ATTACHMENT
L
Nexus Hotel Project
Land Use Permit No. 2023-0033
Conditional Use Permit No. 2023-0018
Major Architectural Review No. 2023-0079
Major Development Permit No. 2023-0017
Tentative Tract Map 2023-0014
Supplemental Response to Comments (October 28, 2025)
The City received a second letter from Lozeau Drury, representing SAFER, on September 9, 2025. The following response to that letter is provided for the City Council’s consideration. The complete comment letter is attached to this response in Appendix A.
Lozeau Drury
Letter Dated September 9, 2025
Comment 1:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Nexus Hotel and Residential Project (Land Use Permit No. 2023-0033, Conditional Use Permit No. 2023- 0018, Major Architectural Review No. 2023 -0079, Major Development Permit No. 2023- 0017, and Tentative Tract Map 2023- 0014), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction of a mixed- use development consisting of 125 hotel rooms, 132 residential condominium units, as well as a stand- alone restaurant, located at the Southeast corner of N. Calle El Segundo and E. Andreas Road in the City of Palm Springs (“Project”), which is scheduled to be heard at the September 16, 2025 Planning Commission meeting.
Response 1:
The comment is noted, but provides only a description of the Project, and requires no further response.
Comment 2:
After careful review of the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the Project, SAFER has concluded that the MND does not adequately analyze the Project’s impacts and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. We therefore are requesting that the City of Palm Springs (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. SAFER’s comments are supported by the analysis of several highly-qualified experts, which are attached hereto.
Response 2:
The comment is over-broad and provides no substantiation for the commenter’s assertion. As a result, no response is possible or warranted. Please see Responses below regarding specific environmental issues addressed by the commenter.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Comment 3:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is located at 201-217 South San Gabriel Boulevard, Southeast corner of N. Calle El Segundo and E. Andreas Road, Palm Springs, CA (APNs: 508-055-007, -008, and -009), which would redevelop an existing parking lot with a nine- story resort hotel and residential building consisting of 125 hotel rooms and 132 residential condo units which will be associated with the hotel and have access to hotel amenities and services; and a 6,040 square foot stand- alone restaurant. Located underneath the hotel portion of the main building, or northeast portion of the planning area, the underground garage consists of 100 standard parking spaces. The parking structure consists of five (5) levels, with the ground level providing 80 parking spaces, level 2, 3, and 4 each providing 85 standard parking spaces, and level 5 providing 65 parking spaces, for a total of 400 spaces.
The City of Palm Springs conducted Tribal Consultation in conformance with AB 52 requirements. The City contacted six Tribes in writing (Torres Martinez, Soboba, Morongo, Cabazon, and Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“ACBCI”)) in November 2024. The City stated that no request for consultation followed. As discussed below, the Project will have many undisclosed or inadequately mitigated environmental impacts, including significant negative effects on air quality, valley fever, wildlife movement, speci al-status species mortality, and transportation.
Response 3:
The comment provides a description of the Project in the first paragraph, and a description of the AB 52 process conducted for the Project in the second paragraph. The last sentence of the second paragraph asserts that the Initial Study (IS) is inadequate. The assertion is over-broad and provides no substantiation for the commenter’s assertion. As a result, no response is possible or warranted. Please see Responses below regarding specific environmental issues addressed by the commenter.
Comment 4:
LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 [citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles ( 1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504 –505].) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.)
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 ( Bakersfield Citizens ); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927. The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.
The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self- government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.
Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors , 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland's etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–
05. Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect —even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928. The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.
Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273–74.
The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review .” Pocket Protectors , 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Response 4:
The comment describes the CEQA process and the case law the commenter has researched regarding the CEQA process, and does not raise any specific environmental issues associated with the Project. No further response is required.
Comment 5:
DISCUSSION
I. AN EIR IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE PROJECT’S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY.
Dr. James Clark, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm Clark & Associates, reviewed the MND’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on air quality. Dr. Clark’s comment letter and CV are attached as Exhibit A. As discussed below, Dr. Clark found that the MND inadequately assessed the Project’s air quality impacts. In addition, Dr. Clark found that the MND may result in significant health impacts from Valley Fever spores. As such, an EIR is required.
Response 5:
The assertion is over-broad and provides no substantiation for the commenter’s assertion. As a result, no response is possible or warranted. Please see Responses below regarding specific environmental issues addressed by the commenter.
Comment 6:
1. The IS/MND Fails to Address the Significant Health Impacts from Valley Fever Spores Present in the Soils Of Riverside County.
Dr. Clark found that the IS/MND fails to adequately address the known presence and significant risk of Coccidiodes Immitis (Valley Fever fungus) in Southern California and in Riverside County in particular.
1 Valley Fever is on the rise in Riverside County and in Palm Springs. According to the California Department of Public Health, Valley Fever rates have increased 13% since 2022.
Additionally, based on a study by UCR, it is evident that Palm Springs is a hot spot for the County of Riverside.
Dust exposure is a primary risk factor for contracting Valley Fever (VF) (via Coccidiodes immitis (cocci) exposure). When soil containing the cocci spores are disturbed by construction activities, the fungal spores become airborne, exposing construction workers and other nearby sensitive receptors. The fungus lives in the top 2 to 12 inches of soil. When soil containing this fungus is disturbed by act ivities such as digging, vehicles, construction activities, dust storms, or during earthquakes, the fungal spores become airborne. Valley Fever often manifests as a mild respiratory illness, but it can progress to serious chronic forms, especially in immunocompromised individuals, and may even become disseminated, impacting organs including the skin, bones, brain, and spinal cord. Disseminated Valley Fever is associated with severe symptoms like meningitis, painful lesions, and swollen joints.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
The most at-risk populations are construction and agricultural workers. “Labor groups where occupation involves close contact with the soil are at greater risk, especially if the work involves dusty digging operations.” Here, construction workers are the very population that would be most directly exposed by the Project. Furthermore, there is exposure risk posed to the general population surrounding the Project. Dr. Clark notes that the nonselective raising of dust during Project construction will carry the very small spores, 0.002– 0.005 millimeters (“mm”), into nonendemic areas, potentially exposing large non-Project-related populations. These very small particles are not controlled by conventional construction dust control mitigation measures.
Ultimately, the Project will be putting both construction workers and the surrounding population at risk of significant negative health impacts.
The IS/MND assumes that meeting SCAQMD Rule 403 and 403.1 (Fugitive Dust Control) would be sufficient to control the impacts from Valley Fever exposure from the Project Site. According to the grading plan 38,512 cubic yards of soil will be disturbed during the site grading. However, Dr. Clark concluded that the disturbed soil onsite represents a significant pathway for VF spore exposure which will impact onsite and offsite workers.
Soil disturbances have been linked to increased health risks due to Valley Fever. A study in Antelope Valley identified a clear link between soil disturbance and increased incidence of coccidioidomycosis. Dr. Clark concludes that the mass disturbance of soils anticipated by the proposed Project will create the same conditions that were detailed in the study by Colson.
