment, or as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies to avoid Take of nesting birds. The buffer may be modified and/or other recommendations proposed as determined appropriate by the biologist to minimize impacts. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐12 February 2022 BIO‐7: To ensure that the project will avoid any significant construction noise impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain, noise monitoring will occur for all construction activities using heavy equipment within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction operational changes or other project modifications shall be made, as directed by the project biologist to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA. BIO‐8: Existing native vegetation, particularly palo verde trees, will be retained where feasible. Landscaping shall include native desert species. BIO‐9: Onsite lakes will be designed and constructed by industry professionals and will incorporate proper aeration, circulation and filtration to maintain a balanced lake ecosystem. Lakes will be stocked with beneficial fish and plant species. Limited chemical applications will be utilized as necessary. Ongoing maintenance will ensure that onsite lakes function properly to control any invasive species or other nuisance conditions. BIO‐10: An educational program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the resort, open space, and low‐density community programs through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged.” Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, Page 4.10‐30 Revisions to Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, were amended to address comments received by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to address Comment 13‐e indicated in Chapter 2.0, Comment Letters and Responses. The following discussion will be located under threshold topic discussion b, which asks whether the project will cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. “CVMSHCP Consistency 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐13 February 2022 A Biological Resources Assessment and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Consistency Analysis (“Biology Report”) was completed for the project site by LSA Associates, Inc. in May 2021 (updated November 2021). The Biology Report (Appendix D.1 and D.4) included a review of the Final Recirculated CVMSHCP (CVAG 2016) to determine CVMSHCP consistency and conservation measures that apply to the proposed project (see page 4.3‐21 of this Draft EIR). The consistency analysis conducted by LSA Associates concluded that the project is consistent with the CVMSHCP because the project is not located in any conservation area, will pay the CVMSHCP development fee, and will not remove trees or habitat that are subject to any CVMSHCP conservation policies. The project area is located in the portion of the CVMSHCP plan area designated for future development, rather than conservation, and this site was approved for development by the County of Riverside nearly 20 years ago, prior to the property being annexed into the City of La Quinta. As a result, the project is required to pay the CVMSHCP impact fee, which has been adopted by the City of La Quinta to help fund CVCC’s acquisition of additional high‐quality habitat within the conservation areas designated in the CVMSHCP. The project is also required to implement all applicable avoidance and minimization measures set forth in Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP. As described in the Draft EIR (see Mitigation Measure BIO‐1), the project is required to conduct burrowing owl surveys in accordance with the protocols set forth in Section 4.4 of the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4‐166 – 4‐167). Section 4.4 also prohibits construction activities within the Peninsular bighorn sheep (PBS) conservation area during the lambing season, but as the project site is located outside of the designated conservation areas, this provision is inapplicable. Compliance with the CVMSHCP also requires compliance with the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines specified in Section 4.5 of the Plan. The CVMSHCP defines “adjacent” as “sharing a common boundary with any parcel in a Conservation Area” (see p. 4‐176). No part of the Project satisfies this definition because the Project is located approximately 0.62 miles to the east of the nearest designated Conservation Area (see Figure 4‐26(b) in the CVMSHCP). Although the project site is not located adjacent to a conservation area, and consistent with the identified presence of PBS on Coral Mountain, as described in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, the project will comply with all provisions of the CVMSHCP Guidelines for all areas adjacent to Coral Mountain or other BLM open space. This requirement is being made enforceable through the project Development Agreement. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐14 February 2022 As stated on page ES‐12 of the CVMSHCP, “[t]he purpose of the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines is to avoid or minimize indirect effects from Development adjacent to or within the Conservation Areas. Such indirect effects are commonly referred to as edge effects, and may include noise, lighting, drainage, intrusion of people into the adjacent Conservation Area, and the introduction of non‐native plants and non‐native predators such as dogs and cats.” Here, all project lighting will be required to be shielded and directed to avoid light spillage onto Coral Mountain (see Mitigation Measure BIO‐4). In addition, the lighting system analysis conducted for the project demonstrates that there will be no light spillage outside the Wave Basin planning area, including toward Coral Mountain or other BLM open space. The lighting system analysis determined that light levels will drop to 0.01 foot candles or below at least 375 feet from the nearest portion of Coral Mountain. The Draft EIR analyzed potential construction and operational noise impacts. As explained on pages 4.11‐32 ‐ 4.11‐35 in Section 4.11, Noise, construction noise can range from approximately 68 dBA to in excess of 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet from the source, with a reduction of 6 dBA for every doubling of distance. The closest project construction to Coral Mountain will be the Wave Basin, and the highest projected noise level is 76.5 dBA (see Table 4.11‐15, Phase 1 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary). Therefore, when considering the noise attenuation resulting from distance, construction noise will not exceed 75 dBA at 100 feet from the location of construction activities. The closest any construction activity will be to Coral Mountain is approximately 100 feet at the northwest corner of the project site. Based on the configuration of the project site, most construction activity will be located at least 300‐400 feet from Coral Mountain. The highest projected operational noise levels is 64.5 dBA at location P‐10 in the tourist commercial portion of the site next to the hotel and Wave Basin (see Table 4.11‐25, Daytime Project Operational Noise Levels and Exhibit 4.11‐2, Noise Source and Receiver Locations). Accordingly, the Project will not exceed the CVMSHCP Land Use Adjacency Guidelines for noise levels at Coral Mountain. The Land Use Adjacency Guidelines also prohibit planting invasive, non‐ native plant species in and adjacent to Conservation Areas, and includes tables of recommended and prohibited species (see CVMSHCP p. 4‐177 and Tables 4‐112 and 4‐113). Section 2.5.2 has been added to the Specific Plan to prohibit all species listed on Table 4‐113 in all portions of the project adjacent to Coral Mountain and the other BLM open space (see Specific Plan pp. 35‐36 and Figure 13). This requirement will be 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐15 February 2022 made enforceable through the project Development Agreement and will be enforceable for the life of the project through the Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) that will be recorded against the project site. Finally, Section 4.5.6 of the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines requires the incorporation of barriers to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass, and dumping in a Conservation Area. The Specific Plan has been revised to expressly include a protective sheep barrier which complies to the requirements for PBS barriers in the CVMSHCP along the western boundary (covering all areas adjacent to Coral Mountain and other BLM open space property). The protective sheep barrier will be 8‐feet high, with the final design and location subject to City approval in consultation with CDFW. Based on the consistency analysis provided above, the project will be consistent with the guidelines in the CVMSHCP. The Specific Plan will establish design components that address project‐related edge effects, such as prohibiting the planting of invasive, non‐native plant species, and the implementation of a protective sheep barrier. The project will also pay the CVMSHCP fee, as well as implement avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the CVMSHCP. Impacts will be less than significant.” Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, Page 4.10‐30 In response to the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) comment letter (Comment Letter No. 4) and correspondence between SCAG and the City, Table 4.10‐8, SCAG Connect SOCAL Goals Consistency Analysis, is to be included in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, on page 4.10‐30 of the Draft EIR. The addition shall be inclu ded as follows: “SCAG Connect SOCAL Goals Consistency Analysis The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) developed the Connect SoCal planning document through a four‐year process to provide land use and transportation strategies to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Connect SoCal, also known as the 2020‐2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTC/SCS), was adopted in September 2020 by the SCAG Regional Council. Connect SoCal established goals intended to provide guidance for governing bodies considering proposed projects within the Southern California Region. Analysis discussion regarding the proposed project’s consistency, non‐consistency, or non‐applicability to SCAG’s Connect SoCal goals, is detailed in Table 4.10‐8, SCAG Connect SoCal Goals Consistency Analysis, below. Per Table 4.10‐8, the project 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐16 February 2022 will be consistent with the applicable Connect SoCal goals. Less than significant impact. Table 4.10‐8 SCAG Connect SoCal Goals Consistency Analysis SCAG Goals Consistency Analysis Goal #1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness. Consistent: Page 3‐8 of the DEIR lists the objectives of the proposed project, where one objective states that the project strives to “create a private resort community with a variety of interrelated and mutually supportive commercial and recreational land uses that will also generate transient occupancy and sales tax revenues in order to enhance the City’s economic base and long‐term financial stability.” Another objective states that the project will “develop a high‐ quality private Wave Basin that provides unique recreational opportunities for future residents of the project, and that attracts resort guests and creates a landmark facility that will enhance the City’s reputation as the ‘Gem of the Desert’.” The City of La Quinta, as well as other Coachella Valley cities, caters not only to full time residents, but also to seasonal residents and resort guests. La Quinta is characterized as a desirable resort destination, as it includes resort/hotel facilities and recreational amenities within the City’s boundary. The proposed project will encourage regional economic prosperity by offering a world‐class recreational facility (Wave Basin) that will attract visitors who want to experience the artificial surf basin. The project will also host up to four special events per year at the Wave Basin, bringing up to 2,500 people to the project site each event. As stated on page 4.10‐16 of the DEIR, the project proposes tourist commercial land uses consisting of a recreational facility and hotel to promote the continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in La Quinta by providing resort, recreational, commercial, and residential land uses on the project site. Additionally, the residential uses will incrementally increase demand for commercial goods and services in the region, thus enhancing the economy. The resort facility and Wave Basin will encourage regional economic prosperity by attracting people to the high‐quality facility and resort, and global competitiveness by providing a facility that features technology designed to re‐create ocean waves for recreational surfing. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐17 February 2022 Goal #2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability and travel safety for people and goods. Consistent: The project includes both neighborhood commercial and tourist commercial land uses in an area that is surrounded by residential communities. Additionally, the project proposes residential dwelling units, and open space recreational areas. As stated on page 4.13‐54 of the Draft EIR, the placement of different types of land uses near one another can decrease VMT since trips between land use types are shorter and may be accommodated by non‐auto modes of transport. Moreover, the project includes improved design elements to enhance walkability and connectivity. Recognized improved street network characteristics within the project include sidewalk coverage, building setbacks, street widths, pedestrian crossings, presence of street trees, and a host of other physical variables that differentiate pedestrian‐oriented environments from auto‐oriented environments. The project provides a pedestrian access network that internally links all uses and connects to all existing or planned external streets and pedestrian facilities contiguous with the project site. The project minimizes barriers to pedestrian access and interconnectivity. The project includes sidewalk connections, particularly to / from the retail areas resulting in interaction with residential and resort uses on‐site. As stated in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR (page 4.10‐17), the implementation of the Tourist Commercial land use designation and the associated development of a recreational facility and hotel will promote the continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in La Quinta by providing resort, recreational, commercial, and residential land uses on the 386‐acre property. Additionally, the residential uses will incrementally increase demand for commercial goods and services in the region, thus enhancing the economy. Goal #3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system. Consistent: This Goal is not necessarily applicable to the proposed project since it focuses on the regional transportation system. However, the project site supports the regional transportation system because it will generate substantial TUMF fees to fund regional transportation improvements. As stated on page 4.13‐6 of the DEIR, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) administers the Coachella Valley Regional Program, which allocates Measure A and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds for necessary improvements to the 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐18 February 2022 regional transportation system. Page 4.13‐47 states that the project will be required to pay TUMF fees in place at the time that building permits are sought. The payment of the TUMF fees is provided as Mitigation Measure TRA‐2 in the DEIR. The project will also build out Madison Street, Avenue 58, and Avenue 60 to ultimate standards per the General Plan. See page 4.13‐29 in the Draft EIR for project roadway improvements. The internal roadways and surrounding roadways will provide infrastructure needed to access the site. The proposed resort, recreational, and commercial land uses, along with the full buildout of the surrounding roadways enhances the security and resilience of the regional transportation system by attracting visitors to the project and requiring goods to be delivered to the project site. Goal #4: Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system. Consistent: The project property is currently vacant and undeveloped. The project proposes a complimentary mix of low density residential, neighborhood commercial, tourist commercial, and open space uses on the 386‐acre project site. The tourist commercial component of the project (which includes the hotel, amenities, resort residential, and the Wave Basin) will increase services associated with tourism and neighborhood commercial uses, as well as increase the movement of people and goods to the site. Additionally, the project’s neighborhood commercial and tourist commercial land uses will generate revenue and create employment opportunities. The proposed project will introduce a recreational facility (Wave Basin) that will attract visitors who want to surf at the Wave facility. The project will also host up to four special events per year at the Wave Basin, bringing up to 2,500 people to the project site. The resort facility and Wave Basin will increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the area by attracting people to the high‐quality facility and resort. As stated on page 4.10‐16 of the DEIR, the project proposes tourist commercial land uses consisting of a recreational facility and hotel to promote the continued growth of the tourism and resort industries in La Quinta by providing resort, recreational, commercial, and residential land uses on the project site. Additionally, the residential uses will incrementally increase demand for commercial goods and services in the region. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐19 February 2022 The project proposes both vehicular and alternate transportation access through a roadway network that interconnects all land uses within the project. The project proposes a multi‐modal circulation system by providing transportation systems for a variety of user groups including motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers of electric vehicles. The roadways proposed in the project will include multiple access points to serve as vehicle and multi‐use transportation routes for residents and visitors. As stated in the consistency analysis for Goal #2, the project proposes different land use types near one another, which can decrease the trip lengths between the land use types; where commercial uses, such as grocery stores, can be accessed by residential communities. Goal #5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. Consistent: The project will be designed with sustainability features to reduce GHGs and promote energy efficiency project‐wide. As described on pages 4.7‐11 of the Draft EIR, such features include but are not limited to, pedestrian connections and interconnectivity, implementation of ride share programs, drought‐tolerant landscaping, and use of photovoltaic systems. These project design features (PDFs) are listed in the project’s Specific Plan and includes: ‐ Use of pedestrian connections to promote access, interconnectivity, and vehicle trip reduction. ‐ Variety of proposed land uses and amenities within the project to promote vehicle trip and emission reductions. ‐ Implementation of ride sharing programs (including designated ride‐share vehicle parking) and employer‐ sponsored shuttle services to reduce commute trips. ‐ Compliance with Title 24 standards for residential and non‐residential buildings. ‐ Use of drought‐tolerant plants in landscape design. ‐ Use of energy efficient lighting. ‐ Use of photovoltaic (PV) systems. If the Specific Plan is approved by the City of La Quinta, thes e PDFs will be implemented at the project site. Additional PDFs proposed to reduce project‐generated GHG emissions are listed on page 4.7‐11 through 4.7‐13, in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐20 February 2022 PDFs to improve air quality are listed on page 4.2‐13 through 4.2‐15 in Section 4.2, Air Quality, in the Draft EIR. Goal #6: Support healthy and equitable communities. Consistent: As stated on page 4.10‐18 of the DEIR, the project promotes a high‐quality mix of uses that will contribute to the built environment, promote walkability in the resort center of the project, and provide opportunities for active recreation. As stated on page 3‐8 of the Draft EIR, one project objective is to promote walkability and non‐motorized connectivity as an integral part of the project design, including (1) establishing residential neighborhoods that are linked through multi‐use trails that connect neighborhoods throughout the project; and (2) providing “walk streets” in the Resort area to provide internal connection between facilities within the Resort and the Wave Basin. Additionally, the project will introduce 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial building to the surrounding area, which is not currently served by commercial uses in close proximity. The closest grocery store to the project site is located approximately four miles north, at the Jefferson Street and Avenue 50 intersection. The project site is surrounded by residential communities. The proposed neighborhood commercial buildings will be open to the public. Goal #7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network. Consistent: As stated under Goal #5, the project will be designed with sustainability features to reduce GHGs and promote energy efficiency project‐wide. Please refer to Goal #5 for a list of PDFs, as well as Section 4.7 and 4.2 of the DEIR for a list of features. As stated on page 4.10‐17 of the DEIR, the project proposes a private circulation system include both vehicular and alternate transportation access through a roadway network that interconnects all land uses within the project. The project proposes a multi‐modal circulation system by providing transportation systems for a variety of user groups including motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers of electric vehicles. The roadways proposed in the project will include multiple access points to serve as vehicle and multi‐ use transportation routes for residents and visitors. Goal #8: Leverage new transportation technologies and data‐driven solutions that result in more efficient travel. Not Appliable: The project proposes resort, residential, and commercial land uses to the City. The project will include both vehicular and alternate transportation access through a roadway network that interconnects all land uses within the 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐21 February 2022 project. The project proposes a multi‐modal circulation system by providing transportation systems for a variety of user groups including motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers of electric vehicles. The roadways proposed in the project will include multiple access points to serve as vehicle and multi‐use transportation routes for residents and visitors. The project will introduce commercial facilities that will reduce vehicle miles traveled by area residents (see Goal #2 consistency analysis). Goal #9: Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options. Consistent: The project proposes high‐quality housing of varying types and sizes with access to resort and recreational amenities. The project proposes up to 600 residential dwelling units on the project site. The project will include up to 496 single family attached and detached dwellings and affiliated amenities permitted within Low Density Residential land use designations. Low Density Residential product types may include estate compounds, single‐family detached/attached units, alley loaded homes, and clustered products. Up to 104 dwelling units will be resort residential units. Resort residential product types may include single family detached units, townhomes, and stacked flats. See page 4.10‐11 in the Draft EIR for a description of the proposed residential types. The project’s circulation plan proposes a multi‐modal system. The design seeks to decrease automobile dependency by providing transportation facilities for a variety of user groups including motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and drives of electric vehicles. The proposed circulation systems will provide a roadway network that will interconnect all land uses within the project. See page 3‐11 in the Draft EIR for a full discussion of project vehicular and non‐vehicular circulation. Goal #10: Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats. Consistent: The project site proposes approximately 23.6 acres of open space areas at the western property boundary. The project’s southwest boundary abuts Coral Mountain. As stated on page 4.13‐47 of the Draft EIR, the Desert Recreation District Master Plan includes a proposed trail along the toe of Coral Mountain associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center. The proposed trail alignment falls within the project boundaries. As shown in Mitigation Measure TRA‐15 project plans will include accommodations for this trail within the designated 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐22 February 2022 conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property. Mitigation Measure TRA‐15 specifically states: “The project proponent shall ensure that the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by the Desert Recreation District Master Plan and associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into project plans. Accommodations for this trail shall be located along the approximate toe of Coral Mountain, within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property.” In addition to the trail, the project proposes to develop a sheep barrier to deter Peninsular bighorn sheep from entering the site. A barrier/fence would prevent PBS from exiting Coral Mountain onto the site, where there is no escape cover and where they would be very vulnerable to predation and exposure to toxic plants, herbicides and insecticides. PBS would still be able to transverse the open space associated with the BLM lands between the Santa Rosas and Coral Mountain but will not be able to migrate off Coral Mountain onto the valley floor area of the project site. The project also proposes mitigation measures to reduce project impacts regarding biological resources. Please refer to Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the DEIR for a full analysis and discussion of the plant and animal species onsite in the region, and mitigation measures required. Finally, the project will pay the applicable MSHCP fee to fund the continued acquisition and preservation of important habitat areas within the Coachella Valley.” 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐23 February 2022 Location & Page Revision Section 4.13, Transportation, Page 4.13‐21 Urban Crossroad’s Traffic Report provided a table indicating the Trip Generation at project buildout. This is indicated as Table 4‐3 in the Report. This table was included on page 4.13‐21 in the Draft EIR, however, certain quantities appear to have been incorrectly ins erted into Table 4.13‐13 in the Draft EIR. An updated table consistent with the Traffic Report is included below. The discrepancies did not affect the project totals, and thus did not affect the assessment of traffic impacts. A corrected Table 4.13‐13 has been included below. Table 4.13‐13 Project Buildout (2026) Trip Generation Rates Land Use ITE LU Code Quantity (note 2) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Single Family Detached 210 220 496 DU 104 RM 94 273 367 308 184 492 4,682 Multifamily Housing (Low‐Rise) 11 36 47 36 22 58 761 Internal to Retail/Resort (1014) (2026) (3040) (4050) (2938) (6988) (595771) Residential External Trips 9591 289283 384374 304294 177168 481462 4,8484,672 Shopping Center 820 60 TSF 35 22 57 110 119 229 2,265 Pass‐By (25%) (7) (7) (14) (28) (28) (56) (566) Internal to Residential/Resort (9) (7) (16) (21) (35) (56) (448560) Shopping Center External Trips 19 8 27 61 56 117 1,2511,139 Resort Hotel 330 150 RM 41 15 56 30 41 71 1,181 Internal to Residential/Retail (1417) (1014) (2431) (1523) (2128) (3651) (416612) Resort Hotel External Trips 2724 51 3225 157 2013 3520 765569 Wave Basin Facility (note 4) 12 AC 14 10 24 29 19 48 600 Internal to Residential/Retail/Resort (12) (8) (20) (26) (17) (43) (470) Wave Basin Facility External Trips 2 2 4 3 2 5 130 Wave Village 861 15 TSF 3 2 5 16 15 31 431 (1)(1)(2)(7)(7) (14)(168) Wave Village External Trips 2 1 3 9 8 17 263 The Farm 495 16 TSF 18 11 29 18 19 37 461 (9)(6)(15)(9)(11) (20)(240) The Farm External Trips 9 5 14 9 8 17 221 Project Subtotal 216 369 585 547 419 966 10,381 Internal Capture Subtotal (62) (62) (124) (136) (136) (272) (2,821) Pass‐By (Shopping Center) (7) (7) (14) (28) (28) (56) (566) Total 143147 304300 447 383 255 638 6,994 1. Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). 2. DU = Dwelling Unit; TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Occupied Room 3. Pass‐by Source: Shops at Coral Mountain TIA, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 2009) 4. Since ITE does not have trip rates for a wave pool facility, similar use based on SANDAG’s recreation park (developed peak hour and daily rates are utilized. 5. Hotel trip rates account for 23.5 tsf of ancillary facilities which include bar, restaurant, kitchen, rooftop bar, pool bar & grill, spa, and back of house resort operations. 6. The Wave Basin Facility trip rates account for pool area and 1.5 tsf of back of house wave operations. 7. Wave Village trip rates account for 15 tsf of ancillary facilities which include shape studio, surf shop, board room, surf lounge/living room, surf classroom, fitness pavilion, high performance center, & beach club. 8. The Farm trip rates account for 16 tsf of ancillary facilities which include Barn, Greenhouse, Equipment Barn, Tool Shed, Family Camp, Gym, Outfitters, & Locker Rooms. 9. The 1 tsf back of house guardhouse use is accounted for in the Project rates. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐24 February 2022 Location & Page Revision Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, Page 4.15‐16 The following revision addresses Comment Number 10‐a, located in Chapter 2.0, Response to Comments, where CVWD corrects the Conceptual Water Plan exhibit in the Draft EIR. “Water Infrastructure The project proposes to connect to the existing water lines located north of the project site on Avenue 58, to the east on Madison Street, and to the southeast on Avenue 60. Specifically, an 18‐inch water main is located along Avenue 58; 30‐inch and 24‐inch water mains occur along Madison Street; and a 24‐inch water main occurs along Avenue 60. The proposed project water lines will consist of 18‐inch, 12‐inch, and 8‐inch public water lines. Two points of connection will occur at Avenue 58. The project will connect 12‐inch lines at the northern boundary to the existing 18‐inch water main. Four points of connection will occur on Madison Street. The project will connect an 18‐inch water main to the existing 30‐ inch water main at Madison Street’s northern‐most point of connection. This water line will decrease in diameter from 18 inches to 12 inches to serve the residential and resort portions of the site. Two additional points of connection will occur at the eastern‐most property boundary. At this location, the project will connect two 12‐inch water mains to the existing 30‐inch water main. The southern‐most Madison Street point of connection will connect a proposed 18‐inch water main to the existing 24‐inch water main. CVWD also requires an offsite pipeline in Avenue 60 in accordance with an existing agreement. The infrastructure and design components for the project will be consistent with CVWD requirements and the UWMP. The project will be further reviewed by City and CVWD staff to ensure compliance with all current and applicable water requirements.” Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, Page 4.15‐24 (Exhibit 4.15‐1) Please see the updated Conceptual Water Plan exhibit below to replace Exhibit 4.15‐1 and Exhibit 3‐11 in the Draft EIR, per CVWD’s comment (Comment Letter No. 10) in Chapter 2.0 of this Final EIR. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐25 February 2022 Exhibit 3‐11 and 4.15‐1, Conceptual Water Plan 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐26 February 2022 3.2 No Significant New Information Requiring Recirculation CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide that when "significant new information" is added to an EIR after the expiration of the public comment period but before certification, the lead agency must recirculate the EIR for additional public comment. However, recirculation is required only when the information added to the EIR changes the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on either a substantial adverse environmental impact of the project or a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly reduce the impact and that is not going to be implemented. Section 15088.5 (e) of the CEQA Gu idelines provides that a decision not to recirculate is appropriate if it is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the following constitutes substantial evidence: (a) facts; (b) reasonable assumptions predicated on facts; and (c) expert opinions supported by facts. Basically, a lead agency's determination whether information in the record constitutes “substantial evidence” boils down to a determination not only that the information is relevant and material but also that it is sufficiently reliable to have solid evidentiary value. Under CEQA, to determine the reliability of the evidence, a lead agency may consider several factors, such as, but not limited to:  Whether the evidence has an adequate foundation in the witness's personal knowledge of facts;  Whether the evidence is provided by a qualified source, such as when an opinion is provided by a witness who is qualified to render an opinion on the subject; and  Whether the evidence is just simply credible. Upon reviewing all of the written comments submitted during the 45‐day public review period, responses were provided based on the multitude of studies and analyses prepared and/or conducted by various experts (consultants) in preparation of the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The consultants who prepared the studies utilized in the Draft EIR, performed the necessary analyses and/or otherwise participated in reviewing the proposed project’s potential effects under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines included, the Director of Environmental Services, a Senior Environmental Planner/GIS Analyst, a Planner, an Environmental Planner, a Planning CAD Technician, and a Principle Engineer of MSA Consulting, Inc.; Biologists with LSA Associates, Inc.; a Principal Investigator/Historian, a Professional Archaeologist, and a Paleontological Surveyor with CRM Tech; a Project Geologist and a Principal Engineer with Sladden Engineering; an Associate Principal, Principal Engineer, and AICP Principal with Urban Crossroads, Inc.; and light experts of Musco Lighting. The City staff who also coordinated efforts with the various consultants included the City’s Director of Development Services, Planning Manager, and Director of Public Works. 3.0 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 3‐27 February 2022 During the public review period of the Draft EIR, concerns regarding specific environmental topics were raised. The concerns included those related to light, traffic, biological resources, noise, and City land use and zoning. Additional reports were conducted by technical experts to address, verify, or validate the findings of the Draft EIR and associated studies. The additional technical reports were completed by light experts of Musco Lighting; Dr. McGill, PhD, with ELMT Consulting; and Kelly Slater Wave Company. Urban Crossroads, Inc. and LSA Associates, Inc. also provided updates and revisions to their existing reports to address concerns raised by the public. Through the coordinated efforts of all who participated in studying, researching and analyzing the proposed project and its potential effects in the environment, the Draft EIR, and Final EIR was organized to address the following environmental topics: 4.1 Aesthetics 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.2 Air Quality 4.10 Land Use and Planning 4.3 Biological Resources 4.11 Noise 4.4 Cultural Resources 4.12 Public Services 4.5 Energy 4.13 Transportation 4.6 Geology and Soils 4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.15 Utilities 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The City relied on the collective expertise of each of the above consultants and staff as reflected in the analyses of each of the aforementioned environmental topics to prepare its responses to each of the comments received at the close of the public review period. It was determined that none of the comments and none of the responses to the comments generated any "significant new information" that needed to be added to the EIR, such as but not limited to identifying or disclosing an unbeknownst substantial adverse environmental impact of the project, an unbeknownst feasible project alternative or unbeknownst mitigation measure that would clearly reduce a significant impact and/or one that was not going to be implemented. In light of the foregoing, it was determined that there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the City’s decision to not recirculate the EIR for further public comment. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Coral Mountain Resort, La Quinta CA 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐1 February 2022 Chapter 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4.1 Introduction If mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a project as part of the CEQA process, the lead agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure compliance with the project’s mitigation measures. Section 15126(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a project’s mitigation measures must be enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other mechanisms. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines further provide that the MMRP must be adopted at the time of project approval. However, while the MMRP does not have to be included in the EIR, for the sake of maximizing public transparency, a copy of the proposed project’s MMRP has been included in this Final EIR below. In light of the foregoing, this Chapter contains the proposed project’s MMRP. The MMRP was prepared to provide a program for not only monitoring and reporting on the project’s mitigation measures, but also enforcing compliance with respect to the implementation of each mitigation measure adopted for the project. The purpose of the mitigation measures is to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects of the project. 4.2 Monitoring Authority The City may delegate duties and responsibilities for monitoring any given mitigation measure to designated environmental monitors or consultants as deemed necessary. The City may also delegate such duties and responsibilities to certain responsible agencies, affected jurisdictions, enforcement and regulatory agencies of the state or county, special districts and other agencies. The same duties and responsibilities may also be delegated to qualified private entities which accept the delegation. The City’s Development Services (or equivalent positions of other designated agencies or entities) must ensure that the officials delegated the duties or responsibilities to monitor any given set of mitigation measures are qualified to assume such duties and responsibilities. Any deviation from the procedures identified under the MMRP shall require prior approval or authorization by the City. Moreover, any deviations from any of the established monitoring procedures set forth in the MMRP and any remedial actions taken to correct such deviations shall be reported immediately to the City by the assigned environmental monitor or consultant. Notwithstanding any such delegation, the City shall remain responsible for monitoring the implementation of all of the project’s mitigation measures in accordance with the project’s MMRP. 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐2 February 2022 4.3 Enforcement Responsibility The mitigation measures for the proposed project will primarily apply prior to or during construction of the project in all phases of development the project. The City shall be responsible for enforcing each mitigation measure, albeit the City may assign such enforcement responsibilities to a qualified environmental monitor. The assigned environmental monitor for each construction activity shall report any problems with enforcement to the City and appropriate agencies. The MMRP prepared for the proposed project will be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. 4.4 Mitigation Monitoring Table Table 4‐1, Coral Mountain Resort Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, below identifies for each mitigation measure: (1) the potential impact on the environment that the mitigation measure is focused on; (2) a description of the mitigation measure; (3) who or which entity is responsible for monitoring the mitigation measure; (4) the timing for implementing the measure; and (5) the anticipated level of significant after mitigation. 