— La Quinta City Council, October 7, 2025

WRITTEN
PUBLIC

COMMENTS

CITY COUNCIL

MEETING
OCTOBER 7, 2025
1 10/7/25 Written Public comment Save Coral Mt.

La Quinta City Council 7 October 2025-Written Comments Items not on agenda Topic: Recall Specific Plan Specific Plan 03-067 Amendment 5-Halt the building of the proposed barrier fence, view-obstructing wall and plan for public recreation Speaker: Mary Mann La Quinta CA 92253 mobile
Coral Mountain should be the Gem of La Quinta and gateway to the Santa Rosa Wilderness area. There is a wonderful opportunity here for the City of La Quinta and its leadership to engage with the surrounding landowners and stakeholders including a new community of residents that now lives in south La Quinta. I want to see my City take a good look at this area south of Avenue 54, how it has grown and changed under the current general plan and what will be needed for the future. The City can lead to encourage development that allows for and embraces the natural environment, allowing for enjoyment and access to the Wilderness on our western boundary that so many of us crave. This is in direct alignment with the City Mission Statement and several of the Goals set forth in the Strategic Plan.

Figure 1: View of Coral Mountain from the designated Natural Open Space planned park. Ancient Lake Cuilla Shoreline clearly visible, dike built and maintained (?) By Bureau of Reclamation. Current popular trail access for hiking, horseback CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 7, 2025 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT MARY MANN PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - REGARDING CLUB AT CORAL MOUNTAIN SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-067 2 10/7/25 Written Public comment Save Coral Mt.
riding, camping. Designating this area, or planning for park development not addressed in Club at Coral Specific Plan planning documents. CVWD infrasturcture (our water supply) is also present in this area.

The area in question is a local haunt for seeking solace in the desert, hiking, mountain biking, walking dogs, playing, flying, hot air balloon launches! It is accessed by increasing numbers of people, noticeable even in the few years since we moved in. There is character and solidarity we are building in this neighborhood and community, despite being behind walls and being >6 miles from any City amenities or services.

Once the Developer leaves we are in blocks of isolated homes, each Homeowner placed under an additional burden of maintenance, cost “tax” of the Homeowners Associations, with cut & pasted CC&Rs from faraway communities. This may look good on paper at the outset, but it is ultimately damaging to our bottom line, community, and quality of life. The risks associated with water supply, natural disasters, maintenance of infrastructure that will be borne directly by the City, CVWD, IID, County of Riverside and our neighbors in Indio and the City Sphere of influence as well as the ultimate new homeowners in the community. These are long-term ongoing costs and risks that have not been considered.

Blocking off the view scape is not required for this to be a successful project. Coral Mountain is a beautiful treasure. The moonset behind it this morning could be seen from Madison with the waving flag and coral shoreline glinting with the sunrise on the other side…no words. This view now shared by those commuting on Madison and the many morning outdoor enthusiasts walking, biking, hiking, sitting and watching the sunrise. It is our history written on the walls and should remain visible. It is the last exposure of the shoreline in this area and is noted in many guidebooks, and descriptions of the area already. Coral Mountain beckons from the north coming down Jefferson, and it can be seen from many parts of the East Valley.
3 10/7/25 Written Public comment Save Coral Mt.

Figure 2: Coral Mountain lit up by the morning sun. Proposed 10ft. walls would obscure the view of the unique documented shoreline feature from Madison, 58th and 60th. Peekaboo views should be possible through the community.

This is a documented site and last remaining examples of the tufa feature that contains ecologic and geologic wonders plus prehistoric and historic artifacts, and flood control infrastructure in use today, and used as a walking path. that provides a tremendous welcome to La Quinta and proudly displays our natural history.

Take the time and effort to develop plans for how our City will interface with natural open space, providing low impact benefits to citizens and visitors. These efforts in community building and allowing the public, stakeholder agencies and groups to create a plan that could make Coral Mountain the Gem of La Quinta will be rewarded in civic pride and attraction to the area. I point to numerous new events such as the Iron Man, which will attract lovers of sport and the outdoors. How can we provide ways for these events to continue and host these visitors in such a way that they will want to come back or stay? One way is to provide amenities that are accessible and open to the public. Places for people to get out, explore, experience the desert, have a picnic, take a hike, ride a bike.

The current plan for this property will cut off hundreds of acres from any other use, prevent public through fare and block access to public areas, already popularly used for 100s of years.
4 10/7/25 Written Public comment Save Coral Mt.

Figure 3: Popular hike is the Coral Mountain loop, which passes in front of the mountain. The mottled lower part is the tufa that was created by an algae in the ancient Lake Cahuilla (latest high stand in 1700s). The mountain itself is a twisted metamorphic exposed and thrust up as the Salton Basin has been forming over tens of millions of years. The “coral” have been marked by humans through time, with many grindstone type features ground into the tufa to make little bowls, these are present in the parts where a flat boulder has a thick layer of tufa on it. There are ancient rock writings clear through present. Exploring these features is a known activity and people come from all over the valley to see this.

This photo was taken a couple weeks ago and is one example where these bright spraypainted makings associated with this project. This looks to be at the property line and it 5 10/7/25 Written Public comment Save Coral Mt.
crosses several other features documented and stated in develpement plan EIR that they would not be disturbed.

Figure 4: Spray paint on Coral below archaeological features. One example of defacement of the documented sensitive ground along Coral Mountain for this golf course project. Maps have not been approved by planning and public has not seen more than conceptual drawings that seemed to indicated there was flexibility in where the boundary of the project would be. Spray paint is on the tufa, where we should be preventing further damage, this adds to it. 6 10/7/25 Written Public comment Save Coral Mt.

In particular an 8' high fence that received no vetting on its effectiveness for the stated purpose of protecting sheep and its path ignores the unique archaeological and ecological features it would bisect. Damage to this would have a detrimental effect on the planned conservation efforts of DRD and others that are revealed in the initial planning for the Coral Mountain Park.

A few other comments I have sent to Recreation District President and Manager:

I am writing to get information on the status and plans for the Coral Mountain Regional Park. From what I have been able to glean online whatever plans for this new DRD community resource have been stalled and the BOR agreement it is tied to may be expiring.

La Quinta is going forward with building private golf course development under a specific plan amendment that was soundly opposed by the community at the time. Under the plan for the new development, there are several references to the pending DRD park facility as mitigation of the adding of people, infrastructure and cutting off of public access for recreation. Despite this, there did not seem to be any partnership opportunity extended to the DRD to create a facility that will accommodate the needs of this part of the District and City of La Quinta.

The one agreement that DRD signed with the developer to build a trail would be negated if the BOR agreement expires. This would mean the loss of the one concession the developer was asked to provide to maintain even minimal access to the public to lands that have been identified as unique in many respects, geologically, ecologically, have historically and currently provided desert recreation opportunities for the whole Valley and beyond. In particular an 8' high fence that received no vetting on its effectiveness for the stated purpose of protecting sheep and its path ignores the unique archaeological and ecological features it would bisect. Damage to this would have a detrimental effect on the planned conservation efforts of DRD that are revealed in the initial planning for the Coral Mountain Park.

We have added hundreds of people to this part of the Valley (South La Quinta, Indio) in only a few years with many new private developments but the Cities (La Quinta in particular) have not been compelled to provide any public recreation facilities or even planned for these.

There does not seem to be any planning for maintaining access around Coral Mountain for exploration and entering into the Santa Rosa Wilderness. We desperately need to get an 7 10/7/25 Written Public comment Save Coral Mt.
integrated plan together. There are many agencies involved, DRD, City of La Quinta, Indio, Riverside County, BLM, BOR, CVWD, IID, Tribes.

Riverside County and partners are investing a lot into upgrades to the Lake Cahuilla Park. I have not seen that La Quinta has been proactive at all in planning for new recreational visitors to the area.

We truly need a facility that would be the Gateway to the Santa Rosa wilderness and offer a trail head, picnic and staging area, parking, restrooms. This is already a popular area for mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, exploration of the archaeological and historical artifacts, discovery of desert fauna and flora, off-roading, climbing, dog-walking, horseback riding, prayer and reflection. The use of the area around Coral Mountain has increased dramatically even in the short time I have lived in this particular spot in the Valley.

It is now critically important that the District bring this Coral Mountain Regional Park project back to the top of the list.

So reaching out to you to see if you may see a way to activate discussions in the District and with other government entities to plan for development of the Coral Mountain Regional park, or find other groups, citizens who can assist in opening a dialogue around planning for saving of our existing desert recreation opportunities at Coral Mountain and Santa Rosa Wilderness and providing facilities required to accommodate increased use in coming years.
1 From: Philip Bettencourt <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 4:28 PM
To: City Clerk Mail
Cc: ; 'Meredith Bettencourt'; Jon McMillen; 'Kevin Hundt' Subject: La Quinta City of Power Authority Budget Image_20251006_0001.pdf Attachments: La Quinta City of Power Authroity BudgetImage_20251006_0001.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
The La Quinta City Council agenda for Tuesday October 7 includes a staff recommendation to appropriate funds and approve Coachella Valley Power Authority agency membership dues for 2025/2026 (The unredacted agenda and staff report are attached for convenience to share with other stakeholders.)
I support the recommendations of the staff. Also, as I noted during public comments at the most recent meeting of the CVPA I do hope that other eligible stakeholders find a way to join this solutionoriented institution for dealing with the challenge of meeting the power needs of the City of La Quinta, including our sphere of influence and adjacent neighbors. ItÕs the right thing
Thank you.

Philip F. & Meredith BeƩencourt
Real Estate Development Planning | Stewardship
78-365 Highway 111, No 432
La Quinta, CA 92253
949-874-4443 | Telephone or text at will
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 7, 2025 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM PHILIP BETTENCOURT BUSINESS SESSION ITEM NO. 3 - COACHELLA VALLEY POWER AGENCY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT MEMBERSHIP DUES APPROVAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025/26

September 26, 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
[email protected]
Cheri Flores, Interim Design and Development Director
Design and Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
[email protected]
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 CITY 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 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 ends

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(f)(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 Cal.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(f) 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 Cal.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 ends

(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 | DRURY LLP
October 6, 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
[email protected]
Cheri Flores, Interim Design and Development Director
Design and Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH No. 1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project
October 7, 2025 City Council Meeting, Consent Calendar Item 3 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 for second reading at the City Council’s Meeting on October 7, 2025.

