Lozeau Drury, LLP (SAFER) 2025-09-26 - SRR Addendum 3 to MND EA 2025-0002 & EA 2002-453CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 7, 2025 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM LOZEAU DRURY, LLP ON BEHALF OF SAFER
REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE OCTOBER 7, 2025, COUNCIL MEETING
LOZEAU
DRURYL
September 26, 2025
VIA EMAIL
T 510.836.4200
F 510.836.4205
Linda Evans, Mayor
Deborah McGarrey, Mayor Pro Tem
John Pena, Councilmember
Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Councilmember
Steve Sanchez, Councilmember
City Council
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
CityClerkMail@LaQuintaCA.gov
1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 www.lozeaudrury.com
Oakland, CA 94612 I richard@lozeaudrury.com
Cheri Flores, Interim Design and Development Director
Design and Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Planning@LaQuintaCA.gov
Re: Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental
Assessment 2002-453 (SCH No. 1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort;
Extension Request for October 7, 2025 City Council Meeting
Dear Mayor Evans, Mayor Pro Tem McGarrey, Honorable Councilmembers and Ms. Flores:
This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental
Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the SilverRock Resort Project (Development
Agreement 2025-0001 (Reinstated and Amended DA 2014-0001) Environmental Assessment
2025-0002 (Addendum No. 3 To EA 2002-453)), which proposes to develop one hotel with
approximately 154 keys, 55,000 square foot banquet/shared use facilities, 445 residences,
40,000 square foot commercial area, 17,000 square foot public golf clubhouse, 20,000 square
foot residential amenities building, and a 18-hole golf course on a partially vacant site south
of Avenue 52 and west of Jefferson Street ("Project"), to be heard at the City Council's
Meeting on October 7, 2025 for a second reading.
SAFER requests an extension of time for the October 7, 2025 meeting. The City is
relying on the 23-year-old mitigated negative declaration ("MND") prepared in 2002 for a
prior version of the Project, which was substantially different. While the City has provided
the public with the 2025 Addendum to the MND, it has not provided the underlying 2002
MND, which the City is relying on. Without this document, the public cannot meaningfully
comment on the CEQA review that the City purports to be relying on.
SAFER has requested the 2002 MND, but the City staff has failed to produce it. We
reiterate that request for immediate access to the 2002 MND that the City is relying on. Due
Extension Request: Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental
Assessment 2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
October 7, 2025 City Council Special Meeting
Page 2 of 3
to its extreme age, the two -decade -old 2002 MND is not available on-line at CEQAnet or
other on-line CEQA databases. Furthermore, since the 2002 MND has not been provided,
and is not in the City council packet, it seems almost certain that the City council itself failed
to analyze the CEQA document that it purports to be relying on. The current City council
members were not on the City council 23-years ago, and therefore likely never reviewed the
2002 MND that they purport to rely on. Under the circumstances, they cannot make the
necessary findings to determine that the 2002 MND adequately analyzed the current,
changed Project. It would be a major violation of CEQA for the City to rely upon a
environmental document that has not been provided to the ultimate decision -making body or
the public.
This request is made pursuant to Section 21092(b)(1) of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(0(4) which require that "all
documents referenced in the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration"
be available for review and "readily accessible" during the entire comment period. Of
course, this must include the MND itself.
We also make this request pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
Government Code Section 7920 et seq (formerly, Government Code Section 6250 et seq.).
We request immediate access to the 2002 MND pursuant to section 7922.525(a), (b)
(formerly 6253(a)) of the Public Records Act, and copies of the requested documents
pursuant to sections .7921.300 (formerly 6256 and 6257) of the Public Records Act.
None of the requested documents, including drafts, notes, or internal memoranda are
exempt from disclosure. (Citizens for a Better Environment v. Dept. of Food and
Agriculture (1985) 171 Ca1.App.3d 704). We request a written response to this
request within 10 days and access to the requested documents immediately.
(Gov.Code §§ 7921.300 (formerly, 6256, 6257).)
We request that the city council meeting be extended until 20 days after the date that
all requested documents are provided for our review. CEQA section 21092(b)(1) and CEQA
Guidelines section 15072(0 require that the notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration
must include "the address where copies of the proposed negative declaration and all
documents referenced therein are available for review and readily accessible during the
agency's normal working hours." As noted by leading CEQA commentators, Remy and
Thomas:
the requirement to notify the public of the address at which "all documents
referenced" in a negative declaration can be found (and presumably read) appears to
compel agencies to make available for public review all documents on which agency
staff or consultants expressly rely in preparing a negative declaration... In light of
case law emphasizing the importance of ensuring that the public can obtain and
review documents on which agencies rely for the environmental conclusions (see,
e.g., Emmington v. Solano County Redevel. Agency, 195 Ca1.App.3d 491, 502-503
Extension Request: Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental
Assessment 2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
October 7, 2025 City Council Special Meeting
Page 3 of 3
(1987)), agencies, to be prudent, should ensure that they comply literally with this
requirement.
Remy, Thomas and Moose, Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, p. 250
(Solano Press, 1999). By failing to provide "all documents referenced" in the CEQA
document for public review, the City would be violating the procedural mandates of CEQA.
We therefore request that the comment period be extended until 20 days after we receive the
requested information. The City simply cannot rely on a CEQA document that it has not
provided to the public for review, and that appears not to have been provided even to the
City's own City council.
Sincerely,
Richard Drury
LOZEAU 1 DRURY LLP