Rancho Mirage City Council
December 18, 2025

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2636
RTC -807

Responses to Comments
■ The second equation et each set represents the impact threshold ,owl. the range a4 e)astrng noise exposure for which a fixed percentage of increase in ari ioyance is allav+ed, as described in Appendix C,2. This curve is a third -order. polynomial approximation derived from the Schultz curvetFsi and covers the range of noise exposure encountered in most populated areas: This curve Is used for determining noise Impact in most cases roe transit protects.

The third equation reprinerrts the absolute limit of project noise imposed by the criteria for areas with high existing noise exposure. For land ti4e category I and 2, the absolute limit is tars dBA for moderate impact and 70 dBA for severe impact.. For land use catewry 3. the absolute limit is 7S dRA for moderate Impact and 80 d8A for severe Impact Table: C-1 Threshold or Moderate and Severe Impacts
Threshold adMaderat Imcact
Category ! and 2
Category 3

11.450 + 0,953LE, LE 71

16.450 + 0.9534, LE 71
Eq. C- I1
Eq. C- !3
Tr+rshald of3ieycr Impy
Catrgary r and 2
17,3'22 + 0.940LE, LE 77
Category 3

22.322 + 0.940LE, f 77
Eq. C- 14
Eq. C- I
is =the wining oonecrpruvretotermsorLmPrL.im,1
= the proge.t nose a posure ?VINO' derennhes Input Iri ten%st Ln, or l.g mrr,l F DERAL iftrurfsit ,hL7MiN!ISTFIATI[}PJ 3i C
01-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2637
RTC -808

Responses to Comments
Appendix D: Clustering Receivers of Interest
This appendix supplements the information in Section 43 on clustering .receivers of Interest The general approach to selecting noise -sensitive receivers in the study area is included in motion 4.5, Step I. General guidelines are as follows:

Select the following types of receivers to evaluate individually; ▪ Every rnajor rci5e-sensitive public building
• Every isolated residence
o Every relatively small outdoor horse -sensitive area
Residential neighborhoods and relatively large outdoor noise -sensitive areas can often be clustered and represented by a site receiver..

Clustering similar receivers reduces the number of computations needed later, especially for large-scale projects where a greater number of ax0Fse-sensitive sites array be affected. Far thls approach to be effective. it is essential that the representative receiver accurately represents the noise environment of the cluster.

The major steps in clustering receivers induct&
I _ Firsi, cluster receivers according to approximately equal exposure to the primary prat noise scsurre Tease areas typically run parallel to a linear project or clyde major stationary sources relative to the proposed project

2. Next, cluster receivers according to major sources of ambient noise, lime areas typically run parallel to or encircle major sources of ambient noise, 3_ Their, cluster receivers according to changes in the project layout or operations along the corridor.

4. Finally„ select a representative receiver for each cluster.

The major steps are expanded below a. ki include instructions on how to draw cluster boundaries on a rep.

I. Boundaries along the proposed project — Draw duster boundaries along the proposed project as described below to separate clusters based on distance from the project, Draw these cluster boundaies for the project sources lister) as major in Table 4.19.

Within both residential and noise -sensitive outdoor areas:
• Primary project source
Draw cluster boundaries at the following distances from the near edge of the primary project source:0 ft 50 it. 100 ft 200 ft, 400 ft and 9017 ft For linear sources. such as a rail llrrt draw these bcundarlc& as lines p=arallel to the proposed ROW line_ Far stationary sources, draw these boundaries as approximate cliche wound the source, starting at the PrnPertYline,
Do not extend boundaries beyond the noise study area. Identified in the Noise Screening, ProceJu'e or i Section 4.3 or the General Noise Assessinew. of Settlon 4.4. sWER,A1 rhCaMaNt5ThATkeil 33I
01-28
Cc nt_

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2638
RTC -809

Responses to Comments
■ Remaining project sows — Repeat the process for the primary project source for all other project listed as major in Table 4. I 9, such as sr} ntatkns and crossing signal€. If several project sources are lotatecl approximately together, only consider one source, since the others would produce approximately the same boundary.

It is good practice to optiinire the number of clusters fora project. to simplify the procedure - Where rows of buildings parallel the transit corridor.
■ Ensure that cluster boundarlim fall between the following rows of buildings, counting back away from the proposed project;
• Between rows I and 2
• Between rows 2 and 3
• Setween rows 3 and 4
▪ Add cluster bounder ies between these rows it not already Irtoduded.

2. Boundaries acing sources of ambient noise— Orraw cluster boundaries along All major sources of ambient wise based upcm distance from these sources, as de seribed below. * Draw cluster boundaries along all interstates and malice. rradwrey arterials at the following distances frorn the near edge of the roadway: 4 ft, 100 ft, 200 ft, and WO It. ▪ Draw cluster bvundariei along all other readway^s that have state or county numbering at 0 ft and I 0 ft from the near .dge of the roadway_

1. For all major Industrial sources of noise. draw cluster boundaries, that encirce the source at the following distances from the near property line of the source; 0 It I00 ft,. 200 it and 404 f L

3. Boandaries based c* changes in project layout or operations — Further subdivision is needed to account far dranges in project noise where proposed project layout or operating conditions s change considerably along the corridor. Draw a cluster boundary perpendicular to the corridor extending straight outward to both sides at the following locations:
• Where parallel tracks previously separated by more than approximately IOC) ft are moved closer together
• Approxlmately where speed and/or throttle are rued when approaching stations and where steady service speed is reached after departing stations • Approximately 200 ft up and down the line from grade crossing bells ■ At transitions from jointed to welded rail
■ At transitions from one type of cross section to another including on structure on IllE, acrd anti in cut
■ At transitions from open terrain to heavily wooded terrain • At transitions between areas free of locomotive horn noise and areas subject to this nose soureE
■ Any other positions along the hire where project noise Is expected to change cox Eder ably. such as up and down the line from tight chines where wheels may squeal

4. Selretian of a representative receiver from each duster — Determine a c+ emotive receiver for each cluster- boundary drawn in the steps above • Residential clusters
Select a representative receiver within the cluster at the house closest to the proposed project.

If this receiver is not the clear choices select the receives furt d[^si from major sources of ambient anise.
• Outdoor noise -sensitive dusters (e.g., urban park or amphitheater) MDERAL TRAMIT ADNI•Nt5TRATION
01-28
Ccnt.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2639
RTC -810

Responses to Comments
Select a reps rsntatlive receiver within the cluster at the closest point of active noise -sensitive use. jf this receiver- is not the clear choice. select the receiver farther from major sO.rrces of ambient ttesise,
Note that some dusters may fall between areas with receivers of Interest. This could occur wfizt, i seratIorraf changes t' track layouts change In an open, undeveloped at tea Retain thine clusters. Do riot merge t Alai with adjacent clusters. Do not select a revesentitive rer,PivPr of intermit from them.

Example D -I Clustering Receivers
Receivers of Interest and Clustering Receivers
In this hypothetical sittaatfon, a new raj ua:rnit line. labeled "new rail fine" in Figure D -1, is proposed along a major uihan street with commercial land uae..A residenohi area it Iarened adjacent is the oommerdial strip_ located aqupneximately one-kalitick from the proposed transit alignment A major arterial, labeled "highway." crosses tiro alignment
Clue ter Recefyer s Along the Pile -liar/ grofece source Primary Piaject Source
The primary project source in this example is the new rail line. Boundaries are first drawn at distances of 0 ft from the right -of- way line (edge of the street in this example), SO ft. I OO ft. 200 fit_ 400 ft and BOO ft, (Figure D- I j.

Distances are labeled at the tug al the figure.

This is proposed to he a constant speed section of track, w there are no changes in boundaries due to changes in operations along the t+orrldrar. Maier:wet, no other project sources sae shown hale but if there had been a statue.' with a parking kit lines would have been drawn enveloping the station site at the specified ,stances from the property dine
flews argrikfµrga Pined rn die Tineurt Corridor
Tdais example includes rows pi buildings parallel to the transit corridor. The first set of boundary lines sarislies the requirement char duster boundaries lab between rows I 4114 2 and between rows 2 .rod 3, but there k no flue between rows 4 and S. Consequently a duster boundary labeled "R' at the trap of the figure has been drawn between the 4th and 5th row of buildings.

Cluster Receivers Along the Primary Project source
The roadway arterial (labeled "Ivg;hway"l is the only major source of ambient noise shown.

Cluster boundaries are drawn start I00 kt 200 h and 500 it loam the near edge of the roadway on both sides.

These fines are shown with distances labeled at the side of the figure.

Selma a Representative Receiver from Each Cluster
Representative rev !-were are shown as filed circles in Figure Di L Note that the recehers labeled with "REC- ate primarily for use in Appendix E.

Locate receiver, "REC 3", Note that this duster is located at the outer edge of iniuence from the major source C"ughway") whcr4 local strict tragic k the dominant sawst for ambient none (In practise, this world be verified kry a measurmentl
"P EC 3' is chosen to represent this cluster because it is among the houses closest to the proposed project source In des din ter and it Is in the unalrfdie Or the block alletterf tP the durniiiarnt local £U L Ambient none levels am nee end of the cluster may be influenced more by the highway and the other end may be affected more by the cross street, but the majority cif the truster would he represented by receiver site'REC 3" FEDERA). TRAMIT ADMiNi5TRATI eN .2d
01-28
Ccnt.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2640
RTC -811

Responses to Comments
01-28
Cant.
oER L TRA IT AL7MrN!15TRATn3N ;aI

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2641
RTC -812

Responses to Comments
Appendix E: Determining Existing Noise
Different options of deter mining existing noise, Irrdudhrg full measurement, computation from partial rneasure rents, and tabular look -up. are described in Section 4-5, Step 5. This appendix provides additional details associated with each method and einimples of when each method could be used.

Additional details on the methods for estimating e3usting rnoisea are provided below:

Option I: L.ihr) measurement (noel-resideltdar) —Full one -hour measurements are recommended to determine Mang noise for non-resid€ ntial receivers of interest- These measurements are preferred over ail other options and will accurately represent the Limo. The followlrxg procedures apply to these full -duration measurements:
• Measure LHyrr,r at the receiver of Interest during a typical hour al use on two ran -successive days. Choose the hour bur which maximum project activity will occur. The Liqin will be accurately represented using this method. Typically, measuring between noon Monday and noort Friday is recommended, but weekend days may be more appropriate for places of worship. • Position the measurement mIcrophorte for all sites as shown In Figure 4-I9, considering relative orientation of project and ambient sources. Position the microphone .In a location that is somewhat shielded from the arnhlent source to measure the ambient noise at these locations at the quietest area on the property.
• Conduct all measurements in accordance with good engineering practice.

Option ZZ. L. measurement (residential) — Full 24 -hour measurements are recommended to determine ambient incise for residential receivers of Interest. These measurements ar-e preferred over all rather options and wi II accurately represent the Lan. The following procedures apply to these full - duration measurements:
▪ Measure a full 34 -hour L at the receiver of interest for a single weekday (generally between noon Monday and noon Friday)_
• Position the measurement microphone for all sites as drown in figure 4.19 considering relative orientation of project and ambient sources. Position the microphone in a location that is somewhat shielded Frain the ambient source to measure the ambient noise at these toimtuons at the quietest area on the property.
• Conduct all measurements h accordance with good engineering practice.

Option 3: La, computation of from 3 partial L.,q4n.,1 measurements (residential) — An alternative way to determine L•, is to measure Lail* far tl. ee typical hours Of the day, then compute the Ly, from these three rrteasurernerits. This method is less precise than rts full -duration measurement. The following procedures apply to this partial -duration measurement method for Lo,,:
• Measure the L arsrri during each of the following time periods; ▪ During peak -hour roadway traffic
• Midday, between the morning and afterna,on roadway -traffic peak hours • [luring late night between midnight and 3 a.m.
• Position the measurement microphone for all sites as shown in Figure 4-I9 considering relative orientation of project and ambient sources. Position the microphone in a location that. is somewhat shielded from the ambient source to measure the ambient noose at these locations at the yuieuNt area cm the property.
• Conduct all measurements in accordance with good engineering practice. • Compute the La, nosing the ecp.iation below
F DERA1 TMN IT ADMrNt5TRATJON ;:S
Gcnt

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2642
RTC -813

Responses to Comments
L $ 1Dfta 3 k lCpra+ z� LryrafrnmsAr+a Eq. E -I
do gf + 12 x 1f] + 9 x IO rn )— I3,tr
The resulting 14, will he slightly rrrulerestimated dun to the adjustment to the measured levels in these equations. This underIMInflathn is intended to compensate for the reduced precision of the computed L. If using this method, a minimum time duration of one hour- should be used kw each measurement period in computing an Ldn,
Option 4; Computation of La from I partial Lune> measurement (residential) - La, can also be determined by measuring Lade., for one hour of the day, and then computing Lai from the Lgrrhri.

This method "rs less precise than computing Ld„ frorn 3 L.q,hrl measurements, This method may be useful kw projects with are many sites assessed by the General Noise Acsessrrient. This method may also be appropriate when determining if a particular receiver of interest represents a duster Ina Detailed Noise Analysis. Tim following procedures apply to this partial -duration measurement option f+oi L, :
• Measure the lo„„ no For the loudest hour of project -related activity during hours of noise sens1!ivity If this hour is not selected, other hours rriay be used with the understanding that die estimate is less precise,
+ Position the rtaeastrrerrient microphone for all sites as Mown in Figure 4-l9, considering retative orientation, ol project and ambient sources. Position the microphone in a location that is somewhat shielded from the ambient source to measure the ambient parse at these locations at the quietest area Qn the property.
• Conduct all measurements in accordance with good engineering practice, ■ Convert the measured hourly lollh,r to L.,, with the appropriate equation below.

Far measurements betwaern 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.

Ldn Lgy — 2
Far iner,sua emend between 7 p.m. and 10 p,m.:

Ld„ xL+3
Fur measurements between I t} p_ni and 7 anal
Ldri xL +$
Eq, E-2
Eq. B-3
Eq, E-4
The resulting Le will be moderately underestimated due to the use of the adlratrnrtnt constants in these equations- This underestimation is intended to compensate for the reduced preasion of the computed Lae. II using this method, a minimum time duration of one hour should be used for each measurement period in computing an Wirt.

Option 5: Computation of L. f ikr-} or Lae. from Kr) or Lc. of a comparable site (all land us€s) Computing Dine.,, Cr L., from the Lool1, or Li of a comparable site where the amnbierit noise is dominated by the same source ce that is comparable in precision to Option 4, This method can be used to characterize noise in several neighborhoods by using a single representative receiver. It is critical that the measuremerit site has a similar noise environment to all areas represented, If measurements made by others are available and the sites are egtavalent, the existing measurements can be used to reduce the amount ol project noise rnonitorIng. The follow rig procedures apply to this method of determining of ambient noise:
■ Choose another receiver that is comparable to the receiver (CompRec) of interest with the fallowing:

The same source of domInant ambient noise
aDER L TRAMIT A NIIINETIRATIGN 1716
01-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2643
RTC -814

Responses to Comments
• The ambient level of the comparable receiver was measured according to Option I or Option 2 above
re Thee ambient measurement at the comparable receiver was made in direct view of the major

5.atarce of ambient name, unshielded by raise barriers. terrain, rows of buildings. or dense tree zones
• Determine the following from a plan tsr aerial photography e The distance (G7 ,,) from the compai7ble receiver to the near edge of the ambient source
e The distance {De.) from this receiver of Interest to the near edgy d the ambient source ■ Determine the number of rows of buildings (I'M that intervene between the receiver of interest aid the ambient source.
■ Compute the a mbie-rt hirel A the receive- of interest (Rec) with the appropriate equation below
If roadway sources dominate:

Dille,
Liter �uareufi — 15log(
neprt�r) 3N
ea
If rather sources dominate,
L z L . Z51 Deer 3N
r ar.• r amesrae —
'Q!: rvnepker
Eq. E -S
Eq. E -e
The resulting L,Ar will be moderately underestirmated. This underestimation is intended to ccrampensate for the leduced precision of the ecimputed L
Option 6: Estimation of Ldr. by table look -up (all land uses) - The least pcecise way to determine the ambient noise is to estimate the level using a table. A tabular lookup can be used to establish baseline conditiQQras fora 'General Noise Assessment if a noise measurement cannot be made_ This method should eat be used foi a Detailed Noise Analysis. The Iollowiiig instruction applies to this method of determining of ambient reel se:

Estimate either the Lr.;Iel. or the Le using Table 4-17 based on distance frrrm meter roadways, rail lines, or upon population densities, In general, these tabulated values are substantially underestimated The underestimation is intended to compensate for the reduced precision of the estimated ambients.

Examples - Examples yr when each method of determining existing wise may be appropriate are prowled below using the example ii oats Appendix D. Existing noise at the revers labeled -RFC" In Figure D. I could be estimated as follows;
• Option I : measurement - Existing noise at REC I is due to the highway at the side of this church- 1 ��rM1 can be measured during a typiea1 church hour. ■ Option 2: IL, measurement ® Existing noise t the riidence REC 2 is due to a combination of the highway and focal streets. Luz can be measured for a full 24 -hours. ■ Option 3: Ldrr computation of Ldr, from 3 partial L.q{Ilr} measurements - Existing rroiso at the residence REC 3 is due to the street in front of this residence. Ldp can be computed from three ta,,, Fr} measureimhts,
e DERAr. TRAMIT A NIIINi5TilATJIX4 a?7
01-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2644
RTC -815

Responses to Comments
■ Option 4: Computation of L. from I partial L.40.,) measurement - Existing noise at the residence REC 4 is due to the highway. Because the highway his a predictable diurrtal pattern. Ldr. can be computed from one G Ito measurement. • Option S: Computation of L. from L i of a comparable site - Existing noise at the residence REC S is due to Kee Street REC 3 as also affected by local street traffic and is a comparable distance {Dorn the highway. G for REC S can be computed trash on the L., at REC-3.
• Option bz Estimation of Li.by table look -op - Existing anise at the residence REC 6 is due to local trafile. Langan t eetamated by table based on population density eking this corridor.

F uEtc.N. TftaN IT AL7MaNi5TRAT!O'N 32e
01-28
Cent

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2645
RTC -816

Responses to Comments
Appendix F: Computing Source Levels from
Measurements
This appendix contains the procedures for computing so axe reference bevels (SEL,d) from source measurements in cases where the source reference tables In Section 4.S, Step 2 indicate measurements are preferred. data are not available for the source of interest or more precise data are reriLired than available in the table,
Close -by source measurements for vehicle passbys may capture either the vehicle`s soured exposure level (SEL) or maximum noise level (L. <). Bath metrics can be measured directly by commonly available sound level meters. While the t,. metric is not used for transit noise impact at ssments, it sin be used to compute SEL source reference levels. measurements are often available from transit - equipment manufacturers and some transit system equipment specifications may limit close -by L. levels.
'Anse -fry suture measurements far stationary sources ,mature the source's SEIL aver one source event where the event &ration may be chosen based en measurement convenienctr The duration will factor out of the computation when the measured value is converted to reference operating conditions.

This manual does not specify elaborate methods for undertaking the dose -by source measurements, but rather, provides general processes. It is required that all measurements conform to god engineering practice. guided by the standards of the American National Standards Institute and other such organizations (27, 2B, 29).

This appendix presents information according to noise source as follows:
■ Appendix F.1: Higtwray and rail vehicle passbys for vehicles of the some type ■ Appendix F.2: Stationary source
• Appendix F,3: L„a. for single train passbys {for train of mixed consists) F. I Highway ari4 Radl Vehicle Passbys
This section provides Ir'i<arn tlon on appropriate conditions for +reticle passby measurements. instructions on converting measurements made under non -reference conditions to source reference levels, and examples of these con-p.ta-dons.

The following conditions are required for wehldlc passbys, In addition to good engineering practice:
• Measured vehicles must be representative of project vehicles in all aspects, including repres.entatne acceleration and speed corrcSitions for buses. ■ Track must be relatively free of clrrugativrrs aril train wheels relatively free of flirts, unless these conditions are typical of the proposed prca(ect,
+ Road surfaces must be smooth and dry, unless the conditions are typical of the proposed project.
• Perpendicular distance between the measurement position and the sources centerline roust be IOC Ft or less_
✓ Vehicle speed roust be 30 mph or greater, unless typical project speeds are less than that.. * No noise barriers, terrain, buildings, of dense tree zones may brick the lilies -cal -sight between the source and the measurement; position.
$LDERAL TRA IT AONVINt5TRATJGpN .12o

0.1-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
2646
11942
RTC -817

Responses to Comments
When chose -by source measurements are made under norrreference conditions, use the instructions below and the equations in Table F- I to convert the measured values to source reference levels: For rail vehicles. measure/convert a group of locomotives or a group of cars separately. This computation recital -4n that all measured vehicles be of the same type. Far trains of reLxed consists, see Append F.3.

SEL measured i[or a highway -vehicle passby, or a passby of a group of identical veil vehicles • Collect the foilrywing input information:
the measured SEL for the vehicle pag6Y
• F t, the eon silt oil the measured group or roll cars or group of locomotives a T. the average throttle setting of the measured diesel -powered locomotive(s) • the measured passim), speed in miles p hour
• E7 , the closest distance (between the measurement position and the source, in fit ■ Compute the Sow ce Rerwr'rce Level SEL,t, using Eq. F- I. measured for a passby of a group of identical rail vehicles ■ Collect the fallowing input Information:
a Lrw measured for the group passby
• hi, the consist of the measured group of rail cans or group of locomotives • T, the average throttle setting of the measured diesel -powered IocomotiveN • S.. the measured passby speed, in miles per how
• Dom, the closest distance between the measwemelt position and the source, in feet • Lam, the total length of the measured group el locomotives or group of rail cars. in feet • Compute the Sots cue Reference Level SELrt, using either Eq. F-2 or Eq. F-3. as appropriate, for lac rr ouues or rail cars,
L ... measured fora highway -vehicle passby
▪ Collect the following input t information:
a L,,,n measured for the highway -vehicle passby
• S4,-.4, the vehicle speed. in miles per hour
• 1 ,., , the closest dutanre between the measurement position and the wurce, In feet • Compute the Source Reference Level. SELnef. using Eq. F-. nDEsusa TRAMIT AV Ni5TRATic::

Cent

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2647
RTC -818

Responses to Comments
Table F -I Conversion to Source Reference L.ovels at 50 It — Highway and Rail Sources Measured
Source
EsCutation
SI_L
Vehicle
pzssl y
5• 0,•,„
SEL „f . SEL,,,, + lillne a ) + L[ifdg �{ , j + C,,„„,,,+ rtm2rr.,, ; Eq. F-i
l•• ••
Fail -vehicle
psurby,
locomotives
only
f.„,,, iprtu,lr
r
SEL,ef = Lyp„®r+'1fllogt IOkJg,( — 10ing'2 ®C)+Cr,,vrsr Eq.
) + . )
5 Tr-emir.1-3.3
pail-v.040u
passby.
rtrs Only
Lind iu
SEL,e - LA + 10Iog t 5fI ) + fOlsgi;(D50 ) — 1i x iog I.2 +- slm(2 a)j +C o +C.•.,,u.i..., -- 3'3

Eq. Fyi
iighway-
vehcle
pasaby
Sillier= Leman+218krg( NMI,'
Et. F4
lift )+Camxrraows+3a
Smra, =speed
[fin,,,,,,. =
Cart =
C194,1711.1 =
e
E,n„r„ =
L,, ,, =
CC =
of .measured v ole$s), mph
closest distance between measurement position .and source_ k 0 for buses and automobiles
—1Olugfc„r,) for locomotives and rail cars
where N is the number of locamodwes err rail ears In the measured group O for T •- it for locomrotrves
•2(T•5) fur T≥b
where T is average th.rotde setting of measured diesel - electric locornotive{s) 3m
log{ for
-30 rail cars
d) )
-25 lug( 5"5` r) for buses
Suini
-30.-1I4g(- -) for automobiles
event duration ct measurement, sec
toad IIEnjth of measured group of locomotives or rail cars, k arcnn(i .r, }, rad
FkDERAL T AN•3IT ADNIAN15TRATIO'h1 781
0128
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2648
RTC -819

Responses to Comments
Example F-1 Calculate. SEL,„4- Locomotives
Complltart1on of SEL..rfrom SEL Measurement of F6esd-gukdeway Source SEL was measured fora pushy. of two dletel-powored locomotives with the follow sng conditions 31;L... = 90 4 A
Ncrrrr = 2
T m it
S„ = S5 mph
Da =65 ft
Compute the source reference level using Eq. F -I.
=37„r„.+10k1454`1t 10,tetg{� '57)+ +C m...i a.
= 90 + wing ( 505) -6m-4[4(655o) — 10log(3) + (,-2(6 — 5)) = 86,5 .deA
Example F-2 Calculate SEL,,,— Rail Cars
Computation of SEL„w from Lam,_ Measurement of Fk>*eel.Gukdeway Source

4. was measured for a pasaby of a a4 -car car i t of 70-k long rail cars with ahe 4oklowing condiitions:
=90d6A
Non, = 4
5„e =70mph
O .= 65 ft
2E10 ft
=1.14
Compute the 3uurce, reference Novel eking Eq. F-)..

SEL-„,
LA. + LO Lnirtan)+ 1013,O ")—Dnie Mpg I2 �C+sinl2.XJ +G +33 50 50200 6
s +car.,, .
e?0+10km( ) -1- 10ksg1 )-181og `2l.i4 4-siee(2(l,t1li]-1Oint1J-3i71up( 01+33 50 = 66.7 d8A
aDERAL TRAMIT AL7MIINf5T1RATIf3N 7'3]
01-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2649
RTC -820

Responses to Comments
Examples F.3 Calculate SELL — Bus
Computation of SEL, from L.d Memurrrrncnt of Highway Veshidc Source L. was measured for a bees with die following toroditiasi L_, = 78 d8A
flO
L.. = 413 mph
Compote the source reference level wrng Eq. F.11
=io +2Udrg 0")+ +33
SO
41)
= 714+ztilagt .b-25144( 0+3.3
= 87.8 r!$A
F2 Siasiorsary Sources.

This section provides information on appropriate conditions for stationary source measurements. instructions on corwereing measurements made under non -reference conditions to source reference levels, and an iexample of this type of cornputatkon_
The following conditions are required for stationary in addition to good engneerwi practice:
• Measured saurie largraiorig must be representative of project operations in all aspects, • The folk wing ratio must be 2 or less, and the distance to the closest source component must be 200 ft or less,
itrsrrenrr the ferrfrre.0 so -merry nennpnndint
DisteInte to trer. basest Settlrre L'@'ttiptoiner
If both conditions cannot simultaneously be met_, separate close -by mensuretnexrts of Indivklual components of this source must be made; for which these distance conditions ems be met. • The fallowing rtio must be 2 Dr less:
tat erdl reirstril. of rile.source area
r7l srrtnr' rn rroe rd'SRSt SfleI rrr r"T pPtlflrr
The Lateral length of the source area is rneasured perpendicular to the general line -of -sight between source arid measurement positions.

If this condition cannot be met, then make separate class -by measurements d Individual components of this source, for winch this. Condition can be met_ • No noise barriers. terrain, buildings. or dense tre zonie may break the lines -of -sight between the source and the measurement position.

Wen close -by source measurements are made under non -reference conditions, use the instructions below and the equation in Table F- 2 to convert the measured vall,e5 to source reference levels. ffurEitill TRA IT AL)MrNETRATM3N ;33
0 1-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2650
RTC -821

Responses to Comments
SEL was rn asured far a stationary noise source
■ Collect the following input information;
° Sflrn.a,. the measured SEL far the noise soUrce. for whatever :source 'event" is convenient to measure
o E,,,,,,,, the event duration. In seconds
the closest distance biatween the measurement position and the source, in feet 1 Compute the source reference level, SELror using Eq- F- 5, Table F-2 G o nvcrsion to Source Reference Levels at SO ft - Stationary Sources Measured
Source
Equation
5C
Srationar,
noisesn ice
L .u..,.v Eq_F-5
Sfil�cf key{
=SHLmru-1aloR[30.0)-f
50 )
5,...,, =wed of measured veierele(0, in mules per hour
Ewa, =event duritis-, of measurement, In seconds
[},.,., = rlorsst trwewe berwcen measinvsnrmt posit -inn and source, In fret Example F-4 Calculate SEL, — Signal Crossing
Computation of SEL.., from SEL ticasurement of Stationary Source SEL was measured for a signal crossing with the following condrtiona. =TOdSA
E .. = 1O sec
f] �. = 65 ft
compute the source reference level suing Eq. F.5.
bilioplq "�"'"'`1+2 kR1.�1''ena1
3ii#]O 5O
—t°kgl l0 )+`zu teas)
97,
a636r141i
= t o
F.3 Lm„ for Single Train Passby
This section provides procedures for the computation of L.,n, for a single train passby. This procedure can be used to characterize trains of mixed consists using Follow the inttructsurrs below, • Collect the following Input information
• SELL. from Section 43, specific to both the locomotive type and car type of the train a NI..., the number of locomotives in the train
A the nureilnerr csftatS In the train
m Lw: the total length of the train's laccimctIve(s). in lint (or 14,...unit length) o L,,,,. the total length of the train's set of tailcar(s), in feet or N. unit length'} o S, the train speed, in miles per hour
• D, the close -5t distance between the receiver of interest and the train, in feet = Use the covet ors in Table F-3 to compute the following:
for the locomotrve[s) using Eq. F-&
:FEDERAL 111,AN'SIT ACrMiNrSTaAT!O'N 731
Cent

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2651
RTC -822

Responses to Comments
x<„s for the rail cars} using the F. F-7
the larger L. from the lo€omatives(s) and rail car(s) is the L for the total train passkry, see fq. F- 6,
Table F-3 Conversion to Lrnax at the Receiver, for a Single Train Passb Suurce
EPatlan
Locomotive4
Lr,,d< d = 5EL r + 10Lug l ail) — 10log (j) + toiag(2 4e) — 3.3 t 1£
F"9'
I1411aI1411 Carr �,„.