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 there is new information available since certification of the 2002 MND indicating new significant impacts and/or the availability of new mitigation measures. As discussed below, the Project will have impacts that were not known or not analyzed in the 2002 MND on growth inducement, traffic, biological resources, air quality and formaldehyde. SAFER’s comments are supported by the expert analysis of CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 7, 2025 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM LOZEAU DRURY, LLP ON BEHALF OF SAFER 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 COMMENTS OBJECT ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADOPTED UNDER ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT 2002-453 FOR THE SILVERROCK RESORT PROJECT
Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project October 6, 2025 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item 3

Page 2 of 12 ends

eminently qualified experts, traffic engineer Tom Brohard (Exhibit A), wildlife biologist Dr.

Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. (Exhibit B), environmental engineer Patrick Sutton, PE, (Exhibit C), and industrial hygienist Francis Offermann, PE (Exhibit D). Their comments are attached hereto and incorporated herein in their entirety. 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 CEQA ADDENDUM IS LEGALLY INADEQUATE.

The City proposes to approve the Project based on an addendum to a mitigated negative declaration prepared over two decades ago in 2002. There can be no dispute that the City has faced dramatically changed circumstances in the intervening 23-years, including increased traffic, the growth of the Coachella Music Festival, increased population growth, and many other changes that were not analyzed in the 2002 MND. The revised Project will add 1,690 people to the City, increasing the City’s population growth 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, the changed circumstances, 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 Cal.4th 1112, 1123; No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 82; Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The City has never prepared an EIR for this Project. Even the 2002 document that the City is purporting to rely upon was an MND, not an EIR.

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 Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project October 6, 2025 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item 3

Page 3 of 12 ends

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 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 Cal.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 Cal.5th at 958.) Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project October 6, 2025 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item 3

Page 4 of 12 ends

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 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 Cal.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 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1171 [quoting Citizens for Responsible Equitable Envtl. Dev. v. City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency (2005) 134 Cal.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 Cal.App.4th at 1318; see also Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.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 Cal.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 Cal.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.) Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project October 6, 2025 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item 3

Page 5 of 12 ends

B. The Revised Project Wil have Significant New Impacts.

1. Growth Inducement.

The Addendum states that the Revised Project will add 1,690 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 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 1,690 persons will increase the Project’s traffic impacts. Attached as Exhibit A hereto are the comments of Traffic Engineer Tom Brohard, PE. Mr. Brohard has 55 years of experience as a traffic engineer, and happens to live in La Quinta.

Mr. Brohard calculates that Project trip generation has increased by 20 percent over the levels analyzed in the 2002 MND. (Ex. A at 4). The 2002 Project was estimated to generate 6,383 vehicle trips per day. But the 2025 Revised Project is projected to generate 8,501 vehicle trips per day. (Id.) Mr. Brohard states, “the SilverRock Resort Project is forecast to generate 1,188 additional daily trips than were forecast for The Ranch Project 23 years ago. This increase of nearly 20 percent in daily trips, together with corresponding increase in peak hour trips, is significant and its impact must be evaluated, and additional mitigation measures must be added as Conditions of Approval.” (Id.) This constitutes, “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.” (CEQA Guidelines 15164(b)(1)). Therefore, a supplemental CEQA document is required – not an addendum.

Mr. Brohard points out that CEQA, the City’s General Plan and the City’s TIS Guidelines all require traffic to be analyzed using vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) analysis. (Ex. A, p. 2). Yet the Addendum proves no VMT analysis at all. Mr. Brohard states, “The Addendum fails to provide any of the VMT information that has been required since 2022 by CEQA and by the City’s own TIS Guidelines. Without this information, the Addendum must be considered incomplete, and the updated SilverRock Resort Project cannot proceed until the VMT analyses are reviewed, approved, and mitigation measures adopted and monitored, as necessary.” (Id.) Mr. Brohard notes that the City has required to impose any of the VMT traffic mitigation measures required by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”). (Id.)
Mr. Brohard concludes that, “the SilverRock Resort Project in the City of La Quinta will likely have significant traffic and transportation impacts including excessive VMT have Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project October 6, 2025 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item 3

Page 6 of 12 ends

not been estimated.” (Id. at 3). Mr. Brohard notes that the City has failed to comply with its own TIS Guidelines, which requires measures to reduce VMT by 15% below citywide averages. The Addendum fails to impose any of the 50 mitigation measures proposed by CAPCOA. (Id.)
Mr. Brohard also points out numerous changed circumstances that have occurred since 2002. There has been significant population growth in the past 23 years, and many new golf courses have been constructed that did not exist in 2002. (Ex. A at 5). La Quinta’s population in 2002 was 30,043. In 2025, La Quinta’s population had increased to 39,969, an increase of over 33 percent. (https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/california/laquinta#). Mr. Brohard also points out the proliferation of golf courses that did not exist in 2002, “The area’s golf course expansion near the SilverRock Resort involved The Tradition Golf Club, Rancho La Quinta Country Club, The Citrus Club, Mountain View Country Club, The Hideaway, PGA West, Andalusia, Trilogy Golf Club at La Quinta, and The Madison Club (which did not exist in 2002) to name only those properties within 1.5 miles of the SilverRock Resort.” (Id. at 5). Mr. Brohard concludes that these are significant “changed circumstances,” that will compound the increase in the Project’s own traffic of 20 percent over levels projected in 2002. These changed circumstances must be analyzed in a supplemental EIR.

3. Biological Impacts.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B are the comments of wildlife biologist, Dr. Shawn Smalwood, Ph.D. Dr. Smallwood holds a Ph.D. in Ecology from the University of California at Davis. Dr. Smallwood’s associate, Noriko Smallwood, MS, conducted a site inspection of the Project site on two days. Ms. Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 2.33 hours of diurnal survey from 16:26 to 18:46 hours and for 2.07 hours of nocturnal survey from 18:17 to 20:31 hours on 1 October 2025, and for 3.1 hours of diurnal survey from 06:41 to 09:47 hours on 2 October 2025.

Ms. Smallwood positively identified on the Project site turkey vulture and American kestrel (Photos 5 and 6), red-tailed hawk and greater roadrunner (Photos 7 and 8), Gambel’s quail (Photo 9), Costa’s hummingbird and verdin (Photos 10 and 11), great-tailed grackle and northern mockingbird (Photos 12 and 13), mallard and great egret (Photos 14 and 15), green heron and belted kingfisher (Photos 16 and 17), loggerhead shrike and ladder-backed woodpecker (Photos 18 and 19), mourning dove and common raven (Photos 20 and 21), vermilion flycatcher (Photos 22 and 23), Say’s phoebe and black phoebe (Photos 24 and 25), Abert’s towhee (Photo 26), white-crowned sparrow and Bewick’s wren (Photos 27 and 28), blue-gray gnatcatcher and black-tailed gnatcatcher (Photos 29 and 30), yellow warbler and orange-crowned warbler (Photos 31 and 32), hooded oriole and Queen butterfly (Photos 33 and 34), western side-blotched lizard and canyon bat (Photos 35 and 36), Mexican free-tailed bat and Yuma myotis (Photos 37 and 38), among the other species listed in Table 2. Noriko detected 48 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including 15 Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project October 6, 2025 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item 3

Page 7 of 12 ends

species with special status (Table 2). (Ex. B at 9). Ms. Smallwood documented most of these sightings photographically.

Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project will adversely affect these special status species through loss of habitat, bird-window collisions, feline predation, and automobile collisions. Dr. Smallwood suggests mitigation measures that should be analyzed in an EIR, such as bird-safe window treatments, compensatory mitigation, and other measures. Dr.

Smallwood concludes that the mitigation measures in the 2002 MND are inadequate. First, the 2002 MND did not even consider most of the special status species identified by the Smallwoods. The primary mitigation measure relied on in the 2002 MND is the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). However, Dr. Smallwood points out that the CVMSHCP does not even cover most of the species identified on the Project site. 124 potentially occurring special-status species lack coverage under the CVMSHCP. (Ex. B at 34). Therefore, the Project’s impacts remain significant and unmitigated.

The City relies on wildlife studies conducted for the 2002 MND in 1999 and 2000 – a quarter century ago. Dr. Smallwood concludes that “the 2002 MND, which is outdated due to changed circumstances, new information related to potential project impacts, and improvements to mitigation strategies.” (Ex. B at 3). Dr. Smallwood notes that the 2002 MND identified only two special status species. Yet, Ms. Smallwood identified 15 on the Project site. Dr. Smallwood notes that many of the special statue species found on the Project site were not listed as special status species in 2002. He states, “Forty-six species in Table 1 have been assigned special status since the date of the final draft of the 2002 MND.

The changes in status of these 46 species account for a 2.5-fold increase in the number of special-status species, leaving the remainder of the difference to be explained by hypotheses 1 and 2. Regardless, the evidence certainly suggests that habitat assessments are needed for many more species than was the case in 2002.” (Ex. B at 9).

Dr. Smallwood concludes that a supplemental EIR is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s impacts on the special status species identified, but not even mentioned in the 2002 MND. This is clearly significant new information that the Project will have impacts not analyzed in the 2002 MND, and evidence of changed circumstances since 2002.

4. Air Quality.

The increase in population of 1,690 new residents will increase the Project’s air quality impacts over levels analyzed in the 2002 MND. 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. The 20 percent increase in traffic over levels assumed in 2002 will push this number over the 55 pound per day CEQA significance threshold since automobile emissions are a major source of VOCs. This is a “new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project October 6, 2025 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item 3

Page 8 of 12 ends

significant effects.” (CEQA Guidelines 15164(b)(1).) Therefore, a supplemental EIR is required.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C are the comments of Civil Engineer Patrick Sutton, PE, MS, of Baseline Environmental Consulting. Mr. Sutton concludes that the 2025 Addendum substantially underestimated the Project’s VOC emission. Mr. Sutton concludes that the Project’s VOC emissions will be 65.4 pounds per day (ppd), which is well-above the CEQA significance threshold of 55 ppd. (Ex. C at 2).

Among the obvious errors in the Addendum’s air quality calculations are that the Addendum assumed that the Project would have ZERO golf course area. However, the Project includes 361 acres of golf courses. This results in VOC emissions from landscape equipment, fertilizers and pesticides – none of which were included in the Addendum’s calculations. (Ex. C at 1). Mr. Sutton points out several other obvious errors in the Addendum’s calculations:
 The area of the landscaped golf courses (361 acres or 15,730,000 square feet) was set to zero, which resulted in no emission estimates of VOCs from the application of fertilizers and pesticides.
 The total square footage for the hotel in Planning Area (PA) 3 was set to 223,608 square feet, but according to the project description the hotel would be 250,000 square feet. As aresult, the 2025 Addendum underestimated the VOC emissions from consumer products and architectural coatings associated with the hotel in PA 3.  The total square footage for the 29 luxury branded residences in PA 2 was set to 56,550 square feet, but according to the project description the average home size would range from 3,000 to 6,000 square feet. Assuming an average home size of 5,000 square feet, the total square footage of the 29 residences would be approximately 145,000 square feet. As a result, the 2025 Addendum underestimated the VOC emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment associated with the residences in PA 2.
 The total square footage for the 70 luxury branded condominiums in PA 6 was set to 74,200 square feet, but according to the project description the total area would be 293,000 square feet. As a result, the 2025 Addendum underestimated the VOC emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment associated with the condominiums in PA 6.
(Ex. C at 2). Correcting for all of these obvious errors, and using the required CalEEMod model, Mr. Sutton calculated the Project’s VOC emissions at 65.4 pounds per day, well above the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold.