These conditions will result in significant health risk to workers and members of the surrounding community.
The Project site’s desert location and exposure to desert winds amplify these risks. Even when standard dust control measures are in place, high winds can mobilize substantial amounts of dust from graded areas generating PM10 and PM2.5 emissions that carry Valley Fever spores and silica dust into surrounding communities. Alerts from air pollution control districts frequently accompany such wind events, underlining the inadequacy of typical dust suppression methods in preventing airborne spore exposure. The increased risk due to the Project site’s location only highlights the importance of conducting an EIS.
According to research on Valley Fever, outbreaks in populations with intense exposure to aerosolized arthroconidia are at greater risk for infection. These groups include agricultural or construction workers, or persons who participate in outdoor activities such as hunting or digging in the soil. Outbreaks of coccidioidomycosis have been linked to a variety of activities involving disturbance of impacted soils. Since Valley Fever cases are directly related to the disturbance of soils in the area, the City must directly address the impacts that the project’s construction phase will have on the community.
Ensuring robust protections for both on-site workers and off-site receptors is essential to prevent potentially severe health consequences for the surrounding community. Dr. Clark concludes that the City should prepare an EIR to accurately disclose the Project’s impacts on local air quality and public health, especially given the significant public health risks associated with airborne Valley Fever spores.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
2. The Proposed Dust Control Measures in the IS/MND Fail to Effectively Mitigate Significant Valley Fever Exposure Risks.
An EIR is warranted based on the risk of significant health impacts from Valley Fever. The EIR should include effective mitigation measures specifically tailored to Valley Fever. Dr. Clark states that the standard fugitive dust mitigation measures proposed in the IS/MND are not adequate to protect construction workers and nearby sensitive receptors from exposure to Valley Fever spores.
SCAQMD Rule 403 includes requirements for a Dust Control Plan, signage and fencing requirements, as well as surface watering and stabilization with chemicals, gravel and asphaltic pavement to eliminate visible fugitive dust from vehicular travel and wind erosion. All the mitigation measures outlined above allow for a percentage of the dust that could be generated to be migrate offsite. Based on the Mitigation Measures outlined in the CalEEMOD model utilized in the IS/MND, watering exposed areas twice a day would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions by 61 percent (61%). Increasing the watering frequency to 3 times per day would reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions by 74%. Conventional dust control measures primarily focus on visible dust or larger dust particles—the PM10 fraction—and fail to address the very fine particles that transport Valley Fever spores, which are approximately 5 times smaller than typical PM10 particles and remain airborne much longer. These fine particles, when disturbed by soil - disturbing activities, spread widely beyond site, posing a significant risk to both onsite workers and nearby communities.
The Project’s proposed use of visual opacity readings for dust control is insufficient to prevent exposure to Valley Fever spores. This rule is based on smoke- monitoring methods (U.S. EPA Methods 9 and 22) that require active monitoring by certified observ ers, rely on subjective observation, and are affected by variables such as lighting, distance, and weather conditions.
Due to these limitations, opacity readings do not provide accurate, continuous data on fine airborne particles.
To address these shortcomings, Dr. Clark suggests that the City should require active monitoring with dust monitors (particle measuring devices) immediately outside of the facility and around its perimeter. Continuous particle measures eliminate the subjec tivity inherent in visual opacity readings, allow for real-time tracking of dust particle levels, and offer robust data sets that can be used for repeatability test and to validate compliance with air quality standards. Incorporating active dust monitoring systems would ensure that air quality impacts are accurately assessed and mitigated, fulfilling the intent of the mitigation measures and conditions of compliance to protect public health and the environment.
Additionally, sampling for and removal of impacted soils is the best solution to Coccidiodes immitis spores. Since Coccidiodes immitis resides in soils and are not subject to degradation, entrainment of the potentially impacted soils may cause additional issues to further development of the site.
The City should require that the Proponent implement mitigation measures to actively suppress the spread of Valley Fever by:
• Including specific requirements in the Project’s Injury and Illness Prevention Program (as required by Title 8, Section 3203) regarding safeguards to prevent Valley Fever.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
• Controlling dust exposure:
o Apply chemical stabilizers at least 24-hours prior to high wind event; o Apply water to all disturbed areas a minimum of three times per day. Watering frequency should be increased to a minimum of four times per day if there is any evidence of visible wind-driven fugitive dust;
o Provide National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) -approved respirators for workers with a prior history of Valley Fever. o Half-face respirators equipped with a minimum N -95 protection factor for use during worker collocation with surface disturbance activities. Half-face respirators equipped with N-100 or P-100 filters should be used during digging activities. Employees shoul d wear respirators when working near earth-moving machinery.
o Prohibit eating and smoking at the worksite, and provide separate, clean eating areas with hand-washing facilities.
o Avoid outdoor construction operations during unusually windy conditions or in dust storms.
o Consider limiting outdoor construction during the fall to essential jobs only, as the risk of cocci infection is higher during this season.
• Prevent transport of cocci outside endemic areas:
o Thoroughly clean equipment, vehicles, and other items before they are moved off- site to other work locations.
o Prevent spillage or loss of bulk material from holes or other openings in the cargo compartment’s floor, sides, and/or tailgate;
o Load all haul trucks such that the freeboard is not less than six inches when material is transported on any paved public access road and apply water to the top of the load sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity; or cover haul trucks with a tarp or other suitable cover.
o Provide workers with coveralls daily, lockers (or other systems for keeping work and street clothing and shoes separate), daily changing and showering facilities. o Clothing should be changed after work every day, preferably at the work site. o Train workers to recognize that cocci may be transported offsite on contaminated equipment, clothing, and shoes; alternatively, consider installing boot-washing. o Post warnings onsite and consider limiting access to visitors, especially those without adequate training and respiratory protection.
• Improve medical surveillance for employees:
o Employees should have prompt access to medical care, including suspected work - related illnesses and injuries.
o Work with a medical professional to develop a protocol to medically evaluate employees who have symptoms of Valley Fever.
o Consider preferentially contracting with 1-2 clinics in the area and communicate with the health care providers in those clinics to ensure that providers are aware that Valley Fever has been reported in the area. This will increase the likelihood that ill workers will receive prompt, proper and consistent medical care.
o Respirator clearance should include medical evaluation for all new employees, annual re- evaluation for changes in medical status, and annual training, and fit- testing. o Skin testing is not recommended for evaluation of Valley Fever.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
o If an employee is diagnosed with Valley Fever, a physician must determine if the employee should be taken off work, when they may return to work, and what type of work activities they may perform.
Standard dust control measures are insufficient for preventing Valley Fever exposure, and only concrete, enforceable steps like those listed above will safeguard both onsite workers and surrounding communities. The City should adopt these evidence- based mitigation measures, which are proven to be effective in similar construction projects in Valley Fever -endemic areas, in an EIR to ensure comprehensive protection of public health.