L
L i3Otva �so.� + 1i io (0
,rr = sEL „+' Nog ( S
et +fin(2 x).) —3.3
Eq, F.7
mud Train
Linnr r(Arri = rnaz(Laa.tlarn''''Gnuur.rer.'c7rs)
Ell. F4
L = taul earl of or aasurad group of &xomanre(s) or rail cap(s), ft = mhieleigmerl mph
D = ebse*tdfstame iaetrreen rear mil wwYe. ft
F DERAL 11AMIT ADMaNfeTIRATIf3N 73`:
01-28
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2652
RTC -823

Responses to Comments
Example F.S Calculate L.„,.,. - Train Passby
Computation of L. for Train Pass by
Calculate the L. of commuter train at receiver of Interest ateort ng to the following tondielorer SEL,.i = 92 dl3A for lecomtaaves
= 82 d6A, kw rail cars
Lora
NC,r, b
=43 nIes per hour
= 125 it
ct ta. = 4.27
°t,:�ra = I.03
The Iocan, dve and rail ears each have a. omit length (Lj or 70 ft Determine the total lengh aI the locomotive and rail cars. = 70 it
L.. 420 ft
Compute L.,. MI the locomotive using Eq. F.6:
r 5LLt + I! 10lug(50 p — 1 CHog (50) + 10lug(z ") — 33
- 111
43-
= +10441( )—lfl2u:3(50)+ICIT (2x0,27}-3,3

84.0 dBA
Compute Ls.. far the rail ears using Eq. F-7:
= SELRrrc*s+/10itr�jl 4]-- l�dlutl[S0)+tell:Je :2« Fsia(z ))))-33 420
=R2+102....,EI50.)-1G21nto( )1+f log((2xL033+sin(2x1,01))-33 = 73.5 dEA 11 A
Find the soul L.,. for the train pushy using Eq. F-0,
2°riurtafor = ithXX(1-nnrzh r. or Lmare Rra-r)

34.0 (IPA
FLDERAL Pp,ANSIT .WMrNr5TIRATp3N 7M
01-28
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2653
RTC -824

Responses to Comments
Appendix a: Non -Standard Modeling Procedures and
Methodology
This manual provides guidance for preparing and reviewing the noise and vibration sections of environmental docurnents, as well as FTA-approved methods and procedtres to determine the level of noise and vibration Impact resulting from most federally -funded transit projects. Situations may arise, howev r. that are not echeltiy covered in this maixtal. Professional judgment may be used to extend the basic methods to cover these cases. when appropriate. It is important to note that each project is unique and must be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. This appendix provides procedures for the use of non-standardnoise and vibration modeling procedures and methodologies an public transportation projects -
Submittal Procedure - The procedure for using noon -standard modeling procedures and methodology is as follows
l- The transit project manager should contact the FTA Reglorral office to discs the proposed methods andfor data not described in this manual prior to use of the non=standard approach. 1 The nonstandard methodology should be documented according to the guidelines :below as part of the teahn€cal report deseritsed in Section 6.2.

Examples or Methods that Require Communication and Documentation - The Following noise and vibration analysis methods and data require communication with the FTA Regional office and docurnenttiktion:
• Non-standard uarrsit noise and wbratlon modeling and analysis methods not described in this manual (including noun -standard adjustments, computations, and assumptions). This includes modifications to standard FTA raise and vibration methods. • Non-standard transit noise and vibration reference data not described In ties manual (Including measured data, substitution data, data at non-standard reference distances andlor speeds, new transit noise sources, and transit noise sources operating In non-standard conditions). ■ Non-standard transit noise and vibration impact criteria not described in this manual. including the maximum sor.trrd pressure level metric.
• Non-standard methods of evaluating construction noise, including non-standard construction none Impact criteria.
▪ Other noise modeling took besides the FTA Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet or Traffic Noise Model (Mlle) for highway noise modeling. such as the development of a finite element method model.
■ Any transit noise and vibration analysis that involves air impact area or noise source that Is controversial.

DocumentationGuidelines - The use of nark -standard noise and vibration analysis methods ar data rewires the following documentation components in a technical memorandum attached to the environmental document:
• Bachgmaand
Briefly describe the transit project for which non -default methods or data are needed- State the dominant noise sources, type of analysis, and the Impact criteri=a. Include any additional relevant Information.
$LD♦wRAA TRANSIT A..bruNnTRATJOhl n?
O1-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2654
RTC -825

Responses to Comments
• Statearient of Benefit
Briefly describe the benefit Est' the non -default noise and vibration met rods co data to the tions,it project f3mtrihe the appropriateness or the i,on-default methods or data, as well as why the standard method or data are Insufficient or problematic • Non-standard Data Description
Describe the Fran -standard noise ur vibration data in detail. Include source type, manufa€turer, reference ceeditleris (speed, distance and operational conditions), name d data supplier, and a date associated with data deuelopmen fineasurernent For measured noise or vibration data provide corresponding data documerrtation (such as a data measurement or a development report). For substitution data, a comparison between the near -standard data and corresponding standard data should be provided. Furthermore, if outside sources recommend the use of the non-standard data (such as a technical society, a startdards organization, or a vehicle manufacturer), references for those recommendations should be included. • Non-standard Methods Destriptioe
Diecrlbe the none -standard noise or vibration analysis method in detail. This should irirIttde a detailed desctiptlort and derivation of the method (including data used in the development of the method), a description of the usage of the method, and a comparison between the non-standard method zed the corrsepvnrkng standard method ire the context of the transit analysis. If the method has been validated against measurement data, a descriptioe of that validation analysis should be provided. If the method es derived Iron another source (such as a different traesportaboo noise or vibration method), provide corresponding doc urnertta.tion for- that source„ A description of how the method is conservative (far example, estimating the werst- r se scenark) or same discussion nn the probability ref enoveli rig the predicted level should be provided. Furthermore f outside sources recommend the use of the neon -standard method (such as a technical society or standards organization). references for those recommendations should be included.
▪ Non-standard Try Dino-tptfen
Describe in detail any non-standard noise or vibration models that have not been e>p&itly recommended in this manual. This should include a detailed description of die tool (in€lttdirtg data used, the computations Implemented in the tool. any modifications or adjustments to the tool or the coorrmponding data, and the usage nt the tool), a description of the validation of the tool (Including reference documentation and vakldatiort analyses)„ and a comparison between the non-standard tool and the equivalent standard tool in the context of the transit analysis, Quantitative €orriparrseris, such as the standard deviation of the non-standard tool and at estimate of the least mean square of differences between the standard and non-standard tools, should be provided and explained A dr-scription of haw '1i+ie hterharl Is conservative (for eammple, estimating the worst -case scenario) or Borne discussion on the probability of exceeding the predicted level should be provided. If outside sources recommend the use of the non- standard tool {such as a technical society or standards organisation), references for those recommendations should be Included_
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADNI N15TRAT10N fl
01-28
Ccnt_

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2655
RTC -826

Responses to Comments

ENDNOTES
Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions o4 the National Environmental Policy Act Coui ail on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR parrs I SOD -I5043, I97R
9 National fnvironmencal Policy Act of 1969, United States~ Congress. 42 U.S_C §4331. I969.

U.S. Department. of Transportadon, Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration. "Environmental Impact and Related Procedures," Final Rule_ S2 Federd Register 32646-32669, January 2014 (23 CFR part 771).

U.S. Department cl Transpo.tadot., Federal Transit Adml*)strn.on and Federal Highway Admittstratir,n, "Planning Assistance and Standards." Final Rule S6 federal Register 58464_ June 2014 (23 CFR part 430).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency_ "Information on Levels o4 Environmental Naisa Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," Report No 55009.74-404, Washington DC.

March 1474.
" Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, "Guidelines for Considering Noise i n Land Use Planning and Control," En"viranmental Protection Agency. the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Us ban Development, the Department of Defense, and the Veterans Agindwstratiu.n, Wasbidlgton DC, Jame 1980.

Ir
u
IY
I4
s
16 IF
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development- "Environmental Criteria and Standards of this Department of Housing and Urban Development" End Rule, 44 Fedienal Register 4086i Washington DC, 12 July 6979;24 CFR part 51).

Alum lain National Standards Institute, "Compatible Land Use With Respect to Noise." Standard S113 -I980, New York NY. May 1983,
American National Standards Institute. "Quantititas and Procedures for Descripticgn and Measurement dal Environmental Sowed " ANSI 'SI2.9459111Part 5. New York. NY. January 1998.

T_ J_ Schulz, "Noise Rating Criteria for Elevated Rapid Transit Stn canes," U_S. Department of Transportation.

Report Na Uh1TA-F'1A•06.4099.79.3.1M1+ashiragtn+n DC, Nay 1979.

T, J. Schdta, "Synthesis al Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance," foumd of die Acoustical Society of America Vat

63. No. S. August 1978.

S. Eden. as. Barber, T.J. Schulte, "Updating a Dosage -Effect Relationship for the Prevalence of Annoyance Due to General Transportation l4oise," fommal of the Atom -kcal So€;etlrof Amerto. VQt 89. No, L January 1991 S. fide'. -The Schultz Curve 25. rears Later A Research Perspective," fo6rrnnf of tiro Atoustird Society W America VoL I f 4, No_ 6, PL I. December 20413.
"high -Speed around Transportation Ndse arld Y6bration Imp Asses*mert[", DOTIFRA/ORD• 17315. U.S.

Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, 2012.

National Historic Preservation Act Section 146: P 89-665, I S October 1944, The Department of Transportation Act of 1466, Section 44#6; P.L 89-610, I S October 1966.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Federal highway Administration, Troths -00n d}f HIst4rie Properties" Final Rule, 65 Fee kraal Rsglskr 777'25. J uLy 2013 (36 CFR WO).

FEDERAL TRAM IT ADD NISTRATft}N ;7q
01-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2656
RTC -827

Responses to Comments
IF
Ii
7F
23 yr
as
"Eligibility and JusdI cation Reyeireruents for Noise Insrhation Projects." Program Guidance Letter 12409, November 20I 2 tit ins.ilwrww,faa.govfa rnortsiaani+guirante lettera'wstnrir huh aura IettersAneciala o•tagl• 2412.09•nolse-insrlatian. iL
U.S. Department of HoiFfng and'Urban Development. "'Environmental Criteria and Standards". Vol. Ilia)) 197'9: amended by 49 Federd Register 860, 6 January 1964 124CFR part S IJr U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. "Federal Aviation Regulations Part ISO.

Airport Noise. Compatibility Planning" January 1961.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Railroad Administration, "'Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway -Rail Grade Crossings." Final Rule 70 Federal Register 21644, October 2013 id%CFR 222).

U.S, Department al Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, " FHWA Traffic Noise Model User s Guide" Report No, FHWA-PD•96.OO9, Washington. DC January 1998. AJza "FHWA Traffic Noise Model User's Guide (Version 2.5 Addendtarar April 20CM
J,C Ross, C. . Hanson, R.V. Ham, "Houston Southeast Corridor Environmental Impact Statement BRT Noise and Vibration Assessment" technical memorandum prepared by Harris Miller Miller a Hanson for Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Houston, Texas, September 20. 2045.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Popufarion Distribution of die United States as a Function of Outdoor Noise Level," Report No. 5.54/9-74149, June 1974,.

T. M. Johnson "Tire importance of Vehicle Throtde Setting Information for fad Transit Noise Impact Assessments," Pins. Jmlu Ffoike 2002. New York. NY. August 2012.

U.S. Department al Transportation, Federal Highway Adnittau ation, "PKWA, Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model," FHWA-RD`77• 148, December I'f76.

American National Standards Institute. "American National Standard Quantities and Procedures for Desompelon and Measurement of Environmental Sound„ Pam 4= Noise Aaamornent and Prediction of Long-term Community Response.' ANSI 12.9-19%. New York 1996_
:s C. Harris. "Handboolr of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control," IF
74 J.
at
3s
34 International Organization for Srandarchatian "Acoustics P- Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors -- Part 2- General method of calculation." ISO 96I3-1:

American Society for Testing and Materials. "Standard Guide for l'T¢aymremr.em of Outdoor A•vreighted Soured Levds," F 1014.034, Phiadelphia, I9J34_
American National Standards Institute. -Method for the 'Measurement of Sound Ftee.suae Levels," AhNSE SI. 13-197IJR1976Jti New York, 1971.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Measurement of Highway -Related Noma," FHVVA-PD.96.04h, May 19'46.

J.T. Nilson. "WheeURaII Noise Control Pima." Transporsadwr Cooperat+vc ar-le'airch Report No. 23, Transportation Research Board. Washington DC, 1'497,
"Challenges in Maintaining Quiet Streetcar and Light Rail Systems," Session No, 404, Transportation Research Board Animal Meeting, Washington DC. January 2414,
FLDERAL TRAAffilT AL7MlNISTFlATK3hl 240
O 1-28
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2657
RTC -828

Responses to Comments
31 36
+n
41 41
u
43 sr
as
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Adminasd-arion. "Use: of Locomotive: Horns at Highway- Rail Grade Crossing," Final Rule 70 Federal Register 21844, April 27. 200S (49 CFR 222). ..interim Final Rule for the Lhe of Locomotive Horns at Highway -Rag Grade Crossings:" Federal Railroad Administration, Final Environmental Impact Statement December 2003.

Bunch, R.E. Nugent, "A Reduced Scale.Railvray Noise Barrier's Insertion Loss and Absorption Coefficients: Comparison a Field Meaaureinenta and Predietlans,"Journal i/Soured and Vibratinn, 749,753.

October 2003.

U.S. Department al Transportation. Federal Highway A,diininishration, "Highway Noise Barrier Design Package." August 291]0
"F gh-5 peed Ground Trantparatron Norse and %bottom Impact Assessment" DOTIFRA'OI p. I,"i3I5. US.

Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Adniiristratian, 2012, American National Standards Institute, 'Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings, ANSI 53.29-1983 (ASA 48-1983)
International Organization for Standardizatitrn, "Evaluation of Httrnaar Exposure to Whole -Body Vibratdon, Part 2 Condrusour and SJaock-1ndueed Vibrations in Buildings (l-6UItr)," ISO -2631-2. 1489_ International Organization for Standardization, "Mechanical Vibration amd Shock Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole Body Vibration, Part 2 - vibration in Buildings (I to 9&i 1-14" ISO -263 I-2. 2003.

J. T. Nelson, H. J. Saurenman, hate-oI-the-Art Review- Predictors and Control of Ground -borne hloise and Vibration hone Rill Transit Trains," U.S. E par'urrent of Transpcsrtttien. Urban T1 ass Transps3itadon Administration, Report No. UMTA-f^1A-06 0049.83-d, OOT-TSC-UMTA-83-3, December 1983, Y. Tahiti, "Vibration Pollution Problems in Japan" Inter•Noise 75. Sendai, japan, 1475, (pp. 465-172) J. A Zapfe H- Saurenman, S. Edell. "Ground -Borne Noise and Vibration in Buildings Caused by Rail Transit" Tranaportahnon Research Board, Final Report for TCRP Protect D• 12, Detembet 2049.

J.T. Nelrotr H.J SaurQnman, G.P Wilson. "Handbook of Urban Rail Noise and Vibration Control." prepared under contract to U,SJDDT Transportation Systems Center. Report No, UMTA-MA-06-0099-82-1 February 1982.

Irrteraaatioaral Organization Irrr SUndardixathin. "Mechanical Vibration a Ground-bayrnn Noise and Vibration Arising from Rai[ Systems" 15O1?1S I48"37-1:2G9S-
° Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology- "Considerations in Clean Room Design," RR 0012. 3,

4. 73
51 2415,
U.S, Department al Transportation, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, "Vibration Characteristics of the Trans rapid TRdl6 FI*v System" Report No. DOT-VNTSC,FRA.-02•od, March 2002 5, Picktnna, "A Study of Bold AmplIftcasion from Graund•Borne Vibration," Noun -Con 201 I Pattland.

Oregon, July 25-27.201 I.

American National Standards Institute, -'Acoustic) Terminology," ANSI S I.1-1994.

J.T. Nelson. H.f. Saurenman. "A Prediction Procedure for Rail Transportation Ground -Borne Noise and Vibration" Trorup+uietktt Research Fermi, 1 147, August 1.988. :FEDERAL TRANSIT AL7MiN'tSTRATIVN 74I

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2658
RTC -829

Responses to Comments
9l
ST
9Y
Yr
fit
n
b3
J. T. Nelson. "Tri-Met Track Vibration Isolation Tests." Final Report for Portland Tri-Met October 1498.

J,T, Nelson H.J, Saurennme. 'Ground -Borne Vibration Tests vntih r1APTA C -Car." report prepared t rr Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. November I5, I10P.

Santrenitiari "P ehearsary Results od Ground•Borne Vibration Tests with BRRTTMiami Vehlrfe," technical memorandum prepared for US DOTrTransportation Systems Center, contract DDT-TSC-1796. B February l 9B3.

H.J. Saureentan, "Gromid•horne VibiatJoe Tests with PIETA Prototype Vanele at the Trampon: thou Test Center." technical merrarandum prepared for Transportation Test Canter. Project No, P -B3 -C -0I 076. 3 August x983.

Saurenman. "Noise and Vibration Testa with Penland Tel -Met Prototype Vehicle At the Transportation Test Center,," technical memorandum prepared for Transportation Test Center, Protect No. P -63-C-02849,, 26 March (964.

R.A Carman_ D.L VVatry, "Measured Vibration Reduction Peniormance of Ballast Mat Instillation for light Rail Vehicles on Embedded Track,- APTA, I997 Rapid Transit Conference of the APTA, V, 3 -Way & Structures and Conntrucdrn { I997 -B),
DA, Towers, "Ewaluatlran of the Ground -Beane Vibration Reduction Properties of fire Derived Agswegate Installed on the Denver RTD Light Rail System." Harris Miller Miller and Hanson I nom, 20 I 2.

F. E. Richert J. R. Hall, Modem of Sais dud Foundation's. Peenrice-Ha1L Inc . Eerglewraad Cliffs, NJ. 1970.

US. Enxiroomental Protection Agency. "Noise Iron Construction Equi portent and Operations, Building Equipment and Hoene Apphances," NTID3QO. I, 3IDeceniber i97I.

Society of Automotive Engineers. "Exterior Sound Level Measu.erneet Procedure for Powered Mobile Construction Equipment" SAE Recommended Practice JIBBs_ l976.

Society of Automotive Engineers. "Sound Levels for Engine Powered Equipment" SAE Standard J9S21L. I97#_ U.S. Department al Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. "FI4WA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide," FH A-HEP-f1S•0Sif January 2046. Available at ha Jfwww,fliwa_ letgo-almer tment/no se1'eprat uctiion naite rLeAlru'. " E Rftaliteiriser, "Construction noise control program and mitigation strategy at the Central Artery/Tunnel Pros Nose Control hog J. 4B(S) September Q-ttobtr 2060, I57 -I fr5}. bl
tai
iR
U.S. Departmentol Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. " FhghwrayConstruction Noise Handbook." FHWA-HEP-mill I 5. August 2O24
D.J. Martin. "Ground Vilirationafrom Impact Pile Driving during Road Cousu tit is n," Supplementary'Report 544 United f4ingdam Department of the Environment, Department of Transport Transport and Road (Research Laboratory. I9B0.

Wiss. "VibratIons during Constrruction Operatjons.- futnrrJetf oFCanslnrtfJMpivismn, Peer, AmericanSor ely of Cod Enggineers. Itf9. No. CO3, 219-24E September 1974.

J,F. i'Vrss. "Damage Effects of Pile Driving Vibrations.' tdiglnvoy Research Record. No. I5S, Highway Research Board. '1%7,
FEDERAL TR, N IT ADMIINBTRATM yN ; b;
01-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2659
RTC -830

Responses to Comments
Ph
73 73
Fr
DA. Towers. 'Ground -borne Vibration from Slurry Wall Trench Excavation for tire Central Artery'Tunnel Pt oleic] Using liydro Ill Technalogy Proc lrutetfrinse 95. Newport Rein. CA July I99S.

Swiss Consultants for Road Construction Association. *Effects of Vibration on Construction VSS-S i64U-312a.

Zurich. Switzerland, April Ig92
American Public Transpartatior Association, P.ut k Tr nsfwrtmion Fottbswk 55th Edition, March 2J o4.

Americas] National Standards Institute. 'Preferred Frequendes Frequency Levels and Band Nurr'abers. for Ausuetleal Me. Lauren nts,- ANSI E I.6-1984 (iC2DOb).

U,S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Information qn Levels oil Environmental Noise Reguisite. to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adegua n Margin of Safety.' EPA Report No. 55909-74-O 4, March l974.

National Academy of Sciences. -Guidelines far Preparing Environmental Impact Statements an Noise," Report from Comncittor an Bloatoustics and Bwm.thionot (CHABA) Working Gmop 69 Febru.iry 5977 American Public Transit Association, "Noise and Vibration,' 1981 Guidelines Tor Design of Rapid Transit Faaeilitles, Sec®ran 2.7, 1981.
t.. Schultz, ,.Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance," jnurrxi of the Acoustical Satiety of Americo; Vol 64, No. 2 August I978. 977-rt!Oi,
FEDERAL TfRAMIT Al;7MtlN!ISTRATp3N 243
01-28
Cant_

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2660
RTC -831

Responses to Comments
01-28
Cant.

U.S, i]eparlmrent of Tionsportcrtian
Federal Transit Adrnhistru?don
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Transit Administration
East BLr1ding
f 200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
hops:lAm vJrungt dotgorrat autir search-inumro7kxn

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2661
RTC -832

Responses to Comments
EXh T T

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2662
RTC -833

«. ..r.�... .. ,`., • ..
—�,._..-.1.4._—r..:a� tr.0.0Np+t. ..,.,* _l._,'_.........*,_... --d ..,.... -.e . .o .s.m...m.

Responses to Comments
Conservancy Territory Map
CI1-_ 9

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2663
RTC -834

Responses to Comments
r HI IT F

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2664
RTC -835

Responses to Comments
.. _ I I.. a rp I, 1
® .wi; IY.,.'P.P. LIP • NI IR.
® w v lIF P PR
l
a ILA nRat Asaw l PCP -a R w
mad Rap mi Ram
4OSNIISA(.SIL
® LM1
IMP r xtin�Mi- r1
L—ir ITV
L° J
BM
ISM ii
ISM•t.ri.Mmr. el.'..a�u
ILE
s
asa
MI

11. All
lJ
API
II
O A 111
S
.0}I12,
— na • .0
ISM...- ►r . .41P n *n. aria
NS
— r+Fxr.•MP'w TT nP+ IM IP
Ma ran m^ ' I
07 Mr lan I]} rJn
TEL- �y-
.1 I a p I•_ a
ieblAw 1111
- uw• YY. r
—� IUFws•.iy Mir
...um...J'4WWa •

11.1111,1,11.11.1111.46
Hs NMI RI111,se.9
Land Use and Zoning Map
City of Rancho Mirage
raaRul
aba14 ma,.•
it- V151 Fr II»II# I I . fain hit rill ata. ('1L 9+.2^IJI tale
01-30

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2665
RTC -836

Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter 01
Western States Council of Carpenters
April 9, 2024
01-1 The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. This comment is included in the Final MND for review and consideration by the decision -makers prior to a final decision on the project. No further response is required.
01-2 The comment provides a summary of the project description and project location. The commenter incorrectly identifies the acreage, square footage of buildings, total parking spaces, inclusion of the existing Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage, and Assessor's Parcel Numbers identified in the MND project description, see Chapter 1, Project Description. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.
01-3 The comment provides background information on the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters and an introduction to the comments that follow. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 01-4 The comment recommends the use of local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor -Management Apprenticeship Program or similar for the project to benefit the local economy and to reduce environmental impacts by mitigating GHG emissions, improving air quality, and reducing transportation impacts. The comment provides information from Exhibit A, SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling, and other resources.

The City appreciates the comment and notes that the Draft IS/MND analyzed the project's air quality, greenhouse gas, and transportation -related impacts in Section I II, Air Quality; Section VIII, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and Section XVII, Transportation. As discussed in these sections, the Draft IS/MND concluded that the project would result in less -than -significant impacts with regard to these resource topics (in the case of the project's transportation impacts, implementation of MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA- 2 are required to reduce the project's operation -related transportation impacts to less than significant).

Because the project would not result in significant environmental impacts, no further mitigation is required per Section 15126.4(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. 01-5 The comment makes general recommendationsforthe City to adopt training, certification, and safe on - site construction work practices for construction workers on any developments within the City's General Plan Area. The comment also recommends that the project include construction site designs, testing, and planning practices to prevent community spread of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. COVID- 19 is a topic outside the purview of CEQA and CEQA requires the evaluation of potential physical environmental impacts of the project on the environment. Additionally, the comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 01-6 The comment provides background information on Environmental Impact Reports under CEQA. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2666
RTC -837

Responses to Comments
01-7 The comment provides background information on Initial Studies, Negative Declarations, and Mitigated Negative Declarations under CEQA. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.
01-8 The comment is an introduction to the detailed concerns provided later in the comment letter. The comment states that the MND fails to support all of its findings with sufficient analysis and substantial evidence and fails to incorporate mitigation measures. The commenter incorrectly identifies the acreage and square footage of buildings identified in the MND project description, see Chapter 1, Project Description. The comment also states that the project will have a significant impact on the environment and an EIR is required. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the proposed mitigation measures, as discussed in the Draft IS/MND and an EIR is not required.

The specific concerns about the adequacy of analysis and mitigation measures brought up by the commenter are addressed in Responses to Comments 01-10 through 01-19. 01-9 The comment states that the mitigation measures in the MND fail to adequately analyze or mitigate the project's impacts and are improperly deferred, so an EIR is required. The MND includes specific mitigation measures that reduce impacts to less than significant, so an EIR is not required. The detailed concerns about the adequacy of mitigation measures are addressed in Responses to Comments O1- 10 through 01-19.
01-10 The comment provides background on significant effects under CEQA. The comment states that the MND fails to provide analysis on the project's biological resource impacts The comment states that the MND cannot conclude that the proposed mitigation measures will reduce biological resource impacts to less than significant without first conducting field surveys and subsequent analysis. The comment states that the project should be subject to a more comprehensive EIR review due to the potential occurrence of special -status species. The comment also states that at a minimum, pre -construction biological surveys specifications should be disclosed as part of the proposed mitigation measures.

As discussed in the Biological Resources Assessment dated February 21, 2022, the general reconnaissance surveys conducted provide an accurate representation of the potential for special - status species to occur. The Biological Resources Assessment describes the existing conditions of special -status biological resources on the project site (proposed project footprint) and within a 500 - foot buffer where access was granted (study area), quantifies impacts to special -status biological resources that would result from implementation of the project and describes those impacts in terms of biological significance under both CEQA and compliance with the CVMSHCP, and provides recommended avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to avoid and reduce impacts to special -status biological resources, if necessary. A species' potential to occur is decided by determining whether the project site and surrounding area include suitable habitat for that species as documented during the site visit, as well as a review of know/documented occurrences of that species as kept in the CDFW CNDDB database. A combination of these factors goes into generating the low, moderate, high or not expected potential to occur of the species. The species with potential to occur were not incidentally detected during the June 2021 survey and focused species surveys are not required by CEQA to assess the impacts to species with the potential to occur. The MND includes MM-BIO-1, which would ensure consistency with the CVMSHCP which would mitigate impacts to CVMSHCP covered species, including the Peninsular bighorn sheep and burrowing owl to less than significant without the need for focused surveys. For species not covered under the CVMSHCP, such as the red diamondback rattlesnake, impacts would still be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of MM-BIO- Ritz-Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2667
RTC -838

Responses to Comments
2, construction best management practices. The MND already includes pre -construction surveys for nesting birds under MM-BIO-3 and burrowing owls identified under MM-BIO-4. With the inclusion of these mitigation measures, the project would have a less than significant impact to biological resources and an EIR is not required.
01-11 The comment states that the language of MM-CUL-1 is ambiguous on whether the qualified archeologist and Native American monitor are required to be present at the commencement of, and continuously during, any ground disturbing activities, or whether they will only be called to the project in the event of the unanticipated discovery. The comment requests that the mitigation measure be revised to require that both monitors be present for all initial ground -disturbing activities at the project for the purpose of evaluating and addressing any unanticipated discoveries. The comment also states that MM-CUL2 should also require a qualified archeologist and Native American monitor to evaluate the initial discovery of any human remains rather than the project laborers.

As stated in the MND, MM-CUL-1 states that a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor shall be present for initial ground disturbing activities. In the case of an unanticipated discovery, work would stop until the archeologist or Native American Monitor evaluated the discovery. Changes were made to MM-CUL-1 to provide further clarification. These clarifications do not change the analyzed impacts or findings in the MND and do not represent new information or significant changes that alter the conclusions of the MND. MM-CUL-2 states that the County Coroner will be contacted to make the determination regarding human remains. The responsibility of the construction personnel is to contact the County Coroner, rather than to make the determination and manage the discovery. 01-12 The comment states that the mitigation measures do not provide for any pre -construction training for the project's construction workers to properly identify sensitive cultural resources or human remains.

The comment also states the MND does not specify due diligence for Tribal coordination. Because of these, the comment states that the analysis as related to cultural resources is inadequate. The comment requests that MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2 at a minimum be revised to adequately mitigate potential significant impacts to cultural resources.

Impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant with the application of MM-CUL-1 and MM- CUL-2. Additional mitigation measures are not necessary. Additionally, pre -construction training for construction workers to properly identify sensitive cultural resources or human remains is not specifically required by CEQA. Nonetheless, the role of the construction personnel is to contact the qualified archeologist, Native American Monitor, or the County Coroner in the cases of potential discovery. It is not the role of construction personnel to make final determinations.. Also, due diligence for tribal consultation has been completed for this project. As stated in the MND, an updated historical and archeological resources survey was prepared by CRM TECH in September 2019 and included consultation with Native American representatives. Additionally, comments were received from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians which will be included in the Final MND. 01-13 The comment states that an EIR must prepared because the project may have a significant noise impact. The comment states that the MND fails to measure ambient noise levels near the most sensitive receptors at the southern edge of the project and that the three locations (L1, L2, and L3) are inadequate.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2668
RTC -839

Responses to Comments
As discussed in the MND, noise impacts are less than significant and an EIR is not required. Also as discussed in the MND, noise measurement locations were chosen using Caltrans and FTA guidance.

The recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on the measures or estimates at representative locations in the community and the monitored levels are only used to estimate the general ambient noise levels in the area. The impact determination is based on predicted noise levels and the residential communities to the south of the project site (represented by locations R3 to R8) were analyzed using the appropriate prediction methodology. The calculated values at these locations (not the monitored locations) were used to evaluate the potential impacts. 01-14 The comment states that the MND incorrectly concludes that there will be no significant impact to sensitive receptors and uses the 85 dBA identified in NIOSH Occupational Noise Exposure as the threshold for significant impact. The comment notes that NIOSH Occupational Noise Exposure does not provide an adequate threshold to assess external noise levels for private property and identifies FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment as the preferred source. The comment notes that the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment states that any noise increase of 15 dBA or greater for a residence is considered a severe impact. The comment states that the selected survey locations, although inadequate, have the potential to exceed thresholds using FTA standards and have a significant noise impact.

The analysis has been updated to include the FTA criteria, for which the limit would be 80 dBA Leq for residential properties, assuming there would be no nighttime construction. As identified in Table 13-3 of the MND, the highest predicted construction noise level at any noise sensitive receptor is 70.3 dBA Leq. As stated in section 13.2 of the MND, construction of the project would be restricted to the daytime hours between 7 am and 6 pm. Since there will be no nighttime construction activities, this complies with the FTA limit. The 15 dBA increase criterion is not relevant to construction noise. The adequacy of the survey locations is addressed in Response to Comment 01-13. 01-15 The comment states that MM-NOI-1 would have little to no mitigating effect on the exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to overall project construction noise and should include provisions for noise barriers near the southern edge of the project. The comment calls for at least a revised MND with updated mitigation measures if a full EIR is not prepared.

MM-NOI-1 does not deal with noise and it only deals with construction vibration. Noise impacts are less than significant and additional mitigations and an EIR are not required. Implementation of MM-NOI-1 will reduce the impact of ground -borne vibration to be less than significant as intended. Other mitigation measures for ambient or ground -borne noise are not proposed because these impacts are less than significant and mitigation is not required.
01-16 The comment states that additional measures are necessary to reduce operational GHG emissions and energy use. The comment states that the MND is not consistent with the GBC, noting the lack of EV vehicle accommodations. The comment states that because this analysis is missing, the MND conclusions regarding significance of impacts is flawed. The comment also states that project has the potential to result in significant impacts in the form of GHG emissions and conflicting with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and GBC because the project would not construct EVCS while proclaiming compliance. Additionally, the comment states that the MND is missing an analysis of energy use and GHG emissions impacts with and without EVCS infrastructure, which results in a potentially significant impact and requires an EIR.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2669
RTC -840

Responses to Comments
As identified in the MND, the project's operation is considered more in line with a commercial hotel use than a traditional residential project, as the 106 residential suites would be treated as a condo hotel in which residents are allowed to live at the residence only during a specified time frame. As such, the CARB Scoping Plan recommendations for residential and mixed -use projects are not appropriate.

Nevertheless, many of the measures and programs included in the Scoping Plan would result in the reduction of project -related GHG emissions with no action required at the project -level, including GHG emission reductions through increased energy efficiency and renewable energy production (SB 350), reduction in carbon intensity of transportation fuels (LCFS), and the accelerated efficiency and electrification of the statewide vehicle fleet (Mobile Source Strategy).

The commenter incorrectly states that because the CARB requirements are deemed not appropriate, that the project would be relieved of the GBC EVCS requirements. The MND states that the project would provide EV charging infrastructure that meets the California GBC. Further analysis of the impact of EV charging infrastructure is not required in the GHG analysis as the project would comply with California GBC and GHG impacts would be less than significant. Because impacts are less than significant, mitigation and an EIR are not required. The detailed engineering project specifications and how the project meets all the applicable requirements of the GBC will be specified in the City building permit plan review and the City's departmental review will ensure compliance with GBC regulations and requirements. As such, the commenter incorrectly states that "under the current framework in the MND, the Applicant could very well construct no EVCS's whatsoever in connection with the Project..." The project will meet the requirements of GBC.

O1-17 The comment provides background on general plans in California. The comment states the analysis regarding rezoning on significance of impact is flawed. The comment states that the biological mitigation measures do not adequately mitigate potential impacts associated with rezoning Mountain Reserve Land to Resort/Hotel use. The comment states that the only way for the rezoning impacts to be properly mitigated to less than significant is if the project creates protections for other natural lands multiple times larger than the Mountain Reserve Land targeted for development.

As discussed in the MND, the Sky Mesa Recreational Area is the portion of the project that is on the area zoned as Mountain Reserve and the applicant is proposing an amendment to the City's General Plan and Zoning Map that would rezone the Sky Mesa Recreational Area as Resort Hotel. Appendix G land use threshold b) asks if the project would "(c)ause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect". Conflict with the general plan designation and zoning code does not inherently result in an environmental impact. As discussed in MND Section 11.2, the project and associated discretionary actions associated with the General Plan and Zoning Map amendment, the project would not conflict with the City's land use policies, including protecting sensitive species with the incorporation of biological resource mitigation measures, and therefore does not require further mitigation. Further, if approved, it would be consistent with the general plan land use designation and zoning of the site.

O1-18 The comment states that project requires significant revisions and resolutions of evidence which at least calls for a revision and recirculation of the MND if it does not prepare an EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 provides the legal criteria that a lead agency is to consider when deciding whether is required to recirculate the MND. Recirculation is required when the document must Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2670
RTC -841

Responses to Comments
be substantially revised after public notice of its availability. A substantial revision is defined as a new, avoidable significant effect where mitigation measures or project revisions must be added to reduce the effect to insignificant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b)). The concerns raised by the commenter that call for significant revisions were addressed in Responses to Comments 01-10 through 01-16 and there are no substantial revisions to the MND. Rather, new information is added to the MND which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modification, which does not require Recirculation of the MND per CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(4). Additionally, potential impacts are less than significant with the mitigation measures proposed and an EIR is not required. 01-19 The comment provides background information on project descriptions. The comment requests that the project include an adequate project description with the details listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124.

Section 15071 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the minimum requirements for an Initial Study and Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration. Among these requirements are a brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project, if any; and the location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of the project proponent., Additional guidance regarding the contents of an EIR's project description is provided in Section 15124 (According to Section 15124, a project description shall reflect the specifics of the project, the project site, and its surroundings, but should not provide extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluating environmental impacts. Section 15124 provides the requirements for an EIR, not an IS/MND. However, the project Description section of the Draft IS/MND includes a detailed description of the project, the project site and its surroundings, and the anticipated operational and construction characteristics of the project.

The narrative project description and accompanying figures meet the specifications required by the CEQA Guidelines and provide sufficient detail to evaluate environmental impacts. 01-20 The comment states that the project must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Rancho Mirage electorate in addition to the City. The comment states that the intention is to make ensure that proper approval procedures are followed. The project site is located on private land adjacent to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Conservation Areas. The project site is not considered mountainous lands and would not require the project to be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. As described in the MND, the project would not result in any significant impacts related to land use. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 01-21 The comment provides concluding remarks and summarizes the recommendations identified earlier in the comment letter. These recommendations are addressed in Responses to Comments 01-4, 01-5, 01-08, and 01-17.
01-22 The comment provides background information on CaIEEMod and how it is used to calculate VMT and quantify GHG Emissions, and states that vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing overall trip length, by local hire or otherwise. The comment explains how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG calculations using CaIEEMod. The comment assumes that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is dependent on the urbanization of the project site as well as the location. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2671
RTC -842

Responses to Comments
01-23 The comment uses the City of Claremont as an example of the impact of a local hire requirement on construction -related GHG emissions. The example project GHG emissions associated with construction work trips would decrease if a local hire provision with a 10 -mile radius was implemented, but the comment states that this example does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction -related GHG emissions for all projects. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. Also, as discussed in the MND, VMT and GHG impacts were determined to be less than significant with. No mitigation measures is required.
01-24 The comment is a disclaimer and provides concluding remarks. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 01-25 The comment includes Attachment A through Attachment C for Exhibit A. The comment includes supporting Air Basin and Specific Plan data for Exhibit A. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 01-26 The comment includes the resume of Paul Rosenfeld. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 01-27 The comment includes the resume of Matthew F. Hagemann. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 01-28 The comment includes the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual from the Federal Transit Administration as supporting information for the comment letter. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 01-29 The comment includes the Conservancy Territory Map for Coachella Valley Mountain Conservancy as supporting information for the comment letter. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.
01-30 The comment includes the Land Use and Zoning Map for the City of Rancho Mirage as supporting information for the comment letter. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2672
RTC -843

Responses to Comments

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2673
RTC -844

Responses to Comments
COMment Letter 02

ADAMS BROADW ELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
MINA nmtfi49A14O
KEVIN T. €ARNICHAEL

CHRISTINA M CARD
II -KINKS A. ENSt4W
XELIL AN D. FCUL'RAIAN
RICHARD N. FFtATIZO
4r1I3RPWJ. GRAF
TAN"YA A. QIJLE'44ERJAN
DARION N_ JOHNSTON
RACHAEL E. KOSS
AIDAR P_ NAREHALL
TARA C PrENQIFd
4,CagANY
MARCO. JOSEPH
DArditt L CAR6dLG
A c€•.NEr.:: OW, -.�,c.al

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
01 SATE'INAY @4ULE4ARO SUITE IMO
eourF SAN FRANCISCO, Cn $40.00-70a7
TEL: I65III k99.1469

1.04 oss0) IS9-50$2
A 11OFANAIIVa.taAIAh ro•loyo*11.Stlil
April 9, 2021

VIA EMAIL, AND OVERNIGHT MAIL
AWN: Lien Turret, Planning NIanag=rye
City of Rancho Ntirage
O9-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Emaril: b nMw:ranchomaregeca.gov
SACHANENT4 OFFICE
Oaa.CA PITOL WLL..MATE d04
CACFAMlNTG. CA 0604-021
RLL n7t1i1 AiA-5201
FAX: IB1fil 414-fi209
Re: Preliminnry Comments an the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the iiitz-Carlton Rancho Mirage Project (SC -1i 2024030267; Case Nut], EA 1-1)002. GPZM.A21-0001. DA2]-00G2. MOLUJ- 0004, and TP11123-00021.

We are writing on behalf e ll'rlliforniaxns Allied. for N Rr porisible Economy ("CARE CA') to provide preliminary comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Dcrhirtttion ("IS/N.1ND") prepared by the City orRaniehc4 Mirage ("City") for the It',itz-(Carlton. Rancho Mirage (SCli 2024030207', Case Nos, la:A21-0©02.

GPZMA 1-0001, DA2I-O002, MOD21-0004, and TPM2;3•OE)O2) ('Project'), proposed by Kam Sang International ("Applicants`).

They Pivjeet proposes the voncatruci,.ion of the Ritz 1`nrlLon resi4lenceas consisting of 100 units (48 residential suites & 58 villas) ranging in size from 1 to 3 bedroomi , 23,810 square feat of event space, 3,510 square feat for amenities. a 381 - space subterranean parking structure_ and 11+3 additional residential spaces, The Project also proposes. the oonstruclion of the 0,273 -square -foot Sky Mesa Recreation Area,, which would provide event space, restaurant, and amenities such as a pool. terrace, A General Plan Zoning Map Amendment from Mountain Reserve ("MR") to Resort Hotel (' R -I—r) is concurrently proposed for the. Sky Nelesa Recreation Arra, Overall, the 35,07= acre project site which includes. the existing hotel will expand by a- total of approximately 238,148 square feet of new interior spaces, 02-2
We reviewed the IS/MND with the asr+istance of air quality and health risk expert Paul F. Rtit4enrod. PhD from Soil. I Welter I Air Protection Enterprises 02-3 ei.gromeicn gmsdmow
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2674
RTC -845

Responses to Comments
April 9, 202.1

02 ("Syrr'1PP"), t and teenaslx»rt:at.ion expert Norm I1•Iarlhall.v The City must separately respond to theme technical comments.

Based upon our review of the IS/N:1.ND anal suivorting documentation, we conclude that the IWMNL? fails to comply with the requirements of C2 EQA, The 1SgvIND lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions and fails to properly mitigate the Project's potentially significant. impacts. These include impacts on public lac raft h, air quality, energy, and transportation. Substantial evidence support+, nriiumenttllrrttheProjectwillresull.insignificrantanduntnitigated impacts in these areas, For example, the emissions of tc do air contaminants ("TAC t4") during construction end operation of the Project would exceed the maximum incremental rancor risk or lit in one million.. The City cannot approve the Prxiject until the errors in the ISIMND are remedied 'by preparing on environmental impact report ("EIR'I which fully discloses and mitigates the Project's potentially si.gn.ificant. impacts..

We reserve the right to supplement these continents at later proceedings and hearings related to the Proiect.3

L STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE E CA is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and iworker health and safety hazards, and the environmental impacts of t Il,• Project, The coalition includes Rancho Mirage residents Norman Geller and Michael Sanholizer. the District Council ofTronworkers and Southern California Pipe Trado,a. DC 1.6, along with their members, their families, and other individuals who lit• and work in the City of Rancho Mirage and in Riverside County..

CARE, CA advocates for liatdecting the environment and 1 he health of their communities' workforces, CARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable eanstrurtiou industry over the long -berm by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment tienc..tat.rl, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities. (_`.AF CA members live. work, recreate, and raise their families in the City of Rancho Mirage and a urrnuncling cxammunities. a LirRosen felda comments and curricula vitae are attached harelip as Exhibit. A C"SWAPE COITI MP I'I.Ls"
2 Mr. Marshall's Ixul.unerite and eurariraaln vitas soar l urn watt: ,ehocl hi.rt tO os Exhibit B enirshall CoarunenLa"),
3 [.7as r, Cede § 65 0090; PRC § 21177(a), i anherefirrid L'Fdizrrid for Lucid (.:r.mlrei a. 8,1 rpfttarrr r"Btelcerzfteed') Mi104) 124 Cal. App, 4th 1184, 1199-1203i see Galante l'illeylarda u. Merrds'w.v l'p'oCr�a• Md. (197) co Caci. App. 41.h 1109, 1121
v161 isep
0pRaml:tl m,awycloti°°ow
02-5

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2675
RTC -846

Responses to Comments
April 9. 2024

Ac ordingly, they would be directly affected by the Project envirunmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself.

They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite_
02-5
In nrldir.ion. CARE CA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment, for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future job by making it mort:• clil`icull, and ITaisre a xlreneivn frrr business and inrlu t ry to eltpand in the region, and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed continued environmental degradation can and has, caused construction moratoriums and other mstrietions on growth filial, in Iurn, reduce feature employment opportunities.

IL THE CITY MUST PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT TO COMPLY WITH CEQA
CEQA requires that, lead agencies analyze any project. with potentially significant environmental impacts in an EIR.a'its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus. the EIR protects not only the environment but also informed self-government." The 1111 has been described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have readied ecological points of no return." o CEQA's purpose and goals niusit be met through the preparation of an. EIR, except in certain limited circumstances. ` CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agency to prepare an El R. This presumption is reflected in the "fair argument' standard. Under that standard, a lead agency'sha1l" prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record lx -fore the agency supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. s
See Pub, Reseurrons Carla, § 3t000: CEQA Guidelines §.11bO02.

A CW aerimr,fr nirtre Valley a'. a9ai.4..1"S ap rt morn f"Gibes 1:41/67v.) (10;]01 r'2 nl ?t C:,.3, ,+ 1, iraleeunl citation. omitted.

Cr Lanny raf ['Tyro r', l-url;y (114'73) 'Lit,' Cal.App 2d 7:I5.1110 ',See Pub. Resoutoos Cude, * 2110+0
Pub, HNasourcvs Coda, §§ 21080, s.abrl id), 21082,2, subd 0ll; I, A+;u.idphnos, §§ 15002, saabd, (k)i,31, 150(34, sub) (N11,0181); Lwow .tioightc Irnf,)rrowerr'Cf dater, U, Fie(e!nta, of The rr/i."&, (',GaureR HeigFala in (19993) 13 Crc1,4th 11.12, 1123, Bras O , fro•. u, Ca,,' fdabartrrgate +.1974( 1`a Cad,3d 68,75. 82; Stuaaiake-'c Audubon Society, lac, u. Cy u,t Sdarair loans (19415) 33 Ctrl App Atli 144, 150- 7153 R04scp
ekozVolKIm orrr,rae.yapry
Cent.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2676
RTC -847

Responses to Comments
April 0, 2024
Page .1
In contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when, after preparing an initial study. a lead agency determines that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, but:
(i) revisions in the project plaartg or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects tea a point where clearly iao significant effect on the Fads"iron went would occur, and (2) there iii no Al0b141.1 aa.trrrf a a: a'de aeee in light of Iiw whoa e recearrl ttefloro the public agency that the project, as revised. :nay have a significant effect on the environment.e
Courts have held that. if "no EIR has been prepared l'hr a nonexempt project, but aubatantial 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 MR,' 10 The fair argument standard creates a "low threshold" favoring environmental review through an MR, rather then through issuance of a negative decla ration.1e An agency's decision not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary. u
`Substantial evidence' ri'c uired to :support a fair argument is defined as 'enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other couelustone might also be reached."1 According to the CEQA Guidelines, when determining whether an El II i' recto irr'd. the+ Icoos) agency is required to apply the principles set forth in Section 16 04-31, 1, subdivision (l):
[Uri inaninal eases where lt. is not clear whether there is eaubetaantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shell be guided by the follow Mg principle- If there is. disagreement I.69; Quail & iciraieuar Gur•deaa.s Poured„ ,tau, r City of Erreiaif a 4" Qrarxit jeer) (1904) 20 Cal_App.4th 1697,. 14101. 1002.

Feb, Reseurees l'.,ede, *111044.5 (emphasis ndrled).
as 1+C.!, e,g,, Comm iaaltta4t# {,a a Better Er! uan+rxrrtreaal t'. ;SoeaPta d'er{aoP rTsr gairr.l;t , rr,rrw ,,.r•. , F1•�r (23111F 48 C ul 4th 10 11, `119.320,
ar C ilt:uaa irPin+r ,(0 AB. SPa{l'rrtn i,. Therratry (19901 222 CaC.App,`izl 7 sad, 7054 r= Sierra Club e•. Gorraaty of Sonoma )1992) i} Oo].App.4th, 1307, 1318; see o1:4u f rrieaadda o f B Street ri City of Harvard 41frRjO) 11'16 s7o 1. App „Id yi & 1 I'a[I2 f° truss rds of B Street-") C I r i here was substantial evidenr i tune. I,hi proposed a totes t, aught loads u sig uthc uaa. emviranxrnent.nl a iial tart. ovidonoe tt, LIA contrary in nub sulrir;iertt to, support a derision to dispense with prapnration of nn EDt aril sdopl s tir-agntive rloalaratinn, lintaabsr' II could lie 'fairly a rguerd" t.lrnt a lira pi- je . raiglat lewis a rr niticaau.

Onvia'anEno nt-nl unpact")•
"CIiQA'1uiilelinos. §i 11'384, sukael {a)•
7151 imp
OPtrrean aora,ipaw/
02-6
Ccnt
ti

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2677
RTC -848

Responses to Comments
April 9, 2024
Page
among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance ofan effPc.i an the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an
Furthermore, C1QA documents, including Ell -Zs and _M3tilJs, must mitigate significant through measures that, are "fully enforceable through [wrniil conditions,, agreements, or other legally binding instruments.' 103 Deferring formulation of mitigation measures to post -approval studies is generally yonporrniaaibhP.F8 Mitigation anrraaupAe arlopi.ed after Prrject approval deny I ha public the opportunity to comment on the Project amodifierl to mitigate impacts. " If identification of s~pe ific mitigation men RITE'S is impractical until a later stage in the Project, specific pnrformnn€rce criteria must tip articulated and further approvals must be 1nede contingent. upon meetiag theta' performance criteria. 4 t_lourt a have held that simply requiring a project applicant to obtain a future report and then comply with the report's recxvnrnrenclaations is insufficient Lo meet the standard for properly deferred mitigation, r"
With respect to this Project, theISITVINC fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CECiA. The 1SIMNtLI fails to adequately disclose, inveatigate, and analyze the Project's potentially significant impacts, and fails to provide substantial evidence to conclude. that impacts will be mitigated to a loss than significant level. Because the ISTNLSID lacks basic information regarding the Project's potentially significant impacts, the ISoMNL `s conclusion that the Project will have a less than significant impact on the environment is unsupportect-aa,Moreover, taubstantiel evidence shows that the Proles may result in potentially significant impacts that sire rant reduced to less than significant level with the mitigation measures included in the IS/MINT).

Therefore. a fair argument can be made that the Project may cause significant impacts requiring the preparation of an RIR.
"Pula. Resources Code, §'210rtt,ti:
sm CAE A r3uiclelirow. § 15128.1, subd. tas)$Z)•
Sandadram r•. County of llendocina l less) 902 Ce.t,?lpp.3d 2913, 308-309: Pub. Resources Code, § 21061
r' Cola Li. City e,fbi-rttti o (1991) 38 ( il.App. Lit 1359, 1393 Quoiltiori.nacrad, supra, Ca t. 1pp.4lli nl pg. 1601, In. 5,
1$ Id.
sa Put' RRsOurres GtecJN, $ 2,1064 5,
7161 aasp
Op O raaepimp
02-5
Cant.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2678
RTC -849

Responses to Comments
April 9, 2021

A. The 1SJMND Fails to Di6clo6e and Mitigate Significant Health Risk Impacts
I The ISIMI D Fails to Disclose Sig-nificant Health Risks from the Project's Construction and Operational
Emissions
Project construction and operation would generate diesel particulate matter NDT"Pai"), a type of'TA{'_2a DPM would he remitted during aw,5n truction by heavy equipment and diesel trucks, and during operations by. the Project's backup generaator_22 DPM hoe been linked to as range of serious health problems including an increase iaa respiratory disease, lung aiaaneage, a sneer. and larr'mal.ure den The Prnjt'et fe Dorms -Signs of 17PM would impact numerous sensitive receptors located as close ole 25 meters south fif the Project's limits of conet.rustion.2' Although the TWININD provides a quantal alive analysis of health rwks from exposure I,a source's of operational emissions. the IStMND fails to adequately analyze and mitigate health risk from construction activities or evaluate the combined lifetime risk of exposure to both the Project's construction and operational TAO emissions.

CEQA requires analysis of human health impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 140660)(4) provides thaai the City is required to limes a project will have a signifierant impact on the environment and prepare an 1.2.111. if the environmental effects of a project will cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings.25 The Supreme Court has also explained that C EQA requires the lead agency to disclose the health oonsequencee ghat result from exposure to a project's ?air emisslon8."f Courts have held that an enviromnental review document must alircicrurs a projects potential health risks to a degree ofspecificity that would allow I he public to make the correlation between the projects impacts and adverse effects to human health,?`? In Brdor,ref ia'id Cifizoirs for Local Cools! p. Cilyo'Bolirrsf elar, the court, found that the E-lirs description of health risks were insufficient and that after reading them. "the public would have no idea of the health consequences that result zr IS(t f;ND pg. &k.
! JMND, pg 76; Smith Coosa Au' Quality Niana.Lgeniaxnt District I'SCAQMIJ' i, C scL Sliest on Emergency liaclsup Ctenerntaus, f'Mott of
the exasa,Lng erne, agency backup generators ire diesel as fuel"', Ss 19/MN E), pt{. 82.
is IS MND, pg, Ba.

PldC li 21O85{b)t31, Di).
2" Sierra Club a', ('.'.e.:rimy uf&IMMO (2O1C) 6 C.'cl,6ih 61x3, 623. ='Dak-1' W CilLToomf%srLevvttt rfti'„a r,. City uf Baker6elci(2flft1) 124 C+J.AI,p.ilth 1104, 7163 ,Ptaacp
0pamrzw+ 'eeyApir
O2-7
02-8

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2679
RTC -850

Responses to Comments
April 9. 2024

when more pollutants are added to a nunalt.aainment basin."' Likewise, in Sierra Chia, the California Supreme Court held that the EIR's discussion of health impacts associated with exposure to the named flo1lut.antµ was too general arid the failure of the Ell? to indicate the concentrations at which each pollutant would trigger the identified symptoms rendered the report inadequate.20 Some connection between air quality impacts and their aired,. adverse effects on human health must be made. As the Court explained "a sulficieni, discussion of significant impacts requires not. merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the n il.uree nntl 1711-'6;11D uslta cif the ianpact:90 CEQA 1114laal.er~ discussion, supported b- substantial evidence, of the nature and magnitude of impacts of air pollution on public health_-"
For development lJrojecla+like this one, the Office of Environmental. Ii a11h Hazard Assessment's ('(tJ{HA') risk assessment guidelines also recommentl a formal health risk analysis {"r -IRA") for short-term consi niction exposures to TACs lasting longer than 9 months and exposures from projects lasting more than kl months should he evaluated for the duration of the project, -l2 In an HRA, lead agencies must first quantify the roncxent.ration released into the envirronment 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 d emex rn.33 Fuliow ng that analysis. then the City can make a determination of the relative significance of the emissions. The significance threshold for this Project is that a significant health risk impart occurs lithe Project would expose sensitive receptors to air contaminants that exceed the maximum incremental cancer risk of 10 in one lnillion.9a The Oily failed to conduct this analysis. Despite acknowledging [heal. exposure is the primary factor used to determine health risk, the IS/ININD does not quantify sensitive rr eptors exposure to 1P1vl emitted during Project. cons°tr•atction.3"s The MIND's qualitative analysis instead assumes, wfthoui support mg evidence, that the "Id. nr 1`20.
sg Sierra Crab, at 621
)aid. ar 619, citing Clearerand Nztional Ferret Faun aakian ii. Sane Dicgao Aaurr. of Goseremcnls (20171 3 CIA 15th 497, 1514-1.5
'' Sierra Club, it Cal,rr+tla at a11t--622.
12 Orrice cdEnvirxoumenial Health Hazard Assessment, i:t)EHH }. l sk liaorsnienl. Cluidelines• Guidance Manual far Preparation of I Iaalth Risk Assessments. February 2015 tOEIII IA 20151, Sed .iou I.2,1G; Cancer Risk Evaluation orft}arrt Term Prnjen_is, pp. 8.1in1& Jitt.rex;Fkac+lrrftedonrikel;rurdna,tieknalua+kiori,rit•toxiru-}uai-seast. •urcumin-irrarrinu4e-raa,iuia.1• Ioree.araitinn'la a alth-risk-C3.
"id.

IS MND. tag, 9C1,
7163 e34ccp
02-8
Cont.
02-9

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2680
RTC -851

Responses to Comments
April 0. 2024

health rusk would be less than significant simply because c alist.rttction would last 22 months, and not constitute a long-term ($0 -year) source of TAC emissions.36 This reasoning is incorrect, as it assumes that exposure to TACs over a term shorter than 30 years cannot result in significant health effects. Rather, the Project's 22- month construction schedule exceeds the two -month threshold recommended by OF.HHA. Thus, to comply wilh CEQAs analytical requirements and the health - based recommendations of the regulatory agency responsible for providing guidance on conducting HRAs in California, the City must prepare quantitative analysis of this Projeit's lo'ali h risk impacts.

The City also reasons, incorrectly, that the Project's localized air quality impacts would nol expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations I ecaause the Project's emissions would not ex& ed Localized Significance Thresholds (`i,STs').37 I. STr+ are based rata the number of pounds of emissi.u:ns per day that can he generated by as project that would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts, But LSTs only apply to four criteria pollutants; NO., CO. PNlio, and PIVIie. LSTs do not apply to DPM or other TACs, and thus _b not disclose the magnitude of the Project's TAC emissions or the resulting resultant health impact.s.ak3 Thus, the ISfhtND`s analysis of LSTs is no substitute for the ISAIND's failure to analyze health risk impacts from exposure to TAC,S.

The ISININD fails to comply with CEQA by failing to provide the necessary information to evaluate the health risk impacts of the Project. Due to the proximity of the nearest sensitive receptors to construction and operational sources of DPM. there is.ne dispute that the Project may result in potentially significant health risk impacts if exposure to DPM emissions causes cancer risk to those receptors to exceed SCAQMD's CEQA thresholds. The City must prepare as health risk analysis to evaluate the magnitude of the Project's health risk impacts in accordance with CEQA.

L JMND.lag Al
id.