Comment on Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment 2002-453 (SCH #1999081020) for the SilverRock Resort Project October 6, 2025 City Council Meeting Consent Calendar Item 3

Page 9 of 12 ends

The Supreme Court has held that when a project exceeds an air district CEQA significance threshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. (Communities for a Better Environment v.

South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 [estimated emissions in excess of air district’s significance thresholds “constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact”].) Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluating the significance of a project’s air quality impacts. (See, e.g. Schenck v. County of Sonoma (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 949, 960 [County applies Air District’s “published CEQA quantitative criteria” and “threshold level of cumulative significance”]; see also Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110-11 [“A ‘threshold of significance’ for a given environmental effect is simply that level at which the lead agency finds the effects of the project to be significant”].) Since the Project’s VOC emissions exceed the SCAQMD CEQA significance threshold for VOCs, and EIR is required to analyze and mitigate this impact.

5. Valley Fever.

A supplemental CEQA document is required to analyze the Project’s Valley Fever impacts. Civil Engineer Patrick Sutton, PE concludes that the Addendum is inadequate for failing to analyze the Project’s potentially significant impacts related to Valley Fever. (Ex. C at 4.) He points out that Valley Fever cases have increased 12-fold since 2000, and Riverside County is one of the hardest-hit areas. (Id.) Mr. Sutton states, “The failure of the 2025 Addendum to evaluate, disclose, and mitigate (if necessary) the risk of Valley fever to receptors during project construction presents a significant data gap.” (Id.) 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.

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:

Page 10 of 12 ends

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 Department 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.

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.

Page 11 of 12 ends

“[U]nder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts. ‘If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record.

Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.’ (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 311; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544.) “CEQA places the burden of environmental investigation on government rather than the public. If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record.” (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1378–79 [quotations omitted].) Indeed, “[d]eficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.” (Id.; see also Christward Ministry v. Superior Court (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 197 [holding that city’s failure to undertake adequate environmental analysis further supported fair argument that project would have significant impacts].)
Supplemental CEQA review is required to analyze and mitigate the Project’s impacts related to Valley Fever.

6. Formaldehyde.

Industrial Hygienist Francis Offermann, PE, has submitted comments concluding that the Project will have significant impacts related to formaldehyde emissions. (Exhibit D).

This impact was not known in 2002 since the research had not been published at that time.

Therefore, this is significant new information that must be analyzed in a supplemental EIR.

Mr. Offermann concludes that “the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).” (Offermann at 2). Even if the homes are constructed with CARBcomplaint materials, Mr. Offermann calculates that the cancer risk will be 120 per million – still far above the CEQA significance threshold. (Id. at 4). Mr. Offermann suggests mitigation measures, such as the use of no-added formaldehyde building materials, which could dramatically reduce formaldehyde exposure. (Id. at 13). A CEQA document should be prepared to analyze this and other mitigation measures.

II. CONCLUSION.

For the reasons set forth above, supplemental CEQA review is required for the Project because it will have significant new impacts that were not analyzed in the 2002 MND.

Page 12 of 12 ends

Sincerely,

Richard Drury
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP

EXHIBIT A

Section Category Page
#
Measure
#

3.0 Transportation 155

3.1 Land Use/Location 155

3.1.1 Increase Density 155 LUT-1

3.1.2 Increase Location Efficiency 159 LUT-2

3.1.3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) 162 LUT-3

3.1.4 Increase Destination Accessibility 167 LUT-4

3.1.5 Increase Transit Accessibility 171 LUT-5

3.1.6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing 176 LUT-6

3.1.7 Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor 179 LUT-7

3.1.8 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane 181 LUT-8

3.1.9 Improve Design of Development 182 LUT-9

3.2 Neighborhood/Site Enhancements 186

3.2.1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements 186 SDT-1

3.2.2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures 190 SDT-2

3.2.3 Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network 194 SDT-3

3.2.4 Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones 198 SDT-4

3.2.5 Incorporate Bike Lane Street Design (on-site) 200 SDT-5

3.2.6 Provide Bike Parking in Non-Residential Projects 202 SDT-6

3.2.7 Provide Bike Parking with Multi-Unit Residential Projects 204 SDT-7

3.2.8 Provide Electric Vehicle Parking 205 SDT-8

3.2.9 Dedicate Land for Bike Trails 206 SDT-9

3.3 Parking Policy/Pricing 207

3.3.1 Limit Parking Supply 207 PDT-1

3.3.2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost 210 PDT-2

3.3.3 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) 213 PDT-3

3.3.4 Require Residential Area Parking Permits 217 PDT-4

3.4 Commute Trip Reduction Programs 218

3.4.1 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program - Voluntary 218 TRT-1

3.4.2 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Program – Required Implementation/Monitoring
223 TRT-2

3.4.3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs 227 TRT-3

3.4.4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program 230 TRT-4

3.4.5 Provide End of Trip Facilities 234 TRT-5

3.4.6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules 236 TRT-6

3.4.7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing 240 TRT-7

3.4.8 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program 244 TRT-8

3.4.9 Implement Car-Sharing Program 245 TRT-9

3.4.10 Implement a School Pool Program 250 TRT-10

3.4.11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle 253 TRT-11

3.4.12 Implement Bike-Sharing Programs 256 TRT-12

3.4.13 Implement School Bus Program 258 TRT-13

3.4.14 Price Workplace Parking 261 TRT-14

3.4.15 Implement Employee Parking “Cash-Out” 266 TRT-15 Section Category Page
#
Measure
#

3.5 Transit System Improvements 270

3.5.1 Provide a Bus Rapid Transit System 270 TST-1

3.5.2 Implement Transit Access Improvements 275 TST-2

3.5.3 Expand Transit Network 276 TST-3

3.5.4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed 280 TST-4

3.5.5 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit 285 TST-5

3.5.6 Provide Local Shuttles 286 TST-6

3.6 Road Pricing/Management 287

3.6.1 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing 287 RPT-1

3.6.2 Improve Traffic Flow 291 RPT-2

3.6.3 Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Projects
297 RPT-3

3.6.4 Install Park-and-Ride Lots 298 RPT-4

3.7 Vehicles 300

3.7.1 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems 300 VT-1

3.7.2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles 304 VT-2

3.7.3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles 309 VT-3

SilverRock Resort Area
Aerial - 2025
Legend
Augustine Casino
Empire Polo Club
Feature 1
Feature 2
Feature 3
In-N-Out Burger
Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport
La Quinta Resort & Club, Curio?
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens
Trailhead
2 mi
N
➤
Image © 2025 Airbus

EXHIBIT B
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253 4 October 2025
RE: SilverRock Resort Project
To Whom It May Concern,
I write to comment on the environmental review that has been performed for potential impacts on biological resources that would be potentially caused by development of the proposed Silver Rock Resort Project. I understand the project would add 655,000 square feet of hotel, club house and residential buildings on 498 acres south of Avenue 52 and west of Jefferson St in La Quinta, California. The 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND concludes, “a. The 2025 Project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the adopted MND. b. Significant effects previously examined will not be substantially more severe than shown in the adopted MND. c. No new mitigation measures or alternatives have been found to be feasible that would reduce one or more significant effects of the Specific Plan. d. No new mitigation measures or alternatives, considerably different from those analyzed in the adopted MND, have been identified that the Project proponents decline to adopt.”, and at p. 3.0-34, “No new information or changed circumstances were identified in the Previous Assessments that resulted in new or more severe impacts related to biological resources.” I am concerned, however, that the 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND’s conclusions are inaccurate and misleading, and that if the project goes forward based on the environmental review completed to date, the wildlife community and particular special-status species would suffer significant, unmitigated impacts.

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached. 2 THE 2002 MND AND 2006, 2014, AND 2018 ADDENDA ARE OUTDATED The 2006, 2014, and 2018 Addenda to the 2002 MND rely on the environmental review of the 2002 MND, which is outdated due to changed circumstances, new information related to potential project impacts, and improvements to mitigation strategies. The 2006, 2014, and 2018 Addenda mostly repeat the findings of the 2002 MND, the only major exception having been the later reporting that Sonoran bighorn sheep had been observed on the project site subsequent to the 2002 MND, and that exclusion fencing had been constructed per a mitigation measure in the 2002 MND.

Each Addendum repeats the 2002 MND reporting that a series of biological resources survey were completed between 1999 and 2000. The 2002 MND mentions these surveys, but provides no citations or references to them, and the technical reports are not carried through the Addenda to the 2025 Addendum. Therefore, I do not know who conducted the surveys or what levels of effort were committed to what was then described as a 707 acre project site. All I know from the 2002 MND is that focused surveys were directed to a few special-status species, that loggerhead shrike and blacktailed gnatcatcher were detected, and that a desktop review identified 31 special-status species of wildlife known to the project area.

Circumstances have changed. In my assessment based on a database review and site visits (summarized below), 140 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 1). Just was the case in 2002, not all these species should be expected to occur at the project site, but each of them should be given a closer look to determine occurrence likelihoods and whether additional surveys are needed, or implementation of detection surveys, or whether it would be reasonable to assume presence. The number of special-status species whose occurrence records warrant analysis of occurrence likelihood on the project site has increased by 109 special-status species, or 4.5-fold since 2002. The 2002 MND is obsolete and should no longer be relied upon.

Of the 140 species with potential to occur, 21 (15%) have been recorded on or just off the project site, and another 23 (16%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 12 (9%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 78 (56%) within 4 to 30 miles (In region). Nearly half (40%) of the species in Table 1 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least 20 special-status species of wildlife, and it carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of recorded occurrences. If the two special-status species noted in the 2002 MND were the only special-status species detected on the project site in 1999-2000, then the species detected by Noriko is an order of magnitude greater. The difference could be explained by or more of the following hypotheses: (1) Noriko Smallwood, who surveyed the site on behalf (see below) is more skilled than were the biologists who surveyed the site in 1999-2000, (2) The biologists who surveyed in 1999-2000 did not commit enough survey effort or surveyed at the wrong of day to detect many special-status species, and (3) many of the species detected in 1999-2000 lacked the special status that they have today. 3 Table 1. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood during her site visit.

