Lozeau Drury, LLP (SAFER) 2025-09-22 - SRR Addendum 3 to MND EA 2025-0002 & EA 2002-453CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM LOZEAU DRURY, LLP
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 - SILVERROCK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2025-0002 (ADDENDUM NO.3 TO EA 2002-453)
LOZEAU
DRURY T 510.836.4200
F 510.836.4205
September 22, 2025
VIA EMAIL
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 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: Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH No. 1999081020) for the
SilverRock Resort Project
September 22, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item 1
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 as Agenda Item 1 at the
City Council's Special Meeting on September 22, 2025.
SAFER objects to the City's action for two reasons. First, the City has failed to
provide adequate notice of this action under the Brown Act. The City is taking action at a
special meeting of the City Council today, Sept. 22, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. However, the City did
not provide any adequate notice of this hearing. Notice was allegedly posted on Friday,
September 19, 2025 at an unspecified time. However, the notice is not in the normal section
of the City's website for City Council Agendas are posted. In fact, the City's website
indicates that there is no City Council meeting at all today, and that the next meeting is on
Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment
2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
September 22, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item 1
Page 2 of 9
October 7, 2025. This is plainly inadequate notice under the Brown Act. The City should
reschedule the City Council meeting and provide legally adequate public notice.
Second, SAFER objects to the City's reliance on an Addendum to a 2002 Mitigated
Negative Declaration ("MND") and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH No.
1999081020), certified in 2002 for the Project. Under the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA"), an addendum is not appropriate because the Project is not within the scope of
the prior MND and there is new information available since certification of the 2002 MND
indicating new significant impacts and/or the availability of new mitigation measures.
Therefore, SAFER requests that the City Council refrain from taking any action on the
Project at this time and, instead, direct staff to prepare an initial study for the Project,
followed by a project -specific EIR or negative declaration as required by CEQA.
I. THE CITY FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQAUTE NOTICE OF
TODAY'S MEETING UNDER THE BROWN ACT.
The City proposes to approve the Project today, September 22, 2025 at 4:00 p.m. at a
special meeting of the City Council. However, the City has not provided adequate notice
under CEQA and the Brown Act. Therefore, the City should reschedule the meeting and
provide adequate public notice.
The City's office website has a link to City Council meetings and agendas:
https : //www.laquintaca. gov/busines s/city-council/city-council-agendas/
That official web page lists no meeting at all for today, and states that the next City council
meeting will be held on October 7, 2025. Any reasonable member of the public would be led
to believe that there is no City Council meeting today at all.
After contacting the City Clerk, our staff was informed that the meeting was listed on
a different, obscure section of the City's website sometime on Friday, September 19, 2025.
This web link is very difficult to find and is not on the official City Council agenda's section
of the website. Also, even if this were adequate public notice (which it is not), it was posted
less than two business days prior to the meeting, instead of the minimum of 72-hours' notice
required by the Ralph M. Brown Act ("Brown Act") for posting an agenda before the regular
meeting of a local agency's legislative body. (AR887; Cal. Gov. Code § 54954, subd. (a);
TransparentGov Novato v. City of Novato (2019) 34 Ca1.App.5th 140; Cal. Gov. Code § §
54954, subd. (a), 54954.2.) Also, even if the notice were minimally adequate under the
Brown Act, it did not provide the "ample notice" required by CEQA.
The requirement to exhaust administrative remedies does not apply when an agency
finds that a project is exempt from CEQA review and files a notice of exemption without
providing the public "ample notice" of the exemption or an opportunity to express objections
to the claimed exemption before project approval. (Hines v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n (2010) 186
Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment
2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
September 22, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item 1
Page 3 of 9
Ca1.App.4th 830, 854-55; Tomlinson v. Cnty. of Alameda (2012) 54 Ca1.App.4th 281, 290;
City of Pasadena v. State (1993) 14 Ca1.App.4th 810.) This rule should apply equally to
CEQA addenda, since the addendum is essentially a finding that no further CEQA review is
required for a project modification. The exhaustion requirement applies only when the
agency provides a CEQA public comment period or there is a public agency hearing before
the notice of agency determination is filed. (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San
Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Ca1.App.4th 1165, 1210.) Thus, when an agency holds
a public hearing for a project but does not provide the public with adequate notice that a
CEQA exemption will be considered, the requirement to exhaust remedies on the CEQA
claim does not apply. (Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Cnty. of Inyo (2021) 67
Ca1.App.5th 1018, 1034 ("LADWP v. Inyo") ("When an agency holds a hearing but does not
provide adequate notice that a CEQA exemption will be considered, the requirement to
exhaust remedies on the CEQA claim does not apply.")) To trigger the exhaustion
requirement, the agency must provide an adequate "'opportunity for members of the public to
raise ... objections' to County's reliance on the two CEQA exemptions." (Id. at 1034-5, citing
§ 21177(e).) The exhaustion does not apply at all, "When an agency holds a hearing but does
not provide adequate notice that a CEQA exemption will be considered, the requirement to
exhaust remedies on the CEQA claim does not apply." (Id. at 1034.)
