RESPONSE TO AIR QUALITY COMMENT LTR 2020-02-26
February 26, 2020
Mr. Garrett Simon
CM Wave Development LLC
2440 Junction Place, Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80301
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON AIR QUALITY, BIOLOGICAL AND NOISE STUDIES
AND GRADING AND HYDROLOGY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2019-0002
ZONE CHANGE 2019-0004
SPECIFIC PLAN 2019-0003 (AMENDMENT 5 TO SP 03-067)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 2019-0005 (TTM 37815)
MASTER PROJECT 2019-0004
Dear Mr. Simon,
After receiving your list of responses (attached hereto) to the City’s comments on
February 18, 2020 regarding the air quality and GHG analysis, biological resources
report, noise impact analysis and grading and hydrology plans, I’ve reviewed them with
our engineers and have the following responses:
Air Quality/GHG Analysis
1. Comment 2 regarding sensitive receptors:
As stated in your response, please have Urban Crossroads provide the
additional discussion regarding impacts to sensitive receptors onsite while
Phases 2 and 3 are under construction.
2. Comment 3 regarding VMT analysis:
The traffic analysis calculated VMT, therefore, the air quality report should use
those calculations. Please update the air quality report accordingly.
Biological Resources Report
1. Comment 2 regarding bat conservation plan standards:
Under CEQA, if the performance standards for a mitigation measure are not
included, an opposing party has grounds to both attack the mitigation measure
as insufficient, and to claim deferred mitigation, since the study and IS do not
demonstrate the effectiveness of the mitigation. Please include performance
standards as requested.
2. Comment 3 regarding technical report recommendations:
Because the biologist is the expert, they should include requirements in the study
for mitigation measures to demonstrate that the project has mitigated impacts.
This was done in the traffic analysis; please do so here as well.
Noise Impact Analysis
1. Comment 6 regarding technical report recommendations:
Because the noise engineer is the expert, they should include requirements in
the study for mitigation measures to demonstrate that the project has mitigated
impacts. This was done in the traffic analysis; please do so here as well.
2. Comment 11 regarding sentence removal:
This sentence doesn’t seem needed here since the report goes on to define what
a substantial increase is to determine level of significance. Please remove.
3. Comment 12 regarding case law:
The citation of the court case is not needed here since the report defines what a
substantial increase is to determine level of significance. Please remove the
reference. Additionally, we can’t allow noise levels to go above the 65 dBA
established in the Municipal Code.
4. Comment 15 regarding phasing analysis:
As stated in your response, please have Urban Crossroads provide revisions to
the study to make it clear that phases have been discussed and whether each
phase impacts surrounding receptors.
5. Comment 16 regarding discussion on page 56 of the noise study:
The comment is meant to point out that the discussion on Existing + Ambient
with Project would have the same conclusion as the discussion of Existing with
Project on page 54, since they are both hypothetical conditions. Please revise the
discussion on page 56 to note this.
6. Comment 20 regarding technical report recommendations:
Because the noise engineer is the expert, they should include requirements in
the study for mitigation measures to demonstrate that the project has mitigated
impacts. This was done in the traffic analysis; please do so here as well.
7. Comment 21 regarding sensitive receptors discussion:
As stated in your response, please have Urban Crossroads provide revisions to
the study to discuss impacts to Phase 1 sensitive receptors during construction
of subsequent phases.
Grading and Hydrology Plans
1. Comment 1 regarding construction hauling pertaining to air quality analysis:
The CEQA requirement for air quality analysis requires that import and export be
calculated. The earthwork calculations on the grading plan show that import is
needed to balance the site, see below. Normally, import comes from somewhere
off-site, therefore, an analysis of haul trips, as requested in this comment, to
account for the import is necessary.
2. Comment 2 regarding sensitive receptors pertaining to air quality analysis:
CEQA does require mitigation of significant impacts, including short-term
construction impacts, that may go above and beyond City ordinances, in order to
reduce significance levels. As stated above, please have Urban Crossroads
provide the additional discussion regarding air quality impacts to sensitive
receptors onsite while Phases 2 and 3 are under construction.
3. Comment 4 (Comment 3 on the air quality analysis) regarding VMT and using LA
and San Diego anticipated trips, pertaining to air quality analysis:
The traffic impact analysis calculated VMT, therefore, the air quality report should
use those calculations. Additionally, the wave pool and hotel are regional draws
and should consider longer trips.