Species highlighted in light red have been assigned special status since the adoption of the 2002 MND. CVMSHSP in the rightmost column refers to species covered by the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP).

Common name Species name Status1
Database records,
Surveys

CVMSHCP
Cover?
Casey’s June beetle Dinacoma caseyi FE In region
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE In region
Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys pallida FC, SSC In region Mojave desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii FT, CE In region Yes Flat-tailed horned lizard Phrynosoma mcallii SSC In region Yes Coachella Valley fringe-toed
lizard
Uma inornata FT, CE In region Yes
Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Nearby
Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor SSC1 In region Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 Very close
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE In region Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC On site/On site
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC In region Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC On site
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC In region
American avocet Recurvirostra americana BCC Nearby
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
4 Common name Species name Status1
Database records,
Surveys

CVMSHCP
Cover?
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Nearby
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Black turnstone Arenaria melanocephala BCC In region
Red knot Calidris canutus BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC In region
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC Nearby
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
Yellow-footed gull Larus livens BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close
California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP In region Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica BCC, SSC3 In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL On site American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 On site Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens BCC In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP On site/On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP On site
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP In region
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP,
WL
Nearby
5 Common name Species name Status1
Database records,
Surveys

CVMSHCP
Cover?
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP On site/Just off site
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP On site/On site
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP In region
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Nearby
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP In region
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP On site/Just off
site
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP,
CCE
Nearby Yes
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus BOP In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Very close
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP On site/On site
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP On site
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE In range Yes Brown-crested flycatcher Myiarchus tyrannulus WL In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 On site/On site 6 Common name Species name Status1
Database records,
Surveys

CVMSHCP
Cover?
Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Very close Yes Gray vireo Vireo vicinior SSC2 In region Yes
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 On site/On site Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC In region
Verdin Auriparus flaviceps BCC On site/On site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 In region
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC In region
Black-tailed gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura WL On site/On site Bendire’s thrasher Toxostoma bendirei SSC3, BCC In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC In region
LeConte’s thrasher Toxostoma lecontei SSC1, BCC In region Yes Crissal thrasher Toxostoma crissale SSC3 Nearby Yes
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufouscrowned sparrowAimophila ruficeps canescens WL In region Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 In region Yes
Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 In region Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Very close/On site Yes Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region Yes
7 Common name Species name Status1
Database records,
Surveys

CVMSHCP
Cover?
California leaf nosed bat Macrotus californicus SSC, WBWG: H Nearby Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM In region/On site Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG: M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG: H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG: H In region
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region
Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In region Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M Nearby/On site Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: L In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG: M In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M Nearby
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG: H In region/Likely on site
Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG: H In region Yes Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG: H In range/ Likely on site
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG: H In region Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG: H In region
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG: L In region/On site Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG: M In region Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG: H In range Palm Springs round-tailed
ground squirrel
Xerospermophilus tereticaudus
chlorus
SSC In region Yes
Palm Springs pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris bangsi SSC In range Yes Pallid San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In region
San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC In region Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
Mountain lion Puma concolor SA In region
8 Common name Species name Status1
Database records,
Surveys

CVMSHCP
Cover?
Peninsular bighorn sheep DPS Ovis canadensis pop. 2 FE, CT, CFP On site Yes 1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors). 9 Although the above-hypotheses 1 and 2 could be true, Table 1 lends strong support to the third hypothesis explaining the vast difference in the number of special-status species considered in 2002 and the number of special-status species listed in Table 1.

Forty-six species in Table 1 have been assigned special status since the date of the final draft of the 2002 MND. The changes in status of these 46 species account for a 2.5-fold increase in the number of special-status species, leaving the remainder of the difference to be explained by hypotheses 1 and 2. Regardless, the evidence certainly suggests that habitat assessments are needed for many more species than was the case in 2002.

The evidence is not limited to the desktop reviews between 2002 and 2025. On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 2.33 hours of diurnal survey from 16:26 to 18:46 hours and for 2.07 hours of nocturnal survey from 18:17 to 20:31 hours on 1 October 2025, and for 3.1 hours of diurnal survey from 06:41 to 09:47 hours on 2 October 2025. During daylight, Noriko walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. At night, Noriko strapped a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 20-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran Sonobat Live. Sonobat Live identifies bats to species based on the bats’ sonograms that are detected by the M500. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen just off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.

On 1 October 2025, conditions were sunny with 5 MPH southeast wind and temperatures of 95-91° F during the diurnal survey and clear with 5 MPH east wind and temperatures of 91-83° F during the nocturnal survey. On 2 October 2025, conditions were sunny with 3 MPH northwest wind and temperatures of 65-84° F. The western part of the site is an existing golf course, and the eastern part of the site is desert scrub, some of which has been treated with herbicide (Photos 1-4).

Noriko saw turkey vulture and American kestrel (Photos 5 and 6), red-tailed hawk and greater roadrunner (Photos 7 and 8), Gambel’s quail (Photo 9), Costa’s hummingbird and verdin (Photos 10 and 11), great-tailed grackle and northern mockingbird (Photos 12 and 13), mallard and great egret (Photos 14 and 15), green heron and belted kingfisher (Photos 16 and 17), loggerhead shrike and ladder-backed woodpecker (Photos 18 and 19), mourning dove and common raven (Photos 20 and 21), vermilion flycatcher (Photos 22 and 23), Say’s phoebe and black phoebe (Photos 24 and 25), Abert’s towhee (Photo 26), white-crowned sparrow and Bewick’s wren (Photos 27 and 28), blue-gray gnatcatcher and black-tailed gnatcatcher (Photos 29 and 30), yellow warbler and orange-crowned warbler (Photos 31 and 32), hooded oriole and Queen butterfly (Photos 33 and 34), western side-blotched lizard and canyon bat (Photos 35 and 36), Mexican free-tailed bat and Yuma myotis (Photos 37 and 38), among the other species listed in Table 2. Noriko detected 48 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including 15 species with special status (Table 2). 10 Photos 1–4. Views of the northern (top two) southern (bottom two) portions of the project site, 2 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 11 Photos 5 and 6. Turkey vulture (left), and American kestrel (right) on the project site, 1 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 7 and 8. Red-tailed
hawk (left), and greater
roadrunner (right) on the
project site, 2 October 2025.

Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
12 Photo 9. Gambel’s quail on the project site, 1 October 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 10 and 11. Costa’s hummingbird (left), and verdin (right) on the project site, 2 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
13 Photos 12 and 13. Great-tailed grackle (left), and northern mockingbird (right) on the project site, 2 and 1 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 14 and 15. Mallard (left), and great egret (right) on the project site, 2 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
14 Photos 16 and 17. Green heron (left), and belted kingfisher (right) on the project site, 2 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 18 and 19. Loggerhead shrike (left), and ladder-backed woodpecker (right) on the project site, 2 and 1 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 15 Photos 20 and 21. Mourning dove (left), and common raven (right) on the project site, 2 and 1 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 22 and 23. Vermilion flycatcher male (left), and female (right) on the project site, 1 and 2 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 16 Photos 24 and 25. Say’s phoebe (left), and black phoebe (right) on the project site, 1 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 26. Abert’s towhee on the project site, 1 October 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
17 Photos 27 and 28. White-crowned sparrow (left), and Bewick’s wren (right) on the project site, 2 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 29 and 30. Blue-gray gnatcatcher (left), and black-tailed gnatcatcher (right) on the project site, 2 and 1 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 18 Photos 31 and 32. Yellow warbler (left), and orange-crowned warbler (right) on the project site, 2 and 1 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 33 and 34. Hooded oriole (left), and Queen butterfly (right) on the project site, 2 October 2025. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
19 Photo 35. Western side-blotched lizard on the project site, 1 October 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 36. Sonogram of canyon bat detected on site using Sonobat Live and a Pettersson M500, 1 October 2025.
20 Photos 37 and 38. Sonogram of Mexican free-tailed (top), and Yuma myotis (bottom) detected on site using Sonobat Live and a Pettersson M500, 1 October 2025.

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.
21 Table 2. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 2.33 hours of diurnal survey and

2.07 hours of nocturnal survey on 1 October 2025, and during 3.1 hours of diurnal survey on 2 October 2025.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Western side-blotched
lizard
Uta stansburiana
elegans
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Gambel’s quail Callipepla gambelii Many, foraged
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Many, foraged
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus Foraged
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC
American coot Fulica americana Golf course ponds
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Great blue heron Ardea herodias Golf course ponds
Great egret Ardea alba Golf course ponds
Green heron Butorides virescens Flew over
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Flew over
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Just off site
Red-tailed hawk
Buteo jamaicensis BOP Perched, circled,
harassed by AMKE
Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Called from just off site Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Ladder-backed
woodpecker
Dryobates scalaris
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Perched, harassed RTHA
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Multiple, foraged Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common raven Corvus corax
Verdin Auriparus flaviceps BCC Foraged
Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Foraged
Black-tailed gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura WL Foraged Bewick’s wren Thryomanes bewickii
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Many
Western bluebird Sialia mexicana
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Many
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Foraged
Abert’s towhee Melozone aberti Foraged
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus
22 Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus
Orange-crowned
warbler Oreothlypis celata Foraged
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Foraged
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H Probable detection, Sonobat Live
Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H Probable detection, Sonobat Live
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii
Coyote Canis latrans Tracks
Kangaroo rat Dipodomys sp. Burrows
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID =109406) as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); SSC = California Species of Special Concern, and SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively); WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).

All the species in Table 2 would lose habitat as the result of the project. Noriko detected 48 species of vertebrate willdife, which was a large number for the brevity of her survey effort. However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her surveys, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s cumulative numbers of vertebrate species detected with time into her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. The model fit to Noriko’s survey data from the morning of 2 October looks just like the model fit to her survey data from the evening prior, and it predicts 50 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected, or 50% more species than she detected that morning (Figure 1). The patterns in her species detection rates in evening and morning surveys both exceeded the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval estimated from morning surveys we completed throughout the region.

Due to a battery limitation, Noriko was able to survey for bats for only two hours. But just as I could predict the number of diurnally active species that were available to be detected during Noriko’s daylight surveys, the same approach can be applied to her curtailed survey for bats. Noriko detected five bat species, and her rate of detections predict 13 bat species would have been detected had she surveyed all night long. 23 Figure 1. Actual and
predicted relationships
between the numbers
of vertebrate wildlife
species detected and
the elapsed survey
time based on Noriko’s
visual-scan surveys on
1 and 2 October 2025.

Figure 2. Actual and
predicted relationships
between the numbers of
bat species detected
and the elapsed survey
time based on Noriko’s
acoustic detection
survey on 1 October
2025.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
YAM 0.97
YPM 0.98
r
2 95% CI 2019-2024 for morning
surveys in region
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 3
6 9
12 15
Cumulative number of bat species detected
Model prediction; r
2 = 0.96
95% CI of acoustic bat
surveys 2024-2025
Actual count of species
24 Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on 1 and 2 October 2025 composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some require more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. Surveys on only two days cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s two survey dates. However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.

