Comments 2020-02-19Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 13:31:27 Pacific Daylight Time
Page 1 of 4
Subject:Re: Comments
Date:Thursday, February 20, 2020 at 5:22:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
From:Nicole Criste
To:Cheri Flores
Cheri,
You’re right. These are the same things that Mike complained about at our last meeGng in the West wing. So sine
I’m on my iPad and can’t do comment bubbles, here are my responses:
Comment 1: The CEQA requirement for air quality analysis requires that import and export be calculated. The
project grading plan cites export. That amount needs to be input into the CalEEMod model to provide a complete
and defensible analysis.
Comment 2: There is case law that contradicts that statement. Under CEQA, the judge determined that a noise
ordinance exempGon does not miGgate construcGon noise. The analysis needs to be done.
Comment 4 (there is no 3): See comme above under AQ. The TIA calculates VMT and the city will be required to
analyze VMT by State law (SB 378) by July 1. The analysis is required under CEQA.
Comment 5: CEQA requires analysis of impacts on energy demand, both under air quality and the free standing
energy secGon. Since the producGon of energy generates air pollutants, an accurate representaGon must be
included in the AQ model. Whether IID will serve is irrelevant.
Comment 6: The comment is wrong. Water producGon generates air pollutant emissions and is included in the AQ
model. Whether CVWD accepts the WSA is irrelevant.
Comment 8 (there is no 7): if the applicant chooses not to analyze special events now, the IS will be incomplete
and undefensible. Further, the City cannot allow the deferral of analysis under CEQA, and since the applicant has
made clear that special events will occur, they need to be analyzed.
Please tell Mike Rowe that he has no understanding of CEQA, and should sGck to engineering. (Sorry, venGng)
I’m a ge‘ng on the plane now. Let me know if you need more.
Thanks,
Nicole
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 19, 2020, at 2:12 PM, Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov> wrote:
Nicole,
I talked to Amy and she said the only one that is related to her
comments is the last one under grading and hydrology. I think the
rest are air quality related. Can you take a look?
Page 2 of 4
<image003.png>
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760-777-7067
www.laquintaca.gov
From: Amy Yu <Ayu@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:02 PM
To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Bryan McKinney <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: RE: Comments
Hi Cheri,
There’s only one comment under grading and hydrology related to my comments.
<image001.png>Amy Yu | Associate Engineer
Public Works
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico ◦ La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760.777.7047
www.laquintaca.gov
www.playinlaquinta.com
From: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 11:50 AM
To: Amy Yu <Ayu@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Bryan McKinney <Bmckinney@laquintaca.gov>; Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: FW: Comments
Hi Amy,
The Wave applicant had some concerns on the comments we have
given them. The attached document goes over those. Most are
environmental or planning so Nicole has commented on those but
there are some at the end that pertain to grading and hydrology. Can
you check those out and let me know what your thoughts are? We
can talk about it later today if you want. Thank you!
<image003.png>
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760-777-7067
www.laquintaca.gov
Page 3 of 4
From: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 11:33 AM
To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Re: Comments
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and
cauGon when opening akachments, clicking links or responding to requests for informaGon. **
Cheri,
Se‘ng aside that I am disappointed with any applicant who tells me he only wants to do
“what is required, and hopefully nothing more,” I have annotated their comments for you and
akached. Have Amy take a look at the last secGon.
Nicole Sauviat Criste
Principal
<image004.jpg>
TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC.®
42635 Melanie Place, Ste 101
PALM DESERT, CA 92211
(760) 341-4800
FAX#: 760-341-4455
E-Mail: ncriste@terranovaplanning.com
From: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 10:02 AM
To: Nicole Criste <ncriste@terranovaplanning.com>
Subject: FW: Comments
FYI,
I haven’t had a chance to look at this yet but wanted to forward on to
you.
<image006.png>
Cheri L. Flores | Planning Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760-777-7067
www.laquintaca.gov
From: Garrek Simon <gsimon@meriwetherco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 1:41 PM
To: Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov>
Subject: Comments
** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and
cauGon when opening akachments, clicking links or responding to requests for informaGon. **
Page 4 of 4
Cheri,
Per our cal last week, here are comments that we have received that have been
perplexing/quesGonable to our team. At the end of the day, we just want to do what its
required, and hopefully nothing more, and keep things moving forward. Look forward to
connecGng aper you review.
Please Add Good,
Garrett Simon
970-596-6642
www.meriwetherco.com
<The Wave Response to Technical Reports_20200214.docx>
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