4. Comment 5 regarding wave pool energy demands pertaining to air quality
analysis:
Analysis of impacts on energy demand is required in Appendix G of the CEQA
guidelines both under air quality/GHG and the free-standing energy section,
regardless of IID’s agreement to provide electricity. Since the production of
energy generates air pollutants, an accurate representation must be included in
the air quality model. The analysis must also address whether the project will
result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation. Please provide the analysis as requested.
5. Comment 6 regarding wave pool water demands pertaining to air quality
analysis:
Water production does correlate to air pollutant emissions and is included in the
CalEEMod air quality model. The air quality analysis used the default of
“recreational swimming pool” which would under predict potential impacts of the
wave pool since it is larger in size than a regular swimming pool. Please provide
the analysis as requested.
6. Comment 8 regarding special events pertaining to air quality analysis:
If the applicant chooses not to analyze special events now, the IS will be
incomplete and indefensible. Further, the City cannot allow the deferral of
analysis under CEQA, and since the applicant has made clear that special events
will occur, they are part of the project and they need to be analyzed. Please
provide the analysis as requested.
7. Comment regarding 100-year water surface elevation:
The plans have been reviewed by the City’s engineers on staff and the comments
on the plan are from them. To clarify the difference between the pads to the
100yr water surface elevation and the street, please show cross sections of the
streets with typical slopes and curb on Preliminary Grading Plan since the street
cross sections on sheet 1 of TTM lack this information.
If you have any questions please contact me at clflores@laquintaca.gov, or at (760)
777-7067.
Sincerely,
Cheri L. Flores
Planning Manager
Design and Development Department
Cc: Danny Castro, Design and Development Director
AQ/GHG
Comment 2. (Sensitive Receptors): The current LST analysis already uses the shortest distance
interval of (25 meters/82 feet) for sensitive receptors. The current level of emissions analysis
would also apply to project homes occupied while Phases 2 and 3 are under construction since
some of these would be within the same distance interval. Additional discussion can be
provided by UXR to disclose the location of such sensitive receptors as they occur in a phased
manner.
Comment 3. (Vehicle Miles Traveled): The calculation of VMT for hotel and wave pool uses
beyond the CalEEMod default values may be deemed too speculative for evaluation, unless an
updated methodology is employed for the TIA, such that it can also be incorporated
consistently into the AQ/GHG report.
Biological
Comments 2. Performance standards are included in the bat conservation plan and not a
separate set of standards.
Comment 3. This is a preference comment. Technical reports can make recommendations.
Mitigation is ultimately addressed by the CEQA document and City.
Noise
Comment 6. This is a preference comment. Technical reports can make recommendations,
mitigation is ultimately addressed by the CEQA document and City.
Comment 11. Does not give a reason for why text needs to be deleted.
Comment 12. The court Case is not out of context. It cites a CEQA court case for why there is no
single noise that renders noise impacts as significant. The report then proceeds to provide an
example.
Comment 15. The noise analysis covers the phasing for the project. This comment can be
addressed by a minor revision to wording by UXR.
Comment 16. The paragraph is in in line with the discussion on the proceeding page.
Comment 20. This is a preference comment. Technical reports can make recommendations,
mitigation is ultimately addressed by the CEQA document and City.
Comment 21. The whole report is a quantified analysis of the projects noise impacts. UXR can
add an additional discussion to sensitive receptors as they occur in a phased manner.
Grading & Hydro
Comments 1. Construction Hauling. Understanding Grading and volumes will let you know this
is irrelevant questions since the volume discussed is less than 10% (2” on the site) of the margin
of error. We say it balances on site she should believe us.
Comment 2. Sensitive Receptors you don’t normally monitor/mitigate short term impacts of
construction except with normal City ordinances when you can start & when you need to stop
work. No need for anything more.
Comment 4 VMT using LA & SD as an anticipated trip is excessive and not normal. Unless this
City want to make it so.
Comment 5 Wave Pool Energy Demands irrelevant if IID is ok to provide. We are not proposing
Co-Gen at this time (are we?)
Comment 6 Wave Pool Water Demands also irrelevant with CVWD acceptance of the WSA
Comment 8 Special Events no reason to study this today. TUP will provide all mitigation based
on the event and necessity
Comments on the actual plan should be reviewed by an Engineer that understands what the
difference between the pads to the 100yr water surface elevation and a high point in a road