As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ = 1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r 2,
of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 18.1 species over my first 5.43 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (5.43 hours to match the 5.43 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 31.8% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 42 diurnally active species Noriko detected after her

5.43 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 31.8% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 42

0.318 ⁄ = 132
species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of 25 special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 132 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 28 special-status species of diurnally active vertebrate wildlife.

The above predictions are for diurnally active species. The pattern in Noriko’s data predict 13 bat species were available to be detected on the night of the 1 st, but there are
undoubtedly more bat species visiting the site over the longer term. I do not yet have a research data set for bats that I can use as an analytical bridge to estimate the number of bat species at the site, but assuming the same expansion factor of 3.14, i.e., 1

0.318
, I
predict 16 bat species make use of the project site. There are probably about 20 species of nocturnally active small mammals, so in total the project site is habitat for at least 166 species of vertebrate wildlife, including about 48 special-status species (most bat species have special status, and so does a high proportion of nocturnally active small mammals).

The large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort. There are many more specialstatus species known to occur and likely to occur as compared to what is reported in the 2002 MND.

Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.

At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project for its potential impacts on many species of wildlife that have become special-status species since the 2002 MND.
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
26 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS OF 2002 MND IS INCOMPLETE In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which are analyzed adequately or at all in the 2002 MND.

REDUCED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY FROM HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species. The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 48 species of vertebrate wildlife which Noriko observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown. Because Noriko’s survey occurred outside the avian breeding season and because reconnaissance surveys are unsuited for detecting all bird nests on a site, estimating total nest density of birds was not possible. The alternative method would be to infer productive capacity from estimates of total nest density elsewhere. Noriko has completed several studies to estimate total avian nest density in similar environments in the local area.

In 2023, Noriko estimated 5.56 nests/acre on a 3.6-acre site of ruderal grassland bordering a woodland strip in Murrieta, and 1.86 nests/acre on another 4.83-acre grassland site bordering a strip of woodland in Murietta. In 2025, Noriko estimated 0.5 nests/acre on an 8-acre site in Anza Borrego Desert State Park. The average of the above three estimates is 2.64 nests/acre. This density applied to the 498 acres of the project site would predict 1,315 nest sites. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate 1,828 nest attempts per year on the project site. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 5,301 fledglings/year at the project site.

The loss of 1,315 nest sites and 1,828 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed by the City of La Quinta. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The project would prevent the production of 5,301 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022):
{(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 5,959 birds per year denied to California.

The loss of 5,959 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of 5,959 birds would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact that was not discussed in the adopted MND nor any of its Addenda.

At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project for its impacts on wildlife productivity caused by nearly 500 acres of habitat loss.
27 BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY
The project would introduce glass windows into an essential portion of avian habitat – that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere.

The aerosphere is habitat, to which an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).

Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and Noriko’s site visit indicate there are 101 specialstatus species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 1). All the birds represented in Table 1 can quickly fly from wherever they have been documented to the project site, so they would all be within brief flights to the proposed project’s windows.

Noriko confirmed 48 vertebrate wildlife species on the project site, some of them flying across the site.

Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.

Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but they are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and by not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found in searches, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.

Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the birdwindow collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated 28 more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.

By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA birdwindow fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only two of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.

In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.

Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.

Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of 29 fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.

Project Impact Prediction
By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.

With the estimated average bird collision mortality above, all I need are estimates of window extents in the project. These window extents are not reported in the 2002 MND nor in the 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND, but square footages (sf) of types of buildings are reported, which I can compare to averages I have maintained of how square footage in other development projects have related to window extents. Assuming

0.0147368 m2 of glass window extent per sf and 293,000 sf of residential floor space, then I predict 4,318 m2 of windows among residential dwelling units. Assuming

0.0162129 m2 of glass window extent per sf and 305,000 sf of floor space associated with the hotel, then I predict 4,945 m2 of windows. Assuming 0.0233067 m2 of glass window extent per sf and 57,000 sf of floor space associated with the commercial and clubhouse buildings, then I predict 1,328 m2 of windows. These predictions sum to 10,591 m2 of windows. This extent of windows multiplied against the above-reported average bird collision deaths per m2 of glass per year predicts 774 (95% CI: 460–1,089) bird collision fatalities per year.

The vast majority of these predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus 30 causing significant unmitigated impacts that were not addressed in either the 2002 MND or the 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND. Given the predicted level of birdwindow collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species. Not only would the project take habitat of rare and sensitive species of birds, but it would transform the project’s airspace into a lethal collision trap to birds.

At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project for its potential impacts to birds caused by collisions with windows.

WILDLIFE DEPREDATION BY HOUSE CATS
Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the project area by residents of the proposed residential units. This is significant because house cats serve as one of the largest sources of avian mortality in North America (Dauphiné and Cooper 2009, Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Loyd et al. 2017).

Loss et al. (2013) estimated 139 million cats in the USA in 2013 (range 114 to 164 million), which killed an estimated 16.95 billion vertebrate wildlife annually (range 7.6 to 26.3 billion). In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human in the USA, and 122 vertebrate animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND reports there would be 714 new residents in 253 residential units . The above rates of cat ownership applied to this number of new residents would predict 314 new cats, which based on the findings of Loss et al. (2013) would kill 38,308 vertebrate wildlife per year.

House cats also contribute to downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program, “Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals, but the only known definitive hosts are cats – domesticated and feral house cats included. Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the environment through their feces… and …rain that falls on cement creates more runoff than rain that falls on natural earth, which contributes to increased runoff that can carry fecal pathogens to the sea” (Thje original link is no longer active, but the quote came from the program described at:
https://whc.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/programs-projects/ca-conservation/sea-otter).

Impacts to wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be highly significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in either the 2002 MND or the 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND. An obvious mitigation measure would be to constrain house cat ownership such as requiring cats to remain indoors.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
The 2002 MND and 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND neglect to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and 31 injuries caused by project-generated traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 39―42), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

Photo 39. A white-tailed
antelope squirrel runs across the
road just in the Coachella Valley,
26 May 2022. Such road
crossings are usually successful,
but too often prove fatal to the
animal.

Photo 40. A coyote uses the
crosswalk to cross a road on 2
February 2023. Not all drivers
stop, nor do all animals use the
crosswalk. Too often, animals
are injured or killed when they
attempt to cross roads.
32 Photos 41 and 42. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County (left; photo taken on 10 November 2018), and mourning dove killed by vehicle on a Bakersfield road (right; photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.) The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate.

An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, 33 western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife The 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND predicts 39,761,564 annual VMT would be generated by the project. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road in Contra Costa County daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 16,913 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic. This would be a very large number of animals killed by the project’s traffic.

Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The 2002 MND and 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND do not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, and that, as the 2002 MND and 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND are written, these impacts would be unmitigated.

At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project for its potential impacts on wildlife caused by massive projectgenerated traffic.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND provides no cumulative impacts analysis, so I assume it relies entirely on the 2002 MND. If this is the case, then it relies on an outdated cumulative impacts analysis. Over the past 23 years, multiple projects have been developed, filling nearly every open space that existed near the SilverRock Resort project site in 2002. All the adjacent open space to the northeast has been filled with structures, and interior spaces of golf courses have been filled. A new cumulative impacts analysis is needed, not only because of all the recent developments, but also because of the many species that have been recently assigned special status due to their regional declines.

At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project for its potential contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife. 34 SHORTFALLS OF THE MITIGATION STRATEGY
A principal mitigation strategy is to pay a fee into the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). According to BIO PDF-1, “The City shall require payment of Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fees prior to issuance of occupancy permits for development projects required to pay such fees.” This strategy fine insofar as it would offset impacts to species that are both covered by the CVMSHCP and likely in harm’s way with respect to the project. The project would potentially affect up to 16 special-status species of wildlife in Table 1 that are covered by the CVMSHCP. However, two of the 16 species have been documented beyond 30 miles from the project site, and 11 have been documented between 4 and 30 miles from the site. Of the five covered species more likely to be affected by the project, two have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles from the project site, one has been documented within 1.5 miles, and two (Peninsular bighorn sheep and yellow warbler) have been documented on the site. In short, only a few covered species likely to lose habitat to the project would benefit from payment of the mitigation fee to the CVMSHCP.

On the other hand, 124 potentially occurring special-status species lack coverage under the CVMSHCP. There is no evidence that any of these species would benefit from the BIO PDF-1 mitigation strategy. Each species lives within a unique habitat, so the conservation benefits gained for an HCP-covered species might not extend to other species affected by the project. For example, loggerhead shrike likely would not benefit from conservation easements purchased on sand dunes to protect Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard.

Another shortfall goes to the assumed rather than demonstrated efficacy of the CVMSHCP. I reviewed the CVMSHCP and its supporting documents to ascertain its performance standards and measurement of progress towards those standards. I could not find biological performance standards, such as minimum numbers of individuals to be achieved through conservation actions, or minimum productivity of each species, or even a minimum species richness as a community metric. Perhaps such performance standards exist, but they were not readily apparent to me. I did find that biological monitoring reports have been delivered with CVMSHCP annual reports. The biological monitoring studies have generated many interesting results, but it remains unclear how those results relate to CVMSHCP performance standards. The biological monitoring reports include many tests of hypotheses that are of obvious interest to the investigators, and of interest to me as a scientist, but most of them fail to inform the reader of whether the CVMSHCP is conserving the species it covers.

The performance standards of the CVMSHCP appear more focused on acreage conserved. Target acres to conserve have been identified specific to the habitat needs of each covered species. Many acres have been conserved to date, and this level of conservation certainly looks impressive on the whole. However, most of the conserved acreage has been committed by state and federal agencies, and much less of it by CVMSHCP permittees. Whereas the agencies have achieved 60% of their acreage goals to the reserve system since inception of the CVMSHCP in 2008, the permittees have 35 achieved only 13.7% of their acreage goal (Annual Report 2020). Between 1996 and 2020, permittees contributed an average 552 acres per year in exchange for an allowed authorized disturbance to 898 acres/year (22,420 acres total). Outside conservation areas, 7,016 acres of Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard habitat have been taken through 2020, whereas 2,391 acres of habitat have been conserved. It appears to me that authorized take is being front-loaded while conserved acreage from permittee fees lags.