Response 6:
The commenter’s assertions are noted. However, since Riverside County comprises a population of 2.5 million people, and according to the map below produced by the CDC, Riverside County experiences 0- 5.9 cases of Valley Fever per 100,000 population annually, there is no evidence that Valley Fever is a significant health risk in Palm Springs.
Furthermore, the commenter fails to point out that Valley Fever cases in Riverside County have gone down, from 206 in 2023, to 181 in 2024
1. According to the federal CDC, there has been no
outbreak of Valley fever in the Coachella Valley (or
in Palm Springs) between 1940 and 2015, as shown
in this published map.
2 Therefore, although the
commenter makes claims that Valley Fever is a
significant health issue in Palm Springs , the
evidence they provide is not supported by fact.
Valley Fever is not a significant health issue in Palm
Springs, and the MND requires no amendment.
1 CDPH, Cumulative Reported Suspect, Probable, and Confirmed Annual Cases of Coccidioidomycosis by Local Health Jurisdiction and Year of Estimated Onset, California, 2022-2024 2 https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/diseases/coccidioidomycosis/maps.html
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Comment 7:
3. The Air Quality Analysis Incorrectly States that the Construction Phase Does Not Exceed the Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs).
The IS/MND’s air quality analysis wrongly claims that the construction phase will not exceed the LSTs. Dr. Clark demonstrates that this claim is erroneous. Therefore, an EIR is required to address the health risks posed by emissions exceeding the LSTs.
The IS/MND states that:
“The nearest sensitive receptor is Plaza Villa, located 86.94± feet across E. Andreas Road to the north. The analysis shows that both construction and operational emissions will not exceed localized significance thresholds. Therefore, sensitive receptors i n proximity to the project site, including residents at Plaza Villa, will not be adversely affected by air emissions during either phase. No further mitigation measures are required . . . “[b]ased on the Project’s proximity to existing housing, the 5-acre site tables at a distance of 25 meters (nearest measurement option in LST table) were used for LST analysis. Table 4 shows on- site emission concentrations for Project construction and operation will not exceed LST thresholds. Overall, the impacts will be less than significant.”
However, Dr. Clark observes that in Table 4 of the IS/MND, the City’s LST analysis shows that there are exceedances of the LST for both PM10 and PM2.5. Clearly, the construction phase will result in emissions of particulate matter above the site specific L STs. The City must correct this flaw in an EIR and additionally prepare a site- specific health risk analysis to ensure the safety of sensitive receptors identified by the City in the IS/MND.
Since the Project will have air emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 that exceed adopted LST thresholds, the Project will have significant air quality impacts that must be analyzed and mitigated in an EIR. When a project exceeds a duly adopted CEQA significance thr eshold, as here, this alone establishes substantial evidence that the project will have a significant adverse environmental impact. Indeed, in many instances, such air quality thresholds are the only criteria reviewed and treated as dispositive in evaluati ng 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 sig nificant”].) The California Supreme Court has shown the importance an air district significance threshold has in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse 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”].) Since expert evidence shows the Project will exceed the SCAQMD’s LST significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an “unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]” exists. ( See Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.) An EIR is required to analyze and mitigate these impacts.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Response 7:
The comment is substantially the same as Comment 3 of the commenter’s January 31, 2025 letter, which was addressed in the Response to Comments prepared for the Planning Commission. Response 3 of that letter stated:
The comment correctly notes that the Initial Study (Table 4) indicates PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would exceed LST thresholds. However, the emissions presented in the Initial Study contain inaccuracies that were previously overlooked. The initial CalEEMod model run failed to properly apply standard dust control measures during the grading and material hauling phase, leading to incorrect and inflated emission estimates. A corrected CalEEMod model run, incorporating the standard dust control measures, shows PM1 0 and PM2.5 emissions below LST thresholds. Consequently, the Project’s impacts remain less than significant, and an EIR is not required for further analysis or mitigation. The corrected CalEEMod model run and detailed report is provided in Appendix B of this document.
Below is a screenshot of the revised Table 4 showing no LST exceedances:
The corrected PM10 and PM2.5 construction emissions were also updated in Table 2, as shown in the screenshot below:
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Therefore, the IS was corrected prior to the Planning Commission, the above Response was provided to the Planning Commission prior to its deliberations on the matter, and the IS does not require any further amendment, impacts remain less than significant, and no EIR is required.
Comment 8:
4. The City’s Air Quality Analysis Fails to Include a Quantitative Health Risk Analysis of the Impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants from the Construction Phase And Operational Phase of the Project for the Nearest Sensitive Receptor(s).
The determination of a significance threshold for construction activities and operational activities is based on a quantitative risk analysis that requires the City to perform a multistep, quantitative health risk analysis for toxic air contaminants (TACs) from the construction and operational phases of the Project. No effort is made in the IS/MND to quantify the potential health impacts from TACs generated by construction activities or operational activities from the Project on these sensitive receptors. Given that the closest receptor to the Project site is the residence located less than 25 meters from the edge of the Project Site, there is sufficient evidence to warrant a quantitative analysis of the potential health risks to the residents.
In addition to TACs from diesel exhaust (assumed to be diesel particulate matter or DPM), the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) analysis of tailpipe emissions shows that in addition to simple alkane hydrocarbons, the emissions also contain benzene (human carcinogen), 1,3- butadiene (human carcinogen), ethylbenzene (human carcinogen), toluene (neurotoxin), acetaldehyde (respiratory irritant), and formaldehyde (human carcinogen), and other air toxins.
These air toxins make up approximately 22% of the t otal organic gases (TOGs) emitted from vehicles. Dr. Clark concludes that the majority of emissions of these compounds from the surrounding sites to the Project site will be associated with passenger vehicles, resulting in significant human exposure to the above chemicals.
The inherent toxicity of TACs requires the City to first quantify the concentration of each TAC released into the environment at each of the sensitive receptor locations through air dispersion modeling, calculate the dose of each TAC at that location, and quantify the cancer risk and hazard index for each of the chemicals of concern. Following that analysis, then the City can make a determination of the relative significance of the emissions. The results should then be presented in an EIR prior to approving any agreements with the Proponent or issuing any permits for the Project.
The City did not perform this analysis, and thus lacks supporting evidence for its conclusion that the emissions from the Project would not result in significant health effects. The City’s failure to perform such an analysis is clearly a major flaw in the IS/MND, and further analysis via an EIR is warranted.