Snrd,h C+,assl..lrr 4 itttllt.,y Afanagemenl: DisLrtet, Final Lo,calized Significance Threshrild Met IIndoIoe 'Wang? 2003, Ii -viscil July 3tX38)
wrvs se .All mr3:aU,vi'rlrarSidlefauit•S rt rrIP,M,IPrIetncllq,nlalIeeuliserTNaernificanre•L3rrarlreklsgann lnr°Lira lul,ce4darearcaPaLt. Yid r aTvaxaie?; Jitat,:ij 4 w' raIElkl Eel vtloll n frLk esK.untulicwuolrr' laic--uniilitw- a,n+slvsis•hetndLr,:n Olorn1 iver9-acenaliuctnc •a:ltres tiFtJg pew am oroval pipet
02-9
Cent_
02-1O
O2-11

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2681
RTC -852

Responses to Comments
April 9, 2021

2. Elealth Risks from Exposure to the Project's Construction Emissions is Significant and Unmitigated
Substantial evtdenc:e shows that health risks from exposure to oconsstruction emissions would be significant. SWAPS prepared a health risk analysis using AERMOD, the US EPA's preferred air dispersion moiltl, in accordance with DEH}IA's Toxic Hot Spot Emissions Guidance, a SWAPE's analysis combines the Project's construction and operational health risks together and sums them to c%amiwaares to the SC.AQMfl threshold Of 111 in one mi I I ion,40" This quaantitaal•ivo analysis relies on emissions data from the 1STAIN- 's own air quality analysis..11 The results of the air model and the health risk analysis are aattahed as an. appendix to this letter,
SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks to the 3rd trimester of pregnancy and infant, receptors at the maximally exposed individual resident, located. approximately 1715 meters away, over the course of Project construction, are approximately 3, 03 and 5.1.7 in one million. respectively : 42 SWAPE calculates that the total excess cancer risk associated with Project construction is approximately

57.7 in ono million. which alone exceeds the SCAQMU threshold at' 10 in one million. And when the Project's construction' -related cancer risk is summed with the TSNI D n operational cancer risk of0:riii. in one million, SW.\PE estimates an excess cancer risk of approximately 88.3 in one million over the course of a 80 -year residential lifetime, The combined cancer risk further exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of lit in one million. These exceeclaancos of the health risk significance threshold are substantial evidence of a significant, impact.. requiring preparation of an Ern- SWAPEs comments propose feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project 's significant health risk imp act.'4
This health risk exceeds SCA 11)`s 10 in 1,000,000 threshakL resulting in a significant impracl . The City 9nuµt fir+vise the MR to include analysis and mitigation of the Project's significant health risk impacts.

T9OWAFE I.:Qoim'ti≥tits. pg.
soId.
411d.
old- at. 4.
4r Id, tat. 7
7159 4wp
irimEn d moeztwlad
02-12

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2682
RTC -853

Responses to Comments
April 9, 2021

B. The Project Conflicts with Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan
The CEQA Guidelines provide tha_,ta significant air quality impact would occur when a project "Icloni7idls] with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan."'" Further, Ih€e Guidelines iirov hie that a significant impact would occur if a project conflicts with any applicable land use plan policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an envirnninnntal eFfett_•6
The air quality levels projected in the SOAQMI]'S'2022 Air Quality htamagerneni Plan ("AQ11r•il ) are based on the assumption thin tkve]upmcnl. associated with general plans, speCific plans, residential projects, and wastewater facilities will the constructed in accordance with population growth project ions identified by Southern California Association of Governments rSCAtirli in its 2102O RIP/SOS. SCAG'es forecasts. rely on jurisdictional a'Xisting land use and general plan. land use data,40 But the 2022 AQMP does not reflect the proposed land use designation for the Project site as proposed in the IST MND, The Project proposes changing the land use designation for the Project site from "Mountain Reserve' to `kart Hotel," which would introduce additional residents to the City. as well as new hotel uses, For th l 1 reaa eon, there it the potential for the Project to exceed air quality impact assumptions in the AQMP.

The 1S/MNI) argues that the Project is consistent with the AQMP because they 210 addl.' residents anticipated by the Project is within 8CAG's projected population ancreer from the City_ -V: But the magnitude of the population growth does not Change the fact that this increase would result from as new residential land use designation not previously accounted for in S'CAG's forecast. The development of the Project site as proposed would generate operational -source emissions not reflected within the current 21122 AQMP regional emissions inventory for the South Coast Air Basin. Any increase in emissions due to this Project would he in addition to the land use designations already amounted far by SCAG. Thus. the Project would be inconsistent with the AQ'dT according to this criterion_ This significant impact must be disclosed and mitigated in an L+'11 -I•
uCERA'saaadelines, Appendix 1a, puta. FIT
16 CEQA (3 uackohaa«, Appan3ix ri1, ejlrl. X.

SCAG, Cam mat, &r C.al Demegraphia:s and GrawLh Farrcast (September ;1, 2020), Pg. 2, 8, available ttt,b11DS- .fl6rgaeraraaaa hitEtIgdrotaiiI ilf469llti4valto'lama,n1.5lfaCMrr•rauII'f'[cn✓~r} Iif,era krt'Lill ia Lh• f'#[+r!'raE$l.,min 1FitNiC1a}1r lfa
tv't41;JD f'g 71
7157 4104scp
irionwmo wewg!ar
O2-13

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2683
RTC -854

Responses to Comments
April fl. 2024

C. The ISfMND Fails to Include Sufficient investigation into Energy Conservation Measures
The ISIMND does not include sufficient investigation into energy conservation measures that might be available or appropriate for the Project The 1Sf14INi[) concludes that, opera( Iona! energy imimeta of the Project would be less I han significant because the buildings would be designed and constructed in accordance with the State's Title 21 guidelines and regulations. FS However, complian.e9e with Title 24 regulations alone doer not support a conclusion that energy impacts are kits than significant. and the IS1itir1l Il does not. sufficiently consider energy conservation. measures like solar facilities, use of alternate fuel sources, or passive energy efficiency irna-asures to ensure the Project's energy consumption would not be wasteful. inefficient,.or unne eaannary. This lath of analysis violates CEQA, CEQA requires an environmental document to discuss mitigation measures. for significant ant environmental impacts, including "measures to reduce the wasteful. inefficient. and unnecessary consumption of ennergv," aaa The CEQA Guidelines require discussion of energy txansr ation measurers when relevant, and provide examples in Appendix if :50
1) Potential measures to reduce wasteful. inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction, operation. maintenance sndler removal. The discussion should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other rneagurc t- were dismissed. 2) The potential of siting, orientation, and design to minirni2e energy consumption including transportation energy, increase water conservation and reduce solid waste.
3) The potential .for reducing peak energy demand,
4) Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems. ) Energy mintervaal Ion which could result from recycling efforts.

Courts have rejected EIR€s that fail to include adequate analysis investigation into energy consrrrvatien measuresa that. might be available or appropriate for a project, `" fro California Clean Energy Commission a. City of Woodland (" CC'.EC'), tr2 the Court of Appeal reviewed an EIR for a shiq:iping center on undeveloped *®' 3Si'[bMND. pg y8-101.
u Falb Resoorcus Coda, §21.100(11)00: T e -t F'iert r., r" fty of Trrs v (.teas) 177 Cal,App,ila.lt :ill, 930 bs 1111.:111, C:rxle lied., t 15126 -Ca d 11(C) 4.stasling"I iie?r v eoraservritiuia rruaaonilve, OA well as other approrrital,,I ❑iitigstiere m -possums, shall ba elise iies?d wbsra relkuunt.") si tlir.fain Gig 13A, for S,4fetl First r. City nr i r"kiiifa (20181 248 CA4th 55; Sµring. Vntley"Ake City of V rinrr!U.s 1'2010) 2,18 CA4th 91
1, a;2014;i 225 CA4th 173.
71614A aexp
fficrald mpg.

O2-14

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2684
RTC -855

Responses to Comments
April 9, 2024

agricultural land, Similar to the .IS[MND here, the El li in CCEC concluded that. due to the proposed project's compliance with Title 21 guidelines and regulations, the project would be expected to have a less -than -significant impact regarding the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. But the Lead agency's ELI did not include discussion regarding the different renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for the prcpject. The Court held the City's EIRe failed to cxamply with the requirements of Appendix F to the Guidelines by not di'cussing or analyzing renewable energy options:" 51 TThe lead agency argued that. compliance with the Building Coate sufficii.l to address energy impact concx=rna for the project., " But the Court explained;
Although the Building Code addresses energy savings for components of a new commercial construction, it does not address many of the canaaiderations required under Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines... These considerations include whether a building should be constructed at all, how large it should b -e, where it should be l€ac.aateti, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelope, l-lere, a. requirement that Gateway IT comply with the Building Code does not, by itself, constitute an adequate assessment of mitigation measures that can be taken to address the energy impacts during construction and operation of the project ,55
Here, the IS/MND lacks basic analysis of enery consumption measures in violation of CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The T aND fails to analyze the feasibility of nnraitcc solar facilities, such as rooftop, parking lot, or ground -level solar photovolt.airs. This analysis teust address considerations such 08 the technical and etxrnomic feasibility of installing solar facilities on the Project site, the potential size of the Project's solar zone, and the potential magnitude of mitigation provided by installing solar facilities.

The ISI'MNl7 also fails to evaluate the er-tent to which mobile source energy consumption could be reduced during Project operations through electric vehicle charging infrastructure (above whaat is required by existing regulations), A detaile=d analysis is necessary to evaluate the Project's consistency with Policies AlE 1. -lit ("Require the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, as a ratio of total required parking, for new commercial projects') and AQ 1,f5D ("Require all building, both residential and commercial, to be electric vehicle charging station ready"). 23 Li. IA 213
as Id. nt. 210, 211,
ee.CMCC i201.4) 22€ CA4O 172, 313.
7157 iearp
y
02-14
Cont.
02-15

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2685
RTC -856

Responses to Comments
April 9, 2024

The lSlMND states that a diesel backup generator would be required for Project operations:0 but fails to evaluate measure's to reduce this source of energy consumption, such as use of alternative fuel sources,
The lSl;`41ND states that the Project would obtain electricity from the .Rancho Mirage Energy Authority, which supplies power to homes and businesses with en opportunity to opt up to 100% renewehle energy,-.`'" But. the MND fails to cvaluatc the feasibility of opting in to the 100%i renewable program and males no emu nlit.ninnl, to the program.

The ISlMND's discussion of construction energy conservation measures also violates CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. The ISfMND fails to evaluate the feasibility or utilizing existing r1,0wer sera:*s (e.g„ power roles) or clean Mel generators rather than trmpuraary power generators,
Its sum, the IS/MND's energy analysis fails aadequately analyze measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. and fails to mean i:ngrully address Appendix F's considerations of whether a building should. be constructed at all how large it should be. where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, or anything else external to the building's envelop .a6 Analysis of energy -reducing measures is also necessary to address consistency with General Plan Policy Ate 1.4. which provides that 'Mlle City shall encourage the use of dean altenaative energy sources for transportation. heating, and cooling whenever practical.- This analysis must be prowled in an FIR, D. The JSJMND Fails to Disclose or Mitigate Potentially Significant VMT Impacts
The 18,0:MNL1 finds€ that the Project's VMT impact of 8.110 VMT per resident is less than significant because it would not excised the City's threshold of hi percent ent
below the regional VM1 per resident, which is 15.2.x'9 Mr. Marshall explains that. the ISJMND'e conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence end that NWT likely exceeds the City's threshold. An FIR must. lie prepared to accurately analyze this impact,
rc SeNt 3TJ, pg, 76.
5' it 'MNU, pg 8a
Ciarens far Sa; fry Fire s'. City of Ukiah (220161 248 CA4 11 266, 264, e 3SININU, pa. 186:
7157d10aearp
CRP fficycAl
IMEI
I
I
I
024
02-17
02-18
02-19
02-20

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2686
RTC -857

Responses to Comments
April 9, 2024

Mr.141arehall explains Iha,tthe IS/MND ttairseharacterit+esthe resort hotel rooms pr€ap€ sed by the Project Its multi -family h€ousing.°° significantly underestimating trip generation from these units, and misrepresenting the peak travel direeborx. Treating the Project's residential component as multi -family housing is inappropriate because the Project's units are proposed as time-share properties. s. Time -shoats, tunedon differently from resitlentint units L' must' future residents would aol he in the proposed units year-mund. VMT from guests. ia higher than Vlwi'P from long-term residents because guests are more likely to travel farther distance kl l.aa anal fruit' the Proje i.. Further. the itrope sell resort hotel -sty le residences can be reasonably expected to call for a large support staff not reflected in trip .generation aktsumptions for ordinary residential housing.6.9 In the figurers below. Mr. damhall compare the trip generation estima t.ott by the 1SININD to the trip generation of a resort hotel room_ I31MND. i MT Impnel. Analgsas, Attiushanesat, A: Propel. Trip Ckiiereition (PLDF pg, 1122), bi Ib'1h[NU, pg 71
'hSorsh€ii Comroenls, pg. 4e
Mau' hell its pg, a
71594104ffp
Out
02-20
4] nt.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2687
RTC -858

Responses to Comments
April 9, 2024

Fitgam 1; Morning Peek Ilour Trip Generation for 206 Resort Hotel rooms vn.

IS/1\WD Eetilnato'"°
1O0
90 8O
7O
5O
1O
3O
2O
1O
0 i enter
11NO

3.d
12 Corrected
34 58
7159 1ef'p
02-20
Cont_

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2688
RTC -859

Responses to Comments
April 9, 2024

Figure 2; Afternoon Peak 'lour `['rip Gcneratien for 206 I'uesirt I lotel roema VD.

ISI NTvD Estimato
1201
100
80 40
a0
n
m exit
of erltet
aa,rrectert
56 56
The figures above show alai I he 181IAND`s characterization of 1 h Projec.l tia multi -family housing significantly underestimates trip generation and misrepresents the peak travel direction .65
Mr. Marshall also comments that VMT is underestimated by omitting analysis of 'QAT generated by the proposed 2",840 .sf event venue.6 The ISf MMND'i vmr anaaly +i Suggests that the venue, as port of the ripen epklee area, is local - serving, and thus does net require inclusion in the vuir analysis. 67 Substantial evialent* suggests that the venue is not local -serving, as the traffic analysis estimates -416 weekend peak hour trips for the venue, and a large amount: of parking is made available for the venueP The Project's Vh'1T impacts are undo rest i mated when cxamptntents kaleh os the venue are omitted from the analysis. r,!, Id,
IW M1NU, lag 10
',715/54N1),',114,17 Analysis, pg, 2-3
" Marshall Cc riurier!ts, pg. 5.
7161 14sep
02-20
Cant,

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2689
RTC -860

Responses to Comments
April 9, 2024

These errors demonstrate that the 1SfMNLI' a V!'VY1' impacts are underestimated, not supported by substantial evidence, and are potentially significant, An EIR must be prepared.

III. CONCLUSION
The City lacks substantial evidence to support the conclusions in the 1S/ININD that the Project will have less than riignificant impacts.. Moreover,. substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project"s impacts may be significant and unmitigated. Due to the 1S/MND's deficiencies, the City cannot'nclude that the Project's impacts have be cia mitigated to as less than significant level.

The CEQA fhi l ie:lines require that an EIR Ire prepored if there is substantial evidence supporting a fair argument; th.a.i. any aspect of a project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause as significant effect en the environment., regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial co As discussed in detail above, I:here is a fair aargta.anent based on substantial evidence that the Project would result in significant adverse impacts not identified in the ISII\1ND, We urge the City to fulfill its responsibilities. urnk!r CEQA by withdrawing the IS IND and preparing an M1,~ to address the issues raised in this preliminary comment letter. This is the only way the City and the public can ensure the Project's significant environmental impacts are mitigated to less than significant levels,
Attachments
APM:saq
eld'EQA'loack.iieee tt+,'y,ngbafls
7159 4414wp
Sincerely,
Alden P. Marshall
Crr papa.

T
02-20
Cent.
02-21

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2690
RTC -861

Responses to Comments

EXHIBIT A

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2691
RTC -862

Responses to Comments
3eehr.ra: Eunsrlration. Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Enx,ronrnen".
265529'' Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica,. CA SCUM
MatoFtagernann,P- , -H&
p49, 887-9�•DL
m ha RR rule n n R s tfltaig CS V P
Paul E. Rosen irld, Phll3
131© 795-2335
prawnfeldesweva-com
April 8, 2024
Aldan Marshall
Adams &oadwel I kw ph & Card❑zo
601 Gateway Blvd x'1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Rancho Mirage Ritz -Carlton Project CSC-IISC-I No. 20240 1.0281) Dear Mr. Marshall,
We have reviewed the Feb(uary 2024 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration t"ISfMND")for the Ranches Mirage ITitz-Carlton Project ("Project") located in the City of Rancho Mirage ("City"). The Project proposes to construct 200,474-square-ifeet ("SF") of hotel space, lncluding 6,273 -SF of commercial space and 499 parking spaces, on the 16,13 -acre site, Ow review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's health risk impacts_ As a result, errasslax and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project may be underestimated and inadequately addressed- An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential health ride impacts that the project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Diesel Particulate Mattel Lmissions Indr_lcnuately Evaluated The l5/MND concludes that the Project would have a less -than -slgni llcant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction health risk analysis ("NRA"), Regarding the health risk impacts associated with the Project construction, the IS/MN D states:
"The construction period for the proposed project would be approximately 22 months, after which construction -related 1 AC emissions would cease- Due to this relatively short period of exposure and minimal particulate emissions on site, TAGS generated daring construction would not be expected to result in r.oncen#rations causing significant health risks" (p. 81}.

I
I
02-22
02-23
02-24

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2692
RTC -863

Responses to Comments
As demonstrated above, the IS/MND states that due to the relatively shoe constr uttlon duration, the Project will result in a less -than -significant health risk impact. However, the fS/PNND's evaluation of the Project's potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less -than -significant impact conclusion, Is incorrect for three reasons.

First, by failing to prepare a quantified construction HRA, the !S/MND is inconsistent with the California Environmental Quality Act's ('"CEOA") requirement to car relate the Increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts rm human health caused by those emissions, t This is Incorrect, as construction of the proposed Project will pro -duce diesel particulate matter CORM") erniss,ons through the exhaust stacks of heavy equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks over a total construction duration of 22 months {p. 34). However, the 1Sf Fv1ND fails to evaluatethe potential Project - generated TACs or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects, Without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project's ccrostructlon•r elated TAC emissions to the potential health risks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/POND Is lnrxtnslstent with CEQA's requirement to Correlate the increase in emissions generated by the Project with the potential adverse Impacts on human health,
Second, the CMficeof Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"}, theorganization responsible for providing guidance on conducting health rlstE assessments "F At" ) in California, released Its most recent RlsleAssessment Guidelines: Gui,darnte Manual for Preparation of health Pak Assessments in February 2015. This guidance document describes the types of projects that warrant the preparation of an HRA Specifically, OEHHA recommends that all short-term projects lasting at least 2 months assess cancer risks.' Furthermore, according to OEHHA:
'Exposure from protects lasting more than 5 months should be evaluated far the duration of the project- In all cases, for assessing risk to residential receptors, the exposure should be assumed to start in the third trimester to allow for the use of the ASFs IOEHHA, 2409).' 2 As the Project's anticipated construction duration exceeds the 2 -month and 5 -month requirements set torah by OEM -IA construction of the Project meets the threshold warranting a quantified HRA under OEHHA, guidance and should be evaluated for the entire 22 -month construction period. These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and an €IR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project -generated DPM emissions.
"Sierra Chub v_ County of Fresno_" Supreme Court of CaIFfornla, elee other 2.81S, avarkib.Peor; httsaiJ *gaportaI era/decisional 19nrf1Slerra%2oClob%zbv.%2orcotimev4G2aaf9St7priwsnis cdf, "Risk Assessmant Guidelines- Guidance Manual four Preparation of HOPI rh Risk Assessments OEI-IHA, February 2015, ovarStot a rat: ht t/oJi .-c jr Iow dthrnr/2OL5gui ncerrr'u pdf p 5-18.

II "Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Healthy Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2rn chxdpbme ar_ hrros:nom-Ns ca_eovioedlaldowninads/t:rnr/ztytsAuriancemanual_pdf, p 2 02-24
Cant -
02 -25
02-26

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2693
RTC -864

Responses to Comments
Third, while the IS/MND estimates a maximum residential cancer risk from. Project operations to nearby, existing receptors to be 0.56 in one million, the HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, wasting receptors as a result of Project censtruttian and operation together lAppendlx A. pp. 225j. According to CEHHA guidance "the excess cancer risk Is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location."" However, the Project's ERA falls to sum each age bier to evaluate the total cancer risk over thecae(se of the Project's total construction and Operation. This is incorrect, and an updated analysis should quantify the entirety of the Project's construction and operational health risks together and sum them to compare to the South Coast Air Ceiallty Management District J"SCAQMIY'j CEQA health risk threshold of 10 In one million, as referenced by the ISJMND i;p. 34),
Screening -Level Analysis Demonstrates Potent laIly SIgmfhrant Heath Risk Crrar;tct In 'order to conduct our screening -level risk assessment we relied upon AE RSCREE N, which is a screening level all quality dispersion rnorl4L' The model replaced SCREEN3, and AERSCREEN Is included in the OEHHA and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associated ("C.APCOA"l guidance as the appropriate air dispersion model for Level 2 health risk ecreeoing assessments ("HR5As" )." r A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site -specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. if an unacceptable air quality hazard k determined to he possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project
We prepared a preliminary FIRA of the Project's construction -related health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PM„ r exhaust estimates from the IS/MleD's CalEEMorl output f les, Consistent with recommendations set forth by OEHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of fife." The i5/MPID's [AIEEIVi d model indkrates that construction activities will generate approximately 362 perm cis of DPM over the 636 -day oenstnictioe period,' The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sourcess. To account for the variability in equipment usage and truck trips over Project roust! action, we calculated an average DPM ennlsslon race by the following equation:
"Guidance fvianual for preparation of Health fixsk Assessments." OEM HA, February 2b1-5, available at:
'Her Peel to.ea,erevimadial wnlondsJernriAltsauicenr:emenu,+I.roafp.8-,a 5 "AER4REEN Raieasad as the El'A. Rnroramrrndad Scrr,anIng Medal,' LAS. EPA, April 7011„ vvrriicrbk at htte://wcow.ecra.aovPttnfscrareleufdaneeicfarifitetfaun/2DL1041t AERSCREEN Retease frteme.pdf "Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Prepare:eon of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February, ton, ma:A.1Weat.Evans ;//oehha.ra 4}merf;a/downrcads/unr/2.d.5LSa;',. ciancemanual_udf. r "H1Irtr Risk Ar3CrSrier $ for Fr.:VC-SKI lend we Pwaiecte." CAPCpA, July i009, avothzt.k ae tact-liw'ww,va drift.pr+d'rlenrpvrtatfars/4gP(CA - RA LU Qufde frrer 3 6,C9.Kir. "Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Rfsk Assessments-" aEHHA, Februarys 2015, ovcrenhle Err: teems .f1'ost ha ca eax ld/dewn rla sfcrnrflDISAUidanceUI-a ealyatf, R- g -18 - 'See Attachment td for health risk calculations
02-27

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2694
RTC -865

Responses to Comments
grams) 36641um 45311 grams 1 day 1 hour
Emission Rate ' second) (53(,. days x !hs x 24 hones 3,600 seconds 0.00303 fits Using tins equation, we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00343 grams per second ("fits" ).

Construction was simulated as a 1613 -acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, wwttr approximate dimensions of 351- by 181 -meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stack of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical drmerrsion of nne and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

An urban meteorological settle$ was selected with model -default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution. The population of Rar chra Mirage was obtained horn U.S. 2022 Census data.' The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single -hour EPM concentrations from the Protect Site. The United States Environmental Protection Agency {"IJ,S. EPA") suggests that the annualized average tonr:erltration of an air pollutant be estimated by multiplyIngthe single -hour concentration by 10% in screerring procedures." According to the IS/MND the nearest sensitive receptc rs are residences located immediately adjacent to the Project site 1p, aq, However, review of the AERSCREEN output files demonstrates that the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR"} is located approximately 175 meters from the Project site. Thus, the single -hour concentration estimated by AER:SCI EEN for Project corntruction is approximately 2.231 Rime l)PM at approximately 175 meters downwind, Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 109E we get an annualized average concentration of 0,2231 igfm' fiat Project cor"istrtxtion at the MEIR.

We calculated the excess ewer risk tet the MEIR using applicable HRA methodologies prescribed by °EMMA, as recommended by SCAQIMMD." Specifically, guidance from QEH1fiA and the California Air Resources Boar d {"CM B"} Feral -Wends the tlse of a standard paint estimate approach, including high - paint estimate i.e.l 95th percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (ASV') in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early -in -rife exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the dally breathing rates l" BRJBW"}, exposure duration ("EEk"M, ASFs, haction of time at home {"FAit" ), and exposure frequency {"E1="p utilized for the various age groups in our screening -level fIRA are as follows:
m "Rancho Mirage." U.S. Census Bureau, 2622, ovegobaeet, hopsdicta Caton,mons.ordolacefeeold/06945s , at "Screening Procedures for Estimating the Aar Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised," u_S- EPA, October iee2,ovrrAableat. http://www,epa.eoMuter/scrannfr?uldanoefeulde,r£ PA-4SAR-9;-tn9 otknell ra "Supplemental uideirr;es fOr Preparing Flit Assessrneets for the Alt Tories 'Hot Spats' Information end Assessment Act" SCAQM 6, October 207.6, available at, h�tQ Il erww.ammd.atcrvfdocs/tie ul aaurce/nla nir1�/ lsk assessment/ab•258f-suppl'emental-rrurdelrnes.pdt75fvrs-n 19, p. 19; see also "Rlstr Assessment Guidelines Guidance ManuaI for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments-" OEHHA,. February 2015, available at:
hrtus..//oehha_ce eovimedialdnwnioadsicier/7.t}1SRuI iiancema'nuaI_edf_ 4 02-28
Cent.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2695
RTC -866

Responses to Comments
Exposure Assumptions far Residential Individual Cancer i'iisk Breathing Mtn Exposure FractionoF ENpoxtrre Exposure
Age Group Rate Senrltlrlty Duration Vine At Frequency Time tlkg-day J' FiYttOt {years) Hormel' Idaysfyear)i' lhours/day) 3rd Trimester 351 10 0.25 1 350 24
Infant (0-2) 1090 10 2' 3 350 24
CIu1 - 16) 5`i2 3 14
1 35t1 24
Adult { 16 -30) 261
14 11.73
350 24
For ttie inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the inrorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify doose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor ['CPT') inunits of inverse dose expressed In milligrams per kilogram per day (nig/kg/day to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm;
where:

DfirseAmpervpegrrna,p ` Crar X EF x [BW] X A X CF
VOtraw = dote by inhalation fens/kg/day), per agar groan fru = concentration ar eanternmural in a1r {y4(m3)
EF = exposure Frequency {number of days13.65 days)
ER, BYV a dally breathing rate normalized to body weight (LJkglday) A e inhalataon ahsceptlon factor (default a 1)
CF x conversion factor (1x100-6, pgto mg. L m m3)
Tr'talkulate the overall cancer tisk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

Cancer Risk,1la = Dose ti, X CPF x ASF x FMi x AT
"Supplemental Guidelines for Prepafrng RIsk Assessments for the Air Takla 'Hot Spats' Information arm ASS*65,0ent ACC" 50AW 1P, OctOt)er 2P14, aYefieble at hrti ll www.eomd.aowldoe,Pd4roult-sourtellilenrilnalrysk- i ssessrnerntla em.enta l.Aufce Ines. rixif7g vain=l4, p. 19; sea also "Rfi k Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manua I for Preparation or Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at; h ttes jloeh ha_ca „goy/flied aidownloadsfunr/2015auldancemanua Ltadf- '° "Risk Assessment G uirleli nes Gulda noe Manual for Preparation of Health Aid Assessments." 0 FH HA„ February 2015, +ru+Fllpble tvi hr'tna=Ffrsefti%D. 0ABvlrhectiefdpumlrypt9sl!`trit/201S1tuklantternir nu4F.ndf, P. S-5 Table t},3- ""Illet Assessment Proceelures. "SCAQM0,. August 2017, ovastabaar: ztip;ll www.aomd,ratrvlcv 14-eFirsr t• source/rule-boo clPropesed-hulas/14011r-iskassessmenteroceduaes 2017 D80717 pclif 0.7. 1" "Risk AssessmentGuidelrnes Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessmerrm °EHH.A, February/ 2[715,winnable ar httrss_,i'laehlaa. _aowirneelaldownloadslcrnr ZO15euidancerrendal.tpdf p-5-24. 5 02-28
Ccnt.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2696
RTC -867

Responses to Comments
where;
Dose.. dose by Inhalation [ri gjkg}dayj, per age group
CPF a cancer potency factor, chemical -specific dmg/kgf day p'T ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for reside t@al receptors only) ED = exposure duration Nearsli
AT. averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged Dtways 70 years) Cansistetlt with the 636 -day construction schedule, the annualized average concentration for construction was used for the entire third trimester of pregnancy (0.2s years) and first 1.49 years of the Infantile stage of life (O — 2 years). The results of ortr cakulatJom are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Eslsting Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions Source ouretlon tyeara}
Concentration
t m9,)
Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester
Construction 0.25

0.2231 3.03E-1
infant I0 • 2}
COM.rr'JEW,* I.42 1.2231
Operation 11.51
Total 2

5.47E-15
Child t2 •167
Operation
14 Adult f16 - 3i}} Operation
14 blotting 36 5.77&C5
As demonstrated In the table above, the excess cancer risks to the 3'" trimester of pr egnancy and Infant receptors at the MEIR located approximately 175 meters away, osier the course of Project construction, are approximately 3.03 and 54,7 in one million, respectively, The total excess cancer risk associated with Project construction is approximately 57,7 In one million, which alone exceeds the 5CADMEI threshold of II) in one mAdion. When summing the Project's construction -related cancer risk, a-5 estimated by.SWAPE, with the fs/MND's operational cancer risk of {7.56 in one million, we estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 58.3 in one million over the course of a 34? -year residential lifetime IAppendJx A, pp. 225).11 As such the lifetime caricer risks also exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 In one million, resulting in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified by the VIAND, eakuleted! 57-7 In one + t 361 in one mlltlon = 5$.261 in one million - 6 02-28
cant_

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2697
RTC -868

Responses to Comments
An agency must include an analysis of health risks that connects the Project's emissions with the health risk posed by those emissions, Out analysis represents a screening -level H RA, which Is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection_ The purpose of the screening -level HRA ix to demonstrate the link between Project -generated emissions and potential adverse health risk impacts.