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐3 February 2022 Table 4‐1 Coral Mountain Resort Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Potential Impacts on the Environment Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Timing Level of Significance After Mitigation Section 4.1, Aesthetics a. Adverse effect on scenic vistas c. Visual character or scenic quality AES‐1 The perimeter walls around the low density residential planning areas shall be setback from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights‐of‐way by a minimum average of 30 feet (10 feet more than required under the LQMC), which shall be confirmed through the City’s review and approval of final perimeter wall and landscape plans to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. City Council/ Planning Commission Public Works Department Project Applicant During review of Tentative Tract Maps Significant and Unavoidable AES‐2 All residential structures shall be setback by a minimum of 75 feet from the Madison Street and Avenue 58 public rights‐of‐way to reduce impacts to existing views of Coral Mountain and the Santa Rosa Mountains. City Council/ Planning Commission Public Works Department Project Applicant During review of Tentative Tract Maps Significant and Unavoidable d. Light and glare AES‐3 The operation of the Wave Basin will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the lighting will only be permitted between dusk and 10:00 p.m. to ensure compliance with the City’s outdoor lighting requirements (LQMC 9.100.150). Public Works Department Project Applicant During operation of the Wave Basin Less than Significant Section 4.2, Air Quality a. Conflict with implementation of applicable air quality plan b. Result in a Construction‐Source Mitigation Measures AQ‐1: During Phase 1 of construction, the paving installation activity shall not overlap with the architectural coating (building painting) activity. That prohibition shall be included on all building plans. AQ‐2: For equipment greater than 150 horsepower (>150 HP), the Construction Contractor shall ensure that off‐road City Planning & Public Works Department Project Contractor During ground disturbing activities & construction Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐4 February 2022 cumulatively considerable net increase if any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations diesel construction equipment that complies with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 3 emissions standards and shall ensure that all construction equipment is tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. Operational‐Source Mitigation Measures AQ‐3: The project will require the use of low VOC paints for re‐painting and maintenance of exterior structures consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113(not to exceed 50 grams per liter VOCs for interior and exterior building envelope re‐painting). Under federal and state law, SCAQMD is under a legal obligation to enforce air pollution regulations. These regulations are primarily meant to ensure that the surrounding (or ambient) air meets federal and state air quality standards. The South Coast AQMD also has broad authority to regulate toxic and hazardous air emissions, and these regulations are enforced in the same manner as those which pertain to the ambient air quality standards. City Planning & Public Works Department Project Contractor During Construction Less than Significant Standard Regulatory Requirements/Best Available Control Measures Measures listed below (or equivalent language) shall appear on all project grading plans, construction specifications and bid documents, and the City shall ensure such language is incorporated prior to issuance of any development permits. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rules that are currently applicable during construction activity for this project include but are not limited to Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) (2) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). It should be noted that these Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) are standard regulatory requirements. BACM AQ‐1: The contractor shall adhere to applicable City Planning & Public Works Department Project Contractor Prior to the approval of grading plans Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐5 February 2022 measures contained in Table 1 of Rule 403 including, but not limited to:  All clearing, grading, earth‐moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 25 mph per SCAQMD guidelines in order to limit fugitive dust emissions.  The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the mid‐morning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day.  The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and project site areas are limited to 15 miles per hour or less. BACM AQ‐2: The following measures shall be incorporated into project plans and specifications as implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1113 (3):  Only “Low‐Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)” paints (no more than 50 gram/liter (g/L) of VOC) consistent with SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. BACM AQ‐3: The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 445, which prohibits the use of wood burning stoves and fireplaces in new development. Section 4.3, Biological Resources a. Candidate, sensitive or special status species d. Interfere with movement of native resident or BIO‐1: Burrowing owl surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist, approved by the City prior to any site disturbance activities. A minimum of two surveys, occurring at least three weeks apart, shall be completed in advance of any site disturbance activities. If disturbance activities are expected to start during the burrowing owl breeding season, three surveys shall be completed. The final burrowing owl survey shall be completed within three days prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities. The pre‐construction survey shall Qualified Biologist City Planning Department Project Applicant/ Developer Prior to ground disturbance Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐6 February 2022 migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors be conducted following accepted protocol and the requirements specified in the CVMSHCP (see pp. 4‐168 & 4‐169). Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will survey the construction area and an area up to 500 feet outside the project limits for burrows that could be used by burrowing owls. If the burrow is determined to be occupied, the burrow will be flagged, and a 160‐foot diameter buffer will be established during non‐breeding season or a 250‐foot diameter buffer during the breeding season. The buffer area will be staked and flagged. No development activities will be permitted within the buffer until the young are no longer dependent on the burrow and have left the burrow. If the burrow is found to be unoccupied, the burrow will be made inaccessible to owls, and construction may proceed. If either a nesting or escape burrow is occupied, owls shall be relocated pursuant to accepted Wildlife Agency protocols. Determination of the appropriate method of relocation, such as eviction/passive relocation or active relocation, shall be based on the specific site conditions (e.g., distance to nearest suitable habitat and presence of burrows within that habitat) in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies. If burrowing owls are observed within the Project site during construction activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately and provided with proposed avoidance and minimization measures, consistent with the requirements of the CVMSHCP. BIO‐2: In June 2021, a qualified bat biologist will conduct a second round of focused nighttime surveys for roosting bats at locations where suitable roosting habitat is identified. The nighttime survey will include a combination of acoustic and exit count methods, and will take place during the bat maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley) to enable Qualified Bat Biologist City Planning Department Project June 2021 Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐7 February 2022 detection of maternity‐roosting bats. If maternity roosts are identified within the project area, the biologist will coordinate with CDFW to implement avoidance measures during the bat maternity season in accordance with CDFW’s established standards. No construction activities will occur within a 300‐foot buffer of maternity roost sites during the bat maternity season unless concurrence is received from CDFW to reduce that buffer distance based upon the bat species present and the activities occurring. Applicant/ Developer BIO‐3: Removal of trees (including palm trees) shall occur outside the bat maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley), which coincides with the bird nesting season, to avoid the potential for “take” of flightless young. Trees and snags that have been identified as confirmed or potential roost sites require a two‐step removal process and the involvement of a bat biologist to ensure that no roosting bats are killed during this activity. Consistent with CDFW protocols this two‐step removal shall occur over two consecutive days as follows: on Day 1, branches and limbs not containing cavities, as identified by a qualified bat biologist, will be removed. On Day 2, the remainder of the tree may be removed without supervision by a bat biologist. The disturbance caused by limb removal, followed by an interval of one evening, will allow bats to safely abandon the roost. Qualified Bat Biologist City Planning Department Project Applicant/ Developer Outside bat maternity season (March 15 – August 31) Less than Significant BIO‐4: To avoid impacts to roosting bats from the installation of new light fixtures associated with the proposed development, all lighting fixtures shall have light shields or similar devices (i.e., dark sky compliant lighting) installed to ensure that there is no light trespass onto Coral Mountain and surrounding open space. A supplemental light study will be performed to collect nighttime lighting measurements and confirm that no light trespass onto Coral Mountain is occurring; this will Qualified Bat Biologist City Planning Department Project Applicant/ Developer Prior to the installation of light poles Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐8 February 2022 be submitted for City approval prior to issuance of any permit for occupancy or use of the Wave Basin. BIO‐5: A qualified bat biologist shall confirm the absence of roosting bats prior to any restoration work or other