The Tomlinson court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies was required
when the petitioner had four months' notice that the county intended to exempt the project
from CEQA review. (Tomlinson, 54 Ca1.App.4th at 290.) Likewise, in Arcadians for Env 't
Pres. v. City of Arcadia (2023) 88 Ca1.App.5th 418, 433 (Arcadians), the court held that a
general request for an EIR was insufficient exhaustion of administrative remedies to
challenge a CEQA exemption when the public had over three months' notice of the city's
intention to exempt the project from CEQA review. By contrast, in LADWP v. Inyo, the
agency did not mention CEQA until only a few days before the final hearing. Under those
circumstances, the court held that there was not "ample opportunity" for the public to raise
CEQA comments, and no exhaustion was required. (LADWP v. Inyo, 67Ca1.App.5th at
1035.)
Here, as in LADWP v. Inyo, the City did not provide the public with "ample notice"
of their intent to avoid CEQA review through the use of an addendum. Whereas the
petitioners in Tomlinson and Arcadians had months of notice of the agencies' intent to
exempt the projects from CEQA review, here, the City failed to provide any notice of the
special city council meeting on the City's official website listing City Council meetings and
agendas. Any reasonable person looking at the City's office website would believe that there
is no meeting until October 7, 2025.
Even if the City's notice on Friday, September 19, 2025, on an improper location of
the City's website, was found to be adequate, it failed to provide the requisite 72-hours
notice. The inadequate notice was posted less than two business days before the night of the
vote. The public thus had at most two business days' notice of the City's intent to exempt
the Project from CEQA review using a CEQA addendum, which does not constitute "ample
Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment
2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
September 22, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item 1
Page 4 of 9
time" for the public to exhaust its administrative remedies. Until that time, the public had no
idea that the City intended to exempt the Project entirely from all CEQA review, or the basis
for the City's CEQA exemptions. No reasonable person could have responded to these claims
for exemption over the weekend. Therefore, the public cannot be held to a high standard of
exhaustion.
II. THE CEQA ADDENDUM IS LEGALLY INADEQUATE.
The City proposes to approve the Project based on an addendum to a mitigated
negative declaration prepared in 2002. This is despite the fact that the revised Project will
add 1690 people to the City, increasing the City's population by 9.9 percent, which will have
environmental effects on traffic, public services (schools, police, fire, sewage, etc.), air
quality, water supply, growth inducement and almost all other effects analyzed in the 2002
mitigated negative declaration ("MND"). A supplemental CEQA document is required to
analyze the Project and to mitigate its increased impacts.
A. LEGAL STANDARD.
CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare
an EIR. This presumption is reflected in the fair argument standard. Under that standard, a
lead agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before
the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the
environment. (Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2; Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of
the University of California (1993) ("Laurel Heights II") 6 Ca1.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc.
v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68, 75, 82; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of
Encinitas (1994) 29 Ca1.App.4th 1597, 1602.)
Preparation of an Addendum Under CEQA
Here, the City has prepared an addendum to the previously certified 2002 MND.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, "[a[n addendum to an adopted negative declaration may
be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or
negative declaration have occurred." (CEQA Guidelines § 15164(b).) an addendum is not
appropriate when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR
or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment
2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
September 22, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item 1
Page 5 of 9
identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration
was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed
in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B)Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C)Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different
from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce
one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Importantly, where, as here, the previous CEQA document is an MND rather than an
environmental impact report ("EIR"), the fair argument standard of review applies. As the
California Supreme Court has explained,
[T]he inquiry prescribed by the Guidelines is not whether the
environmental impacts of the modification are significant, but whether the
modification requires major revisions to the negative declaration because
of the involvement of new, potentially significant environmental effects
that had not previously been considered in connection with the earlier
environmental study." (Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San
Mateo Cnty. Comm. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Ca1.5th 937, 958 n.6 ("San Mateo
Gardens").)