According to the U.S. EPA:
"'EPA's Exposure Assessment Guidelines recommend completing exposure assessments Iteratively using a tiered approach to 'strike p r"7CJanCe betweerr the costs of arldin9 demi? and refinement to an rxssess"menr and the benefits associated with that addtirrio a! refinement" (US.

EPA, 1992),
02-28
VI other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservativeassign ptions) can be conducted as the first phase (or tier) Qf the overall assessment (i.e„ a screeninglevel assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager ran then determine whether the results of the sue ening- I evel assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumpti ins or by using more advanced models.' As demonstrated above, screening -level analyses warrant further evaluation in a refined modeling approach, As our screening -level HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially sign cant health risk klrpact, an Elk should he prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Protect construction and operation,
M itigatio tl
Feasible Mitigation Measures Available to Reduce Emissions Dui analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in potentially 5igniflcant health risk impacts that are not mitigated, because the [VIAND incorrectly concludes that "No mitigation Is required" for the Project's air quality and health risk impacts-'"
In art €>f rt to reduce the Project's emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project. To reduce the Project's emissions, we recommend consideration of SCAt5's 2020 RTP 5C-5 PERT's Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures ('PMM-AU I"), as described below.' In particular, to reduce the Project's significant DPM emissions from construction equipment, • "Exposure AssessranentTomtshvTiersandTypes- Screening -Level and Refried," 0.1-5. EPA,mmila&feat:
httpsjl ww.eFa. tivieftootrax/eatposure-asseessrner+.t-tools-tiers -and-types-creenInR-level-end-reelned- ss IS/MNO, p. 82..
'a "4,.p Mitigation Measures," cannett SaCal Program nkrrphfnantaI Irflp4[t Report Add>arutuen i11, September 2020, available at: Mires:+ facer.ca,r rv(sitesimarnifilnsi'it4. attachmenisfirieir co+nnectsacal addendum 4 mitiutatIonmeesures.pdf3150rd-1Lr44ZO,p.4,Ol-2-4.D- O:4,0 -19- 4-O-23; See elso: "Certified Final ConrrectSoCa1 Program Environmental Impact Report." Southern CaIlfornra Association of Govemmenis (SC AGj, May 2620, evegna h"le dr httds;iis; ag.ca-epvirodr. 7 Gant.
02-29

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2698
RTC -869

Responses to Comments
the Project should be required to use Tier 4 ccinstnKtron equipment for all engines above 25 horsepower (hp). AdditionaI Feasible measures are described below:

SCAG RTp/5C5 2020-2045
Air Quality Project Level Mitigation Measures — PMM-A4i.:

In actordtrite with provisions of sections 15r i{a)(z) aied 15126,4(ai(1)(8) of the Strrtd CEQ,4 Grilefe)ines, a Lead agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identifier[ by the Lead Agency; aMinimize lard rl:zt,:, Jd r: e.
h) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gush exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soli is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt
dl5tabike the surface or dirt plies If not roved immediately. e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved 3urfaxes and stabilize any temporary road. f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evtldlence dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
hl Revegetate disturbed land, Including vehicular paths created during construction to wield Future off -road vehicular activities,.

J) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive Inventory list lie, make, model, eri,gine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heryy-c utyoff-road (portable and moblte) equipment (50 horsepower and greaten that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approvA by the n pp' ice hie air dlStrkt de+monstra ring achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CAR &-arpproved fleet
kl Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and main tarried.

I) k«flnrmrze Idling time to 5 mInur —saves fuel and redur s ern issions. m) Provide an operaticoal waiter truck er}-shoat ail trrwes. Use waterline trucks to minimize dust: watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes ro the protect work areas, Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of diet that has been carried on to the roadway. n l Utilize existing power sources [e.g., purvey poles} er dean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) DeveiciP a traffic pkan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities.TheAkan may include advance public notice or routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parkingareas with a shuttle service_ Schedule*deredevil affecting traffic for off-peak hours, Minimize:barna:t on of through -traffic lanes, Provide flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety atconstruction sites. pi As appropriate require that portable engines and porta hie engine -driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of pn-road and off•road motor vcbieles, obtain CARE' Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARS DT the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior toequrpment operation at the site, qli Require projects within 504 feet of residences, hospitals, or schools to use Tler4 equipment for all engines above 50 horsepower l hal unless the individuaI project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. 8 02-29
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2699
RTC -870

Responses to Comments
r} Projects located within the South [oast Air Resin, 5h01.116 consider applying For South Coast AQMt "543131'1" Funds which provides funds to applicable fleets For the purchasr of commercially available lover -emission heavy- duty engines to achieve Haar -term reduction of NO* emissions from in•use toff -road diesel vehicles. sj Projects located within AB. 617 communities should review the applicable Carrrmunity Emissions Reducticm Plan (CERP) far additional mitigation that can be applied to Individual projects_ tl Where applicable, projects should provide information aboutair quality related programs to schools.

Including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE}, and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
u} Projects. should Work with local cities and rwundes to Install adequate slgnage that prohfbltl, truth idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors). y} Pro}ects that will introduce sensitive receptors within Sot] feat of freeways and other sources should consider Installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration Lille, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV)13 or better- I nstatiatitn of enhanced nitration units can he verified during occupancy inspector) prior lathe issuance of an occupancy permit.

IT) Develop an ongoing mrsnftorlrtg, inspection, end maintenance program for the MERV filters. ea) Consult the SCAG Environmental J ustiee Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low—income and/or miroety communities.
bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall he implemented an by IrsdJvldual prefect sponsors as appropriate end feasible
- !Fusel nonrtaad uahiel is an Site for more short E0 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or l2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARS to reduce P-1 l emissions by a minimum of 35%
- Diesel generators on site for more than 1D total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARE ta reduce PM emissions by a minimum of BS%. - fJonrroad diesel engines on site shale br Tier 3 st higher. - preset nomoart cons truetion equipment an site for more than 10 total days that have either (1} engines enacting EPA Tier 4 nnnrrfiad emissions stand' rcls or (Tf emission control technology verified by EPA or CANB for use with non road engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimums of 85% for engines for SD hp and greater and by a minimum of 2O% for engines less than SD hp_ - Emission control technology shall be operated, rr,alntained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology ma nufaeturer_
• Dieser vehicles, mostrurtfon equipment, arxd generetvrs.on liter ihaIt be fueled with u1tra•low sulfur diesel fuel (4JLSDI or a bFodfesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 pprn or less.
- The construction contractor shall maintain a Idst of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment,, and generators to be used on site. The hat shall Include the following:
i. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehitlescur equipment.

II. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer., engine model year, engine oertircation {Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected Fuel uSaite and hours of operation.
ill, For tFir emission control technology Installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARE verification number/revel, and installation date and hour -meter reading on installation date-
- The contractor shall establish generator sites end truck -staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such tones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least Imparx on abutters, the general public, and espacfallysenslflve receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and facilities.
• The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, ra(Tnroad construttlan equipment, or generator onslte, Includes:
9 02-29
Gant.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2700
RTC -871

Responses to Comments
F. Hour -meter reedingx on arrival on -site, the first and last day of every month, and on affdite date.

II. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls. ill. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that Identify:
1, Source of supply
2, Quantity of fuel

3. Quantity of fuel, induslmg sul fur content percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title -24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards {Call ramie Building Standards Cock). The Icsllawlreg measures cart be used to Inrxease energy efficiency:
ro de pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter black lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic canning measures, parks; and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers.

Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
r. Marked crosswalks
it Countdown signal timers
ill. Curb extensions Iv. Speed tables
iv. Raised crosswalks
v. Raised Intersections
vl, Median islands
ii Tiglrt rumor radii
vial Roundaboutsor mini -circles
Ix On -street parking
it, Chicanes/chokers
Create urban non-mratorired xcnes
Provide hike parking in non-residential and rrsultI-ur it residential projects Dedicate lend for brka trails
tirnit parkingsupply throu rr
I, Elimination (or reduction'. of minimum parking requnements it Creation of maximum parking requirements
ii, Provisgon of sharer! parking
Require retldentlaI area parking permit.

Provide ride sharing programs
designate a certain percentage toll parking spacing for ride chant ng vehicles II. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting area for ride -sharing vehicles
ill, Providing d web site Cr reassaging board for ceordinrting ride% Perr,,anenttransportationrnanaeementassociationmembershipandfindiri requirement.

The measures offer a cast -effective, Feasible way to incorporate tower -emitting design features into the proposed Project, which subsequently, reduce *Missions released during Proiect construction and operation.

An EIR should be prepared to include all feasible mitigation measures, as well as include updated health risk analysis to ensure that the necessary mitigation measures are implemented to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible, The E IR should also demonstrate a commitment to the Implernentatian of these measures prior to Protect approval, to ensure that the Project's significant emissions are reduced to the maximum extent possible.
10 02-29
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2701
RTC -872

Responses to Comments
Disclaimer
SWAPS has received limited discovery regardingthis proje€t. Additional information may become awiilable in the future; thus, we retain the righttoremise or amend this report when additional Information becomes avaliable. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of cate and skill otdim rIty exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consuitants practicing h this or similar localities atthe time of service, No other warranty, expressed or implied, is may Ieas to the scope of work, WWTk methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presente€I. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise he incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
Paul E. liasenfeld, Ph.D.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2702
RTC -873

Responses to Comments
Attachment
SWAPS
T MifilCtl C4itBgatllan, Utaa N0aIytl1 Mid
Litigation SaFport for ihn Envlrorarwrd
SOIL. WATER AIR PRG?TEC1ION FR'TFRFI ISE
2iti5ti'.31b !Owl. Smie
hirimm. r'oLiirnrarIO411
Alm Pn91. 1%r91a[IIL V D.

Mobil: (3 J 79541135
Clique. (3 3Ill 45? -5555
t'rs: (74144.131-51-50
Ewell presearekistreiramtrerii
Raul Rosenfeld, nfeld, PILD.
{ hentleal Fate end Transport & Air I)Iayurxlun IWlualelhi2 1'nrac pal ErriarrMiliOntill Chemist Risk Assessment & Renxediation Specialist Ed ucittion
P1i©. Soil Chemistry, Untvettsity o! lArsshirtgtort I999. Dtasertauon on volahle organic compound filtration MS EuVitorarental Science, l..C. Berkeley, 1995 Thesis cm organic Waste cca riiimlux Fl.r1r. Eoyirrinninnial Studies. U 4' Stints Bathos, ]y91. iAan waulswrttarrtreratment Professional Experience
TX Rosenfeld hats over 25 tears' oepericetee conducting cnvirnnmental linvtxr4ations arid risk asai89rtk'mts for evaluating impacts to human health, propc-t}, and ecological receptors. His expertise focusses on the fate awl transport or environmental contamnuunts, human heriltll oak, nc-urrc aaatmvnu_nt, And tcrtlogical rmstuyrat.lrsn Di Rosenfeld has evaluated and modeled turisatons .fsem oil spit! . landi"rlls, boilers acid Incinerators. prod stacks, ,,1a+ruge tanks, cr,nrtntil onrmal feeding operations, irulustrial, military and ugriculltirthl Burris, unconventional oil dn[Ilttty npeuitIon:r, and ;nc(uuuttve and t:i%ntr uetinn engines Hts pioject experience rungea tii om monitoring tutJ modclmg of pollutnon sources to evaluating impacts of pollution on zvrsrkera at industrial lacilitrn and residents in .surrounding cr*mmunitit s. Dr. Rosenfeld has also successfully modeled exposure to contaminants distribu ed !n water syatntns and via vapor uitrusioe.

Llr Rosenfeld has tnvenigated And desigiwd remtdiatitm programs and rusk .asainssmeitti for enntattttnatsd it�3 containing lead_ heavy mpudx mold bacteria, partreulatc rn1LL1 , petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated aolveiav, peaticid s, ra+dioactnve wrt:,te, dioxins and furrtns, semi- and tv>latile organic cr+mptrunds pc13s, PA1ia. irraasote. perchloratc, asbeytna. per- and poly-lluoroallyl annhslsneca (PFQA.PFDS). unusual polymers_ fuel oxygenates Cl4TTl3E). among other pc'Lutants Dr. Rosenfeld also has c:spetence evaluating greenhouse gas mansions farm various propseis and is an expert on the aR 4xlulen' of odors from industrial and agricultural sites, as well as the evaluation of odor nuisance Imp-JIMand to cFmnlosien tit cnhato-vont of rsdurnua ceniasscinr 't: n principal scientist al SWAP(. Dr Rcramfeld directs air dispermon modeling and exposure ass—surtentn He has ,served as un expert wltrlt.-r5 and testified about pal anion anu,rcea causing nuisance andrisr personal Injury at ales and hen: u^stilted AS an expert witness on numerous cars overlying orposure to soil mater and air canteminants from urdustriaL railroad• agricultural, and military rsaurscit
Paul E Rose -Lick], Ph_D
Paige 1 of 111 October yJ2I
02-31

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2703
RTC -874

Responses to Comments
Professional History:

5.0 II Vv.aier Air Protection Enterprise (S'WAPH)_ 2Ota3 to present, Pnnoipal and Founding Partner UCLA School of Public HoltIi, 2007 to 20) I'. Lecturer (Assistant Researcher) UCLA School of Pull lac Health; 2latI3 to 2r]UEa; Adjunct Prnilmsoi lIC A Enamor !llama I S.2 t11 Fngtnaating Program , rivctnraL htttrll t'nardaran >r UCLA Institute tic the linvrronmettl Nall-21kr2;Research Assa:late Kibme47"LO Science, 2001 to 20t)3: S.ntur Remrdinttnn Scauntist Natenr•.al Grriundwater Association.3J11r_'iatµ, Lecturer Sari Diego MALL. University. 1999.3001. Adlunet Pruressnr Anteran Corp., San Di, n,'2O+t(I-2fafll, Reriwdiaiion Project Manager 'Ogden (now Amee). San [3ie-gi. 2lu;atl-2tttatJ, kcmeuliatirm I'mjccl Manager Bechtel, San Diego. Cald'ornuu, 1999— 20100, Rislc Assessor King, County, Seattle,. 1.94s5— 19 . Suienlint
James River Corp.; Washington, 1'395.-4ts. Sckntist
Big Cues+§: Lumher, Davenport, C'alifomt, Scieri isi
Plumaa Corp.. California and USFS. Tahoe 1993-1995, Scientist Peace Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St Knits, West Iorlty „ 1941-[ 493', Scientist Publications:

Remy_ L.L., Clay 'I'., layers. 4''.. kasenkrld P. I. l.lo1!J) Hospital. Healthand t.'ommunaty F3urdrn Alter [gal Refinery Fir,aa, Raclin -fond. Calrlirrrun 20117 mid 2012. Z'Inuanarimartraf ifti.a26H- 11::415 02-31
SImnas. R.A., Seta. Y. Rosenfeld, P., (2015) "'duckl'ing theEtT t t Retiin ryy Emission On Residential Property Value faitrital of Real Estate Rwtearrit. 27C) 32I-342
Chen, J A. Zapata A R. 3t.lherland A, I , lalmsar D R. Chow, B. 3„ W u. L E. Restaifeb , P. E, Ile ae,R C.. (?J71?) Sulfur Dioxide and tunic Compound Exposure TO A Cann iinity ]ti Gees City Texas Evaluated Usurp Arrnend and Empt-recalData. :ins€ricrariJoarrna l o(E*naRiX:ara72eartrdScienci. 8q6), 152-632 Rosenfeld, P_E. & Feng_ L a'2011). The Risks ofHrti.artions Wash. Amsterdam: L+lscvier Publishing.

Chorea usma5ff NF, & Rus.ufefd, P.M 12611}.lionafsook ofPnilutranPrevention and Cleaner Pro,durnorr Best Praerige$ Pr the Agra tlaegrica inth+ssry', A]]asterJ m Elsevier Publishing, Gonzalez, 7.. Feng L . Sutherland, A., Wailer; C., Solr_ H, Hesse, 1L, Rosenfeld. P. (2011)) PC135 and DioxinpFurann to Attic LJu t t'ollecied Near r!iiin KB PrNllagtisn and Secathictry Copper Ft-ilWes in Sauget IL Pa,aler. a Em'mnvraantel Sciences, 113-125_
ling, L.. Wu, C., Tame L., Sutherland..kJ Clark, J.1., Rosenfeld P. E. (2OI O). Dir-+xm and Furan Blood Lipid and Attic Dipit ('oneennonot Ica populations 1,ivlug Near Ftaw W«.x1 Treatment Bacilmm in the t'nand 4tat . lorararaJ IE;ntwararnentaalHaalth 73[6). 344
ChtamnismntT, LJ_P, & korcnfrld, p'.E, f201tt) flantilxra# raft'nllartte,aPrwwentiorrmid Cleaner Prrsducuon; shirt Pawnees in fee If -nod surd Paperhultcsri5ent Amsterdam- Elsevier I ublislrmg Chemnuin ,ff, N P., & Rrasenfekf, f',R [ 3txr!}} h'andbor,* of Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production: ffest Proe :ex art slur Parlrolaam MAW," Arnaktdvoi EE_uvaer Pnhhatuot3 Wu, C., Tarn. L. Clark, I Rosenfeld, P [3rufi7). Dioxin toad ruran blood lipid concentrations to prrlatttntiorts liming new feu wood treatment fucilitiez in the [ lnitod SlateK F 7T Pranraciivr+s rm Ev olor,n' cm, the Ernsrrrumire+aP, Arr Pollution in ( in 319.337
Paul E. Rnzrttteld, Ph_D
Page :10110 Ocloha 2021
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2704
RTC -875

Responses to Comments
Tam L K . 4ti'u C. D., Clark I 1. acid Rosenfeld, P.E. (a)Iigj. A Statistical Analysis Of Attic Dust And Woad Lipid Concentrations of TeLrtchloto-p-Uibrn x11inxin r,TCDD) T«xicil. Equivalency Quotients (TEQ't) In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Qrit amafralo gen C'orxgrouncls. 70.01}_'252-00225 5 Tam L. K... Wu C. D., Clark I. I. and Rosenreld, P:}E, (2098). Methods Fos CoLlet Samples For Assassmg Dioxins And Other Lrotttonmantul I;:vmt:urirnaata [i Attic Dust A Review Oegotrahtrto'wa C'antpaiarw+!6. 71.1„ CCI)527- 0M53{r.

Elensler, .It A. `&ott, J. ;I J Clark, Rosenfeld, P.E. (007) Attic t»land!Intnan Blood S:trvplex Collected neat a Former Wooed Treatment Facility. ErnirnnrnenaaiResearch. 105, 194-197, Rosenllzld, P.R., J I I. Clark, A. R. Hensley, M. Su13et (2007). The Use of an Odor Wheel Clasalficanon for Ehvaluation nfHunan I-( Ith Rise s'riterly fat (',impost Facilities Water Scoernied Technology 55(5)t, 345.357 Ro crrrdd, P. F., M tiufat. (20i:i7), Th4 Anatotny Of Odour Pirhe* For Odours Rtf Drink ins Water, Wa,. tawater.

Cnm.pnst And lire Urban Environment Iiars¢r.ckti nee' TealttarrA 55(5), 335.34-1 ]wullii^an, P. J ('lark. J I,..1 , .gourdy, F d,, R.oatvltek4 P_F. txr7} rod,: lac4e;. ey. titvtthi a To,v0ou an tip iF'€sac, J ri'ate, Band .4ir in: J rxrerican f"ra$s. Roston Massachusetts: Hsbl:ishang Rosenfeld, P.I:,, and SutTet 1.H ("C][F1). Control of •unpins (}dnr 1lsing High Carbon Wood Ash, Water Science aaui TeChil itygl 4.1(9),171-178
Rosenfeld P. E, T.I. Clark, I.fl (Mel) Sodas (}al04) The Value of An CIdci. ftuality.Whocl Clasiftranon Scheme For The I2ihan Entrtrona]entWater gm -immune Fedentrutrr's TacJntr.,:vrd £htttinnrs astir Conference (1FEF•'r C) 2Jt?- New (rlerma, ()etcher 2-6, "_-(AI4.

Rosenfeld, 1',F.., and Sulfa I II (24)i 4) Uodutastnndit (Moran* AsAociated With Compost. Biomass ass I'+u:ihitii and the Lard Application a Dirualids. Water Science uiid reeknei v 49(9), I93-1139.

Rosenfeld, P.E., and Sedi'ct I.I£ (2004) Control of Comp I?dar Using High Carbon Wnod Ash, Flrater &lance .ura l Tee.ran-d ' -0( 171-173.

Rosenfeld, P. E.. Grey. M A, Sellcu', P. (2004). Measurement of Siasalids Odor and Cidcrnra Emissions from

9.2mTre)ti'3., `�`uAt:tt Psl,r and Iisnfl]ier, rfVr*rl rrvorr.rtrra•anrfteawarer. 76(4), 31L1-315.

Rosenfeld, P;E+„ (key, M ;and Suffat, M. (21.02), CompsCoropocli C man. tratarin Pmlec4 FAcroananto California Usurg tiigh-Carbon Wood Ash to. Coetrol Odor at a Green Materials Composting ',wilily. integrated Waste Management Board Public A,, jf 'irfr. Office. Publications Clearinghouse (R•1S-t ). Sacraments CA Pu blicattort :v-142-02-008 Rosenfeld, P.E., and CI_ 13errry. (2001), Characterization of odor emissions f uai three different biosolnlslr" set.

Sod ranj•,9rr t'eatturdra>t. I27(I-0, 171.191
Ri aenrcld, P.N., and .'ivory C I.., ( tir>II). Wood rte control of ndrx emrawluna from hosoh app.] icatxan. Jotorna$ ofEnvirnnrmoval pie© v. 29. l frfi3-1 Nbil
Rosenfeld, P.E., C.L. I-£enn' and D Bennett. (NMI 'Wastewater Lk -watering polymer affect on berwlids. odor emasaiana and rtniamboat Ban if • F1rxr r Er n'trranraentd4ea+raarch• 73(4), 36i3-367.

Rosenfield, P.P.., and CI 1-etirv. {_ti0l Activated Carbon and Wood Ash Sorption at Wastewater, v`ompoai and F#I clot IId•ursnts Water Esns...arintestene-keatek 73, 3R R.393 Rosenfeld, P.F., and Henry C L r2001) Pugh carbon wood ash effect an lnosolids microbial activate and odor_ J r1LtrG• Errs,rrrrnrrre,N' Rowan*. 13 I f l -4). 247-262 FAME Rosenfeld, PILD
Paige 3 of 1I} October 2O2
02-31
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2705
RTC -876

Responses to Comments
Cho[Lack. T and P. Rosenfr ki (1 99J3) Compost Amtcadmttnt Hsn«ihaak For Lsatd;usaping Prepared lot and iliairrinaled hy the €`ity of Redmond, Washing0.m Stale Rosenfeld, P- F, ( I! :), The Mourn Liamuiga Crane Trail Hertrcn,Af fagcciav of'S't, l:ft4, 3(2) Rosenfeld, P. E. (1993), High School Qtngas Proye:t to Prevent Defore ated (kimi Tuscan- AZ
Rosenfeld, P,E. (April 19-2_3, X!09). Cost to Filter Atratine Contamination from Drinking Water in the trailed Stales' Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use or Aqueous Film Fanning Foams (APF F) at Airports in the United S'totea 200 ( area 14) Winer "l'rraraaiiit and 20f. Q arotnni Wafer Paafe Alcor Ctrurtrid Spring Meentig Lecture conducted from Tosco's, AZ
Wu, C, Tam, L , Clark, J, Rosenfeld, P. (21F-22 Jiil3', 2(i t9) Dioxin noel furan blood lipid concentrI k a to populations livnig near four wood treatment 1'arilttics in. the i.rtited Stales. Brehhia, C.,k and Papiw. V, ails_ .•tar FaiitatrcanJOT: Prcc.cat1(rtgs of rlr' Se-i. vueorrflt firta,lttaYiranal t':oa(ferrrrc c» Aloofness.¢, ..kfonfrolopg. rises itsfairagementofAirPoihrricire. Lecture conslticted from Tallinn, Estonia Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15-1S, ?(X)7), Moss Pont Community Exposure To Contaminants From A Releasing Facility. The 23'"a.RamanaJ beernafiortal Conferences on ,&sgs.Sed0P2!ant and Water: Platform lecture conducted from Univet- t v (af Mas•--eithusetts, fSmher:st MA
Ralianfeld, P. R (a?ctarl+er 13-113, 2(Ilt7l 'T1te Repeatw4 Trespass of Trithilll.CM144111nated Wearer Inca A Surrounding Community Form Repented Waste SpilIs From A Nuclear Panzer Plant. The 2.rj -'snarl nle arxsuh'ooal petal E Rrrxetfekl, PILD
Rape 4 car Ig C1cla,hcr 202I
02-31
Cant.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2706
RTC -877

Responses to Comments
Calferenlces e1n &NISS'e iveeru and Watair. Platform lexlrrc conducted from Urivcratty of Maasachuaeus, Amherst MA
RuptureId, P- E. (October 15 -IS, 2(&I7) Somerville Community T .apr,,Aure To Contaminants From Woe l Treatment Facility FaltiSSiGrL9. The 23r4 Amen! Interne:a- nal Cankrences on Saoh Seadlwent and Water. Lecture conducted from Urtivemity of Mlassachu iM, Amherstic1A
Rirsenfcld I'_ E. (March 2tX?7). lalrnthtctrnn, t',Etenucal Prsrper'ti+" ,htllty .VWanrartollElhoirealumer,aasoeratEr.aw,.TJvrranrrrrn&al Len [°rnalarenca. Lecture r cmduetc2J from Congresx Plaza Hotel_ Chicago Illinois.

Paul Raaenreld, PhD- (March 2t:u1t) Perchlorate Toxicology alfser ttf akr Imeeiema Orrararuiaxarer Tnsi Lecture conducted from Roma 5.rixona.

Petit E. Rommfekl, Ph_D
Page ei of 111 October 2021
02-31
Cant.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2707
RTC -878

Responses to Comments
1laecmann XI F , Paul Rnsendrikl, Ph.D. and Rob F1 (_004). Perchlorate Contamanadion of the Colorado Riuusr. h ie. tank ,,j'rra 4 d rarprseierttaarriwe Lecture cirrnducied from Parker, Al Paul Ru,asnl'riaf, PhD- lApril 7, 2At4) A National Damiag0 Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners, Drat1earx rS7rnipaxiniu. Calafarraera Ground crater:LIscrLxrron. Lecture conduct€d from Rudman Hold. Sacramento_ California
Rosenfeld, P. E., Gna<', June 2II.3) Two stage hiuxtilter for hiotIolidg composang odsx control Seventh liaprmure alJn Situ AndOn Sore ftk?ramvrfaatr o i,r r Battelle C'vrpfarrrrt-+e Orland:i, FL Paul Rosenfek+, Ph.D. and i mes Clark Ph. D. (February L, =Iili 11 (i derstanritrig liisiorical Use, Chemical Properties- Toxicity and Regulator,' truldance of 1,4 Dineen.NatronatGnstndwaCar.dssucrotiori. Soirt.ineeir Focus t',iOpfidt ru.e, iJaiar A'up:0 , Oinif E atirrglrtg t'orriurrrrodnfs, I.e+eture Conducted frnin Heal Rstgenc}u Phoenix riri nna Paul R senfeld, Ph.D- (Fehruary d-7, 21x133. Llrid,_igrnnnd httrsgat Tank I.itigntinn and Rene" tiarla7rl S''aaflirrr`ra& C'f:P.l Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, ArrwFreitn California Paul Rosenfeld, Pk.11l (€Jctaher 23, 2nri2) t ndeiglnrund ,3tdtage Tani; I.itigalion and RtrinftinItion. fP,4 lJnder'rau'rrri57laxroge 7arrkkeauara'tuahia, Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.

Rosenfeld, P,E. and Settle, M (C)ctiber 7- W, 2100.2). Understanding ()dor from Compost Weasrewatarr and hhi,11aYri.i1 Pxrrr:eai Salk .4nrnrd symparaarm tan Off o in die . a€+urtic 1Fmwa7nmcn.- ,titteroational lL r .T-yx uiion Lecture conducted from. ilareclunrtSpam
Rosenfeld, P.E. anal .SolTel, M. (October 7- It. 20X[2}. Using Carbon Wood Ash in Cinanol Compost Odor Sp h _annual Synlprnir,inp On Off F'lrTwarr rrr filar Agrrrarna E4n•ararrmenl, inrerncaroanal 11"trrrr da.rrrcitadnan. Lecture conducted nom Barcelona Spae't.

Rosenfeld, P.R. and Grey, NI A iSeutemhcr 22-24, 2002). Bincycic Composting Fur Coastal Sage Restoration_ Ar rrhi sr ,5lurtogcr trot rt&sociiriw r Lecture etmdOeind frean Vancouver Washington..

Rosenfeld, RE and Grey, M. I'Noa•ember 11-14, 2002). Using FFigh-,Carbon Wood Ash io Ciinrrul Odor at a 1_reLmMaterials Composting Facility , 4iarlSdarcx cucretl'Annuap?'tarp! rwrn:t L•riturectrndudlailfrom hrdianaprilrs_ Maryrland.