Response 8:
The commenter provides no substantial evidence that the Project will generate either DPM or TAC to levels which would increase cancer risk. On the contrary, as demonstrated in the Initial Study, pages 35 through 41, the Project will not generate any emissions which approach the Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
SCAQMD’s thresholds for the preparation of an HRA. Pursuant to Rule 1401, 1401.1, and 212 of the SCAQMD rulebook, the District requires the preparation of an HRA for specific facilities associated with high levels of toxic air contaminants. To reduce exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs), CARB recommends minimum separation distances between new sensitive land uses, such as residences, and eight categories of existing sources of TACs: high- traffic freeways and roads (100,000 trips per day), distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, chrome plating facilities, perchloroethylene dry cleaners, and large gas stations. As shown in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project, Tahquitz Canyon experiences average daily traffic (ADT) volumes of up to 10,100 trips, and Calle El Segundo 5,300 trips per day. This represents only a fraction of the volume which would require the preparation of an HRA under SCAQMD’s guidance. The preparation of an HRA is therefore not required. Also see Table 4 in Response 7.
The Project will not exceed local significance thresholds under either construction or operation conditions. Therefore, the MND does quantify the potential impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors, and provides quantified results which clearly demonstrate that surrounding sensitive receptors will not be significantly impacted by construction or operation of the proposed Project.
Comment 9:
5. The Air Quality Analysis Fails to Include DPM Emissions from the Fire Pumps and/or Back-Up Generators that Will Be Installed Onsite.
The Air Quality Analysis in the IS/MND fails to include the fire pumps that will be required for the Project as well as the back -up generator (BUG) that will need to be included for the Project. A review of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) FIND website shows that the Hilton Palm Springs, immediately west of the Project Site, and of a similar size to the Project has an active permit from SCAQMD for a BUG. Fire pumps are powered generally by diesel powered BUGs. BUGs are allowed to operate up to 200 hours per year for testing and maintenance. The operation of a 500 horsepower (hp) backup generator operated for an hour will add up to 0.12 pounds of DPM per day. A 150 hp fire pump operating for one hour will add
0.04 lbs. of DPM per day. However, these factors are not included in the IS/MND’s estimate of DPM in the air quality analysis or health risk analysis. This additional DPM output could result in significant impacts. Therefore, an EIR is required for the City to update the air quality analysis to include the use of BUGs and fire pumps in the Project.
Response 9:
See Response 8. The hotel and residential use does not meet any of the definitions of uses for which a Health Risk Assessment is required, because a hotel use does not generate significant operational TACs or DPM. The Project may include a fire pump and an emergency generator, but by definition, both are operated only in emergencies, or for a few hours per year for testing and maintenance. As a result, their emissions would not increase daily emissions of criteria pollutants, as calculated for SCAQMD thresholds, and would not significantly increase long term daily exposure to DPM, which is the appropriate measure for DPM impacts, to determine cancer risk.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Comment 10:
II. THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
An EIR is required because substantial evidence in the record indicates a fair argument that the Project will have significant biological impacts. Specifically, expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. has concluded that the Project site has value as a habitat for special status species and that the Project will have significant impacts on biological resources. Dr.
Smallwood’s comments and CV are attached as Exhibit B. The City therefore must prepare an EIR for the Project. Dr. Smallwood’s comments are supported by a site visit by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood (“Ms. Smallwood”). Ms. Smallwood visited the site for 3.17 hours on February 15, 2025, starting at 6:36 am.
She walked the site’s perimeter, using binoculars to scan for and a camera to capture wildlife.
Response 11:
The commenter’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence, and does not support the assertion that an EIR must be prepared. Specific responses are provided below. It is also noted that the biologist who prepared the report and makes the claims cited by the commenter did not participate in the field assessment, and has not been to the site.
Comment 12:
1. The MND Fails to Adequately Describe the Project’s Environmental Setting.
The City inadequately characterized the existing environmental setting by failing to conduct adequate field surveys and desktop review. Every CEQA document must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual.
Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321. Section 15125(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R., § 15125(a)) states in pertinent part that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
“…must inclu de a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.” (Emphasis added.)
(See, Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124- 125.) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. ( Save Our Peninsula, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 121-123.)
Here, the IS/MND’s conclusion that there is no suitable habitat for sensitive native species on or around the site is unsubstantiated because no physical survey was conducted at the site.
Surveys are necessary to characterize diurnal and nocturnal bird flights, and Dr. Smallwood Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
states that the “lack of surveys leaves the City of Palm Springs blind to any potential project impacts to birds, because without a survey there is no sound basis for characterizing the existing environmental setting.” Similarly, no desktop review was conducted to assess avian species’ occurrence likelihoods in or near the airspace that would be displaced by the proposed project.
Dr. Smallwood’s conclusion regarding the lack of physical survey is supported by the fact that during her physical survey of the Project site, Ms. Smallwood identified 18 different vertebrate species at or near the project, of which three were “special sta tus” species. These species include the Costa’s hummingbird, Cooper’s hawk, and Verdin. Dr. Smallwood’s data modeling predicts that there should be at least 13 special status species using the site. Dr. Smallwood states that based on the survey and databas e review, there are 100 special status species of birds with known occurrence near the project site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential.
Of
these species, four have been recorded on or adjacent to the project site, 38 have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site, 10 between 1.5 and 4 miles, and another 46 within 4 to 30 miles. The Project site is known to exist within bird migration corridors, with known special status species using these corridors.
The IS/MND dismissed the possibility of special status species on the Project site because it is currently developed. However, the site is immediately adjacent to lush habitat and open space areas. As such the site provides habitat for several special status species as documented by Dr.
Smallwood.
Clearly, the IS/MND fails to accurately describe the Project’s environmental setting. Thus, an EIR is necessary to appropriately characterize the existing environmental setting.
Response 12:
First, the baseline for the Project is clearly stated in the IS, starting in the Project Description, and repeated throughout the document: the site is a parking lot that has existed for decades in the middle of Palm Springs’ downtown. It is surrounded by urban development, including streets on three sides, commercial development, a condominium project, hotels and the City’s Convention Center. There is no “lush habitat” or open space adjacent to or in proximity to the Project site.
As the comment relates to identified special status species, the commenter is incorrect in their basic assertion. First, the biologist identified two, not three, species on the Project site. The Cooper’s hawk was identified “just off site,” a characterizat ion which defies scientific analysis and cannot be relied upon. Second, neither Costa’s hummingbird nor verdin have any special status designation in California, and are only designated as birds of conservation concern at the federal level. Further, contrary to the standard practice used by professional biologists, the commenter’s expert fails to characterize the species’ likelihood of occurrence (Absent, Low, Moderate, Present on Site) based on professionally accepted factors, including appropriate soils and native habitat, the existence of burrows or other natural features which define the potential for species to occur in all biological resource reports. The commenter’s expert instead relies on a mathematical equation to “predict” the occurrence of species. This method is entirely speculative, and has no basis in science or biological resource investigation. The commenter’s opinion that there “should be” 13 special status species using the site is completely unsupported Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
by fact. Further, the assertion that there could be 100 special status species of birds on the project site because they have been identified within 1.5 to 30 miles from the site completely ignores the most important and basic concepts associated with biol ogical resources:
appropriateness of native habitat. An asphalt parking lot with scattered ornamental landscaping is not appropriate native habitat in the Coachella Valley. As correctly stated in the IS, it is expected that birds may nest in the ornamental landscaping, and as a result, pre- construction nesting bird surveys are required in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 on page 44.