disturbance of the adobe site. If bats are found or if the absence of bats cannot be confirmed, the bat biologist will install or directly supervise installation of humane eviction devices and exclusionary material to prevent bats from roosting in the building. Implementation of the humane eviction/exclusions is typically performed in the fall (September or October) preceding construction activity at each structure to avoid impacts to hibernating bats during the winter months or during the maternity season (March 15–August 31 in the Coachella Valley), when nonvolant (flightless) young are present. Any humane eviction/exclusion devices must be installed at least 10 days prior to the demolition of a structure housing bats to allow sufficient time for the bats to vacate the roost(s). Qualified Bat Biologist City Planning Department Project Applicant/ Developer 10 days prior to the demolition of a structure housing bats Less than Significant BIO‐6: To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation removal and ground‐disturbing activities shall be conducted outside the general bird nesting season. Any vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and/or construction activities that occur during the nesting season will require that all suitable habitats be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist that is pre‐approved by the CDFW. Prior to commencement of clearing, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within 14 days and repeated 3 days prior to ground‐disturbing activities. If any active nests are detected a buffer of 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) around the nest adjacent to construction will be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological Qualified Bat Biologist City Planning Department Project Applicant/ Developer 14 days prior to clearing activities Outside the general bird nesting season Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐9 February 2022 monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using his or her best professional judgment, or as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies. If nesting birds are detected, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment as otherwise directed by the Wildlife Agencies to avoid Take of nesting birds. BIO‐7: To ensure that the project will avoid any significant construction noise impacts on wildlife using Coral Mountain, noise monitoring will occur for all construction activities using heavy equipment within 150 feet of the base of Coral Mountain. If noise levels exceed 75 dBA, construction operational changes or other project modifications shall be made, as directed by the project biologist to reduce the noise levels at Coral Mountain to below 75 dBA. City Manager Project Developer During construction activities within 150 feet of Coral Mountain During Special Events Once annually Less than Significant BIO‐8: Existing native vegetation, particularly palo verde trees, will be retained where feasible. Landscaping shall include native desert species. City Planning Department Project Applicant During Landscaping Less than Significant BIO‐9: Onsite lakes will be designed and constructed by industry professionals and will incorporate proper aeration, circulation and filtration to maintain a balanced lake ecosystem. Lakes will be stocked with beneficial fish and plant species. Limited chemical applications will be utilized as necessary. Ongoing maintenance will ensure that onsite lakes function properly to control any invasive species or other nuisance conditions. Project Applicant During operation Less than Significant BIO‐10: An educational program about the Peninsular bighorn sheep and their associated habitat shall be implemented and maintained throughout the resort, open space, and City Planning Department During operation Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐10 February 2022 low‐density community programs through the use of signage, pamphlets, and staff education. The Education Program should inform the reason of why specific measures are being taken to support recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep. The Education Program should include the ecology of Peninsular bighorn sheep, what threats this species is currently facing, and how recovery actions will reduce these threats. This includes information that explains: (1) why restrictions on toxic plants, fences, and pesticides are needed; (2) how artificial feeding of coyotes could adversely affect bighorn sheep; and (3) how recreational activities may affect sheep. The use of interpretive signs is encouraged. Project Applicant 4.4 Cultural Resources a. Adverse change to Historical Resources b. Adverse change to Archaeological Resources c. Disturb human remains CUL‐1: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33‐008388. The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project’s Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and Qualified Archaeologist City Planning & Engineering Department Project Applicant Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐11 February 2022 attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre‐1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun‐colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al.1998:54). CUL‐2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Qualified Archaeologist City Planning Department ACBCI Prior to ground disturbing activities Less than Significant CUL‐3: An approved Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) Native American Cultural Resource Monitor shall be present during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys) for the project. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the Tribal monitor can assess the significance of the find. City Planning Department Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians – Native American Resource Monitor Project Applicant During ground disturbing activities Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐12 February 2022 CUL‐4: Prior to ground disturbance during any phase of the project, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all workers, conducted by the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office Project Applicant Prior to ground disturbing activity Less than Significant CUL‐5: Sites 33‐00193, 33‐001715, and 33‐009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contains the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Deed restrictions shall be recorded for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance of any portion of Planning Area III. For the balance of Site 33‐001715, where scattered artifacts but no features were found, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to ground disturbance to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI and their approval provided to the City in writing prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site. City Planning Department ABCBI Project Applicant Section 4.6, Geology and Soils a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial GEO‐1 All designs for any water body on the site shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and comply with all seismic codes in effect at the time they are constructed. All designs shall be based on and incorporate the recommendation of a qualified soils engineer in a site and water body specific report attached to the plans submitted to the City. Qualified Soils Engineer City Planning, Engineering & Prior to site plan approval Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐13 February 2022 adverse effects involving: iii. Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction c. Located on an Unstable Geologic Unit d. Located on Expansive Soil f. Destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature Public Works Department Project Applicant/ Developer GEO‐2 All earthwork including excavation, backfill and preparation of the subgrade soil, shall be performed in accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, presented below, and portions of the local regulatory requirements, as applicable. All earthwork should be performed under the observation and testing of a qualified soil engineer. The following geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project are based on observations from the field investigation program, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analyses.  Stripping: areas to be graded shall be cleared of the vegetation, associated root systems and debris. All areas scheduled to receive fill should be cleared of old fills and any irreducible matter. The stripping shall be removed off‐sit or stockpiled for later use in landscape areas. Undocumented fill soil or loose soil shall be removed in its entirety and replaced as engineered fill. Voids left by obstruction shall be properly backfilled in accordance with the compaction recommendations of this report.  Preparation of the Residential Building Areas: in order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, the primary foundation bearing soil shall be over‐excavated and recompacted. Over‐excavation shall extend to a minimum depth of 3 feet below existing grade or 3 feet blow the bottom of the footings, whichever is deeper. Once adequate removals have been verified, the exposed native soil Qualified Soils Engineer City Planning, Engineering & Public Works Department Project Applicant/ Developer During ground disturbing activities Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐14 February 2022 shall be scarified, the moisture‐conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.  Preparation of the Hotel Building: In order to provide firm and uniform foundation bearing conditions, over‐excavation and re‐compaction through the building and foundation area is recommended. All artificial fill soil and low density near surface native soil shall be removed to a depth of at least 4 feet below existing grade or 4 feet below the bottom of the footings, whichever is greater. Remedial grading shall extend laterally, a minimum of five feet beyond the building perimeter. The exposed surface shall then be scarified, the moisture conditioned to within two percent of optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.  