The court in San Mateo Gardens further explained that an addendum is not appropriate "if
the proposed modification may produce a significant environmental effect that had not
previously been studied." (San Mateo Gardens, 1 Ca1.5th at 958.)
Tiering Under CEQA
CEQA permits agencies to `tier' CEQA documents, in which general matters and
environmental effects are considered in a document "prepared for a policy, plan, program or
ordinance followed by narrower or site -specific [environmental review] which incorporate by
reference the discussion in any prior [environmental review] and which concentrate on the
environmental effects which (a) are capable of being mitigated, or (b) were not analyzed as
significant effects on the environment in the prior [EIR]." (Cal. Pub. Res. Code ("PRC") §
21068.5.) "[T]iering is appropriate when it helps a public agency to focus upon the issues
Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment
2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
September 22, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item 1
Page 6 of 9
ripe for decision at each level of environmental review and in order to exclude duplicative
analysis of environmental effects examined in previous [environmental reviews]." (Id. §
21093.) CEQA regulations strongly promote tiering of environmental review.
"Later activities in the program must be examined in light of the program [document]
to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared." (14 CCR §
15168(c).) The first consideration is whether the activity proposed is covered by the program.
(Id. § 15168(c)(2).) If a later project is outside the scope of the program, then it is treated as a
separate project and the previous environmental review may not be relied upon in further
review. (See Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 Ca1.App.4th 1307, 1320-21.) The
second consideration is whether the "later activity would have effects that were not examined
in the program." (14 CCR § 15168(c)(1).) A program environmental review may only serve
"to the extent that it contemplates and adequately analyzes the potential environmental
impacts of the project ...." (Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of El Dorado (2012) 202
Ca1.App.4th 1156, 1171 [quoting Citizens for Responsible Equitable Envtl. Dev. v. City of
San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Ca1.App.4th 598, 615].) If the program
environmental review does not evaluate the environmental impacts of the project, a tiered
[CEQA document] must be completed before the project is approved. (Id. at 1184.)
For these inquiries, the "fair argument test" applies. (Sierra Club, 6 Ca1.App.4th at
1318; see also Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Ca1.App.4th 1152, 1164
("when a prior EIR has been prepared and certified for a program or plan, the question for a
court reviewing an agency's decision not to use a tiered EIR for a later project 'is one of law,
i.e., 'the sufficiency of the evidence to support a fair argument."' [quoting Sierra Club, 6
Ca1.App.4th at 1318]).) Under the fair argument test, a new EIR must be prepared "whenever
it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have
significant environmental impact. (Sierra Club, 6 Ca1.App.4th at 1316 [quotations and
citations omitted].) When applying the fair argument test, "deference to the agency's
determination is not appropriate and its decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only
when there is no credible evidence to the contrary." (Id. at 1318.) "[I]f there is substantial
evidence in the record that the later project may arguably have a significant adverse effect on
the environment which was not examined in the prior program EIR, doubts must be resolved
in favor of environmental review and the agency must prepare a new tiered EIR,
notwithstanding the existence of contrary evidence." (Id. at 1319.)
B. The Revised Project Wil have Significant New Impacts.
1. Growth Inducement.
The Addendum states that the Revised Project will at 1690 new residents to the City
of La Quinta, which constitutes a 9.9 percent increase in population. (Addendum 3.0-8).
This is a massive percentage increase in population, despite the Addendum's conclusion to
the contrary. This growth will impact the Project's impacts on water supply, traffic, schools
Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment
2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
September 22, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item 1
Page 7 of 9
and other public services, air pollution and all manner of impacts. It must be analyzed in a
supplemental CEQA document.
2. Traffic.
The increase in 1690 persons will increase the Project's traffic impacts. The
Addendum analyzes traffic impacts using level of service (LOS) analysis and concludes the
impacts would be less than significant. However, as of 2020 CEQA requires traffic impacts
to be analyzed using vehicle miles travelled (VMT) analysis. CEQA was amended to require
traffic analysis using vehicle miles travelled (VMT) rather than level of service (LOS).