Comment 13:
2. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Substantial Interference with Wildlife Movement.
An EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); Stanislaus Audubon v. Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-151 (1995)).
The IS/MND states that “[a]ny suitable habitat for any native species has been completely degraded due to the area’s development. Additionally, the site lacks connections to other native habitats. Therefore, the site does not experience the migration of native wildlife and does not substantially interfere with the movement of any species, nor does it limit the use of native wildlife nursery sites.” As discussed supra, this conclusion is not supported by a survey or appropriate desktop review. Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project will adversely impacts wildlife movement.
The project would block airspace that has been used by birds on migration, dispersal, home range patrol, and foraging. Ms. Smallwood recorded 121 bird flights during her survey. Those birds were able to navigate to, away, and across the project site due to the remaining habitat connection: the aerosphere. The Project would insert 85.67’ and 99.67’ buildings into this aerosphere and consequently interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Thus, an EIR is required to appropriately analyze the project’s potential impacts to volant wildlife, as well as potential mitigation strategies.
Response 13:
The commenter’s opinion is noted, but is not substantiated. The site is adjacent to buildings which currently exceed 50 feet in height, and occurs in the City’s urban core. Birds certainly fly through the area, and will continue to do so, either above or next to the proposed buildings.
Given the narrow footprint and size of the site, the Project does not substantially reduce the potential for birds to fly through the City, whether foraging or migrating.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Comment 14:
3. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Impacts from Bird- Window Collisions.
The IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s impacts due to bird-window collisions. Dr. Smallwood concludes that the extensive use of glass in the 7 and 9- story buildings will lead to increased bird-window collisions. He notes that there are 100 special status species with potential to use the site’s aerosphere. Many of these birds are likely to experience window collisions due to the Project. Dr. Smallwood calculates that the Project will cause 493 bird deaths due to window - collisions each year. The vast maj ority of these birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. And the recently revised California Migratory Bird Protection Act.
The IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s impacts related to project -generated traffic fatalities.
The IS/MND predicts that the Project will generate 6,990,190 annual VMT. Dr. Smallwood predicts that this will result in 1,189 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year.
Dr. Smallwood proposes numerous mitigation measures that could vastly reduce the above impacts, such as avoiding construction during nesting season, applying bird- safe window treatments, landscaping measures and many others. Since there is substantial evidence that the Project will have adverse biological impacts, an EIR is required to analyze and mitigate those impacts.
Response 14:
The comment is noted but unsupported. As clearly described and shown in the IS (Exhibits 5a and 5B, 6A through 6C), the building’s glass is almost all behind deep balconies, and broken up by walls and screens between rooms. Birds will not be exposed to large expanses of glass, but rather to recessed balconies that do not provide a way through. It is further noted, as described in Response 12, that there is no evidence of 100 special status species of birds at the site. The commenter’s expert’s determination regarding the number of bird strikes is speculation, and not based on historic studies of buildings with balconies and screens, or other credible quantified data on the matter.
As it relates to traffic fatalities, the Project occurs on existing streets in downtown Palm Springs.
The Project does not significantly increase traffic on these streets, as demonstrated in Section XVII of the IS. There is no evidence that traffic fatalit ies are occurring on these streets at significant rates, nor is there evidence that the Project would result in significant increases in these rates.
There is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant impact on bird and animal fatalities, and an EIR is not required.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Comment 15:
4. There is a Fair Argument that the Project Will Adversely Affect Special Status Species.
Numerous special status species will be adversely affected by the Project. "Special Status Species" is a universal term used in the scientific community for species that are considered sufficiently rare that they require special consideration and/or protection and should be, or have been, listed as rare, threatened or endangered by the Federal and/or State governments. Here, Ms. Smallwood’s brief site visit survey identified 3 special status species on the proposed Project site: two species on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC), and one on Bird of Prey (BOP) listed under California Fish and Game Code 3503.5. Further, Dr.
Smallwood’s modeling based on Ms. Smallwood’s data predicts that there should be 13 special- status species using the site.
As applied to the Project, the California Fish & Game Code, also known as the Birds of Prey Code, includes the Cooper’s hawk (Falco sparverius) as a protected raptor. (See, California Fish & Game Code, § 3503.5.) Additionally, both the Costa’s hummingbird and Verdin are listed as Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC).
The IS/MND fails to analyze the impact that the Project will have on wildlife movement. Dr.
Smallwood points out that the project will adversely impact wildlife movement. He notes that the project will impact the birds’ migration, dispersal, home range patrol and foraging.
The IS/MND also fails to analyze the Project’s impacts due to bird- window collisions. Dr.
Smallwood concludes that the extensive use of glass in the Project will lead to extensive bird- window collision deaths. He notes that there are “100 special -status species of birds” with the potential to fly within the aerosphere of the project site. Many of these birds are likely to experience window collisions due to the Project. Dr. Smallwood predicts annual bird deaths of 493, the vast majority of which would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Migratory Bird Projection Act.
The IS/MND fails to analyze the Project’s impacts related to wildlife traffic fatalities. Dr.
Smallwood calculates that the Project will generate 6,990,190 VMT, which would generate 1,189 wildlife fatalities per year.
Dr. Smallwood proposes numerous mitigations measures that could vastly reduce the above impacts, such as guidelines on building design to minimize bird-window collisions, compensatory mitigation for road mortality, funding of wildlife rehabilitation facili ties, and native landscaping.
These mitigation measures should be analyzed in an EIR and imposed if feasible.
Therefore, the Project will have a substantial adverse effect on special status species, and continuation of the Project without preparing and circulating an EIR will lead to habitat disturbance and modifications that will directly and indirectly affect special status species.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Response 15:
There is no evidence that the Project will significantly impact special status species. See Response 12 regarding the unsupported speculation regarding the number of species that “should” occur on the site, and the fact that Cooper’s hawk was not identified on the site, contrary to the commenter’s continued assertions. See Response 13 regarding the unsubstantiated assertion that the Project will significantly impact wildlife movement. See Response 14 regarding the unsubstantiated assertion that the Project will cause bird-window collisions and wildlife traffic fatalities. Because there will not be significant impacts associated with these topics, there is no need for mitigation, and no need for an EIR. The IS correctly determines that the impact to biological resources will occur only as it relates to nesting birds in the parking lot’s landscaping, and mitigates those impacts through compliance with MBTA, which requires pre- construction surveys for nesting birds (see Mitigation Measure BIO-1).
Comment 16:
III. THE IS/MND’S PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION MEASURES ARE INSUFFICIENT
TO BRING THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS TO A LEVEL BELOW SIGNIFICANCE.