Rosenfeld. RE, (September DS. 20110). Mtn stsg,e biotilier for biosolads composting odor control. Ware( r inii`ronorenr Fea'erariorc Lecture crhnduct d from Anaheim m California, Rosenfeld. P -E. (October l8. ?Mu). Wood ashand hioillter control of compost odor 8tafi,' t. L-eetwe conducted norm Ocean Shores, California
Rosenfeld, P.E. (:slat(). Bio,"me1iation Using Organic Sail Amendments Callfafaila d awavrce ukadvnara}• Association Lecture conducted from SatcramentoCalifornia:

Rosenfeld. P.R.. C.L. 1lenry, Et. 1-iarrison. (1998). Oct and Grass tined Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Founson s Following fiosolidx Incorporation With Higlpt'.aarlan on/mom:l ll Pediriitto OA .4nnard Re-slifuntlr and 8imrlitar Itionagerprent Conference ,prrrceedirtgs Lecture conducted from Lelt-e ue Wruhittgt,an
Rosenfeld, P.E and ('.L Henry. (199x) An evaluation of ash Incorporation with bionolide for odor reduction. *ail .SuYnnce Gxlrfyrafdm+errw I_cctni r conducted from Salt. Like City Utah Rosenfeld, P.R., CL. Henn', R. Hanson (1998) Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Ernmainns I:r ni Three Different Applied to Pores' Soil .13rr v and Cafewell Lecture conducted !aunt Se -rule Washington Paid R Rosenfeld, Ph_D
Page h err 16 Oclobcr yJ22l
02-31
Cant.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2708
RTC -879

Responses to Comments
Rosenfeld. P.E.. C.L ]-lcnry (l9Nii3. Ciaraciccrtrartaon. Quo l e —anon. and Control of Odor Emisannns liens Eitirsnirtls Applic iti(rn To Pored Srri] Rbufccer. Lecture conducted from Lake r helm. Washington.

Rdrsenf ld, P,E, C Henry, Tt Ilatriaryn. (L S). O41 and Grow Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following T3iosolid'a Tncorparauion With Iligh-Carbon W c.d-Mb Water Environment Feeleaatwil ratan .Anneal Residuals. and B1cioltds Management Conference Frocitegiings.. Lecture ainducted from Bellevue Washing€an.

R+>'nenfele', P.F-. C L. ll it . R. I3 llattis=r t. and R. Dills (1".497), Comparison of Oelor EttASIOTISLin n From latex Different 13inS.alids Applied to Forest Soil_ &eel Science .Socren, of America Lecture urn;dueted from Anaheim Ca liforne:i
Teaching Einerience:

UCLA Department of Envircrntnettual T -health 1 Summer 20113 Ihruuglt 200,10) Taught Emwuanmerial Health Science I 0 to students, Inrlud ng unaJergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and slums, Course focused on the health effects of environmental oontam wants
Natiannl Ground Winer Associaticn Succrm'u1 Remediation Technoingiea. Custom Ccnrse m State Fe, New Mexico. Mav 21.'20(x2. FOcused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants as dotard with undetitrmnsd storage tankx.

National Ground 'Water Association, Successful Remedraticm Technolaig es Course in (hlcrgo Moog. April I, 2r;Kr2. Focused on late and trnnspoct of contaminants associated with Superfund and R.CRA sues:

Caltfcrtitn lniegratsd Mtge Hoare, Aped and Miry. :Mil Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Variant'. and .ran FralleirCa Focused iii tenth pressriptiva and Innovative landfill coe,er design UCLA Department of Environmental J ngmeernig. February 5. 21x]2. Seminar on Successful Remediatnorn Technologies focusing on tiroundwater Remixliantnim
University Of Washington, Seal Scioaca Program, Teaching Assistant For several ei ii aeti including. Snit Chemaal¢y, Organic Soil Amendments, and, ;foil Stability
1J C Berkeley. Pnerronmental SC inner. Prnigrnm Teaching Assistant Rif Ewe aanan=tat Science I ri Academic Grants Awarded:

California ant, rated Waste Maovarian Pioarwl. F,41 „OW grant awarded to UCLA institute a ilia: Environment 'Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from campnst 3lall Synagra Teclanologie i, Corona California: $111.114)[1 grunt awarded to San 'Diego State University Goal: investigate effect athitiesnlids mstegration and rentednn.ticrn of degraded coastal sage soils. 2fxslu E irtg County. Department of Research and Technnlagv, Washington Slate $1110,000. grant awarded to Uniw•ersiiy nr Washington Goal: To enveattgstn ada'ir missions from harisolids.application and the cBget .it`polymers and ash on Vt7t elnrimixty 19
Narthnrova et Binaolids Management Association, Washington State $.11,r1t}tr grant awarded to investigate -effect n1' polymers and ash cis volt'` emissions from bioanlitkv. 1947 lamsz River Crirp,:rratirm, Oregon SI0,iln3(I grant bans awards•d IJrc nucce-ss•: ca l•geneticalle. engineered Poplar trees with resi1nre to round -up l99,5.
f�aul l= Rommfekl, Ph_D
Raw 7or October 2021
02-31
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2709
RTC -880

Responses to Comments
United State Fnrwt S rvrtcc, Tahoe National Format $15,rt[it1 grant was awarded to investigating are ecology of the Tahoe Natlonat Forest 15.95
Kellogg Foundation; Washington D:C' $titer grant was awarded to constiruet u. InL wrnemhre digesou on SL Kitts in Weal litrlies. 1X33
)kl ? ition a iitUltrTri:aFTesltiritltny:.
[lithe t'Itcuit Court !:a Lhe'l1G•entieth Judicial t'Itcuic St If fair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al.. PIaloon' Rs Cerro Pima. Products, Inc.. Defendants raseN No rircl-1.-2m9
Roserdeld 1)epnsition, 5-1-1-2o2
Trial, October $•mot-2a2I
In the Cireult Court of Cuok C.uunly Illinars
Joseph Rafferty, Plaintiff -vs cnnrnhclate4J Rail t.`lxrpnratiirm and NetiartaL Tt1J.i1r id Pat;si.'T g r Corpora rporu[ion &Ista AKfTRAK
Cane No No. I8 -L f5
Rosenfeld Dora:mairrn-
In the United Mates District Court For the Northern District of Illinois Theresa Romcoe, Plaintiff is. Northeast Miaow Ringwood Commuter Railroad Corporation d'1r,'a M1.1 HA Rail, DefenJ.ants
Case No No. 17-e •-8 S 17
Rosenfeld Deposition, 5-25-2021
02-31
In llte Superior Court of like Suite ot=krurmn Cn card For the Cunha• of Mariciipam *.'tar} Tryon at al, Plaintiff vs. The City 'lafPhacrni v (A& Cactus Faffri, L.L,C., Utah Shelter Systems, Inc.

Case I Number CV -20127 -10 -MP
Rosenfeld Deposition.: 5.7.2021
In tha Llniterl Stales I)i triet Court fur the Enxtern District !rf Ttotars Beaumont Division kohinsun, Jeremy et al J tnrrahi]s, vs, r"NA Insurance Company et aL Cast Number 1:17-cv-0O.150;8
RoSerri eld Deposition: 3.25.20221
h th* SuperisQr Court of the Stine orcahrornia. ("mum of 5ut Bernardino Gary Gamer, Personal Representative for the 8state. of Melvin Gamer va BNS P Rank v I" umpany. € iL h"o 17202Sii
Rosenfeld Deposition fi 2j-2IJ21
In the Superior Court of the State nfCatllnraia, County of -Los ,Angeles, rrprtnd Street Courthouse Benny AI Rodriguez vs. Union Partin RaiIroaa1, A Cnrrinrataxn, N J..

Caw- No 18STCV01162
Rosenfeld Depnailian 12-2_1-2020
In tie Cirru it Court of Jai; l Son County, Migu irri
Kaman Cornwell. Plosiv ; vn. Marathon Petroleum. LP. Der nr auL Case No 171647111011416
Rosenfeld DeprrsiLcn.. k- rL�ifl1
in the United Stales District Court For The Distrir:i of Nest, Jersey Duarte et at. Frairrrifft vs: United States Metals Relining Company eL al. De erxtcmr Case No 2 17 v-0162 -138-SCAl.

Rosenfeld Deposition_ 6-7-2( l
Paul R itosenfeLl, Ph_D

Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2710
RTC -881

Responses to Comments
!n the 1:ailed Sides District rnurt of Southern Dismal ar[Texas Oahe r[cm Division MT Carla Maor& Plumes. vs Conti 1118 . 9ehitrahris G1 I & Co. auih+Y KG MS Cont Perdido" LJrlir�4rMt.

Case No.:3'15-C -X74146. consolidated with 3:15 -CV -00237 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-3tblu
In 'The Sup oine Conn of the State of Co I 'futon) In And Ftw the County Of Los Angelo Santa Manion Carole-Tacltletx-Ts rtes et al., vs !Fran Khan et a1 , Defenclanni Cost No No. BCf,1563-6
Rr nfakl Depmitisn, I-26-2(11
In 'The [!begat tC'neri of the 3tllte of California In And Few The. L:euttiy Of Los Angelo -- [SArP1a1 Mnntac The San Gabriel Valley Council O1' Governments et al. vs El .a.dober'spts. Inc et. a1., Defendants t'aseha No. BO646Ri7
Rhsenfeld Deposition, I04i-2(J1R. Trial 3.7-19
In Unite! Rates motet Cowl For The Distract of Col+.wndo Bolls at a.L Fla muff es. The 3M9Company ct al.. Defundani,s Case No I'16-r.4.t25.31-31131
Rosenfeld Deposition. 3-11-2018 and 4-1-2018
In The District Curl Of Regan County. Tearma, 1 I2'a Judicial District liaithg Bates et at. Plnenuflxs- Dour AUTO scaencCS, LLC, gird, D3elendants.

Cauca N. 1923
Rosenfeld Depoaiticn. I1-17 2[117
N Tht Supmor Coign co-[ the Stile ofCs lifnanra In And For `The County I'lf Cutsira Costa Simms ft a1., PlaintilYY vs. Chevron. Corpurattan, et aL Defendants Cruse No C12-0 I
Rosenfeld Dcpc itlon. I1-2ft-21317
ha The Circuit Court Of The Ti4stilirLh Judicial Circuit, 5t [.`.tarn {'+rnnl;4'. Illinois Martha Custer et al.. PlsintilTvs. Cerro Flow Products. Inc.. Defendants C ar No No, toe9-L-w2 5
Rosenfeld Depc iti©G, 5-23-2417
In United Stales District Court For The Scnihem District of N issiisrppi Guy Manuel vs. The BP Exploration et all, Defendants
CASs., Nit 1 , I cra.u:r31j-lilll4'
Rosenfeld Deposition, 4-22-2020
In The Superior Court of the Stale of Califon:Us, For The County of Las Angeles Wrirrn ailh+ertAnd Penny Chiller. Flaintil7vs. BMW iiI T 'rth America TIC [Care No LC1020 9 (c.os' 13C5H21_S-1)
Rosenfeld I) prs ition, F-1rs.2 17,, Trail 8.2E_2411t
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi. iir+xnvIIle DI.VrA t3a Bror.la 1 C'o+rlw.a. et al , fr ireti t, vs M rrit+rr Inc , ut al fJe{eraef,tnts Cast Rumber. 4:ltrcv->•2-1],`4U-J1•'lai
Rosenfeld ihprrsitiin' Judy 2147
Pant R Rosenfeld, Ph_ta

02-31
Cant.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2711
RTC -882

Responses to Comments
In The Sup tarCourt of tha State ol`Wnahnt}Tlon. County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis el al , platnri1Fvro. Cedar Gmve CarmF+oslrtag Inr , Defendants Case Nu Na. 1:3-2-03987.1
Rosenfeld Depcssition, February 2r)I 7
Trial., March 2017
In The Superior Court of the &eta of Califarn a, Count.' of Alameda Chnrles4paitt., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher geienrifie, et al . Defendaatt Cue No RC 14711 115
Rosertfekl Deposition, Septtmlrer2015
in The Iowa District Coact In And For Poweatutk County
kur ]I [y, W inhurm, et al , Plaintiffs a e DOlyy Hti thlls gon, et 41. t)elenslanle, Case Nia- LA.LAO1j2187
Rosenfeld DleprssltIon, August 201
In TheCircvat Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
kr1h!rl N drew, et al v. Anton, n, et al
t.'vil Action N1a 1 -C-3iitliMl
RoaWifold Deposition, Dune 201c
in The Iowa District ("curt For triLlaCaltirA2 County
Latmu Frcemah et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Ceram Processing t'irrlurratiam. Defendant Case No X1980
Rosenfeld Deposition' May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the I7° JuJttiut Circuit, In and F'ar Broward County, Florida 'Walter I-Einton. ut al Plaintiff. trs City of FtIri Lauderdale, Plnrirla. ® hlrmrcipality, Defendant.

Case Number CAC'EONI3413]S (2d)
Rosenfeld Dt'prfaiti<rn: December 2414
1n th= County Cram of Dallas County Tetras
Lisa Pm -r tt9 uL Pi+tlnr ffl us. Aruba el al- DS,rFPir:oar, Case Number cc-[ I-01ti50-E
kouenfekl Deprrsition: March and Supvanbar _x113
Rosenfeld Trial_ April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of TuseamwasCounly Ohio
John Michael Abrcht, d sl.. Plaivrr?trs, vs. Republic Servrcea, Inc_; yet at., LJefc�rukmds Coax Dumber (?rrs CT 10 074I (eons. w' 2401'9 is V I II' iva87) Rosenfeld Deposition: °Mahe(21312
In the United States District Court for the Middle Distract of Alabama, Northern Division lnrrret 1 Benefield, et al . ?1,rmr( . va International Paper Cnrnparty, Do eriet nr ?Joni Action Number 2.(19-cv-232-W4A-TFM
Rosenfeld D7aprsition; Ju[iy ?[)I0, Juna 241111
In the Circuit Court pi -Jefferson County Alabama,
Isom -au Muza Anthony, era'. Plalrrties, vs Drummond Company Inc,. at al., larfertiancr Civil Action No {'V 2014-20 76
Rosenfeld ()prlition• September 2201111
In tht Lmteal Slates lhstnct f_'.aurt, Westann DistrictLadayrtttt IJn�llsiaa Ackle et a1, r�lrrrrrd(DD"t v�1, Citgo Petroleum Corperati+:in., et al.. Defeertriaits Cane Number 2.ai7('V1 05
Roxenfeld Deposition: JO, 21509
Paid E Rnaenfekl,PILD

02-31
Cent

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2712
RTC -883

Responses to Comments

EXHIBIT B

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2713
RTC -884

Responses to Comments
smart
mobility
794 Sawnee Bean Road
Thetford Center VT 05©75
Norman Marshall, President
{BO2I 356-2969
[email protected]
April 9, 2[124
Aidan P. Marshall
Adams Braadwel I Joseph & Cordaro
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA94080
Subjects Comments on the Ritz Carlton Rancho Mirage Project L@@r Mr. Marshall,
I have reviewed traffic, vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") and workforce housing Impacts in the Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage Initial Sturly/Nlitigated Negative Declaration ("MND') dated February 2024. I make the following findings:
4) The MND rnischarauterizes Resort Hotel roams as multi -family 1inusing. $ignificantly under estimating trip generation from these units, and misrepresenting the peak travel direction.

These errors invalidate the MND's traffic analyses including forecasted traffic volumes and levels of service.
2) The NINE? 4MT analysis falsely treats Resort Idotel rooms as "residential dwelling units, To analyze the VMT Impacts of the Resort Hotel rooms correctly, it is necessary to consider both guest VMT and support worker VMT, Neither of these VMT impacts is analyzed in the MND and both are likely to be highly significant, Significant VMT Impacts should be mitigated. 3) The MNlYS VMT analysis falsely labels this venue space within the phrase "swimming pool and adjacent open space area" and considers it 'local serving' for hotel guests. The MND documents that this use would create a significant number of new trips and it requires a separate VMT analysis.

Adding service jobs in this area would aggravate an existing workforce housing problem arid may result in significant VMT impacts. These impacts should be analyzed in an EIR. If significant, they should be mitigated.
1 02-32

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2714
RTC -885

Responses to Comments
The MND Inaccuratety Characterizes Resort Motel Rooms as Multi -Family Housing and Underestimates Trip Generation
The proposed project includes 5 "Hotel 'villas" and 48 "Residential Suites," The difference appears to be architectural, with the 'Villas" being two stories with private garages, and the "Residential Suites" being single -story ovar shared parking, WIND, p. ll}
+ks shown in MN L} Tahl? 1-1 copied below, most of the'units will have more than one bedroom- Each of the units has a separate bathroom for each bedroom.
fatale l-1. Proposa*d tnsrd#nHal Suno and HOW ¥Itln ljnitlypes location
Unit Typo ._.i
Coon
Residential & sirs
I tsaldro3Jrrri,'t tats
21,
2 bedroom/22 bath
i 2
3 bedroom/3 both
IQ
Restdentiaal Suite Subtotal
48 Hotel Vices
2 bedroom/2 bath
29 3 bedrrZom/3 bath
Hotel villas Subtotal
58 Tr:4018db
tek
Mille the MND repress ruts this as 1O6 "units", the project shoadd he characterizedas 225 Resort Hotel rooms,
Ritz and Wrotin are bath part of the Marriott hotel family, and "Villa" is a terra that Marriott uses in describing guest lodging, Here is an Image from the promotional materials for the Westin Mission Hills Villas, Palm Springs' — located 5 miles from the Rancho [Mirage Ritz.

Ilu 1,'ill:i INEfenZirru
�i•y •I! d`a.orrel *, W"rt nnM1N1.M'a;M d 14: IW
WWII Nirej a r1,N tgapnM lochan fT 1YIlitl1i11iIlr11W
1 .ome !Wei y WWI o mac4. WIT II t. 4t,d IAey by
du Mad a :un+wkrWq r+r.„... Sworn
hops;l/ www.marrlottcomferi-us/hoteliipsawrrrthe-westhn- nisstail-h 11 ls-rescrtmllasinlm- hpr4ngs/re rnsfttroamPoorade ibb
2 02-33

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2715
RTC -886

Responses to Comments
Elsewhere, the MNIJ makes it clear that these units are not mu6tfarrii ly housrag.

The proposed project would construct 106 residential units. However, these residential units would operate similar to time-share properties and therefore future residents would not be in the proposed residential unfits year round. Because the proposed residential units are not typical residential units that residents cannot occupy year- round, these housing units do not count towards the RHNA housing unit determination. (MIN), p. 71}
02-33
Cont.

This mischaracteriaation of the Resort Hotel rooms causes the N1ND to underestimate trip generation from these units, and to misrepresent the peak travel direction. Figures 1 and 2 summarize trip generationtor the weekday morningand afternoon peak hours using data from [TE Trip Generation Edition. (This reference does not include a dally trip generation rate for Resort Hotel rooms.

IFgure is Morning; Peak Hour Trip Generation tor 206 Resort Motel rooms vs, MN Estimate 100
90 80
so
40 30
20 10
i exit
enter
11Nf
Corrected
34 58
As shown in figure 1, the corrected morning peak hour trip generation is almost twice what is presented in the MIND. Furthermore, the directional split is completely wrong. With multi -family housing„ most trips enit the units in the morning peak hour. With Resort Hotels, the larger number of trips enter during the morning peak heir, because of the need for a large support staff including many who arrive at work In the morning peak period,.
3

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2716
RTC -887

Responses to Comments
Figure Z: Afternoon Peak Hour Trip Generation -For 206 Resort Hotel rooms +,s. MND Estimate 120
100
SO
20 exit,
is enter
Corrected
56 56
As with the morning peak hour, the corrected afternoon peak hour trip generation is almost twine that reported in the MND, and the MNI7s directional split also is wrong.

These errors invalidate the MND's traffic analyses including forecasted traffic volumes and levels of service.

The MND Falsely Characterizes Resort Hotel Rooms as Residential and Underestimates VMT Impacts
The MND VMT analysis IFOND, Appendix F2, p. 1J falsely analyzes the Resort Ifotel rooms as "residential dwulling units." It doubles down on this mischaracterizatlon In converting 106 units Into 218 population (MD. Appendix F2, p. 4), i.e. even less than the number of Resort Hotel rooms or bathro€ms, The MNO reports that adding residences in this location would generate Tess VMT per person than the Crty's threshold and that there would nett haven significant VMT Impact The MND's analysis blithe Resent Hotel roams is ctrmpletely wrung_ To analyze the VMT impacts of the Resort Hotel rooms correctly, It is necessary to ccrrriider both the VIVITfront the guests, who may be traveling long distances to get to tile resort, and support worker 4MT, Neither of these VMT impacts is analyzed ire the MND and both are likely to be highly significant. Sl lifcant VMT impacts should be mitigated.
4 02-34
Ccnt
22-35

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2717
RTC -888

Responses to Comments
The MND Fails to Analyze the VAT Impacts of the Event Spate and Parking The MNID states:

The proposed project would include 499 parking spaces total, with M1 subterranean parking and 116 residential parking. As mentioned above, parking for Binding A.-1 is provided in a parking structure where 381 spaces serve the residential suites, event space, commercial uses, and additional spaces for the existing hotel. The hotel villas would have either 1 or 2 -ear private garages, plus a driveway space for the one car garage hotel villas totaling 116 spaces.
02-36
The project's parking Is included partGy to serve the project's 23,8411square'feel of venue space. (NINO, p. 10) The MND anatyzes trip generation for the venue as if 381 parking spaces were allocated to the venue, (Appendix F1, Table 4-2 p. 37). It estimates that the venue would generate 416 weekend peak hour trips.

The MNEIr's VMT analysis falsely labels this venue space within the phrase 'swimming pool and adjacent open space area" (MID Appendix F2, p, 2-3) and considers it 'local serving' for hotel guests. The venue is clearly not just an adjunct to existing hotel uses; otherwise, it would not need so rnrxh additional parking and generate 416 weekend peak hour trips. Tills use regurres a separate VMT analysis, including estimates of event frequency, and average travel distanceto the venue_ Workforce 11ou_,ir,
The proposed project would require additional service workers at the Ritz Carlton ftancho 'Village and would aggravate an existing workforce housing problem in Rancho Mirage.

According to the City of Rancho Mirage's 'General Plan — Housing Element (City of Rancho Mirage 2017), the 2014 - 2021 Regional Housing Needs Alkacation determined that the City needed a total of 9S hosing units. (NINE), p. 71) This information is out of date. As thrown below, the City of Mirage's 6" Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element (adopted July 21, 2022) identifies a need for 1,741 housing units, including 746 low- income units, distributed across three classes.'
02-37
khctps:llems3.rewire. comirevlxeiranch©mPrageta}CITY%2CGTAFF%2t]IJ SE8'a2f]TH IS%20FI LE,Mepartment%2f3Fllesili .au$1 rtg/A drip red -and -Ce r ti Fled -H o u s'c ng- E I e m ent _ pd f 5

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2718
RTC -889

Responses to Comments
Regional Housing Needs Allocati
2022 to 2029

INCOME CMEGORY
Extremely low income
Very low income
Low Income
Moderate income
Above moderate income
Turk!
on
Ni M Ett t3F'l,Mlalltf.,
2rS1
311
321
66E1

8.7 11:

Note Mai the erthercnely low and very Row income categories are 513, each of the 421 unih assi.,pnedtot Ihavery low co -Penury Source. SC'ACi
The Housing Element links resat uses to workforce housing needs The Agua Caliente Tribe is the second largest employer as owner of the r4gua Caliente Resort & Casino, thereby contributing to the need of workforce housing.

While this particular resort is called out. the Mousing Element also shows that the City's 3^', end 5' largest employers are aka resorts, including the it Carlton Rancho Mirage and Spa.

TABLE 7 MAJOR EMPLOYFkS, 2016
EMPIOYrI
Nw ui of Ptim 4RY
betimes DEsaturnota
Eisanhawer Medical Canter
Antra Caliente Resotd & Casino
Omni Rancho lac Palmas Resort & Spa
VVesiirt Mission Wks Resort & Spa
The Ritz Carlton Rondo Mirage d. Spa
Hcezeldan Betty Ford Confer
indiGO Auto Group
Mission Hills Country Club
CJ.vsecake Factory
'Horne Depot
2,4130

1.300
500
470
397
269
225
211
180
149
Hospital / Clmnics
Casino
Hotel
Hotel
Hotel
Ra abiliicrlicn Canter
Auto Sales & Service
Courrtry Club
Restaurant
Horne Improvement
Sower fltmrho Mirage Econctnk Prc� k. City of Poncho Minage web ie, 02-37
Ccnt
fi

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
2719
11942
RTC -890

Responses to Comments
Each added resort room creates a need for additional service workers in roughly a one-to-one ratio, one m re woxker bar each additional room. The employment data above is foe 2016, so comparing it I'_ current room counts is imperfect, but here are cak ulated ratios:
• Omni 444 rooms and 22 luxury mattes" -1.1 workers per unit rF Westin 512 rooms'. - n9 workers per room
▪ bike X44 ro rnss - 1,.. r workers per room
It is likely that the Resort Hotel rooms in the proposed project would similarly cr eate a need for workers on roughly a one-to-one basis, Le., 2f1€'i more workers - primarily service workers - Including housekeeping, restaurant and event, buildings and grounds maintenance, pool and exercise facility staff. etc,
The MND document that adding multi -family housing in this location would be Viw1T-effickent. This also sv„+;eats there is a particular need for workforce housing in this area because additional housing would result in short commutes. Adding service jobs in this area without adding a comparable amount of workforce housing would aggravate an existing workforce housing problem and result in significant VN1T impacts. These impacts should heanaly ed. If significant. they should be mitigated, Sincerely,
Norman L MvlarshalI
htansi/ www,ornrohsIesfore/hotela,/palm-sperri9s ramho-les-pale ikfaceommodatIons 4hnps://w www.tripadwisar.coin/Hotel_Reviewig32943-d794 RMrtews, The_Westin _RancFro MI
r https;l/uaww.trlpadwrsarcam ntei_Revrewwg32942-d37218-Reviews-The_Rltt_Car[ton_Rancharvllra Rai ncha_hr11ra8e_Grweater__Palm Springs [aIrfarn _htmI 7 02-37
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2720
RTC -891

Responses to Comments
Resume

NORMAN L MARSHALL, PRESIDENT
nrnagshahliMsrriartnstibil'rt y. term
EDUCATiDN:

Master of Science in Engineering Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1982 Bachelor of Science In ivfathermatics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, 1977 PFICFFI- ICi4AL EXPERIENCE: III Years, 18 at Smart Mobility, Inc.) No, nii Marshall helped found Smart Mobility, Inc, In 2001. Prior to this, he was at RSG for 14 years where he developed a national practice in travel demand modeling. Ile specializes in analyzing the relationships between the built environment and travel behavior and doing planning that coordinates multi -modal transportation with land use and community needs.

Regional Land Use/ Transportation Scenario Planning
Portland Area iCormprehenfive Transportation System (PACTS) - the Portland Maine Metropolitan Planning Organization Updating regional travel demand model with new data (including Ai*Sage), adding a truck model., and multiclass assignment including differentiation between cash toll and transponder payments.

Loudoun CaUnty Virginia Dynamic Traffic Assignment - Enhanced ssldsarea travel demand model to include Dynamic Traffic. Assignment (Cube). Model being used to better understand impacts of roadway expansion on induced travel,
Vermont Agency of Transportation -Enhanced statewide travel demand model to evaluate travel impacts of cIasui es and delays resuitingfrom severe strin events, Model uses innovate Monte Carlo simulations process to account for combinations of failures.

California Air Resources Board - Led team including the University of California In $250k protect that reviewed the ability of the new generation of regional activity -based models and land use models to accurately act:ount for greenhouse gas emissions from alternative scenarios iricludlng more compact walkable land use and roadway pricing, This work included hands-on testing of the most complex travel demand models In use in the U.S. today,
Climate Plan {California statewide) —Assisted large coalition of giaups in reviewingand participating In the target setting process required by Senate Bill 375 and administered by the California Air Resources Board to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions through land use measures and other regional Initiatives.

Chill nden County '12050 Land use and Transportation Vision Burlington Vermont region l — led extensive public visioning project as part of MPtYs long-range transportation plan update.

Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization — Implemented walk, transit and bike models within regional travel demand model, The bike model includes skimming bike networks including an -road and off -road bicycle Facilities with a bike level of service established for each segment, Chicago Metropolis Plan and Chicago Metropolis Freight Plan (6 -cow* region)— developed alternative transportation scenarios, made enhancements in the regional travel demand model, and used the enhanced 8 02-38

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2721
RTC -892

Responses to Comments
model to evaluate alternative scenarios including development of alternative regional transit concepts..

Developed multi -class assignment model and used it to analyze frelght alternatives including congestion pricing and other peak shifting strategies.

MunicipaI Planning,
City of Grand Rapids — Michigan Street Corridor — devrefoped peak period subarea model including nein- motorized trips based on urban form. Model is being used to develop traffic volumes for several alternatives that are being dditional analysed using the City's Synchro model City of Cmaha - Modified regional travel demand model to properly account for man -motorized trips, transit trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more cormpac-t nixed -use development. Scenarios with different roadway, transit. and laird use alternatives were modeled.

City of Dublin {Columbus region) = 'Modified regional travel demand model to properly account far non - motorized trips and shorter auto trips that would result from more compact mixed -use development The model was applied in analyses for a new downtown to be constructed m the Bridge Street corridor on bath sides of an historic village center.

City of Portland, Maine -Implemented model improvements that better amount for rrun-Purloined ttifrs arid interactions between land use and transportation and applied the enhanced model to two subarea studies.

Cityof Honolulu - Ita'ka'aka Transit Oriented Development (TOD) -applied regional travel demand model in estimating impacts of proposed TOD including estimating internal trip capture.