The performance standards of the CVMSHCP are lagging. Until the performance of the CVMSHCP can be demonstrated through both acreage and species conserved, I suggest the more prudent mitigation would be to formulate measures outside the CVMSHCP process. And there are too many special-status species that would not necessarily benefit from the CVMSHCP because they lack coverage and the CVMSHCP was not designed with them in mind. Whether a case is made for adequate performance of the CVMSHCP or mitigation is formulated outside the CVMSHCP, at least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to formulate more appropriate mitigation.

According to MM BIO-3 of the 2025 Addendum to Adopted MND, “Dogs shall not be permitted to be loose within the Project area, and shall be kept away from the hillside areas through appropriate signage and fencing, where applicable.” However, this type of mitigation measure is difficult to enforce. While Noriko surveyed the site on my behalf, she observed two dogs that were off-leash. These dogs entered the property with two different masters, so the many signs warning to keep dogs leashed is ignored by multiple dog owners. Moreover, even if the measure was enforceable, its conservation benefits are de minimis compared to the project’s potential impacts on wildlife.

MM BIO-4 requires that “access into the hillside area from the site will be discouraged through the use of signs or barricades, if necessary, unless the access is provided as part of a trail system that is approved by the USFWS and CDFG.” As above, the use of signs is unlikely to result in compliance by all who encounter them, and the signs would be too often ignored unless there is a means to enforce the signed restriction.

MM BIO-6 requires that “the final design of the Project shall insure that road and driveways are designed to minimize headlight shine from vehicles onto the hillside.” And MM BIO-7 requires that “in all areas adjacent to the hillsides, non-glare glass shall be used in new construction. Exterior building lights shall not shine on the hillside.

Exterior lighting shall be kept at the safest possible minimum intensity and aimed away from the hillside.” However, it is hard to take these measures seriously when it is obvious that artificial lighting pollutes the hillslopes just south of the project site (Photo 33).

According to MM BIO-10, “Efforts shall be made to ensure that all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, and fertilizers used during the construction and operation of the Project Site will not be harmful to wildlife.” However, this measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.
36 Photo 33. Artificial light floods the hillside just south of the project site, 1 October 2025. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

NEW MITIGATION MEASURES
Bird-Window Collision Mortality: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The available guidelines and most of the research that informed the guidelines have been developed since the 2002 MND.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further.

For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 37 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).

Van Doren et al. (2021) found that nocturnal migrants contributed most of the collision fatalities in their study, and the largest predictors of fatalities were peak migration and lit windows. Van Doren et al. (2021) predicted that a light-out mitigation measure could reduce bird-window collision mortality by 60%.

Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities.

Landscaping: Most of the research into wildlife responses to alternative landscaping has been completed since the 2002 MND. If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees.

Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as important sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threatened insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020).

Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
38 LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.

Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI

10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.

Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.

Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in birdwindow collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.

Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.

Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.

J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 39 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.

Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.

Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.

Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.

Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.

Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.

Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.

Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. 40 Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.

Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.

Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.

Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.

P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.

Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.

Loyd, K. A. T., S. M. Hernandez, and D. L. McRuer. 2017. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:55-61.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 2380. DOI:

10.1038/ncomms2380
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.

Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 41 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.

Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.

PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.

Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.

Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.

Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.

Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.

Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.

Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI

10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.

Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.

PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.

Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
42 Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.

Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, N.L. and E.M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.

Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.

Van Doren, B. M., D. E. Willardb, M. Hennenb, K. G. Hortonc, E. F. Stubera, D.

Sheldond, A. H. Sivakumare, J. Wanga, A. Farnswortha, and B. M. Winger. 2021.

Drivers of fatal bird collisions in an urban center. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (24). e2101666118
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.

Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.

Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.

EXHIBIT C
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619
October 5, 2025
25234-00
Richard Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Review of Air Quality Impacts Analyzed for the SilverRock Resort Project, City of La Quinta, California.

Dear Mr. Drury:

Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) has reviewed the Air Quality analysis included in the 2025 Addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the SilverRock Resort Project (project) in the City of La Quinta, California. The purpose of our review was to determine whether potential environmental impacts related to air quality were appropriately evaluated, mitigated, and disclosed to the public. Based on our review, we have identified flaws and data gaps in the analysis used to support the significance determinations for the 2025 Addendum, as described in detail below.

AIR QUALITY
Underestimated VOC Emissions
The 2025 Addendum estimated criteria air pollutant emissions during operation of the project at full buildout in 2045. As summarized in Table 1, the project’s maximum daily emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during operation would be 52.2 pounds per day, which is below the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) recommended threshold of 55 pounds per day. However, based on review of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) report included in Appendix A of the 2025 Addendum, the project’s VOC emissions associated with consumer products (e.g., fertilizers and cleaning products) and architectural coatings (i.e., paint) were substantially underestimated. This is because the 2025 Addendum made the following errors when entering the model inputs for CalEEMod:
• The area of the landscaped golf courses (361 acres or 15,730,000 square feet) was set to zero, which resulted in no emission estimates of VOCs from the application of fertilizers and pesticides.
• The total square footage for the hotel in Planning Area (PA) 3 was set to 223,608 square feet, but according to the project description the hotel would be 250,000 square feet. As a October 5, 2025

Page 2 ends

result, the 2025 Addendum underestimated the VOC emissions from consumer products and architectural coatings associated with the hotel in PA 3. • The total square footage for the 29 luxury branded residences in PA 2 was set to 56,550 square feet, but according to the project description the average home size would range from 3,000 to 6,000 square feet. Assuming an average home size of 5,000 square feet, the total square footage of the 29 residences would be approximately 145,000 square feet. As a result, the 2025 Addendum underestimated the VOC emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment associated with the residences in PA 2. • The total square footage for the 70 luxury branded condominiums in PA 6 was set to 74,200 square feet, but according to the project description the total area would be 293,000 square feet. As a result, the 2025 Addendum underestimated the VOC emissions from consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape equipment associated with the condominiums in PA 6.

Baseline prepared an updated CalEEMod analysis to correct the model input errors described above and estimate the project’s VOC emissions during operation in 2045 (Attachment A). As summarized in Table 1, the updated estimate of VOC emissions would be 65.4 pounds per day, which exceeds the SCAQMD’s threshold of 55 pounds per day. Therefore, the project would have a significant air quality impact and require mitigation.

Furthermore, the 2025 Addendum did not estimate the criteria air pollutant emissions from landscaping equipment used to maintain the 361 acres of golf courses. Based on the relatively large area of the golf courses, the failure to estimate, disclose, and mitigate (if necessary) the emissions from the landscaping equipment presents a significant data gap.

Table 1. Maximum Daily VOC Emissions during Operation in 2045 Emission Source
VOC Emissions (lb/day)
2025 Addendum Updated Analysis
Mobile 20.30 20.30
Consumer Products 24.60 38.90
Architectural Coatings 2.25 2.70
Landscape Equipment* 4.65 4.83
Energy 0.36 0.36
Total 52.2 65.4
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55
Exceed Threshold? No Yes
Notes: lb = pound
* The updated analysis includes additional landscape equipment emissions for residential land use, but does not account for landscape equipment emissions for the golf courses.

October 5, 2025

Page 3 ends

Overlapping Construction and Operation Emissions
The 2025 Addendum estimated the maximum daily emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction between 2026 and 2045, as well as the operational emissions during full buildout of the project in 2045. However, the 2025 Addendum did not evaluate the overlapping emissions from both construction and operation. As shown in Figure 1, operation of several planning areas could begin as early as 2029 and would overlap with construction of other planning areas until 2045.

During this period, the project would generate daily emissions of criteria air pollutants from the combination of both construction and operation. The failure of the 2025 Addendum to estimate, disclose, and mitigation (if necessary) the criteria air pollutant emissions from overlapping construction and operation between 2029 and 2045 presents a significant date gap.

Figure 1. Construction and Operation Phasing Diagram for 2025 Addendum Construction Health Risk Assessment
Project construction would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the exhaust of off-road diesel equipment that could pose a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The California Air Resources Board has identified DPM as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) based on its potential to cause cancer and other adverse health effects.1 Adverse health effects associated with particulate matter can vary based on factors such as particle size, source, and chemical composition. DPM is typically composed of carbon particles and a variety of organic compounds including more than 40 known cancer-causing organic substances.

Sensitive receptors near the project site could be exposed to DPM emissions generated during project construction. As discussed in the 2025 Addendum (page 3.0-1.8), the nearest sensitive receptors are residences approximately 125 feet and 150 feet to the south and east, respectively, of the boundaries of the project site. In addition, future residents on the project site could be exposed to DPM emissions during construction of adjacent planning areas. 1 California Air Resources Board, 1998. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking; Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, June.

October 5, 2025

Page 4 ends

In 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) published health risk assessment guidelines2 that include early-life exposure adjustments for children exposed to TACs such as DPM during construction. The 2015 OEHHA guidance and recommended early-life adjustment factors were not available during preparation of the earlier project addendums. The 2015 OEHHA guidance is now widely used for health risk assessments throughout California.

Examples include the 2020 San Francisco Citywide Health Risk Assessment, 3 the 2022 Port of San
Diego’s Updated Health Risk Assessment,4 and the Bay Area Air District’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines5.

The 2025 Addendum did not provide a quantitative assessment of the health risks to nearby sensitive receptors exposed to DPM emissions generated during project construction. The failure of the 2025 Addendum to evaluate, disclose, and mitigate (if necessary) the health risks to nearby sensitive receptors during project construction presents a significant date gap.

Valley Fever
Valley fever, also known as coccidioidomycosis, is a disease caused by inhaling spores of the fungus Coccidioides from airborne dust and soil. Coccidioides grow best in soil after heavy rainfall and then disperse into the air most effectively during hot, dry conditions. Exposure to Coccidioides can infect the lungs and cause respiratory symptoms including cough, fever, chest pain, and tiredness.

In California, the number of reported Valley fever cases has greatly increased in recent years. Since 2000, Valley fever cases increased from less than 1,000 cases to nearly 12,500 cases in 2024, the highest number on record for California.6 Riverside County, where the project is located, confirmed 465 cases in 2024. As of August 2025, 322 cases have been reported, which is a 58% rise from the same period last year.
7 The 2025 Addendum did evaluate the potential risk of Valley fever to receptors exposed to dust emissions during project construction. The failure of the 2025 Addendum to evaluate, disclose, and mitigate (if necessary) the risk of Valley fever to receptors during project construction presents a significant date gap.
2 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February.
3 San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2020. San Francisco Citywide Health Risk Assessment: Technical Support Documentation, September 2020.
4 Port of San Diego, 2022. Updated Health Risk Assessment; Focusing on Diesel Particulate Matter at the District's Marine Cargo Terminals. July.
5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
6 California Department of Public Health, 2025. Valley Fever. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Coccidioidomycosis.aspx 7 County of Riverside, 2025. Public Health Officials Report Increase in Valley Fever Cases in Riverside County. August 28. https://rivco.org/news/public-health-officials-report-increase-valley-fever-cases-riverside-county October 5, 2025

Page 5 ends

CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the 2025 Addendum, air quality impacts have not been adequately evaluated, disclosed, and/or mitigated. As a result, Baseline recommends that the City of La Quinta prepare a revised CEQA analysis to evaluate and mitigate the air quality impacts described above.