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3.) By July 1, 2020, all CEQA lead agencies must analyze
a project's transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT measures the
per capita number of car trips generated by a project and distances cars will travel to and
from a project, rather than congestion levels at intersections (level of service or "LOS,"
graded on a scale of A — F). The 2002 MND and the 2025 Addendum used LOS analysis,
not VMT. The Revised Project's traffic impacts must be analyzed under the new VMT
methodology consistent with Section 15064.3. (Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation
v. City of Sacramento (2019) 43 Ca1.App.5th 609, 626.) The City must apply the law as it
exists at the current time, not the law from 2002. (W. Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los
Angeles (2025) 106 Ca1.App.5th 395, 439-40.) It is almost certain that the Project's
increased population will have significant VMT impacts given the Project's remote rural
location.
3. Air Quality.
The increase in population of 1690 new residents will increase the Project's air
quality impacts. The Addendum calculates that the Revised Project will generate VOC
emissions of 52.2 pounds per day — just slightly below the CEQA threshold of 55 pounds per
day. This level is close enough to create a fair argument that the project may have significant
air quality impacts.
4. Valley Fever.
A supplemental CEQA document is required to analyze the Project's Valley Fever
impacts. The state is experiencing a significant increase in Valley Fever — increasing by over
10 times since the 2002 MND. According to the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC")
(https://www.cdc.gov/features/valleyfever/index.html):
Valley fever is a fungal lung infection that can be devastating... Valley fever is an
infection caused by a fungus that lives in the soil. About 10,000 cases are reported in
the United States each year, mostly from Arizona and California. Valley fever can be
misdiagnosed because its symptoms are similar to those of other illnesses. Here are
some important things to know about Valley fever, also called coccidioidomycosis.
Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment
2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
September 22, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item 1
Page 8 of 9
From soil to lungs
The fungus that causes Valley fever, Coccidioides, is found in the southwestern
United States, parts of Mexico and Central America, and parts of South America...
Many people who are exposed to the fungus never have symptoms. Other people may
have flu -like symptoms, including:
Fatigue (tiredness)
Cough
Fever
Shortness of breath
Headache
Night sweats
Muscle aches or joint pain
Rash on upper body or legs
The symptoms of Valley fever can be similar to those of other common illnesses,
which may cause delays in getting patients correctly diagnosed and treated. For many
people, symptoms will go away without any treatment, after weeks or months.
Healthcare providers prescribe antifungal medication for some people to try to reduce
symptoms or prevent the infection from getting worse. People who have severe lung
infections or infections that have spread to other parts of the body always need
antifungal treatment and may need to stay in the hospital.
According to the Los Angeles County Depailtiient of Public Health
(http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/acd/Diseases/Cocci.htm):
Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Filipinos, males, pregnant women, the very young
(<5 years), elderly, and immunocompromised individuals are at high risk for severe
disease.
According to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), a significant
increase in Valley Fever cases occurred in 2017. CDPH also states
(https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/NR18-041.aspx):
Most infected people will not show signs of illness. Those who do become ill with
Valley Fever may have flu -like symptoms that can last for two weeks or more. While
most people recover fully, some may develop more severe complications which
include pneumonia, or infection of the brain, joints, bone, skin, or other organs. There
is currently no vaccine, but antifungal medications are available. Individuals should
specifically ask their health care provider about Valley Fever if they think they may
be infected.
Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment
2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
September 22, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Item 1
Page 9 of 9
People who live, work, or travel in Valley Fever areas are also at higher risk of getting
infected, especially if they work outdoors or participate in activities where soil is
disturbed.
The 2002 MND did not analyze the significant increase in Valley Fever that the state
is recently experiencing. Construction workers and others are at particular risk of contracting
this disease. Supplemental CEQA review is required to analyze the impact and to adopt
feasible mitigation measures.
III. CONCLUSION.
For the reasons set forth above, the City should cancel today's special meeting of the
city council because the City failed to provide adequate public notice of the meeting under
the Brown Act and CEQA. Supplemental CEQA review is required for the Project because it
will have significant new impacts that were not analyzed in the 2002 MND because it will
add 1690 new residents to the City of La Quinta, increasing the City's population by almost
10 percent.
Sincerely,
Richard Drury
LOZEAU I DRURY LLP