Compaction: Soil to be used as engineered fill should be free of organic material, debris and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain irreducible matter greater than six (6) inches in maximum dimension. All fill materials shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding six inches in a loose condition. If import fill is required, the material shall be of a non‐expansive nature and shall meet the following criteria: Plastic Index Less than 12 Liquid Limit Less than 35 Percent Soil Passing #200 Sieve Between 15% and 35% Maximum Aggregate Size 3 Inches The subgrade and all fill material shall be compacted with acceptable compaction equipment, to at least 90 percent relative compaction. The bottom of the 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐15 February 2022 exposed subgrade shall be observed by a representative of Sladden Engineering prior to fill placement. Compaction testing shall be performed on all lifts in order to verify proper placement of the fill materials.  Shrinkage and Subsidence: Volumetric shrinkage of the material that is excavated and replaced as controlled compacted fill shall be anticipated. It is estimated that shrinkage could vary from 10 percent to 25 percent. Subsidence of the surfaces that are scarified and compacted shall be between 1 and 3 tenths of a foot. This will vary depending upon the type of equipment used, the moisture content of the soil at the time of grading and the actual degree of compaction attained. GEO‐3 All earth‐moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor and continuous monitoring will become necessary if undisturbed, potentially fossiliferous lakebed sediments are encountered. The monitor shall be empowered to stop earth moving activities if fossils are identified. The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, but must have the power to temporarily halt or divert construction equipment to allow for removal of abundant or large specimens. A monitoring plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any earth moving permit, or the disturbance of any soils on the site, which will include:  Samples of sediments shall be collected and processed to recover small fossil remains.  Recovered specimens shall be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. A report of findings, including an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their City Planning, Department Qualified Paleontological Monitor Project Applicant/ Developer During earth‐moving operations reaching beyond the depth of two feet Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐16 February 2022 significance when appropriate, shall be prepared upon completion of the research procedures outlined above. The report shall be provided to the City within 30 days of the conclusion of monitoring activities. Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions a. GHG Emissions that may Significantly Impact the Environment GHG‐1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the project applicant shall purchase a minimum of 72,000 MTCO2e credits (2,400 MTCO2e per year for 30 years). The purchase of carbon credits must be made from a CARB‐approved carbon registry with independent third‐party verification. Examples of approved registries include the American Carbon Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Verra. The applicant shall submit documentation of the offset purchase to the City demonstrating that it mitigates a minimum of 2,400 MTCO2e per year (72,000 MTCO2e over a 30‐year period), prior to any occupancy of the site. Alternatively, the project applicant may submit a GHG reduction plan to the City for approval that achieves an equal level of GHG reduction outlined herein. The GHG plan must include enforceable actions that reduce GHG emissions to at or below the total mitigated values presented herein. City Planning Department Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits Significant and Unavoidable Section 4.11, Noise a. Generation of noise levels in excess of established standards b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration NOI‐1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that project construction activities shall comply with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code requirements. NOI‐2 During all project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with property operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site. City Planning & Public Works Department Project Applicant/ Developer Prior to the approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐17 February 2022 NOI‐3 The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction‐related noise sources and noise‐sensitive receivers nearest the project site during all project construction (i.e., to the center). NOI‐4 The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck‐related noise. NOI‐5 A six‐foot perimeter wall will be developed along the northern and eastern property boundaries, adjacent to the proposed Low Density Residential Planning Area (PA II), in order to protect the proposed onsite residential uses from off‐site traffic noise. The barriers shall provide a weight of at least four pounds per square foot of face area with no decorative cutouts or line‐of‐sight openings between shielded areas and the roadways. The barrier must present a solid face from top to bottom. Unnecessary openings or decorative cutouts shall not be made. All gaps (except for weep holes) should be filled with grout or caulking. City Planning & Public Works Department Project Applicant/ Developer During construction Less than Significant NOI‐6 The operation of the Wave Basin and associated Wave machines shall be limited to the daytime and evening hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., compliant with the recreational operational hours allowed by the City of La Quinta. City Planning Department Project Applicant/ Developer During Operation Less than Significant Section 4.13, Transportation a. Conflict with an applicable plan or TRA‐1 The project proponent shall contribute DIF as required by the City of La Quinta. TRA‐2 The project proponent shall contribute TUMF traffic impact mitigation fees prior to the issuance of Building Permits. City Public Works Department Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐18 February 2022 policy addressing the circulation system c. Increase hazards due to a geometric design feature d. Result in inadequate emergency access TRA‐3 The project proponent shall ensure that streetscape improvement plans for the project frontage on Avenue 58, Madison Street and Avenue 60, are submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the initiation of landscape or roadway improvements. City Planning & Public Works Department Project Applicant Prior to the initiation of landscape or roadway improvementsLess than Significant TRA‐4 The project proponent shall ensure that clear unobstructed sight distances are provided at all site access points and internal intersections. Sight distances shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to approval of landscape and street improvement plans. City Planning & Public Works Department Project Applicant Prior to the approval of landscape or roadway improvementsLess than Significant TRA‐5 The project proponent shall ensure that final layout and site access design are subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer prior to final project approval. City Traffic Engineer Project Applicant Prior to final project approval Less than Significant TRA‐6 The project proponent shall ensure that emergency police, fire and paramedic vehicle access are provided for the project prior to final project approval. Fire Department City Planning & Public Works Department Project Applicant Prior to final project approval Less than Significant TRA‐7 The project proponent shall ensure that traffic signing and striping plans shall be developed in conjunction with street improvement plans and submitted to the City of La Quinta for review and approval during the project approval process. City Planning & Public Works Department Project Applicant During the project approval process Less than Significant TRA‐8 The project proponent shall ensure that Construction Traffic Control Plans are reviewed and approved by the City prior to project construction. These plans are to be implemented during construction activities. Construction includes onsite and offsite improvements. City Planning & Public Works Department Project Applicant Prior to project construction Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐19 February 2022 TRA‐9 If Special Events are to take place prior to the completion of Phase 3 construction, Phase 3 typical operations traffic improvements will be completed or the applicant shall provide a focused traffic analysis with the Temporary Use Permit that identifies any improvements that are not necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service at study intersections. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. TRA‐10 If Special Events are to take place prior to the construction of Phase 3, a special event traffic and parking plan will be submitted with each Temporary Use Permit to ensure that special events will not cause any significant traffic or parking impacts. If the analysis does not demonstrate acceptable operations, the TUP will be denied. City Planning & Public Works Department Qualified Traffic Engineer Project Applicant During Special Events, prior to Phase 3 construction Less than Significant TRA‐11 Traffic Management Plans will be submitted to the City and the Police Department for review and approval prior to special events. Timing for installation of traffic management measures will be scaled to the size and duration of the event. In general, signage for large events should be in place five days prior and two days following special events. The City and Police Department may impose additional measures if determined to be necessary. Individual management plans for specific special events shall be submitted at least 30 days prior to the start of the event. The special event Traffic Management Plans shall include the measures identified in Mitigation Measures TRA‐12 through TRA‐14 below. City Planning & Public Works Department Police Department Project Applicant 30 days prior to Special Events Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐20 February 2022 TRA‐12 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan, the project proponent shall include the use of Portable changeable message signs (CMS) or moveable mechanical electronic message boards. CMS will be located at critical locations identified by the La Quinta Police Department (LQPD) and in place 5 days ahead of the event and 2 days after. TRA‐13 