Sincerely,
Patrick Sutton
Principal Environmental Engineer

ATTACHMENT A
CalEEMod Report
SilverRock Resort 2045 Custom Report, 10/5/2025
1 / 7
SilverRock Resort 2045 Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

8. User Changes to Default Data
SilverRock Resort 2045 Custom Report, 10/5/2025
2 / 7

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name SilverRock Resort 2045
Operational Year 2045
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 7.60
Location 33.666877105238456, -116.27503201606905
County Riverside-Salton Sea
City La Quinta
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin Salton Sea
TAZ 5696
EDFZ 19
Electric Utility Imperial Irrigation District
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.30

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Golf Course 36.0 Hole 361 0.00 15,730,000 15,730,000 — — General Office
Building

17.0 1000sqft 0.39 17,000 1,700 — — —
SilverRock Resort 2045 Custom Report, 10/5/2025
3 / 7
General Office
Building

55.0 1000sqft 1.26 55,000 5,500 — — —
Hotel 154 Room 5.13 250,000 25,000 — — —
Quality Restaurant 7.50 1000sqft 0.17 7,500 750 — — —
Condo/Townhouse 70.0 Dwelling Unit 4.38 293,000 29,300 — 226 PA 6 Single Family
Housing

29.0 Dwelling Unit 9.42 145,000 14,500 — 94.0 —
Single Family
Housing

93.0 Dwelling Unit 30.2 181,350 18,135 — 300 —
General Office
Building

40.0 1000sqft 0.92 40,000 4,000 — — —
Single Family
Housing
253 Dwelling Unit 82.1 493,350 49,335 — 817 —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

40.7 40.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SilverRock Resort 2045 Custom Report, 10/5/2025
4 / 7
Architect 2.70 2.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

5.18 4.83 0.37 41.4 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Total 48.5 48.2 0.37 41.4 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 0.00 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

40.7 40.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.70 2.70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 43.4 43.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Consum
er
Product
s

7.42 7.42 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.49 0.49 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.47 0.44 0.03 3.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 Total 8.38 8.35 0.03 3.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 10.9 10.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.9 SilverRock Resort 2045 Custom Report, 10/5/2025
5 / 7

5. Activity Data

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Condo/Townhouse —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Single Family Housing —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
SilverRock Resort 2045 Custom Report, 10/5/2025
6 / 7
No Fireplaces 0
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
2085142.5 695,048 554,250 184,750 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180
SilverRock Resort 2045 Custom Report, 10/5/2025
7 / 7

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on CalEEMod report included Appendix A of the staff report, except for the following changes: Gold course acreage and landscape area updated based on Table 2-4; PA2 square footage updated assuming average of 5 KSF/house; PA3 square footage updated based on Table 2-4; PA6 square footage updated based on Table 2-4,.

Operations: Hearths No wood burning fireplaces or stoves included in the proposed Project.

ATTACHMENT B
Staff Resume
Patrick Sutton, P.E.

Principal Environmental Engineer
Areas of Expertise
Air Quality, GHGs, Noise, Hazardous
Materials, Geology, and Hydrology
Education
M.S., Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of
California – Davis
B.S., Environmental Science,
Dickinson College
Registration
Professional Engineer No. 13609 (RI)
Years of Experience
20 Years
Patrick Sutton is an environmental engineer who specializes in the assessment of hazardous materials released into the environment.

Mr. Sutton prepares technical reports in support of environmental review, such as Phase I/II Environmental Site Investigations, Air Quality Reports, and Health Risk Assessments. He has prepared numerous CEQA/NEPA evaluations for air quality, GHGs, noise, energy, geology, hazardous materials, and water quality related to residential, commercial, and industrial projects, as well as large infrastructure developments. His proficiency in a wide range of modeling software (AERMOD, CalEEMod, RCEM, CT‐EMFAC) as well as relational databases, GIS, and graphics design allows him to thoroughly and efficiently assess and mitigate environmental concerns.

For mixed‐use development projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared health risk assessments for sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air contaminants based on air dispersion modeling. For large transportation improvement projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared air quality and hazardous materials technical reports in accordance with Caltrans requirements. The air quality assessments include the evaluation of criteria air pollutants, mobile source air toxics, and GHG emissions to support environmental review of the project under CEQA/NEPA and to determine conformity with the State
Implementation Plan. The hazardous materials investigations include sampling and statistically analysis of aerially‐deposited lead adjacent to highway corridors. Mr. Sutton is also an active member of ASTM International and is the author of the Standard Practice for Low‐Flow Purging and Sampling Used for Groundwater Monitoring.

Project Experience
Alameda CTC I‐80/Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvements. Prepared Phase I/II ESAs to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and support CEQA/NEPA environmental review.

Oakland Downtown Specific Plan EIR. Prepared a program‐ and project‐level Air Quality and GHG Emissions analysis. Developed a mitigation measure with performance standards to ensure GHG emissions from future projects comply with the Citywide 2030 GHG reduction target.

CCTA I‐680 Express Lanes from SR 84 to Alcosta Boulevard Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Preliminary Site Investigation to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and to support environmental review of the project under CEQA and NEPA.

Altamont Corridor Expressway (ACE/Forward) Project EIR/EIS. Prepared a program‐ and project‐level Hazardous Materials analysis for over 120 miles of railroad corridor from San Jose to Merced. Hazardous materials concerns, such as release sites, petroleum pipelines, agricultural pesticides, and nearby school sites were evaluated in GIS.

BART Silicon Valley Extension Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Hazardous Materials EIS/EIR section for extending 6 miles of proposed BART service through the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara.

EXHIBIT D

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com

Date: October 3, 2025
To: Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: SilverRock Resort Project – La Quinta, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4900)
Pages: 18
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a wellrecognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2 of 18
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 3 of 18
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Chan et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 38% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 112 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products, which is more than 11 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the SilverRock Resort Project, La Quinta, CA, the buildings consist of residential and commercial buildings.

The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction.
4 of 18
Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences.

This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million).

The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because these commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 22.4 µg/m3 (Chan et. al., 2019)
Assuming that the commercial spaces employees work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per workday at the offices is 149 µg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 65.8 µg/day.
5 of 18
This is 1.64 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 16.4 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 208 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. 6 of 18
The following describes a method that should be used prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of the specific building materials/furnishings selected for the building exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment.

This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 7 of 18

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed 8 of 18
for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.
9 of 18
𝐶௜௡ =
ா೟೚೟ೌ೗
ொ೚ೌ
(Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017).

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or NonCancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde

Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:
10 of 18

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder to “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated air contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week.

Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 ach, with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach.

A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for 11 of 18
ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

The SilverRock Resort Project – La Quinta, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., 52nd Avenue, Jefferson Street, Silverrock Way etc.). As a result of the outdoor vehicle traffic noise, the Project site is likely to be a sound impacted site.

According to the Addendum to the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration – SilverRock Resort Project, La Quinta, CA. (Meridian Consultants, 2025) there has been no measurements of the existing ambient sound levels.

In order to design the building for this Project such that interior noise levels are acceptable, an acoustic study with actual on-site measurements of the existing ambient noise levels and modeled future ambient noise levels needs to be conducted. The acoustic study of the existing ambient noise levels should be conducted over a minimum of a one-week period and report the dBA CNEL or Ldn. This study will allow for the selection of a building envelope and windows with a sufficient STC such that the indoor noise levels are acceptable. A mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors will also be required. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. According to the Addendum to the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration – SilverRock Resort Project, La Quinta, CA. (Meridian Consultants, 2025) the Project is located in Salton Sea Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM10.

Additionally, the SCAQMD’s MATES V study cites an existing cancer risk of 208 per million at the Project site due to the site’s high concentration of ambient air contaminants resulting from the area’s high levels of motor vehicle traffic. 12 of 18
An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2,5 and PM10 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2,5 and PM10 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, or exceed the California annual average PM10 exceedence concentration of 20 µg/m3, or the 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 50 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 and PM10 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.
13 of 18
Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder to “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
14 of 18
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

Chan, W., Kim, Y., Singer, B., and Walker I. 2019. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New California Homes with Gas Appliances and Mechanical Ventilation. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Technologies Area, LBNL-2001200, DOI:

10.20357/B7QC7X.

EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242. 15 of 18
Meridian Consultants. 2025. Addendum to the Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration – SilverRock Resort Project, La Quinta, CA.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX USA.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA,http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysishandbook 16 of 18
USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4

17 of 18

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”.

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products ? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 18 of 18
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 19 of 18
cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, California 91631
Tel. 805.367.5720
October 7, 2025
City of La Quinta
Design & Development Department
78495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Attn: Cheri Flores
Planning Manager
Re: 2025 SilverRock Resort Project Addendum
Environmental Assessment 2025-0002
Development Agreement 2025-0001
Responses to Comments from SAFER
Dear Cheri Flores,
On October 6, 2025, Lozeau Drury, LLP submitted comments in support of an appeal filed by Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) on the approval Environmental Assessment 2025-0002 (Addendum No. 3 to Environmental Assessment 2002-453) and conditionally approving Development Agreement 2025-0001, which were approved on September 22, 2025, for the 2025 SilverRock Resort Project Addendum (2025 Project).

Meridian Consultants (Meridian) prepared the September 2025 Addendum to the 2002 MND adopted by the City for the SilverRock Resort Project. Meridian also prepared the City’s 2014 Addendum to the Adopted 2002 MND. I also managed the preparation of the City’s 2002 MND as well as the City’s 2006 Addendum to the Adopted 2002 MND. Each Addendum the City prepared compared the revised Project to the project as defined and analyzed in prior documents and includes updated information on existing conditions as well as analysis of the changes to the Project.

Meridian reviewed the comments in the October 6, 2025 letter from Lozeau Drury and responses to these comments are provided below.

1. Growth Inducement
Lozeau Drury comments that the 2025 Project, as disclosed in the 2025 Addendum, would add 1,690 additional residents to the City of La Quinta and that this would represent a 9.9 percent increase in population, which would impact water supply, traffic, schools and other public services, air pollution and other impacts.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 7, 2025 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM TONY LOCACCIATO OF MERIDIAN CONSULTANTS 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
Responses to Comments from SAFER
2025 SilverRock Resort Project Addendum
October 7, 2025

Page 2 ends

This comment, however, ignores the planning context for the Project as discussed in the Addendum.