An MND is improper because the Project’s proposed mitigation measures will not avoid or mitigate the potentially significant biological resources impacts “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2). The MND requires only a preconstruction survey for breeding birds and the establishment of construction buffer zones around any active nests that are discovered.
59 However, the proposed mitigation measures are
insufficient for a few reasons and therefore cannot guarantee that proposed measures will reduce the impacts below significance.
1. The City Fails to Implement Mitigation Measures to Protect Non -Migratory Birds Species Observed on the Project Site.
Where feasibility of mitigation is uncertain, an agency may not defer it. And where feasibility is called into question, the agency must demonstrate feasibility. In Sundstrom v County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308- 309, mitigation calling for a future use permit for sludge disposal was improperly deferred because there was no evidence of feasibility in the face of uncertainty: “the record discloses that the applicant presented no plans for sludge disposal and that no solution was readily available.” Id. at 308.
As explained above, the MND did not prepare any analysis or surveys of wildlife in the area. The City’s response to Dr. Smallwood suggests that the Project site has habitat value for migratory birds, and so the proposed mitigation measure is shaped around nesti ng migratory birds.
However, the MND also recognizes that “the [California Fish and Game Code (“CFGC”)] extends protection to non‐ migratory birds identified as resident game birds (CFGC Section 3500) and any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds‐of‐prey) (CFGC Section 3503).”
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Yet, the proposed mitigation measure only discusses protections for migratory birds during the migratory birds’ nesting season. This means that no mitigation measures have been proposed to protect non-migratory birds, such as the many that Dr. Smallwood’s report indicated on the Project site. Given how the Project site is not being utilized merely for migratory birds or during the nesting season for migratory birds, the MND it is unclear how feasible the mitigation measure will protect the remaining bird species found on the site. As such, the proposed mitigation measure will not feasibly resolve the potentially significant impacts on biological resources.
Response 16:
The commenter’s opinion is noted, but unsubstantiated. First, to the City’s knowledge, the IS preparer has had no contact with Dr. Smallwood, and has not responded to him, in the IS or elsewhere. Second, the citation claimed by the commenter to be from the IS regarding game birds does not exist in the IS. It is unclear what the document the commenter is referring to, and because of that, no response is possible.
Finally, as relates to Mitigation Measure BIO-1. First, the MBTA covers almost all birds, common or special status, and is not limited to migratory birds. Second, if a qualified biologist were to identify a nesting bird within the ornamental landscaping prior to construction, the commenter’s implication that the biologist would ignore the nest is absurd. The Mitigation Measure will protect nesting birds on the site, and no infeasibility occurs.
Comment 17:
2. The City Cannot Defer Mitigation Measures Related to Biological Resource Impacts.
An agency may only defer the formulation of mitigation measures when it possesses “‘meaningful information’ reasonably justifying an expectation of compliance.” ( Sundstrom v.
County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 308- 309; see also, Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028- 29 (mitigation measures may be deferred only “for kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible”).) A lead agency is precluded from making the required CEQA fin dings unless the record shows that all uncertainties regarding the mitigation of impacts have been resolved; an agency may not rely on mitigation measures of uncertain efficacy or feasibility ( Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727 (finding groundwater purchase agreement inadequate mitigation because there was no evidence that replacement water was available).) This approach helps “ensure the integrity of the process of decisionmaking by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935.) As applied here, the proposed mitigation measure related to addressing construction impacts during migratory bird nesting season cannot be deferred.
First, and as explained above, the proposed mitigation measure is not clear regarding the efficacy of protecting non-migratory bird species of conservation concern as well as birds of prey that protected under CEQA. Dr. Smallwood’s reporting shows the pres ence of these species, but the MND’s proposed mitigation measure merely aims to address protections surrounding migratory birds during the nesting season. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the mitigation measure will adequately and feasibly protect the remainder of the protected species that utilize the Project site.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
However, CEQA prohibits this approach. As explained by the Sundstrom court, CEQA documents are “subject to review by the public and interested agencies. This requirement of “public and agency review” has been called “the strongest assurance of the adequacy of a [CEQA document].” (Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at 308). Dr. Smallwood notes that the MND’s mitigation measures should be implemented if the project goes forward, but that it will not avoid the negative biological impacts he predicts.
Dr. Smallwood proposes several additional mitigation measures beyond BIO-1. These mitigation measures include:
• Guidelines on building design to minimize bird-window collisions • Compensatory mitigation funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under -crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments
• Compensatory mitigation to fund wildlife rehabilitation facilities • California native plant landscaping.
Therefore, the MND’S proposed mitigation measures will not feasibly or effectively protect migratory birds or special status species As such, these mitigation measures are inadequate, and the City must prepare an EIR pursuant to CEQA to measure the potenti ally significant impacts on biological resources.
Response 17:
The commenter’s opinion regarding deferred mitigation in general is noted. As it relates to the efficacy of protecting non- migratory birds, see Response 16. As it relates to mitigation associated with bird collisions, see Response 12. As it relates to funding research regarding fatality patterns, there is absolutely no correlation between the fatalities the commenter presumes will occur on existing busy urban streets and the need for research. As it relates to mitigation to fund wildlife rehabilitation faci lities, the same applies: there is no correlation between the presumed, unsubstantiated impacts asserted by the commenter and a need for wildlife rehabilitation center funding. Finally, as it relates to native plant landscaping, the City’s and DWA’s landscaping requirements, which place a particular focus on native drought tolerant landscaping are a requirement imposed on the Project, and do not require a mitigation measure.
The commenter has not presented any evidence, other than speculation and conjecture, that the mitigation measure included in the IS is insufficient, infeasible or inadequate.
Comment 18:
IV. THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT THE PROJECT WILL CREATE SIGNFICANT TRANSPORTATION ISSUES.
The Project’s IS/MND fails to provide comprehensive analysis regarding transportation issues, inconsistencies and deficiencies. Traffic and transportation engineer Tom Brohard, P.E., provided an independent analysis of the January 26, 2025, IS/MND, as well as the September Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
12, 2024 Traffic Analysis and June 24, 2024 memorandum regarding vehicle miles traveled (VMT) prepared by Urban Crossroads . Mr. Brohard contrasted these documents with the July 2020 City of Palm Springs Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA Guidelines). Mr. Brohard’s analysis identified several key issues which indicate that the Project’s conclusions regarding traffic impacts are unsupported and warrant that an EIR is required to address these concerns.
1. The Revised Scoping Form Lacks City Approval.
The TIA Guidelines state that “. . . the applicant submit and have approved a scoping form prior to the preparation and submittal of a draft TIA.” Appendix 1.1 of the TIA provides an April 11, 2024, Memorandum containing a revised traffic study scoping agr eement in response to the City’s December 12, 2023, comments on a “Trip Generation Assessment.” However, the Project’s Revised Scoping Form lacks City of Palm Springs approval.