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan the project proponent shall include the use of law enforcement personnel and/or special event flaggers to direct traffic in locations reviewed and approved by the City and Police Department. TRA 14 In developing the Special Event Traffic Management Plan the project proponent shall include the use of public service announcements (PSA) to provide information to event guests and surrounding neighborhoods prior to the event. Examples include online event information, brochures and changeable message signs that include details such as suggested routes, drop‐off and parking facility locations. City Planning & Public Works Department Police Department Project Applicant During development of Special Event Traffic Management Plan Less than Significant TRA‐15 The project proponent shall ensure that the proposed Coral Mountain Interpretive Center trail designated by the Desert Recreation District Master Plan and associated with the future Coral Mountain Interpretive Center is incorporated into project plans. Accommodations for this trail shall be located along the approximate toe of Coral Mountain, within the designated conservation area at the southwestern edge of the property. City Planning Department Desert Recreation District Project Applicant Prior to project approval Less than Significant Section 4.14, Tribal Cultural Resources TCR‐1: Before ground disturbing activities begin, the applicant shall contact the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to arrange cultural monitoring. The project requires the presence of an approved Agua Caliente Qualified Archaeologist Agua Caliente Native American Prior to ground disturbing activities Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐21 February 2022 a. Cause substantial adverse change in significance of tribal cultural resource that is i. A site listed in the CRHR or Local Register, Tribal Cultural Resources ii. A resource determined to be significant to a California Native American tribe. Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt in the vicinity of the deposits, and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines), within 24 hours, to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. Cultural Resource Monitor ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office City Planning Department Project Applicant TCR‐2: The presence of a qualified archaeologist shall be required during all project related ground disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the ACBCI and provided to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity for all construction phases and activities. If potentially significant archaeological materials are discovered, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until the archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Qualified Archaeologist ACBCI City Planning Department Project Applicant During all ground disturbing activities Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐22 February 2022 TCR‐3: Before ground disturbing activities, the project’s archaeologist shall prepare an Archaeological Treatment, Disposition, and Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action to approve the plan is taken within 30 days from submission for approval. If the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office rejects two Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Treatment, Disposition and Monitoring Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site. TCR‐4: Before ground disturbing activities, the project’s archaeologist shall prepare a Rock Art Management Plan, based on recommendations made in the report by McCarthy and Mouriquand, and shall submit the plan to the ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office for approval. The Rock Art Management Plan shall be deemed rejected by ACBCI’s Tribal Historic Preservation Office if no action is taken to approve the plan within 30 days of submission for approval. If the ACBCI Historic Preservation Office rejects two Rock Art Management Plans submitted for approval, the applicant may appeal the second denial to the La Quinta City Council for a final determination. The approved Rock Art Management Plan shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance on the site. Qualified Archaeologist ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office City Planning Department City Council Project Applicant Prior to ground disturbing activities Less than Significant TCR‐5: Sites 33‐00193, 33‐001715, and 33‐009545, along the base of Coral Mountain and at the toe of the slope, which contains the rock art panels and bedrock milling features, shall be avoided and protected in situ during project construction through the establishment of Qualified Archaeologist City Planning Department During project construction & Prior to ground disturbance in Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐23 February 2022 Environmentally Sensitive Areas; the Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be recorded on the property, and proof of recordation shall be provided to the City prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III. Nominations of these sites to the National Register of Historic Places shall be filed with the appropriate federal agency prior to the issuance of the first grading permit; and the sites shall be subject to the provisions of the Rock Art Management Plan. Project Applicant Planning Area III TCR‐6: For the portion of Site 33‐001715 outside the preservation area established in TCR‐5, mitigative surface collection and subsurface excavation shall be completed prior to any ground disturbance in Planning Area III to recover a representative sample of the cultural materials prior to the commencement of the project and as a condition of grading permit issuance. The excavation shall include a combination of standard archaeological units, shovel test pits, and backhoe trenches to optimize both efficient coverage of the site area and safe recovery of cultural remains. The survey protocols shall be approved by ACBCI. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI’s satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. TCR‐7: Prior to ground disturbance in Planning Area III, a qualified archaeologist shall complete surface collection, testing and excavation if necessary, for sites 33‐1716, 33‐1717, 33‐8386, 33‐9001, 33‐9003, 33‐28907, 33‐28908, 33‐28909, 33‐28910, 33‐28911, 33‐28912. A report of findings, including written confirmation of completion to ACBCI’s satisfaction, shall be provided to the City prior to ground disturbance. Qualified Archaeologist ACBCI City Planning Department Project Applicant Prior to ground disturbance in Planning Area III Less than Significant TCR‐8: A comprehensive recordation program shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist for Site 33‐008388. Qualified Archaeologist Prior to the occupancy of Less than Significant 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐24 February 2022 The program shall contain detailed drawings and measurements to preserve the information on the adobe building. Such information would include the floor plan, elevations, building materials and their configurations, and any other notable structural and architectural details. The adobe remains and an appropriate buffer determined by the project archaeologist shall be flagged and cornered off during all ground disturbance and preserved in place. Prior to the occupancy of any structure in Planning Area II, the adobe will be fenced off and an informational plaque describing the history of the ranch complex shall be provided, and the project proponent shall provide the City with the CC&Rs for the project area, demonstrating that the feature would be maintained in perpetuity by the project’s Homeowners Association. Special attention should be given to the residence foundation, which, may be the remains of one of the earlier structures at the site, dating from 1920s or before. The footings and slabs at this location should be cleared and measured, and attempts should be made to locate the original trash pits or privies which could contain valuable artifacts revealing much about life in the harsh environment at such an early date. The scatter of artifacts has the greatest number of pre‐1925 artifacts, mostly in the form of sun‐colored glass, but also in brown and olive glass, porcelain, ceramics and more. There may be remains of an early structure near this point, hidden amidst the broad stand of tamarisk trees, an original windbreak. Search of these remains is required to ensure the most complete recovery possible of the early 20th century artifacts and features. Photos, measurements, and artifacts shall be catalogued, analyzed, reported, and curated at the Coachella Valley Museum (Love et al.1998:54). City Planning Department Project Applicant any structure in Planning Area II 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Coral Mountain Resort Final EIR 4‐25 February 2022 TCR‐9: The applicant shall coordinate with ACBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office to ensure there are a sufficient number of Native American monitors for the number of earth‐moving machinery for each phase of development. The applicant shall provide the City with fully executed monitoring agreements prior to each phase of ground disturbing activity. ACBCI THPO City Planning Department Project Applicant Prior to each phase of ground disturbing activity Less than Significant TCR‐10: Should human remains be inadvertently discovered during ground disturbance, the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 shall be followed. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains, until the County Coroner has examined the remains. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24‐hours. County Coroner City Planning Department Project Applicant During ground disturbing activities Less than Significant TCR‐11: Prior to any ground disturbance, the applicant shall sign a curation agreement with the ACBCI THPO. A fully executed copy of the agreement shall be provided to the City. ACBCI THPO City Planning Department Project Applicant Prior to ground disturbing activities Less than Significant TCR‐12: Prior to any ground disturbance, cultural sensitivity training shall take place for all contractors with the staff at the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO). ACBCI THPO City Planning Department Project Applicant Prior to ground disturbing activities Less than Significant