City of Burlington (Vermont) Transportation Plan - Led team that developing Transportation Plan focused on supporting increased population and employment without increases in traffic by focusing Investments and policies on transit, walking. biking and Transportation Demand Management ra ns.it ?tanning
Regional Transportation Authority (Chicago) and Chicagca Metropolis 202Q - evaluated alternative 2020 and 2030 system -wide trbnslt scenarios including deterioration and enhance/expand under alternative land use and energy pia ingassuinptions in support of initiatives for increased public funding Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Austin,. TX) Transit Vision -analyzed the regional effects of implementing the transit vision in concert with an aggressive transit.oriented development plan developed by Gilthorpe Associates. Transit vision includes commuter rail and BRT.

Bus Rapid Transit for Northern Virginia HOT Lanes {Breakthrough Technologies, Inc and Environmental Defense.} - analyzed alternative Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) strategies for proposed privately -developing High Occupancy Toll lanes on r-95 and I-495 (Capital BeFtwayl including different service alternatives (point-to-point services, trunk lines, intersecting corinectIng routes at in -line statlrns, and hybrl d).

Roadway Corridor Planning
I-30 Little Rock Pirkansas - Dever ped enhanced version of regional travel demand model that integrates TransCAD with open source Dynamic Traffic Assignment (DTA) software, and used to model I-30 alternatives, Freeway bottlenecks are modeled much more accurately than In the base 7ransCAC model, 9 Q2-38
Cant_

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2722
RTC -893

Responses to Comments
South Evacuation Lifeline (SELL) — in work for the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, used Dynamic Travel .Assignment (DTA) to estimate evaluation times with different transportation alternatives in coastal 5cnrth Caroline including a new proposed freeway,,
Hudson River Crossing Study (Capital District Transportation Committee and NYSDOT)—Analyzing longterm capacity needs for Hudson River bridges which a special focus on the I-90 Patraon Island Bridge where a microslmulatian VISSlM model was developed and appbed.

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS {partial list)
DTA Love: Co -leader of workshop on Dynamic Traffic Assignment at the June 2019 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference,
Forecasting the Irnpossihie: The Status Cffiuo of Estimating Traffic Flows with Static Traffic Assignment and the Future of Dynamic Traffic Assignment. !Research rn Transportation Business anal Management 2018.

Assessing Freeway Expansion Projects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the August 2018 Transportation Research Board Tools of the Trade Conference an Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities.

Vermont Statewide Resilience Modeling. With Joseph Segale, James Sullivan and Roy Schiff, Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Plannrrrig Applications Conference, Assessing Freeway Expansion Protects with Regional Dynamic Traffic Assignment. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planning Applications Conference, Pre-tiestination Choke Walk Made Choice Modeling. Presented at the May 2017 Transportation Research Board Planing Applications Conference..

A Statistical Model of Regional Traffic Congestion in the Urrlteci States, presented at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.

MEMBERSHIP'S/AFFILIATIONS
Assodate Member, Transportation Research Board (TRB)
Member and Co -Leader Project for Transportation Modeling Reform, Congress far the New Urbanism (CND) 1G
02-38
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2723
RTC -894

Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter 02
Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
April 9, 2024
02-1 The City acknowledges the comment as an introduction to comments that follow. This comment is included in the Final MND for review and consideration by the decision -makers prior to a final decision on the project. No further response is required.
02-2 The comment provides a summary of the project description and project location. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 02-3 The comment indicates that additional comments are included in the comment letter from Paul Rosenfeld and Norm Marshall which require response. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. The comments from Paul Rosenfeld and Norm Marshall are addressed in Response to Comments 02-22 through 02-39. 02-4 The comment summarizes comments to follow, concluding that the MND does not comply with CEQA and states that an EIR is required. The detailed concerns are addressed in Responses to Comments 02-6 through 02-20.
02-5 The comment provides an introduction to CARE CA. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 02-6 The comment provides background information regarding CEQA and the requirements for an EIR and MND. The comment states that the MND lacks basic information regarding potentially significant impacts and has unsupported conclusions. The comment states that there is evidence that the project may result in potentially significant impacts that are not reduced to less than significant with the proposed mitigation measures, calling for an EIR. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment with the proposed mitigation measures, as discussed in the Initial Study/MND and an EIR is not required. The detailed concerns about the adequacy of analysis and mitigation measures are addressed in Responses to Comments 02-7 through 02-20.
02-7 The comment states that the MND fails to adequately analyze and mitigate health risks from construction activities or evaluate the combined lifetime risk of exposure to the project's operation and construction TAC emissions, specifically diesel particulate matter.

As discussed in the MND, the assessment of the project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Section 2.5.3, Threshold AQ-3) includes a localized significance threshold (LST) analysis and Carbon Monoxide (CO) hotspot assessment, as recommended by the SCAQMD. The MND includes quantitative analysis for construction LSTs, which includes NO2, CO PM2.5, and PM10, where PM10 is the representative of diesel particulate matter and includes diesel exhaust emissions that would constitute the TACs for the project construction. The analysis shows that proposed construction activities would not generate emissions of PM10 in excess of site specific LSTs.

Localized project construction impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. In response to these comments a supplemental health risk assessment has been prepared for the project and is included as Appendix A-2 . As presented in the supplemental health risk assessment, with Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2724
RTC -895

Responses to Comments
implementation of MM-AQ-1, the project estimated construction emissions result in a potential maximum cancer risk at the Maximally Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR) below the 10 in one million cancer risk threshold and a potential chronic hazard risk below the 1.0 Chronic Hazard Index threshold.

As such, the project would result in a construction health risk impact that would be less than significant with mitigation. This determination differs from the IS/MND, which concluded that construction heath risk impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. (IS/MND, p. 81.) While the information contained herein demonstrates an increase in the severity of this impact relative to what was previously disclosed in the IS/MND, MM-AQ-1 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and the applicant has agreed to implement MM-AQ-1 if the project is approved. 02-8 The comment provides background on CEQA requirements for analysis of human health impacts and provides case law examples. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.
02-9 The comment states that a quantitative analysis of the project's health risk impacts, such as a health risk analysis as recommended by OEHHA, must be completed to comply with CEQA's analytical requirements.

As presented in response to comment 02-7, a supplemental health risk assessment has been prepared following OEHHA guidelines for the project and is included as Appendix A-2. OEHHA's most recent guidance is the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments 2015 (2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines Manual) (OEHHA 2015), which supersedes the 2003 OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines Manual. The 2015 Risk Assessment Guidelines Manual was used to calculate the health risk impacts from project construction. 02-10 The comment states that localized significance thresholds do not apply to diesel particulate matter or others TACs and the MND still needs to analyze health risk impacts from exposure to TACs.

As, presented in response to comment 02-7, a supplemental health risk assessment has been prepared for the project and is included as Appendix A-2. As presented in the supplemental health risk assessment, with implementation of MM-AQ-1, the project estimated construction emissions result in a potential maximum cancer risk at the MEIR below the 10 in one million cancer risk threshold and a potential chronic hazard risk below the 1.0 Chronic Hazard Index threshold. As such, the project would result in a construction health risk impact that would be less than significant with mitigation. This determination differs from the IS/MND, which concluded that construction heath risk impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. (IS/MND, p. 81.) While the information contained herein demonstrates an increase in the severity of this impact relative to what was previously disclosed in the IS/MND, MM-AQ-1 would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. 02-11 The comment concludes that a health risk analysis must be prepared to evaluate the magnitude of the project's health risk impacts in accordance with CEQA.

As presented in response to comment 02-7, a supplemental health risk assessment has been prepared for the project and is included as Appendix A-2.
02-12 The comment summarizes the findings and data from SWAPE using AERMOD, concluding that the health risks result in significant impact and a revision is necessary to include analysis and mitigation Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2725
RTC -896

Responses to Comments
of the impacts. The comment incorrectly identifies the MND as an EIR. The data and findings from SWAPE are addressed in Responses to Comments 02-22 through 02-29. 02-13 The comment states that the project conflicts with the applicable air quality plan, referencing the SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. The comment states that the land use designation change from Mountain Reserve to Resort Hotel would introduce additional residents and hotel users to the area, causing a potential for the project to exceed air quality impact assumptions in the Air Quality Management Plan. The comment states that the land use change was not accounted for in the SCAG forecast and the projects operational -source emissions are not accounted for in the air quality management plan. The comment states that this is a significant impact that must be disclosed.

The comment incorrectly states that the change of land use designation from Mountain Reserve (MR) to Resort Hotel would introduce additional residents to the City. The Sky Mesa Recreation Area includes a restaurant built into the natural hillside with a pool and large lawn event space below the restaurant.

A restroom facility would be constructed into the hillside adjacent the restaurant and pool. The Sky Mesa Recreation Area does not include any residential units nor increase the 106 residential hotel villas proposed with the project. A pedestrian walkway network would connect the hotel villas portion of the project with the Sky Mesa Recreation Area. The pedestrian network would provide access to pools, ponds, and open space areas within the project site. Within the Sky Mesa Recreation Area, north of the proposed restaurant and pool, the pedestrian network would include viewpoints towards the north/east.

The proposed increase in 216 residents associated with the 106 residential hotel villas involves development of the hotel villas portion of the project which is consistent with the land current land use zoning of Resort Hotel (RS). Therefore, the IS/MND correctly states that the additional 216 residents would be considered in the SCAG's population projections and would be consistent with the 2022 AQMP.

Furthermore, SCAG identifies the Sky Mesa Recreation Area portion of the project as a "vacant parcel of appropriate size" within the SCAG Housing Element Parcel Tool. SCAG identifies the Sky Mesa Recreation Area parcel (APN 689020014) to have a 2019 land use as "vacant" and identifies the 2016 SCAG general plan land use code as 1830 and 1880, each defined by SCAG as follows:
1830 State/National Park and Recreation
This category includes developed land within parks designed to serve a regional area. All facilities within the park, such as campgrounds, marinas, or boat launching facilities, are included in this class.

Regional parks are typically large, and may include undeveloped areas. The photo signature shows green grass areas, as well as tree -covered areas. The park may have one or more roads winding through it, depending on the size of the park. The park usually contains a number of sports facilities, such as basketball courts, tennis courts, softball fields, soccer fields, and swimming facilities. Water bodies within regional parks that are above mapping resolution are coded 4100. Beach parks are not included (see code 1870). Where multiple uses occur within a regional park, for example golf course, agriculture, flood control, etc., the use other than Regional Park takes precedence. Most regional parks are identified on collateral sources. This Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2726
RTC -897

Responses to Comments
class includes such uses as zoos, wild animal parks, duck ponds, exotic animal farms, etc.

Zoos appear as large areas with many buildings and much vegetation in a confined area, with numerous walkways. A large parking lot is adjacent to the facility. 1880 Other Open Space and Recreation
This category includes developed portions of public and private recreational facilities that are not described in the other open space and recreational categories above. Included are camps, campgrounds (unless within a regional park (1830)), outdoor shooting ranges, ski areas, marinas, and driving ranges not associated with a golf course. Also included are maintained grass areas not used or designated as a local park.

Most of these facilities are identified on the collateral data. Marinas are located adjacent to harbors, and contain small piers, with numerous boats. The water portion of a marina, where the boats are moored, is mapped in the Water category (see code 4300). Ski areas are typically located in mountains above 5000 feet. The area contains a series of wide linear clearings that may braid with each other. A series of towers representing the chairlift system can be seen on the aerial photo. Camp -grounds appear as an area with narrow roads circling within, with offshoot segments representing each campsite area. Campgrounds are also identified on collateral sources.

The development of the Sky Mesa Recreation Area including restaurant/swimming facilities and lawn event space would not be significantly different than what could be included in SCAG land use codes for the site as described above, which include sports facilities, swimming pools, campgrounds, and supporting roads. Additionally, the Sky Mesa Recreation Area would include a pedestrian walkway network that would connect the hotel villas portion of the project with the Sky Mesa Recreation Area and would not have vehicular access throughout nor parking which is consistent with the current MR zone requirements but would be allowed under the SCAG land uses 1830 and 1880. For these reasons the development of the Sky Mesa Recreation Area as proposed in the IS/MND is considered not result in operational emissions that could not have been considered in the SCAG projections and therefore would be consistent with the AQMP.
02-14 The comment states that the MND does not include sufficient analysis on energy conservation, such as solar facilities, alternative fuel, or passive energy efficiency measures. The comment provides background and case law on CEQA requirements regarding energy consumption. The comment states that compliance with Title 24 is not adequate to address energy impact concerns.

Energy consumption during project operation would be commensurate with typical commercial projects and would not use energy wastefully or inefficiently. Furthermore, the project would include sustainability design features to reduce potential energy and water usage, such as installation of high - efficiency lighting. Other renewable energy systems including wind turbine generation, geothermal generation, energy storage, and other renewable energy generation features are not considered technically or economically feasible and/or demonstrated for a similar project. Additionally, site constraints include limited land availability and incompatibility with land use for large-scale power generation facilities, as well as unknown interconnection feasibility and compatibility with utility provider systems. For these reasons other on -site renewable energy systems are not considered feasible for the proposed project. No further analysis is required.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2727
RTC -898

Responses to Comments
02-15 The comment states that the MND needs a detailed analysis of reduced mobile source energy consumption through electric vehicle charging infrastructure consistent with policy AQ 1.4B and AQ 1.5D.

The MND directly states that the project would provide EV charging infrastructure that meets the California GBC. Further analysis of the impact of EV charging infrastructure is not required in the GHG analysis and the project would comply with California GBC. As discussed in the MND, GHG impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation and an EIR are not required.

O2-16 The comment states that the MND lacks an evaluation of measures to reduce the need for a diesel backup generator, such as alternative fuel sources.

The commenter suggests an alternative fuel source for the emergency generator should be included in the analysis, however the use of alternative fuel does not evaluate the efficient use of energy. The project would operate one diesel -fueled emergency generator for a maximum of 50 hours per year for routine testing and maintenance. This usage was accounted for in the project's operational air quality impacts, which are less than significant. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

O2-17 The comment states that the MND does not evaluate the feasibility of opting in to the Rancho Mirage Energy Authority 100% renewable program and does not make a commitment to the program.

The MND states the Ritz Carlton Rancho Mirage is already enrolled in the Rancho Mirage Energy Authority. The project is an extension of the Ritz Carlton Rancho Mirage and would be subject to the requirements of the existing enrollment. A separate commitment to the program should not be necessary.

O2-18 The comment incorrectly states that the MND does not evaluate the feasibility of existing power sources or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.

As discussed in Section 6.1 of the MND, temporary direct electric service would be provided by Southern California Edison (SCE) for the construction of the project and would at the least provide electrical power for construction site lighting, computer equipment, and temporary construction trailer operations. Diesel -fired electric generators would be only used where electric energy is needed for construction and not available through existing or temporary construction electrical hookups. In addition, MM-AQ-1 would require prior to the commencement of construction activities for the project, the applicant shall require its construction contractor to use California Air Resources Board (CARB)- certified Tier 4 engines for all diesel -powered equipment pieces that are 75 horsepower or greater throughout all phases of construction. Tier 4 emission standards are currently the highest level of non - road engine emissions standards for engine manufacturers. No additional analysis is required.

O2-19 The comment is a conclusion the previous comments. The comment states that the MND does not address whether the building should be constructed at all, how large it should be, where it should be located, whether it should incorporate renewable energy resources, etc. as identified in Appendix F.

The comment concludes that an analysis of energy reducing measures must be provided in an EIR.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2728
RTC -899

Responses to Comments
The project would be built to the most recent GBC standards, which include measures such as EV charging. As concluded in the MND, the project would not result in the inefficient or wasteful use of energy. Please refer to responses to Comments 02-14 through 02-18. 02-20 The comment summarizes the findings and data from Norman Marshall, that the project VMT will likely exceed the City's threshold and that an EIR must be prepared. The data and findings from Norman Marshall are addressed in Responses to Comments 02-33 through 02-38. 02-21 The comment provides a conclusion to the detailed comments provided in the comment letter. The comment concludes that the project may have significant, unmitigated impacts. The comment calls for the preparation of an EIR. As discussed in the Responses to Comments 02-5 through O2-20, the MND complies with CEQA, and impacts are less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, and EIR is not required.

O2-22 The comment provides a summary of the project description and is an introduction to the comments that follow. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.

O2-23 The comment summarizes the detailed comments that follow. The comment states that the MND does not evaluate the health risk impacts and emissions and an EIR should be prepared to assess and mitigate these effects. Please refer to Responses to Comments O2-25 through O2-28.

O2-24 The comment states that the evaluation of potential health risks and conclusion of a less than significant impact is incorrect, and the comment introduces three reasons for this. The detailed reasons are addressed in Responses to Comments O2-25 through O2-27.

O2-25 The comment states that the MND does not include a quantified construction health risk analysis and does not connect the project's construction TAC emissions to the potential health risk of nearby receptors, which makes the project inconsistent with CEQA.

In response to comments received during the public review period, a supplemental health risk assessment has been prepared for the project and is included as Attachment X. As presented in the supplemental health risk assessment, with implementation of MM-AQ-1, the project estimated construction emissions result in a potential maximum cancer risk at the MEIR below the 10 in one million cancer risk threshold and a potential chronic hazard risk below the 1.0 Chronic Hazard Index threshold. As such, the project would result in a construction health risk impact that would be less than significant with mitigation. This determination differs from the IS/MND, which concluded that construction heath risk impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. (IS/MND, p.

81.) While the information contained herein demonstrates an increase in the severity of this impact relative to what was previously disclosed in the IS/MND, MM-AQ-1 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and the applicant has agreed to implement MM-AQ-1 if the project is approved.

O2-26 The comment provides background on the OEHHA guidance on conducting health risk analysis, which recommends that projects lasting at least 2 -months assess cancer risks. Since the project is over the OEHHA duration thresholds, the comment state that a health risk analysis should be completed for the 22 -month construction period to assess impacts from diesel particulate matter and an EIR should be prepared.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2729
RTC -900

Responses to Comments
In response to comments a supplemental health risk assessment has been prepared for the project and is included as Attachment X. As presented in the supplemental health risk assessment, with implementation of MM-AQ-1, the project estimated construction emissions result in a potential maximum cancer risk at the MEIR below the 10 in one million cancer risk threshold and a potential chronic hazard risk below the 1.0 Chronic Hazard Index threshold. As such, the project would result in a construction health risk impact that would be less than significant with mitigation. This determination differs from the IS/MND, which concluded that construction heath risk impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required. (IS/MND, p. 81.) While the information contained herein demonstrates an increase in the severity of this impact relative to what was previously disclosed in the IS/MND, MM-AQ-1 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance, and the applicant has agreed to implement MM-AQ-1 if the project is approved.
02-27 The comment states that the MND does not analyze cancer risks from combined construction and operation of the project and does not sum each age bin when assessing cancer risks. The comments states that an updated analysis is needed to accurately quantify the risks.

An HRA operational analysis was provided in the MND for the intermittent maintenance and testing of the diesel -fired emergency generator, which would be limited to 50 hours per year. SCAQMD Rule 1470 limits operation of emergency generators to 50 hours per year for maintenance and testing). Due to this relatively short period of exposure, small engine size of the emergency generator (1,200 hp), and minimal on -site particulate emissions from other sources, TACs generated during operation would not result in concentrations causing significant health risks as demonstrated through SCAQMD' Risk Assessment Tool for Rule 1401 and 212, (Version 8.1). The Risk Assessment Tool, a spreadsheet program, was used to perform a screening level evaluation of the cancer and non -cancer health effects of the emergency generator emissions pursuant to Rule 1401, see Appendix B for program results.

Combining the maximum impact resulting from the SCAQMD' Risk Assessment Tool for operation with the maximum impact from the supplemental construction health risk assessment would still not exceed the construction health risk assessment thresholds for significance (0.57 + 6.65 = 7.22 versus CEQA threshold of 10), therefore no further analysis is required. 02-28 The comment provides background information on AERSCREEN, a screening -level risk assessment, and describes the methodology and inputs used to prepare a preliminary health risk analysis. The comment states that the cancer risk for the construction and operation of the project, is approximately

58.3 in one million which exceeds the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million and results in a potential significant impact not addressed by the MND. The comment clarifies that the results from AERSCREEN represent a screening -level analysis which warrants further evaluation and an El R.

A screening -level HRA using AERSCREEN relies upon general non -site -specific variables to calculate concentrations at distances from the source. This model does not take into account site -specific variables that a refined HRA (using a model such as AERMOD) would, including localized meteorological data (wind and temperature), topography, and buildings. As discussed herein a supplemental health risk assessment has been prepared for the project and is included as Appendix A-2. As presented in the supplemental health risk assessment and in response to comment 02-27, with implementation of MM-AQ-1, the project estimated construction emissions and construction and operational emissions would result in a potential maximum cancer risk at the MEIR below the 10 in one million cancer risk threshold and a potential chronic hazard risk below the 1.0 Chronic Hazard Index threshold.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2730
RTC -901

Responses to Comments
02-29 The comment states that mitigation measures are necessary because the project would result in potentially significant health risk impacts. The comment recommends the use of Tier 4 construction equipment for all engines above 25 hp and other mitigations identified in SCAG's TRP/SCS 2020-2045.

The comment concludes that an EIR should be prepared to include the mitigation measures commitment to implementation and a health risk analysis.

In response to comments a supplemental health risk assessment has been prepared for the project and is included as Attachment X. As presented in the supplemental health risk assessment, with implementation of MM-AQ-1, the project estimated construction emissions result in a potential maximum cancer risk at the MEIR below the 10 in one million cancer risk threshold and a potential chronic hazard risk below the 1.0 Chronic Hazard Index threshold. As such, the project would result in a construction health risk impact that would be less than significant with mitigation. While the MND found that construction heath risk impacts would be less than significant with no mitigation required, the Final IS/MND includes MM-AQ-1 would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. No further mitigation measures are required.
02-30 The comment is a disclaimer and provides concluding remarks. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 02-31 The comment includes the resume of Paul Rosenfeld. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 02-32 The comment is an introduction and summary to the comments that follow. The detailed concerns are addressed in Responses to Comments 02-32 through 02-37. 02-33 The comment states that the MND mischaracterizes Resort Hotel rooms as multi -family housing, and the project represents 225 resort hotel rooms rather than 106 units. As described in the MND, the project would consist of 106 residential units for the VMT analysis. For the Multifamily land use rate, the number of bedrooms in each unit does not impact the total number of units. Further, because the units will have characteristics that would function like a residential unit (full kitchens, individual garages, etc) the project would function more similarly to a residential unit. The quoted portion of the MND in the comment is clarifying that the project would not be utilized year-round and would not count towards the RHNA allocation and is not part of the VMT discussion. 02-34 The comment states that the mischaracterization leads to significantly underestimating trip generation and misrepresenting peak travel direction. The comment states that the morning and afternoon peak trip generation is larger than identified in the MND due to the large support staff needed for resort hotels. The comment states that these errors invalidate the traffic analysis of traffic volumes and levels of service.

As described in Response to Comment 02-34, the project would consist of 106 units, not 206 hotel rooms. The land use that most closely matches the project's land use is multi -family residential, given the provided amenities.

The project's TIA utilized trip generation rates from the 10th edition of the ITE which are higher than those in the 11th edition of the ITE for both multifamily housing and resort hotel land uses. Therefore, the project represents an even more conservative estimate of trip generation because a higher rate was used.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2731
RTC -902

Responses to Comments
The comment specifically states that the project's peak hour rates were underrepresented. In both the 10th and 11th edition, the AM and PM trip generation rates are higher for multifamily housing than resort hotel land uses, therefore the use of the multi -family housing would have a higher trip generation than a hotel land use.
02-35 The comment states that the VMT analysis incorrectly treats resort hotel rooms as residential dwellings and does not analyze VMT impacts of guest and support workers. The comment states that these VMT impacts are likely highly significant and should be mitigated.

The project would consist of 106 units. Further, because the units will have characteristics that would function like a residential unit (full kitchens, individual garages, etc) the project would function more similarly to a residential unit. As discussed in the MND, the number of employees is anticipated to be minimal for the project. As detailed in the TIA, the trip generation used was not only for the residential uses but also the commercial uses onsite (the Sky Mesa portion). 02-36 The comment states that the venue space is mischaracterized as a swimming pool and open space and is falsely identified as local serving. The comment states that the venue space would create a significant number of new trips and requires a separate VMT analysis that includes event frequency and average travel distance to the venue.

As described in Chapter 1 of the MND, the Sky Mesa Recreation Area would provide additional event space, restaurant, and amenities such as a pool terrace and view opportunities of the surrounding areas. The trips associated with the event venue space are included in Table 17-6 of the MND. As shown in the traffic analysis, the internal capture applies to the Sky Mesa Restaurant, not the venue, which results in the increase of 305 trips during events, As concluded in the MND, the project would result in less than significant VMT impacts, no additional analysis is required. 02-37 The comment states that adding service jobs associated with the project would aggravate an existing workforce housing problem in Rancho Mirage. The comment provides data on housing needs by income category and employee numbers by resort. The comment estimates that the project would cause an addition of service workers at a 1:1 ratio to rooms. The comment states that this impact should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigated.

The MND addresses impacts to population and housing under MND Section 14.2. As concluded in the MND, the project would be consistent with the anticipated population and employment growth for the City, Impacts were determined to be less than significant. 02-38 The comment includes the resume of Norman Marshall. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2732
RTC -903

Responses to Comments

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2733
RTC -904

Responses to Comments
Conrnent Letter 03
August 20, 2024

COMMENTS TO RECIRCULATED DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Rancho Mirage
City Clark and Planning Department
Comments to.

Mr. Ben Torres, Ply rr og Manager
Email: 1 ra.�eC:A,aov
Krishe Rams, City Clerk, City of Rancho Mirage
Email: kristier,' .renCI • MIre9..au._9 v
Deadline for Response: August 20, 2024 r SCH. 2024030267 Project Name: Ritz Carlton
Pin ect.ID9 rint)4rt: The protect proposes the construction of the Ritz Carlton residences consisting of 106 units (48 residential suites 858 villas) ranging in size from 1 to 3 bedrooms, 23,840 square feet of event space, 5,510 square feet for amenities, a 381 - space subterranean parking structure, and 116 additional residential spaces. Addi€ionally, the Sky Mesa recreational area will consist o€ a 6,273 square foot restaurant and a 593 square foot restroom facility (the Sky Mesa". The Sky Mesa area will also provide additronaf lawn event space and pool area, Overall, the 35.07 -acre protect site, which includes the existing hotel, will expand by a total of approximately 236,748 square feel of new interior spaces. In addition, a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment is proposed lo amend the Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the projects Sky Mesa Recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) an approximately 3.85 acres (APNs: 6.89- 020-012 #b 689- 020-014). A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM38768) proposes to establish three parcels (excluding Sky Mesa area) with Parcel 3 of Itte map containing 146 condo units (Ritz Carlton residences)_ Lastly, a 10th Amendment to the existing Development Agreement with Newage Rancho Mirage, LLC (thy "10th Amendment-) is proposed_ (APNs: 689-330- 026, -28, -31, -32, -34; 689-020- 012, -14: & 689-331-001, -18). 41vivitLnnd'IrruAt.iarg ?.ho
',4441i Irma Mut FO Box *A clwiros. C14 P2220
03-1
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2734
RTC -905

Responses to Comments
To Whorn it May Concern:
°swil Land Trust is a 5©1C3 non-profit land conservancy dedicated to preserving crihcal habitat for wildlrle corndorr and sensitive species. We achieve our goals through the acquisition of land and advocacy. We are a proud member or the Land Trust Alliance and have over 3,000 active members who are residents within the Coachella Valley and beyond.

As always. we thank the City of Rancho Mirage for your dedication to making the city a beautiful balance between development and respect for maintaining access to the beauty and diversity of our natural Lands and precious wildlife.

A primary mission of Oswit Land Trust is to advocate on behahf cif biologically significant habitats, threatened and endangered species, and sensitive resources so these land areas receive the full specr.rum of community oversight and attention they so richly deserve, particularly when they occur on or adjacent to biologically fIch or steep hillsides where the flora and fauna and accompanying wildlife are particularly sensitive. This is our concern, particularly with the proximity to the Bighorn Sheep Reserve Area.

The primary emphasis of the comments from Dswlt Land Trust wilt be devoted to biological Impacts, the NISI-1CP and its obligations, the Bighorn Sheep Conservation Area and its responsibilities, and the developer's proposed abandonment of the Mountain Reserve lofting Designation to Resort Hotel. It appears that this "protective" land use and zoning designation occurred thoughtfully and in response to the City's priorities, policies, and open space objectives, completely understanding the area's proximity to•the preexisting Ritz Carlton, Abandoning this protection to commercial use, even OF it k proposed recreational use, Ma major shift in land use objectives and policy, particularly because of the Intensity of the use in its unique environmental setting. this "significant environmental Impact" goes without assessment In the R-DraR MND.

There is no explanation in the R -Draft MND why the protected Mountain Reserve Area, and its unique setting, should be abandoned for expansion of recreational activity and structures into s f twwit i and irrtrrt.irr 1 7rp I 'i
+'.we It LeuLTnat, Pin tin. i11O. Palma Bruno Y, CA gglii�., 03-2
O3-3
034

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2735
RTC -906

Responses to Comments
land area reserved for biological considerations, A concern is whether the Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Recirculated €z-MND) has fully messed and achieved Lard Use and Zoning consistency in Its policies, plans, and objectives under the Rancho Mirage General Plan, Oswvit Land Trust maintains that it has. not.

The following represent the considerable concerns of Oswlt Land Trust that the biological and land use sectkuns of the Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration IR-Draft MND} are Incomplete h description, deficient In assessment, and concluslonary In resuks and attempted mitigation. We have cited the page numbers and portions of text from several sections to Illustrate the concerns„ followed by comments.