However, there is no indication that the revised TIA Scoping Agreement was accepted and approved by the City, or that it fully addressed the City’s December 12, 2023, comments.
Therefore, the Project fails to comply with the TIA Guidelines’ procedural and substantive rules regarding scoping forms.
Response 18:
The commenter’s opinion is noted. However, the scoping form was revised and approved by the City, as was the traffic study. No further response is warranted.
Comment 19:
2. The Project Access Description Falsely Describes the Project Site.
Project Access Description inaccurately describes the existing streets and the project site. The MND states that “[a]lley ways border the site on its south and east sides,” however, this is contradicted later in the MND, which clearly shows that the alleys do not currently exist. The north-south alley along the east side of the site is currently unimproved and has a dirt surface.
It is also about 4 feet above the existing alley to the south and it is physically separated from the Project site by a 4-foot-tall concrete block wall. Additionally, there is an east-west alley within the private property to the south of the site, but it is physically separated from the site by a 4- foot- tall concrete block wall that is several feet below the existing parking lot on the Project site.
According to Mr. Brohard, access to these adjacent alleys would greatly improve circulation for the Project; however, this would require significant grading and reconstruction which does not appear feasible.
The incorrect description of project access is likely to cause significant impact, thus an EIS is required.
Response 19:
First, the description of the location of the roadways and alleys in the IS is correct. What the commenter fails to identify is that the alley along the south side of the site is currently part of the parking lot, and that the alley on the east side is cur rently in use by the Convention Center and the hotel to the east of the site. The grade differential will be rectified during grading, and does Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
not pose an impediment to the alley’s development. The wall around the parking lot will be demolished as part of the parking lot demolition. Finally, the traffic analysis (Appendix C of the IS), specifically studies the driveway at the east side (Driveway 3) and the south (Driveway 2), contrary to the commenter’s assertion. See Exhibit 1-2 of Appendix A for a diagram of the studied intersections. Location 5 is the Driveway 2 intersection with Calle El Segundo, and location 7 is the intersection of Driveway 3 and Andreas Road. There are no inconsistencies, and no EIR is required.
Comment 20:
3. Site Access Has Not Been Analyzed.
The City’s TIA Guidelines state that “[a] project’s TIA should analyze access and safety around the project and on adjacent streets.” Mr. Brohard identified numerous access and circulation issues requiring action, which left unaddressed will create safety issues, both on the perimeter streets and within the site itself. These safety issues include:
i. Primary Garage Access
The Project proposes four hundred (400) parking spaces in the five-level primary parking garage, which would be remotely located at the southeast corner of the site. Proposed access to the garage comes via new 24’ wide alleys through a two- way driveway abo ut 150 feet south of Andreas Road and a second two- way driveway just around a corner on another alley. Mr.
Brohard states that the primary garage will function very poorly based upon many design deficiencies shown on the Project Site Plan of the Ground Level.
The primary garage will be difficult to locate based upon its remote position in the southeast corner of the property. Further, neither of the two narrow access driveways have areas that could provide access to control equipment, or that could provide a throat to prevent entering traffic from queuing and blocking the alleys. Neither of the driveways have radius curb returns to facilitate vehicle turns in to and out of the narrow alleys that provide access.
Finally, the inappropriately designed access driveways for the primary garage will require three- point turns for entry and for exit, creating congestion where the stopping sight distance is limited, and resulting in high risks of collisions.
None of these factors are addressed by the IS/MND or supporting documents. Therefore, further analysis is required to address the safety issues with respect to the proposed primary garage.
Response 20:
The garage is not “remotely located.” It is located on the Project site. The commenter’s opinions regarding access to the garage are noted, but are not substantiated. Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, a throat is clearly shown on the south access point. Further, it is common for the entry equipment on garages to be located within the structure, not outside it. Therefore, there is no evidence that queuing could not occur, or that the access points are insufficient, particularly since the driveways will be used for garage access, and are not thoroughfares. The commenter’s opinion that access to the garage will require three point turns is noted, but not Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
substantiated. The driveways are two- way, 24 foot wide roads that provide sufficient width to allow single movement turns into and out of the garage.
Comment 21:
ii. Underground Garage Access
The Project also proposes an underground garage with one hundred (100) parking spaces underneath the hotel in the north central portion of the site. Vehicle access will occur through a pair of two-way driveways on the south side of Andreas Road in the middle of the Project. Mr.
Brohard notes underground garage will also function very poorly based upon the many design deficiencies in the Project Site Plan of the Ground Level, which also present significant safety issues.
The driveway shows a 16% downgrade in to and out of the garage, which is a very steep slope for hotel guests and valets to negotiate. The plans also include a pair of two- way driveways providing access to the shared hotel and residential lobby, with the st eep driveway to the underground garage barely beyond a 90-degree curve with limited stopping sight distance. The plans include another pair of two-way driveways providing access to the residential drop- off to the east, which is isolated from and inconvenient to both parking garages. Final, the internal connector for the on-site drive-through for the residences is too narrow, and it will be blocked by parking on both sides of the internal connector.
These problems are not addressed by the IS/MND. Consequently, further analysis is necessary to address the current safety and design issues.
Response 21:
The commenter’s opinion is noted, but not substantiated. The City Engineer will review detailed site plans when improvement plans are submitted, and will assure that the design meets all of the City’s safety standards. The commenter’s perceived “inconvenient” access to the garages is noted, but is not a CEQA issue. Finally, there are no drive- though uses in this Project, so the reference to the “on- site drive-through for the residences” cannot be identified, and cannot be commented upon. As noted herein, and in the Response above and below, the commenter’s opinion do not substantiate that impacts associated with access will be significant, and no change to the IS is required.
Comment 22:
4. The Project VMT Incorrectly Excludes Elimination of Current Parking Lot.
The Project will eliminate the 700 parking spaces that presently cover the entire hotel and residential site. This parking lot provides over 40% of the 1,700 off -street parking spaces that support Convention Center events. Removal of the parking lot is the first activity that will occur as part of the construction of the Project. The VMT Analysis and the MND fail to evaluate the displaced parking issue and further study with detailed evaluation is required as suggested below.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Events at the Convention Center range widely in attendance and resulting required parking.
During Mr. Brohard’s recent field review, the California Automatic Fire Alarm Association annual one-day conference generated 120 parked vehicles in the existing west parking lot that will be removed. Parking also occurred on both sides of Andreas Road and there were only a very few vehicles parked in the large parking lot to the East. The vehicle parking that Mr. Brohard observed on February 6, 2025, was similar to t he aerial photograph taken on November 30, 2023, that is shown in the MND (pictured below).
