Loading...
Procopio (Vaughn, James) 2025-10-07 Turnbridge SRR Objecting to SAFER allegationsCITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 7, 2025 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM JAMES VAUGHN OF PROCOPIO CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 3 - ADOPTING ORDINANCE NO. 626 AT SECOND READING APPROVING DA 2025-0001 - REINSTATED AND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2014-1001 FOR THE SILVERROCK RESORT PROJECTS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REGARDING ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADOPTED UNDER ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT 2002-453 FOR THE SILVERROCK RESORT PROJECT Procopio October 7, 2025 VIA E-MAIL (CITYCLERKMAIL@LAQUINTACA.GOV) Linda Evans, Mayor City Councilmembers City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 PROCOPIO 200 Spectrum Center Drive Suite 1650 Irvine, CA 92618 T. 949.383.2997 F. 619.235.0398 JAMES VAUGHN Partner P. 949.247.7312 James.Vaughn@procopio.com DEL MAR HEIGHTS LAS VEGAS ORANGE COUNTY SCOTTSDALE SAN DIEGO SILICON VALLEY WASHINGTON, D.C. Re: Response to Untimely Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2002-452 Submitted on October 6, 2025 on Behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") Dear Mayor Evans and Honorable Councilmembers: This letter responds to the letter submitted by the Lozeau Drury law firm on behalf of SAFER on October 6, 2025, as well as the exhibits thereto, which constitute an untimely objection under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to the City's prior adoption of resolutions approving Environmental Assessment 2025-0002 (Addendum No. 3 to Environmental Assessment 2002-453) and conditionally approving Development Agreement 2025-0001 (Reinstated and Amended Development Agreement 2014-1001), which were approved on September 22, 2025 after the City Council closed the public hearing on those project approvals. For purposes of complying with CEQA, project approval "occurs upon the earliest commitment" by the public agency to issue an entitlement, "not when the final or last discretionary approval is made." CEQA Guidelines §15352(b); and North Coast Rivers Alliance v. Westlands Water Dist. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 832, 859. Here, the final approving body for the City, the Citsy Council, voted unanimously to (1) adopt a resolution approving Environmental Assessment 2025-0002 (Addendum No. 3 to Environmental Assessment 2002-453) (hereinafter, the "2025 Addendum"), (2) adopt a resolution conditionally approving the Economic Subsidy report, Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Sharing Agreement, and Option to Purchase Real Property Agreement for the Phase 2 Option Property, and (3) introduce Ordinance No. 626 conditionally approving Development Agreement 2025-0001 (Reinstated and Amended Development Agreement 2014-1001) 135281-00000001/9991802.1 procopio.com Procopio (collectively, the "2025 Project Approvals"). These unanimous approvals occurred following a properly noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission on September 9, 2025, and a properly noticed public hearing before the City Council on September 22, 2025. On September 24, 2025, the City filed a Notice of Determination confirming that it made the 2025 Project Approvals on September 22, 2025, that a Negative Declaration was previously prepared for the project, and that an Addendum to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. This approval process fully complied with CEQA's mandate that the City's environmental review and determinations must be made before "the agency has committed itself to the project as a whole or to any particular features." Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 134. Therefore, the October 6, 2025 letter submitted on behalf of SAFER, and the exhibits thereto (collectively, the "SAFER Letter"), were not timely submitted before the City Council closed the public hearing and took final action to adopt the 2025 Project Approvals on September 22, 2025, and accordingly, cannot properly be considered by the City Council in connection with now adopting Ordinance NO. 626 on second reading. See, also, Guerrero v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1087. Even assuming arguendo that the City Council could properly consider the SAFER Letter, it contains no substantial evidence showing that the 2025 Project Approvals may produce a significant environmental effect that had not previously been studied in the 2002 Mitigated Negative Declaration or the two prior Addenda thereto prepared in connection with prior SilverRock project approvals (collectively, the "MND"). Therefore, SAFER's request for preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR must be rejected under Public Resources Code § 21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162. As explained in further detail below, the SAFER Letter asserts CEQA objections to the 2025 Project Approvals concerning population growth, traffic, biological resources, air quality, Valley Fever, and formaldehyde, but it bases these objections on incorrect data concerning the project, false assumptions regarding the effects of the 2025 Project Approvals, and factually unsupported speculation concerning the project and the surrounding circumstances. Nothing in the SAFER letter undermines the findings made by the City, and supported by the evidence and analysis contained in the 2025 Addendum, that the 2025 Project Approvals will not cause any new or substantially more severe adverse environmental effects than previously analyzed and disclosed in the MND. Therefore, no major revisions to the MND are required to make that document adequate to address the environmental effects of the 2025 Project Approvals. The law is clear that under these circumstances, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required or appropriate under Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162. 