First, the City updated the La Quinta General Plan in 2013 (2035 La Quinta General Plan). The SilverRock Resort Project was originally approved in 2002, and in 2006, the City approved the SilverRock Resort Specific Plan to guide the development of the Project. The Specific Plan was reviewed in the 2006 Addendum to the Adopted MND. The 2025 General Plan incorporated the 2006 SilverRock Specific Plan. The City’s Program EIR for the 2025 General Plan provides a comprehensive assessment of the potential cumulative impacts from implementing the General Plan, including the SilverRock Specific Plan, as discussed in the 2014 Addendum to the original MND.

The 2025 Project would reduce overall intensity of the uses allowed by the SilverRock Specific Plan, as detailed in Table 2-2, Comparative land Use Summary, Prior Environmental Review, and the 2025 SilverRock Master Plan, in the 20205 Addendum. As explained in the 2025 Addendum, the population estimate presented in the Addendum reflects a conservative approach that assumes all hotel and branded residential units operate as full-time residences. In contrast, the Previous Assessments treated these uses as seasonal and therefore did not attribute any growth in the City’s permanent population. As described on page 3.0-8 of the Addendum, the 2025 Project would generate an estimated 1,690 residents. Given the City’s 2025 population of approximately 38,796 and its projected 2050 population of 55,836—an increase of 17,040 residents over 25 years; the Project’s contribution would represent only about 9.9 percent of the projected growth for the City, which reflects the City’s 2025 General Plan as evaluated in the General Plan Program EIR and the 2014 and 20245 Addendums to the Adopted MND. As the 2025 Project reduces the intensity of the uses allowed by the SilverRock Specific Plan, which was incorporated into the City’s General Plan, the potential increase in the City’s population from the Project would not result in growth not anticipated for by the City’s 2035 General Plan and, for this reason, preparation of a Supplemental EIR to examine the potential impacts of this potential growth in the City’s population is not warranted.

2. Traffic
The comments state that the 2025 Project would generate more daily vehicle trips than identified in the 2002 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Addendum does not evaluate potential transportation impacts in terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), as currently required by CEQA.

The comment compares the 2025 SilverRock Resort Project to the project as defined and analyzed 2002 MND and ignores the updated traffic analysis provided in the 2006, 2014 and 2025 Addendums to the 2002 MND. Each of these Addendums evaluates changes to the Project as defined and analyzed in the 2002 MND. As documented in the 2025 Addendum (Table 3.6-1), the Project would generate fewer total daily vehicle trips than the 2018 Project and does not increase roadway capacity demands or result in new significant impacts related to LOS or traffic safety. The overall development intensity, including hotel keys, residential units, and commercial space, has been substantially Responses to Comments from SAFER
2025 SilverRock Resort Project Addendum
October 7, 2025

Page 3 ends

reduced from prior approvals. For this reason, the Project would not result in new or more severe traffic impacts beyond those previously analyzed. All prior mitigation measures and conditions of approval remain applicable. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15162 and §15164, preparation of an Addendum is appropriate.

Because the MND for the Project was adopted prior to July 1, 2020, it analyzed transportation impacts using LOS, which was the required CEQA metric at the time. The change in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 designating VMT as the primary significance threshold does not apply retroactively to previously adopted CEQA documents based on the Court of Appeal decision in Olen Properties Corp. v. City of Newport Beach (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 270. In addition, as discussed above, the 2025 Project reduces the intensity of land uses and vehicle trips from the project at previously approved.

Accordingly, VMT would also be reduced in comparison to the Project as previously approved. For these reasons, preparation of a VMT analysis is not required.

3. Biological Impacts
The comments provided include photographs of wildlife within four miles of the Project Site is support of comments that development of the 2025 Project would impact the wildlife in the area.

The photographs and brief reconnaissance-level site visit described in the comments do not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA to refute the Addendum’s conclusions. Under CEQA Guidelines §15384, substantial evidence must consist of facts or expert opinion supported by facts, not unverified observations, or speculation. While the photographs include certain wildlife species identified as special-status species, the mere observation of individual animals within or adjacent to a previously developed and landscaped site does not indicate a new or more severe biological impact.

The Project Site consists of areas previously graded for golf and resort uses, partially developed with the City’s existing golf course and partially constructed buildings, and is designated as “Developed/Disturbed” and “Golf Course” land by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The Project remains fully consistent with the CVMSHCP and continues to implement all applicable avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, including payment of conservation fees that provide regional habitat compensation for covered species.

No new natural habitat would be disturbed, and no evidence indicates that the Project would result in take, habitat loss, or population-level effects on any special-status species. Courts have consistently held that short-term observations or photographs, without supporting survey data, do not constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact (Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572).

Responses to Comments from SAFER
2025 SilverRock Resort Project Addendum
October 7, 2025

Page 4 ends

Based on the analysis and conclusions presented in the 2025 Addendum to the MND, the potential impacts of the 2025 Project on special-status species have been accurately and adequately addressed, and the 2025 Project will not result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than those previously analyzed. Accordingly, preparation of a Supplemental EIR is not required.

4. Air Quality
The comments state that due to the increase in population and traffic, the 2025 Project would exceed the Project’s volatile organic compound (VOC) threshold of 55 pounds per day (ppd). As discussed in the Growth Inducement and Traffic sections above, the 2025 Project would reduce overall land use intensity compared to the Previous Assessments, would induce only planned population growth consistent with the City’s General Plan, and would generate fewer vehicle trips than the 2018 Master Plan.

The comments further assert that the 2025 Addendum substantially underestimates Project VOC emissions based on land use intensity, concluding that total VOC emissions would be 65.4 ppd, which is above the CEQA significance threshold of 55 ppd. One comment claims the landscaped golf course area (361 acres or approximately 15.7 million square feet) was set to zero in the CalEEMod air emissions modeling completed for the Addendum, resulting in no estimated VOC emissions from fertilizer and pesticide application. The 361 acres include the existing 161-acre Arnold Palmer Golf Course and a second proposed approximately 200-acre 18-hole golf course. The existing 161-acre portion was intentionally set to zero in CalEEMod because it is a fully developed and operational facility that has been analyzed in previous CEQA documents. The 2025 Addendum appropriately evaluates only new development and improvements; not routine maintenance activities associated with the existing golf course. Regular landscaping and turf management practices are part of the environmental baseline and do not constitute new sources of emissions attributable to the current Project. Including those emissions again would have resulted in double-counting impacts already evaluated and occurring under existing conditions.

It should also be noted that none of the Previous Assessments identified exceedances of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) daily thresholds for construction or operation. In the Tables 3.5-1 and 3.5-2 of the 2014 Addendum, the applicable SCAQMD VOC thresholds were 75 ppd, with maximum daily emissions of 72.4 ppd during construction and 65.6 ppd during operation— both below the threshold. Even when applying Mr. Sutton’s overestimated figure of 65.4 ppd, the 2025 Project would not substantially emit levels significantly above the Previous Assessment. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted.

Responses to Comments from SAFER
2025 SilverRock Resort Project Addendum
October 7, 2025

Page 5 ends

5. Valley Fever
The comments state that the Addendum does not analyze potential Valley Fever impacts. These comments contain only generalized statements regarding Valley Fever risks and reported increases in cases across Riverside County in 2024 but provide no site-specific data demonstrating the presence of Coccidioides fungus on the Project site or any aspect of the 2025 Project that would exacerbate such risks in the City of La Quinta. The Project Site has already been mass graded and that completion of construction under the 2025 Project would reduce dust, blow sand, and soil erosion relative to current conditions.

Additionally, Valley Fever is not a required environmental topic under the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist. CEQA requires analysis of environmental effects caused by a project, not naturally occurring diseases that may exist in a region. Potential exposure to Coccidioides spores is a regional public health issue, not an environmental impact attributable to project-specific emissions or land use. As such, Meridian finds that the 2025 Addendum appropriately addresses dust-related emissions through compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and existing air quality mitigation measures (MM AQ-1 through AQ-4), and that no new or more severe impacts related to Valley Fever would occur under CEQA.

6. Formaldehyde
Comments state that development of the proposed new residential and commercial buildings would result in significant formaldehyde exposure. With respect to the claim of indoor air quality risks associated with formaldehyde, the comments do not provide substantial evidence of any new or substantially more severe environmental effects than those analyzed in the previously adopted MND.

The comments contain only generalized statements about potential cancer risks from building materials but provide no site-specific information regarding the 2025 Project or the materials that would be used for project development. Moreover, the submission fails to acknowledge that the 2025 Project would substantially reduce the total amount of building square footage developed and occupied on the Project Site compared to the prior analysis, thereby further reducing any potential for indoor air quality emissions.

The concern regarding formaldehyde exposure is also unfounded. The 2025 Addendum’s air quality analysis and health risk assessment appropriately address emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including formaldehyde, within the modeling and mitigation framework established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Construction and operational emissions were modeled using CalEEMod v2022.1, which accounts for VOC emissions from architectural Responses to Comments from SAFER
2025 SilverRock Resort Project Addendum
October 7, 2025

Page 6 ends

coatings, consumer products, and combustion sources consistent with SCAQMD Rules 1113 and 1144. These rules impose strict VOC limits on building materials and coatings, effectively minimizing potential formaldehyde emissions. As shown in Tables 3.5-2 and 3.5-3 of the Addendum, the Project’s total VOC emissions are well below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 55 pounds per day, confirming that formaldehyde exposure would remain less than significant. Additionally, Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the CalGreen Code regulate indoor air quality and limit offgassing from composite wood and finish materials. Based on this substantial evidence, the City finds that the Proposed Project Modifications would not result in any new or more severe impacts related to formaldehyde exposure under CEQA Guidelines §15162.

Conclusion
As the responses above demonstrate, the Addendum adequately assesses the potential for significant impacts from 2025 SilverRock Resort Project, which is consistent with the prior assessments and no further environmental review is required for this project under the standards in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

Sincerely,
Meridian Consultants
Tony Locacciato, AICP
Partner

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
[email protected]

DEL MAR HEIGHTS

LAS VEGAS

ORANGE COUNTY

SCOTTSDALE

SAN DIEGO

SILICON VALLEY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
135281-00000001/9991802.1
October 7, 2025
VIA E-MAIL ([email protected])
Linda Evans, Mayor
City Councilmembers
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
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) CITY 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 135281-00000001/9991802.1 2
(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 3
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 4

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 5
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 CalEEMod 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% below the 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 Offerman 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 6
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,
James Vaughn
Partner, of
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
cc: Bill Ihrke, City Attorney ([email protected])
Cheri Flores, Interim Design and Development Director ([email protected]) Michael Gazzano ([email protected])

La Quinta City CouncilOctober 7, 2025

La Quinta City Council
October 7, 2025