(picture omitted – see Appendix A)
When construction of the Project begins, vehicle parking for the Convention Center will shift into the large parking lot east of Avenida Caballeros and south of Amado Road. Additional VMT will be generated by the closure of the west parking lot when attending an event at the Convention Center. Mr. Brohard used current Google Earth photos to measure distances, as well as the same vehicle trip distribution that has been used in the Traffic Analysis for the Project. Mr.
Brohard reached the following conclusions regarding VMT impacts:
• Trips to/from the North – 50% of the trips to/from the North to the east parking lot will experience slightly longer trips.
• Trips to/from the West - 30% of the trips to/from the West to the east parking lot will experience longer trips.
• Trips to/from the South – 10% of the trips to/from the South to the east parking lot will experience longer trips.
• Trips to/from the East - 10% of the trips to/from the East to the east parking lot will experience slightly shorter trips.
Thus, each Convention Center oriented vehicle to/from the North, West, and South will relocate from the west parking lot to the east parking lot, comprising 90% of the total traffic. This will increase VMT for the overall Project. The parking lot demolition must be carefully considered as part of the Project, not less as is purported in the VMT analysis. The VMT analysis must be revised accordingly to reflect the removal of the existing parking lot on the Project site, and further mitigation measures are needed. An EIR is required to further address these potential impacts.
Response 22:
The commenter’s opinion is noted, but does not reflect Project VMT analysis. First, neither the TIA nor the VMT analysis (Appendices C and D to the IS), analyzed Convention Center traffic movements, as they were not required to – they analyzed hotel and residential traffic generated by the Project. Furthermore, guests at the Project hotel are more likely to walk to the Convention Center than they are to drive, given its adjacency . Second, the assumption that trips will be elongated assumes that the trips originate from the west, which is not based on fact. Travelers to the Convention Center coming from the north, south and east, for example, would travel directly to Avenida Caballeros from their origination point, and would not need to backtrack to reach the east parking lot at the Convention Center. Only trips coming from the west will have to travel about 1,500 feet further east to reach the east Convention Center lot. Finally, VMT analysis for the Project clearly shows that the Project (not the Convention Center) exceeds the Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
baseline VMT, but not the cumulative VMT. Given that baseline analysis does not consider surrounding land uses, and the efficiencies potentially created by these land uses, the baseline is less reliable than the cumulative. Nonetheless, the IS correctly identified that the impact under baseline conditions could be significant, and identified three methods to reduce that impact. With implementation of these measures, which are measurable and enforceable, baseline VMT is reduced to acceptable levels. See pages 96 through 98 of the IS. The VMT analysis was undertaken correctly, and no change to the IS is required, and an EIR is not warranted.
Comment 23:
5. VMT Mitigation Requires Monitoring and Enforcement.
The MND states that “The Project’s resort hotel and residential component generated VMT per service population would exceed the City’s impact threshold of 36.7 VMT per service population.
Therefore, the Project would need to reduce its VMT impact by 1.5% to achieve a finding of less than significant in the baseline condition.” Mr. Brohard suggests the following strategies that could achieve the necessary reduction:
• Commute Trip Reduction Plan – The MND states the following features (or similar alternatives) of the marketing strategy are essential for effectiveness:
o Onsite or online commuter information services.
o Employee transportation coordinators.
o Onsite or online transit pass sales
o Guaranteed ride home service.
• End-of-trip Bicycle Facilities – The MND states this design feature to install and maintain bicycle facilities such as bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers is expected to reduce VMT by 0.1%.
• Unbundled Hotel Guest Parking – The MND states “…all guests of the hotel will be required to self-park or valet park,” although this strategy does not result in a quantifiable reduction in VMT.84
Mitigation Measure TRANS.2 states:
“…the Project is required to enforce the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Marketing strategy as described in the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions… (CAPCOA, 2021) because it will achieve a 3.6% reduction in VMT impacts, which exceeds the required
1.5% reduction. The hotel operator will submit a CTR marketing strategy to the City prior to receipt of a certificate of occupancy for the Project.”
The VMT Analysis prepared for the Project repeats these statements but fails to provide a specific commute trip reduction plan with details of the marketing strategy. TRANS.2 also fails to include a regular routine monitoring plan with schedule for updates and reports, as well as specific penalties for non- compliance. Mr. Brohard thus concludes that without these enforcement provisions, compliance with the plan will not be achieved .
While the MND also puts forth both “End- of-trip Bicycle Facilities” and “Unbundled Hotel Guest Parking”, both of these potential strategies are then dismissed as part of Mitigation Measure TRANS.2 as being ineffective. It is unclear why these two strategies are even mentioned as they Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
will not be used and are not effective, particularly bicycle commuting during the peak summer season between May and October when temperatures routinely exceed 110 degrees every day.
Therefore, without monitoring and enforcement, the proposed VMT reduction strategies will not be effective.
Response 23:
The comment is noted. The three mitigation measures listed for VMT are those already included in the IS. As described in the IS, the second and third are either only minimally effective or unquantifiable, respectively. However, the first reduces VMT impact s by 3.6%, which exceeds the 1.5% reduction needed to meet the City’s standard (pages 97 -98 of the IS). Therefore, Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 requires the implementation of a Commute Trip Reduction Plan.
The IS further guarantees its implementation, by requiring the submittal of the Plan prior to receipt of the certificate of occupancy for the hotel (Monitoring TRANS.B, page 99). The Plan will include implementation reporting requirements to assure that it is implemented in the long term. The IS correctly analyzes VMT for the Project, and provides feasible mitigation for the baseline impacts. No change to the IS is required.
Comment 24:
Ultimately, there are several transportation issues and deficiencies likely to cause significant impact associated with the MND and the supporting documents prepared for the Nexus Hotel and Residential Project. Most critically, the MND has failed to consider the various impacts pointed out in this letter of the removal of 700 parking spaces from the Project site as the first phase of construction. Project VMT will not be mitigated by the Commute Trip Reduction Marketing Plan to be developed but then not monitored or enforced. Furthermore, there are other transportation access issues associate with the Proposed Site Plan that require further study, analysis, and redesign. Thus, Mr. Brohard’s analysis supports the conclusion that an EIR is necessary for the Project to continue.
Response 24:
As described above, there are no issues or deficiencies in the IS (see Responses 18 through 23), and traffic and VMT impacts have been correctly analyzed, level of impact determined, and feasible mitigation measures included that reduce all traffic impacts to less than significant levels. There is no factual support for the preparation of an EIR.
Comment 25:
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, SAFER requests that the City prepare an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to analyze and mitigate the Project’s significant adverse environmental impacts.
Thank you.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
Response 25:
The comment is noted, but based on Responses 1 through 24, is not supported by substantial evidence. The Project represents an urban infill project on a significantly impacted site. The Project’s impacts have been thoroughly analyzed, and significant impacts have been mitigated with feasible mitigation measures, and the City was correct in determining that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the correct CEQA document for this Project.
Nexus Hotel Project
Supplemental Response to Comments
APPENDIX A
COMMENT LETTER