1. Growth Inducing Effects. The SAFER letter incorrectly asserts that 2025 Project Approvals will increase the City's population by 9.9%, and that based on that population increase, the project will have significant impacts "on water supply, traffic, schools and other public services." (see SAFER Letter, at p. 5). In actuality, the 2025 Project Approvals contribute approximately 9.9% of the future population growth in the City that is already planned under the City's adopted 2035 General Plan. As explained in the 2025 CEQA Addendum (pp. 3.0-7 - 3.0-8), the City's 2035 General Plan already accounted for the growth resulting from the Project. Moreover, the 2025 Project Approvals substantially reduce the Project's contribution to planned growth in the City because the 2025 Project Approvals reduce the 135281-00000001/9991802.1 2 procopio.com Procopio total number of hotel rooms and residential units to 599, as compared to the 1,084 allowed under the existing project approvals (see 2025 CEQA Addendum at pp. 2.0-7 - 2.0-8, and pp. 3.0-7 - 3.0- 8). As modified by the 2025 Project Approvals, the Project would reduce the projected population generated by the project by approximately 45%. This fundamental misunderstanding of the 2025 Project Approvals undermines all of the alleged significant environmental effects asserted in the SAFER Letter and plainly supports the 2025 Addendum conclusion that the 2025 Project Approvals will not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental effects that analyzed in the previously adopted MND. 2. Traffic Effects. The Safer Letter, including the letter from Tom Brohard and Associates attached as Exhibit A thereto, claims that the 2025 Project Approvals will have significant traffic impacts due to the population increase resulting from the project (see p. 5 and Exhibit A). As explained in the preceding paragraph, these assertions are wrong because they are based on an incorrect assumption that the 2025 Project Approvals will increase the City's population by 9.9%. The traffic impact claims are also based on the incorrect assumption that the 2025 Project Approvals result in a 20% higher trip generation rate than the project originally approved in 2002. As explained in the 2025 Addendum on p. 3.0-30, the proposed project modifications in the 2025 Project Approvals actually reduce the Project trip generation by approximately 27% (from 10,389 net daily trips to 7,571 net daily trips). Based on this miscalculation, the SAFER Letter claims regarding traffic impacts must be rejected. As correctly stated in the 2025 Addendum, the project modifications in the 2025 Project Approvals will not cause any new or substantially more severe environmental effects than previously analyzed for the Project with respect to traffic. The SAFER Letter also incorrectly asserts that the City should have conducted a VMT analysis to evaluate the transportation effects of the 2025 Project Approvals. The law is now established that VMT analysis is not required under these circumstances, where modifications are proposed to a project that was previously approved before the change in the CEQA Guidelines establishing VMT as the appropriate way to evaluate transportation impacts for new projects. See Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 270. As confirmed by the Court in Olen Properties, "it is settled law in California that subsequent changes to the Guidelines are not 'new information' triggering Section 21166, subdivision (c) [requiring a subsequent or supplemental EIR], so long as the underlying environmental issue was understood at the time" of the initial project approval. Id. at p. 280-281. In the Olen Properties decision, the Court of Appeal rejected the very VMT argument asserted here by SAFER and Mr. Brohard. Finally, the SAFER Letter asserts that background traffic increases since 2002, including from other golf course communities constructed in the Project vicinity, constitutes a significant change in circumstances that would require major revisions to the previously approved MND. To the contrary, such prior development and growth in traffic is fully consistent with the growth assumptions addressed in the City's General Plan and in the previously adopted MND. Accordingly, the SAFER Letter fails to show that the 2025 Project Approvals may cause a significant environmental effect that was not previously studied in the previously approved MND, and fails to include any accurate evidence regarding any potentially significant increase in the previously analyzed effects of the Project. 135281-00000001/9991802.1 3 procopio.com 7Procopio 3. Biological Resources. The SAFER Letter, including the letter from Shawn Smallwood attached as Exhibit B, asserts that the 2025 Project Approvals will have impacts to special status species that were not adequately addressed in the 2002 MND. However, these objections constitute an improper attack on the analysis and conclusions in the 2002 MND and supporting biological resources surveys, rather than providing any substantial evidence that the 2025 Project Approvals will cause any new or substantially more severe significant adverse effects than were analyzed in the previously adopted MND (see, for example, the repeated claim that the analysis in the 2002 MND and its consideration of mitigation measures is incomplete and inadequate, at Exhibit B, pp, 2, and 20 - 37). This is precisely the type of after -the -fact attacks on prior environmental review that is prohibited under Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and related caselaw. As explained in a leading legal treatise on the issue, "CEQA's subsequent review rules logically relate to and effectively implement its presumptions of finality and validity that attach to both certified EIRs and adopted negative declarations... This presumption acts to preclude the reopening of the CEQA process even if the initial EIR is discovered to have been fundamentally inaccurate and misleading in the descriptions of a significant effect or the severity of its consequences." Miller & Starr California Real Estate 4th, §26:20. While the SAFER Letter fails to show any such inadequacies in the previously adopted MND, its biological resources arguments clearly run afoul of the CEQA rules governing review of proposed project modifications where an MND has already been adopted in connection with the previous project approvals. Moreover, the SAFER