BIOLOGICAL SECTION OF THE R -DRAFT MND Terms 87-92 :
42 Discussion of Impacts (at p. BS):
"DenInsulat 3 morn sheep s « erec uncer the CVMS-ICF, [emphasis added] One non -listed species has a moderate potential to occur within the project site: red diamondback rattlesnake. Red diamondback rattlesnake is not covered under the CVMSHCP.'
Discussion of Section 42: The biological assessment for Peninsular bighorn sheep is one of the most sensitive biological issues for this area. The nearby USFWL and CDFWL conservation area for these species, in the same mountain chain that encompasses the Ritz Carlton Project, was covered extensively In the Draft Environmental Impact Reports for relatively nearby resort activity within the City of La Otrinta, namely, Travertine and Coral Mountain. (Extensive information was Of' file for La Willa by bath the United States Department of Fish and WIIdII a USFWL and California Department of Fish and Wildlife ICDFWL), with extensive requirements for the protect design to mitigate and avoid impacts to threatened and endangered resources within the hillside areas on the mountainside.

There are no letters on file available to the public as of today frorrl either USFWL or CDFWL that support the biological assessor era in the R=d raft MND on impacts to Bighorn Sheep or threatened and endangered species for Rancho Mirage. The letters are mentioned, but no information given f►snitI.and irruxt.rrreI „td p I 'i
4'}Fr It horn m.t, tin ttn. VIN, Palma Spunk CA gglii�., 03-4
Dont.
3-$
O3-6

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2736
RTC -907

Responses to Comments
on their content, and no indications whatsoever on what effect the comments had to correct mitigation In the Recirculated D-MtW. Upon request for the carr rent letters to the Ctty, after 24 hours pending a deadline, the letters stfll were not available to us as public members_ Ernails to/fromthe city support this.

Accordingly, Oswot Land Trust has no Information to assess the sufficiency of impacts to these resources; to know If they exist; to know the Jurisdictional responsibilities; to know if the city has met there as lead agency; to know If mitigation Is effective! This has invalidated our comment letter. A more detailed explanation follows immediately), because this issue has such a profound Impact.

In the Ritz Carlton Notice of Completion (NOC), presently on file with the State Clearinghouse, there is evidence that the City of Rancho Mirage, as lead agency, notified the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFWL), as a trustee agency for threatened and endangered species,, of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. There is nothing In the NOC that shows USFWL received nonce, There Is nothing that indicates notification to USFWL, and nothing showing its response_ Why USFWL was a major trustee of resources for La Quanta but not Rancho Mirage in the same mountain chain and Bighorn Sheep resource area Is deeply problematic.

At page 1 of the Recirculated D-MND, the document states as follows! -During Iii ,public review period, the lead agency received four comment letters from the following entities.
- California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (emphasis added] Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilia Indians
- Western States Regional Council of Carpenters
- Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
The comment letters raised issues related to biological resources, air quality, cultural resources, Greenhouse Gases (GHG), and noise. [emphasis added] Responses to these comment letters will be included in knit I. and ifiruxt.trrR I „td?p i 3
4 t'iwr It LrnnTnawt, Prl R,,. MN, Palma itr'rowi, CA4
O3-6
CC ht.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2737
RTC -908

Responses to Comments
the Final ISIMND after the public review period of the recirculated ISIMND has been completed."
Upon reviewing the R -Draft MND, the first objective of Oswit Land Trust, and its consultants, were to review the involved comment letters, particularly because two of the four letters are submitted by trustee agencies with jurisdiction over the taws, responsibilities„ and thresholds of sl€gniFicance for resources within the project "area of impact.'
We have not responded (our comments usually do) to air quality, cultural resources, GIG and noise because there is inadequate foundation, considering that commentary is why the City has recirculated its draft, but none of the fetters are available to the public at this stage.

Our conseltant checked the State Clearinghouse website and discovered that the CDFWL comment fetter, and others, were not posted on the site. Then, the consultant reviewed the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the R -Draft MND that has a link to ALL POSTED data, Exhibits, Appendices, and other materials associated with the R -Draft MND, and none of they comment letters appeared.

Twenty-four house before the eyed of the comment period and €allowing through a series of &nails and phone calls stressing our critical need for the CDFWL assessment, the City claimed no staff were available to respond. The City was repeatedly advised of their failure to properly post a state trustee agency comment, as required by CEQA California Code of Regulations Section 15208. At 61O0 p.m. an August 20t`^, the City advised our censulLant no extension would be granted until the letter was received, the letter was not presently available, and that a public record request had been issued on our behalf. By law, the city has ten days to respond, and we shll do not have the letter, or any of the other letters. It takes several minutes to pull a trustee letter from the planner's file — where as it?
The CDFWL Ielier should have been immediately available to the public, and certainly to Oswit Land Trust, and it should have been posted, The failure to publicly issue the CDFWL letter leaves Oswit Land Trust with no foundation to understand or respond to the jurisdictional responsibilities of the city towards the Bighorn Sheep, or other f►wmtitI andIrurt.trrz ?I 'll
t'.!wlt t. and butt., Pn am i11R0. Palma iinaoya, CA gglid�., t 03-7
Cont.
03-8

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2738
RTC -909

Responses to Comments
identification and responsibilities toward potentially threatened or endangered species, or sensitive habitat.

Without such critical data, our comments are devoid of a proper record to give public feedback. This has deprived our organization of a fair and informed basis to comment.

The Planning Manager commented in emails that Oswit Land Trust could correct this lack of information during later hearings. Our rightsare present rights to the information, by CEQA regulations, The 45 -day comment period to a Recirculated Draft cannot be re- created later in the process. Oswit Land Trust maintains that this failure to release the comments of state trustee agencies for public review has deprived our organization of its legal rights to full commentary at this stage of review. We ask for a full remedy.

RIoIo icALSECTION OF THE FR -GRAFT MUD (Page 9O1:
"4.2 (d) Discussion of Impacts (at p.90):

Less -than -Significant impact with Mitigation Incorporated. According. to the City's General Plan - Conservation and Open Space element, the City offers limited opportunities for the preservation of wildlife migration corridors die b the pattern of Santa Rosa Mountains and the Whitewater River (City of Rancho Mirage 2017). The project site does not function as a wildlife corridor and does not support any wildlife nursery sites. Therefore., no impacts associated with wildlife corridors would occur.' DiScusSion i}f Sec -ion 4,2 fob: In support of a conclusion that there are no impacts associated with wildlife corridors that would ocean. (in an area known for Bighorn Sheep protection), the R -Draft MND concludes without supporting evidence of any kind. The R - Draft MND talks about "patterns of Santa :Rana Mountains and he Whitewater River' without identifying what patterns it is referencing_ The author concludes that General Plan policies and information in the Conservation and Open Space Elements preclude any impacts without referencing any support tor the statement, here or at any other location within the R -Draft MND. This type of concItisiOnary analysis occurs throughout the Biological Section.
ffwwitI and I 71" II
6 +'}witLeuLTnat,Pin nomi11O.PaimiSpunk CA9 �.,
O3-9
Ccnt_
03-10

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2739
RTC -910

Responses to Comments
BIOLOGICAL SECTION OF THE R -D AfT MND (Page 91):
"4..2 (d) Discussion of Imparts (at p.91 (d)):

Less -than -Significant Impact with Mitigation incorporated. The City of Rancho Mirage General Plan contains several elements that were established to address potential impacts to biological resources. Spe€ifically, the C-onservation and Open Space Element establishes biological resources goals, policies, and programs that address potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species and their habitats. The City is a Per rnittee of the CVM SH CP; therefore, compliance with the CVMSHCP provides Permittees with take authorization for covered species for all cowered activities, which includes development outside of CVMSHCP conservation ,areas. Therefore, the project is a covered activity, and compliance with the CVM:SHCP would provide take authorization For covered species.

Therefore, with anpiementatiun of MM-BIO-1 through MM -BO -6, the protect would not conflict with the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, Discussion of Section 4.2 id) at Dace 91; The City again references general plan policies to prevent impacts to biological resources. It fails to identify the policies and programs and establish how they mitigate or whether any have been applied to this project. None of this information is referenced in this section or any another section of the R -Draft MND.

The effectiveness of mitigation is conclusion reached without supporting evidence.

The reasoning of the mitigated negative declaration as it relates to the multi species plan (CVMSHCP) and whether the plan's thresholds or obligati is are mel is that (1) the city is eovetrsd under the plan - (2) the plan authorizes take - (3) therefore the mitigation measures MM BIG 1-5 are effective mitigation. This chain of logic is completely without discussion and supporting logic or evidence.

BIOLOGICAL SECTION OF THE R -DRAFT MNt (Pane 911..
"4.2 (d) Discussion of Impacts (at p.91 (d)):

In addition, a General Plan 7aning Map Amendment from Monotafn Reserve (MR1 to Resort Hotel (Rs.H) [emphasis added) is concurrently proposed for the f►w�itI aurdIrtrrt.lrr I „ I ' i 'i
i ixw ll r"nd Trcut, Prl Bat .1180. Palma %Immix, CA, 9n — midst;,
03-11
O3-12

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2740
RTC -911

Responses to Comments
proposed Sky Mesa Recreation Area. Under existing conditions, the proposed Sky Mesa project would conflict with the underlying land use designations. However, as part of the proposed project, the applicant is proposing an amendment to the City's General Plan that would expand the Resort Hotel (Rs -H) designation and zoning of the existing Ritz Carlton to encompass the Sky Mesa site. As noted, the MR zone was adopted For the purposed of avoiding or mitigating possible impacts ran senslttae biological resources and with Implementation and adherence of The above mitigation measures, the project would not conflict with the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated."
Discussion of Section 4-2 {di at pace 91: This section cited above appears to be one of the most vulnerable conclusions of the R -Draft MND that adequate mitigation has occurred. The lead agency, or the city, admits in the text of their evaluation that under existing conditions, the proposed Sky Mesa project conflicts with the underlying land use designation. This is an open and overt admission of conflict. Il is immediately followed by a denial. The evaluation states that the Mountain Reserve Zone was adopted for the very purpose of avoiding or mitigating possible impacts to sensitive biological resources.

We have concluded the same. The present manifest designation did not just happen. It was designed as a policy outcome by the city knowing full well about the Ritz Cadton development, and it was intended to buffer the hillside sensitive biological area.

It is only later with the expansion of the Ritz Carlton and the need to resolve the inconsistency with that designation that the device of a zoning amendment was introduced, with the unsupportable conclusion that no inconsistency can be attached to this change. This thinking not a mitigation approach, it is an unpermitted diversion from adequate environmental assessment under CEfA„
BIOLOGICAL SECTION OF THE R-ORAFT MNra (Page 92i:
"Section 4.3 MM RIO -2 (at page 92):

Coachella Valley &Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Land Use Adjacency Guidelines. The project applicant shall implement the following Land Use Adjacency Guidelines {Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (hn'tI .'rdrruxt.trrj' 17"II 3"
+'.}twit L.IuiTrunt-PnanritIR0.Palmairr'rofixCA9
03-J.2
Cent.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2741
RTC -912

Responses to Comments
jC�uMSFtCpJ, Section 4.5j to minimize and avoid indirect effects from development. adja efrt to conservation areas (le., Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area], where applicable."
Discussion of section 4.3 at liacie 92; The draft document has no assessment of land use adjacency guidelines, of agency responsibilities, avoidance, or mitigation. There is no assessment or discussion of conditions, impacts, options, avoidance, or how mitigation relates to the proposed mitigabon measures. Under drainage in this same section, there is no discussion of the drainage system, how it is designed, what it will impact, what effective mitigation options exist, and how any of this on drainage relates to environmental alternatives. This type of assessment In a void occurs systematically throughout the environmental assessment. Accordingly, mitigation does not have a foundation to show that it is effective,
Land Use Assessment under the R -Draft MND:

The land use assessment under pages 140 and 141 of the Land Use and Planning Impact Evaluation have the same inconsistencies. The conclusions of no impact are unsupportable when compared to given and assessed data in the draft document.

The draft document justifies a finding of insignificant impact in Ihr Sky Mesa area in a discussion that states that only hiking is to be allowed. The project descrption is a complete contradiction to this because structures and buildings and recreational areas are part of the involved project description.

The compatibility of the prOposed development within Sky Mese is essoc eted wilt its adjacency to he project itself — the existing Ritz Carlton. The assessment ignores the position of the proposed development and its adjacency to a sensitive biological area.

The conclusion of "no significant impact" uses the project itself 1c3 define what it calls surrounded uses and ignores the biology of the region that actually does surround Sky Mesa. This assessment of compatibility with general plan policies chooses only the general plan policies that address commercial development and ignores all conservation priorities related to the present land use of Mountain Reserve Zoning. This outcome shows a real bias in the approach to assessment and mitigation. fh,mirIand rnilt.trrti td p I 'i
r.mut—Platt, Prrt . MN, Palma Spumy,., CA OgA10,�.,
g
03-13
Cont.
03-14
O3-15

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2742
RTC -913

Responses to Comments
ti
Land
i
us
OswiI Land Trust is grateful for the hard work of staff and decisionmakers. We hope you will consider our comments and lake great care to protect the sensitive biological areas Mal were originally reserved for the present 'Mountain Reserve Zoning ©esignaticn:

With regard,
lane r,son,
Executive Director C wwt Land fru5t
hnilI and TraiLurz 1 71"II 3
weit[.aulTna.x.Prt PalmaSrunop,CA9'
1t
03-16

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2743
RTC -914

Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter 03
Oswit Land Trust
August 20, 2024
03-1 The comment provides a summary of the project description and project location. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 03-2 The comment provides an introduction to Oswit Land Trust. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 03-3 The comment describes the mission of the Oswit Land Trust and includes a general introduction to comments that follow regarding biological resources. Please refer to Response to Comment 03-4 through 03-15.
03-4 The comment states a concern regarding biological resources within the Mountain Reserve Area.

Additionally, the comment states that MND does not adequately address the project's consistency with land use and zoning policies.

As discussed in the MND, the Sky Mesa Recreational Area is the portion of the project that is on the area zoned as Mountain Reserve and the applicant is proposing an amendment to the City's General Plan and Zoning Map that would rezone the Sky Mesa Recreational Area as Resort Hotel. Appendix G land use threshold b) asks if the project would "(c)ause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect". Conflict with the general plan designation and zoning code does not inherently result in a significant environmental impact. Preparation of the MND included review of the applicable land use and zoning polices for the project site. As discussed in MND Section 11.2, the project and associated discretionary actions associated with the General Plan and Zoning Map amendment, the project would not conflict with the City's land use policies, including protecting sensitive species with the incorporation of biological resource mitigation measures and would not result in a significant environmental impact. Further, if approved, it would be consistent with the general plan land use designation and zoning of the site.
03-5 The comment serves as an introduction to the following comments that state concerns regarding the biological resources and the land use section in the MND. The comment states that the MND failed to include detailed analyses, conclusions, and mitigations. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 03-6 The comment expresses concern regarding the Peninsular bighorn sheep and describes Draft Environmental Impact Reports in the City of La Quinta included extensive requirements by the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFW) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The comment also states that there are no public letters addressing the MND from the USFWL nor the CDFW regarding mitigation. Please refer to Comment Letter Al responses A1-1 through A1-16, where the comments made by CDFW are addressed. Further, the MND was available for public comment by CDFW and USFW during the public review period from March 11, 2024, to April 9,2024 and was recirculated from July 22nd, 2024 to August 20th, 2024. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2744
RTC -915

Responses to Comments
03-7 The comment states that the Notice of Completion (NOC) mentions that CDFW was notified about the NOC but the USFW was not mentioned as a major trustee of resources as it was mentioned for an Environmental Impact Report by the City of La Quinta. The comment also restates information on MND regarding the four comment letters received. The MND was available for public comment during the public review period from March 11, 2024 to April 9,2024 and was recirculated from July 22nd, 2024 to August 20th, 2024. These letters will be available as part of the FMND prepared for this project. 03-9 The comment expresses concern regarding the availability of the letters submitted by CDFW and expresses concern regarding the Bighorn Sheep and other wildlife. The comment further states that the CDFW letter should be available to the public to allow for comment on the MND. The MND was available for public comment during the public review period from March 11, 2024 to April 9,2024 and was recirculated from July 22nd, 2024 to August 20th, 2024. This provided opportunity for the public to comment on the adequacy of the MND. The CDFW letter and responses will be available for the public review in the Final MND.
03-10 The comment states that the MND lacks support for the conclusion that the project would be less than significant with mitigation as it relates to wildlife corridors. Further, the comment states that the MND does not describe the patterns of the Sant Rosa Mountains and the Whitewater River. As concluded in the MND, the project site would does not function as a wildlife corridor, therefore it would not result in impacts to wildfire corridors. Additionally, there is existing fencing separating the Big Horn Reserve Land (i.e., adjacent Conservation Area) from the proposed project site was previously installed to prevent Peninsular bighorn sheep from entering and grazing on the Ritz Carlton Hotel property (i.e., project). As described in Appendix B of the MND, wildlife movement within the project site is unlikely due to the steep topography and urbanized area to the west (i.e., existing Ritz -Carlton Hotel). However, the remainder of the site and the surrounding environment consist of open desert scrub habitat that likely function as open habitat but do not function as a corridor for wildlife.

Clarification has been made to describe the existing fencing and surrounding environment in the MND.

These changes merely clarify or amplify information already found in the Draft MND, and do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the environment. 03-11 The comment states that the MND fails to identify the policies and programs that would mitigate the biological impacts from the City's General Plan. The comment further states that there is not explanation of how the mitigation is effective. The discussion of general plan policies is in response to the Appendix G threshold question that addresses conflicts with local policies that protect biological resources. The MND does not rely on consistency with the general plan policies to avoid impacts to biological resources. Please refer to Comment Al -10 for additional information on how the project would comply with the CVMSHCP guidelines
03-12 The comment expresses concern with the proposed change in general plan designation for the site and expresses that it would result in impacts to biological resources. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-17.
03-13 The comment states that the MND lacks discussion in regard to the Land Use Adjacency Guidelines and mitigation measures. Please refer to Comment Al -10 for additional information on how the project would comply with the CVMSHCP guidelines and revised MM-BIO-2.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2745
RTC -916

Responses to Comments
03-14 This comment states that MM-BIO-2 does not include a description of the drainage system nor does it have a foundation to assess its effectiveness. The Land Use Adjacency Guidelines (Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan [CVMSHCP], Section 4.5) were used to minimize and avoid indirect effects from development adjacent to conservation areas (i.e., Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area) which was used as a foundation for implementing MM-BIO-2. Please refer to Comment Al -10 for additional information on how the project would comply with the CVMSHCP guidelines and revised MM-BIO-2. Additionally, included as Appendix D of the MND, the Preliminary Drainage Study shows the proposed condition hydrology map and states that the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern, and runoff would not exceed the capacity of the downstream drainage system. These changes merely clarify or amplify information already found in the Draft MND, and do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the environment. The comment also recommends that drainage design plans and specifications be provided in a revised MND to allow for a meaningful review. Additional details on the drainage design plan and specification will be provided during the City's Condition of Approval (COA) process. 03-15 The comment states that the MND is not consistent in the land use analysis and the project description regarding existing zoning. The project description serves to provide the reader with an understanding of the actions being proposed by the project. As such the MND's project description serves as a detailed description of the project features, actions and activities. As stated in the MND's project description, the project is proposing "a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment from Mountain Reserve (MR) to Resort Hotel (Rs -H)".

In the land use analysis, the MND restates the MR uses which are, "limited to recreational activities, such as hiking, or equestrian and non -motorized bike trails and facilities consistent with the need to protect sensitive biological resources" and states, "the Sky Mesa portion of the project would conflict with the underlying land use designation." However, as stated above and in the MND, the applicant is proposing an amendment that would expand the Resort Hotel (Rs -H) designation and zoning to encompass the Sky Mesa portion of the site, which is privately owned property and not public land.

Additionally, the MND includes mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6 to reduce the potentially significant impacts related to biological resources. The MND includes MM-BIO-1, which would ensure consistency with the CVMSHCP which would mitigate impacts to CVMSHCP covered species, including the Peninsular bighorn sheep and burrowing owl to less than significant without the need for focused surveys. For species not covered under the CVMSHCP, such as the red diamondback rattlesnake, impacts would still be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of MM-BIO- 2, construction best management practices. The MND already includes pre -construction surveys for nesting birds under MM-BIO-3, burrowing owls identified under MM-BIO-4, prevention inadvertent entrapment of special -status wildlife during construction under MM-BIO-5, and the potential salvage of adult desert tortoise under MM-BIO-6.
03-16 The City acknowledges the concluding comment and will include the comment as part of the Final MND for review and consideration by the decision -makers prior to a final decision on the project. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2746
RTC -917

Responses to Comments

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2747
RTC -918

Responses to Comments
P: (62(6) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E:info mitchtsai w cairn
Mitchell M. Tsai
Arron-rt'y At f,.aw
COtnment Letter 04
139 South Elu4son ,Aver ue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA EMAIL
:"August 20, 2024
Ben Torres
Planning Manager
69-1125 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, California, 92270
Ph: (760) 328-2266 Let. 253
11:m: laeiatft7'ranrhorniri4 cc;a.Ao
RE: July 2024 Recirculated Initial Study f Mitigated Negative Declaration -- City of Rancho Mirage's Ritz -Carlton Phase II Expansion Project.

Dear Mr. Tomas:

On beh=alf of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters ("''SPCC"), our f=irm is submitting these comments in connection with the City of Rancho Mirage's "City" or "Lead Agency") July 2024 Recirculated Initial Study / IN:liitigated Negative Declaration ("RIND") pertaining to the Ritz -Carlton Phase 1I Expansion Project (Case Nos. EA21-01102, GPL'\IA21-01011, DA21-0002., MOD21-01104) ("Project").

The Project involves the construction of the Ritz -Carlton Residences Rancho Mirage and the Sky Me Recreation Center can a 35.117 -acre site located at ( 900 Frank Sinatra Drive, Rancho Mirage, CA 9227[} (APNs: 689-330-026, -028, -032, -03-1: 689- °20-012, -014; 689-331-001, -018) in Riverside County. Nestled in the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains 650 feet above the Coachella Valley below, the 1501,0110-squarc- foot Project will consist of a one -to three-story apartment and condominium complex, along with a parking garage, hotel, 28,2843 square feet of event space, 6,27`5 square feet of restaurant space, and x,513 square feet for amenities. The overfill Project Site includes an existing hotel that opened as a Ritz -Carlton in 1988 and was later rebranded. The Project would provide a total of 106 new units and 381 vehicle parking spaces.

O4-:1.
04-2
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2748
RTC -919

Responses to Comments
t4 rrf Iti rila r h1 ria - lit - CA dtr n PJi see l Expsiaiicrr August 20, 1I]24
Piv 2 .it 25
In March 2024, the City released the first Initial Study / 'Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MIND") for the Project. Gin April 9, 2024, WSRCC submitted written comments to the i'vIN1) during the comment period specified by the City, and raised various concerns as to deficiencies noted in the Project's environmental review.

Notwithstanding those meritorious con -merits and concerns, the RAIND does not address any of the concerns previously raised by WSRCC in its prior comments, including issues related to the Project's impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, noise, GHG ernissions, ener ,y use., land use. WSRCC expressly reiterates; and incorporates it prior comments in the foregoing correspondence, and urges the City to give them full consideration as. part of the CEQA environmental review process.

WSRCC is a labor union representing -over 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well -ordered land use planning and in ad.dressirig the environmental impacts of development projects. Some \C`SRCC. members live, work, and recreate in the City and the surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project's environmental impacts.

WSRCC expressly reserves the. right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings. on the Project, and at any later herring and proceeding related to this Project.

Gov. Code, 5 65434.(4); ]?1 C, ' 21177(a) sec Bakerykiti Ci#i rza fi?rLocal Coeitraal�.

Bakerfield (24304) 124 Cal.App_4rh 1184, 1199-1203; sec also Galante L 7ngwnss s.

AianteFry hi:7ater Dist. (1997) 6C] Ci1.App.4th 1109, 1121.

WSRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the Project and its environmental review sand associated documents and report; (including the City's Staff Report), or lack thereof. See Cititensfox•Clean Energy° v. City of Woodkind (2014) 225 Cal.App.-lth 173, 191 (finding that any party* who has objected to the project's environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover,1'C,'SRC.CC requests that the City pritvidl ma —ice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Cock, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law ("Planning and Zoning Law") (Gov. Code, 65000-65010).

California Public Resources Code, sections 21.09'2,2 and 21167, subsection (f) and California Government Code, section (5092 require agencies to mail such notices to 043
04-4

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2749
RTC -920

Responses to Comments
City of Kanrho Mi, ig— 111b3 -5R tI rxpansion
Arrguust 20, 2024
rage3of25
any person who has tied a written request for them with the clerk of the agency's governing body.

I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL

WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY'S ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT.

The City should require that the Project be built using local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor -Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the Stare of California, have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable emit whirh would be required to graduate from such a prc7gram, or arc registered apprentices in such a program.

Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impacts of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemauin and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:

Way local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction -related Gl-1G emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

March 8, 2021, SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California 'Workforce Development Board and the University of California,13edceley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered .an investment rather than a cost —and investments ingrowing, diversifying, and upskilling California's workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, 04-4
Cent.
04-5

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2750
RTC -921

Responses to Comments
City off o ach& MIregc: — Nita: -Gunton Phasic II k xpanuon Auust 2i7, 2024
Page '1 -of 25
well -trained workers are key to delivering. emissions reductions and moving California closer tca its clip altc targets..

Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve ail amt's jobs -housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas ('.4GFIG") c.tttissictns, In fact. on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the"Iufse of a local sate -certified apprenticeship program" can result in air pollutant reductions.' Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits.

As the California Planning Roundtable noted in ?0dl#l,
People who live turd work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities. and their vehicle trips would he shorter. Benefits would include. potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.'
Moreover, local hire• mandates and skill -training are critical facets ofa strategy to reduce vehicle miles tr,aveded (" MT"). As planning experts Robert Ce,rvcro and Iw°lichxel Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VrikIT reductions given that tl1c shrill requirem..ents of available local jobs muss match. those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local lures rich i California Workforce Development Board ('2020) Putting California cm the High Road: A jobs and Climate Action Plaxr 2030 at p, ii,atzakabk tbnpw./Ilia}earxenter•jerceIey.t<du{ l'ultaag-t-;t dlmtia-i.rrr- it li•6l,-1,Irattd.pclf.

Sou.;. a:, .e t €s 5 liaiJt, N tan Ir4cfnent District (May 7, 2+:)2I'j (..C:ertifv Final F.,nsironmcntal Assessment and :\dr?pt Proposed Rule2305 — Warehouse Indict Source Rule — IX'arirhottse Actions and Investments to Roque:.. Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 — Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 lot Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, aucrr#a ble r,f Ita t 7,.r .. a�� �w .:cgtntl. rav .l does/Clefaul t- souFCC :+ gClItlts/C3aiv ruing- Board f21i 1i'i ''.I ).11.iA7-1127vdIT..Ri n=1.0. 3 California Planning Ruundlable (2008) I k on.•inectitac, I''1)s-1-Lousing Balarnce al. p, a, aswiddeal hoc :, puil.lications/c'pt-lratts
h{,u sink, pdf
t.erver„. Roherl and Duncan, Michael (2{X)() Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More; Joh; - HIousing Balance or Retail -Housing Mixing:-- journal of the American Planning Association 72 (-). 47549l), 482, crl4dib77le of attpliirecti the tine rmerca,cingiassett;f t 1ploadsitTrCT7 fi°', jclt.

O4-5
Cc nt.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2751
RTC -922

Responses to Comments
City o [Rancho M — Rit .-C ar1Torn Mao II Expacltacr i
August a 21)24

other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:

In nearly built -cut Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city's First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate -level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment -ready, While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,()00 city residents in local jobs since it was hunched in 1986_ When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Ilousing and High }Wad Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (AB201.1), 11201.1 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by -right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.

The City should consider utilizing local workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate GI-IG emissions, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.

IL THE CITY SHOULD INCORPORATE LANGUAGE IMPOSING

TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
TO PREVENT COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND OTHER

INFECTIOUS DISEASES INTO THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT.

Constriction work has been defined as a Lower to High -risk activity for COV1D-19 sprid by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID- 1 9) 5
Sprat . C:lsrs {sruaaly Public Healih (June 12, 2020) COViD-:19 CtASI- S

CONSTRUCTION SITES HIGHLIGHT NEED FOR CONTINUED VIGILANCE IN SECTORS THAT HAVE REOPENED, :.rrthh' hitR :./ftitir�w+ 5ss a :,sryr��� it 1 covidl9+Py es'press-releaase-06—.1'-2!!2 ! - t! K :zt !iuy:!c=xl 04-5
Cunt.
04-6

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND 11942
November 2024
2752
RTC -923

Responses to Comments
City of Rancho Mir — Ritz-Lirlton Maw II FEspsua ,rri
August 2f1, 2024
Pagc 6 of 25
Western Carpenters recommend that the City adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from various residential, commercial and mixed -use development construction activities. Western Carpenters requests that the City require safe on -site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction .,,,vorket; on residential, commercial arid mixed -use developments within the City's General Plan Area.

In particular, based upon Western Carpenters' experience with safe construction site work practices, Western Carpenters recommends that the City require that while construction activities are being conducted at the proposed Project ("Project Site") Cans -micro Sirte l esig-n:

The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points.

Entry points ziril] have temperature. screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.

The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening
A 48 -hour advance notice will he provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening,
The perimeter fence directly- adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6 -foot social distancing position for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.

There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.
• Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site, Testing Procedures;
The temperature screening being used are non -contact devices.

Temperature readings will not be recorded.

Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
04-6
Cent