Letter fails to provide any substantial evidence that the 2025 Project Approvals will result in any substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species. Instead, the SAFER Letter identifies a number of species identified by Ms. Smallwood as potentially occurring on or within approximately 4 miles of the Project site, but it fails to provide any evidence of new or substantially more severe impacts to special status species that would result from the 2025 Project Approvals. The mere occurrence, or potential occurrence, of various wildlife species on or in the general vicinity of the project does not establish that the 2025 Project Approvals will cause any significant adverse effects to those species (many of which do not even qualify as sensitive under CEQA). The analysis and conclusions of the 2025 Addendum to the MND accurately and adequately address the potential impacts of the 2025 Project Approvals on special status species, and nothing in the SAFER Letter provides any substantial evidence that the 2025 Project Approvals will cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than analyzed in the previously adopted MND. 4. Air Quality Effects. The SAFER Letter, including the letter from Mr. Sutton attached as Exhibit C, falsely asserts that the 2025 Project Approvals will have significant air quality impacts based on VOC operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD standards. The SAFER Letter is based on inaccurate assumptions regarding the 2025 Project Approvals, including the inaccurate assumption that the proposed project modifications increase trip generation rates as compared to the previously approved Project. As 135281-00000001/9991802.1 4 procopio.com 7Procopio explained above, this assumption is false, as the 2025 Project Approvals will actually reduce the Project's trip generation by approximately 27%. Furthermore, the SAFER Letter attacks on the assumptions used in the CaIEEMod analysis included in the 2025 Addendum are based on speculation and inaccurate assumptions regarding the Project, rather than any facts or substantial evidence. The 2025 Addendum properly analyzed operational VOC emissions under CalEEmod, and concluded that operational VOC emissions would be below the applicable SCAQMD standard. This analysis determined that operational VOC emissions would be 52.2 lbs. per day, which is below the SCAQMD standard of 55 lbs. per day (see 2025 Addendum at pp. 3.0-24 - 3.0-25). Moreover, the operational VOC emissions will be substantially reduced from the previously approved project, which were calculated as 65.6 lbs. per day in the 2014 Addendum to the MND. In other words, the 2025 Project Approvals will have operational VOC emissions that are below SCAQMD standards, and which are approximately 20% belowthe emissions that would be caused by the previously approved Project. Accordingly, the 2025 Project Approvals will not cause any new or substantially more severe significant air quality impacts than analyzed in the previously adopted MND. 5. Valley Fever. The SAFER Letter, including the Sutton letter attached as Exhibit C, fails to provide any substantial evidence of potential adverse health impacts resulting from the 2025 Project Approvals relating to Valley Fever. Specifically, the SAFER Letter includes generalized statements regarding Valley Fever risks and an increase in reported cases in 2024 in Riverside County generally, but it contains no facts or evidence whatsoever concerning the presence of the Coccidioides fungus on the Project site. Furthermore, the SAFER Letter fails to even allege that any aspect of the 2025 Project Approvals would exacerbate any possible risk of Valley Fever in the City of La Quinta. Finally, the SAFER Letter fails to consider that the Project site has already been mass graded and that the completion of Project construction under the 2025 Project Approvals will reduce the dust, blow sand, and soil erosion risks associated with the partially constructed Project site in its current condition. 6. Formaldehyde. The SAFER Letter, including the memo from Francis 0fferman attached as Exhibit D, asserts that the project will cause indoor air quality risks associated with formaldehyde, but it fails to provide any substantial evidence regarding how that generalized risk applies to the 2025 Project Approvals. The SAFER Letter also fails to provide any substantial evidence of any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than would occur under the previously approved project. Rather, the SAFER Letter contains generalized statements about building materials and cancer risks but contains no information whatsoever regarding the Project site or the construction materials that will be used for Project under the 2025 Project Approvals. The SAFER Letter also ignores that the 2025 Project Approvals reduce the total number of hotel and residential units by approximately 45%. Based on the foregoing, and the substantial evidence contained in the MND, the 2025 Addendum, and the Staff Reports, the City properly approved the 2025 Addendum and concluded that the 2025 Project Approvals will not have any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than analyzed for the previously approved SilverRock project. Even if the SAFER Letter could be properly considered by the City, despite its untimely submission, it plainly fails to show that the project modifications approved by 2025 Project Approvals, or any new information or change in circumstances, may cause a significant environmental effect that had not been studied 135281-00000001/9991802.1 5 procopio.com Procopio in the previously adopted MND. Therefore, the SAFER request for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR must be rejected. I plan to be present at your City Council meeting later today and will be available to answer any questions you may have about the materials covered in this letter. Very truly yours, 4 41-,- James Vaughn Partner, of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP cc: Bill lhrke, City Attorney (bihrke@rutan.com) Cheri Flores, Interim Design and Development Director (planning@laquintaCA.gov) Michael Gazzano (mg@turnbridgeeq.com) 135281-00000001/9991802.1 6 procopio.com