Rancho Mirage City Council
December 18, 2025

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3280
11942
RTC -1451

Responses to Comments
SEL was r cos a red for a stationary noise source
■ Collect the fallowing input information:
° S ll.,. the measured SEL for the noise souirae. for whatever source "event' is coil.ettient to measure
• the event dulatkt,n.Inseconds
• Dr,„„, the closest distance between the measurement position and the source, in feet ■ Compute the source reference level, SELref using Eq- F- 5, Table E-2 onversion to Source Reference Levels at SO ft - Stationary, Sources .r4es3ured
Source
Equation
SEL
Stationary
fledge 9UAJr[e
L'..,.....,, .U,,.r_,,
'rf °�
5,.... =wed of recurred velneel;s}, in inilti. per tour E,,. =event donnas c1 measufenseet,, In sncuuds
I ` closest tfumere between measoln!r wwS position Ind %MT.& IR iret Example F-4 Calculate SELre — Signal Crossing
Computation of SEL, from SEL Measurement of Stationer, Source SEL was measured fora signal o-osslog with the following condition.

SEL =74dBA
E PO sec
Li = 65 f1
Compute rile source reference level using Eq. F.5_
1iYfogq`�` } v 201°Rf ono5tY'ena 1
3ir170
10 = 7e— 103ngt3rilli6)+ 2UErg(_a)
47,E ri aA
F.3 L for Single Train Passb}
This section provides procedures for the computation o4 L for a sinle train passby. This procedure can be used to characterige trains of mixed consists using Follow the instructions below, ■ Collect the fdllowirig Input information:
o SEL,,t, from Section 4S, specific to (both the locomotive type and car type of the train a the number of locomotives in the train
o fig. the number cif airsI n Lila train
▪ the total length of the train's Iocramotive(s)), in feet (or I ..unit length) o L,a3. the total Length of the train's set of rail cart's), in feet Zor Na i unit length} • 5, the train peed, in miles per hour
• D, the c6ose4t distance between the receiver of interest and the train, in feet • Use the equations in Table F-3 to compute the fo !owlrsg:
▪ L„,iroofor the Iocoanotive[s) using Eq. F-6
''FEDERAL TRANIIT A.oMINfSTP.AT*N 734
04-28
Ccnt

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3281
11942
RTC -1452

Responses to Comments
for the rail car(s) using she Eq. F-7
the larger L from the locomotives(s) and rail car(s) is the L„„.„ for the total train passby. see: Eq. F- 8,
Tabu F-3 Conversion to Lmtx at the Receiver, for a Single Train Passby Source
Equation
Locamoslves
a
L = S,BLI�°+-'+4.i + 1tllo (—) —10lo ( J + 1Ulog 2 of o 3.3 fIM$Y.I<6I.Tl
iii Gl'flt `
Eq. -6
Rd] Cara
J}} ,eL
L.,-,,,,..., = SGL orx + 1040g 11,7 — 1,010.9 (15[11-1014(2 x +5In(2 xl)— 3.3
Eq, l° 7
TaudTrain
Lirzrz.r roeirr mrxx(l, afdenQfGnaar.Rr.'arx)
q Si
L =1101411 ling[ a of onaasurad group of 6oca+naare{s1 or rail carts), k S = vehicle speed mph
1 'S =driWY O), lild
D = cheat distance hesrreen rear and wsn te;a
'FEDERAL tRAMIT ADMINISTRATION 7Y
04-28
Cant

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3282
11942
RTC -1453

Responses to Comments
Example E -S Calculate L. - Train Passby
Computation of L..Y. for Train Pass by
leulase the L.,,, of eammuter 'miss at receiver of Interest 4sczoreing to she roawest% eancitlorrr SEl.rai = 92 aJBA for locomnarx#
= 82 dB A Iisr rail -cans

8.Le,ro 1
C,rr —b
=43 miles per hour
=175Th
.° MICAS = 0.17
°Cora ' l,U3
The locomuave and rail care each have :r unit length (L) or 70 fc Determine the tats! length of the locomotive and rail cars. 4Yr,, = 70 ft
LrYM -420 h
Ctarepute L,. for the b omcxfve using f q. 5.6:
5ELC , + 10log (S6 Y — itNog (50) + i Ulug(z �C) — 3.3
43 =921:+16kiJ(50)-1(Firfaj( )+ICIfl+gl.2k0,27,1-3,3
e 84.0 dBA
Compute I-.,., for she rail cars using Eq F�7:

SELkrrFs + Intog (5‘;;) — !Wog + lelop(2 a +sin(2. a)) — 33 429
= 62+ 1(Hersj(*¢)-1(krfij( )+ 1Mug( (2x 1.113]+sin(2 x.L03))-33 = 73.5 (IBA
Find tFur total L.,. for the train passby using Eq. F -B, friurrs!r al = *117x(1., 1..., rrr LnrsvRrm-al
=40 dPA
IFEDERAI TRAN*aIT ADMINISTRATION 71-
074-28
Cent_

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3283
11942
RTC -1454

Responses to Comments
Appendix G: Non -Standard Modeling Procedures and
Methodology
This manual provides guidance for preparing and reviewing the noise and vibration sections of environmental documents. as well as FTArafaprored methods and procedures to determine the level cif noise and vibration Impact resulting from mast federally -funded transit projects. Situations may arise, however. that are not explicitly covered in this manual. 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 ca'se•byacase basis. This appendix provides procedures for the use of non-standard noise and vibration modeling procedures and methodologies on public transportation pro eras.

Submittal 'Procedure - The procedure Ion using iron -standard modeling procedures and methodology is as follows:
la The transit p ct manager should contact the FTA Regional office to discus the proposed methods andfor data not described in this manual prior to use of the nonstandard approach. 2' The non-standard methodology should be documented according to the guidelines below as part of the technical report rimcnb2d in Section 8.2.

Examples or Methods that Require Communication and Documentation - The following raise acrd vibration analysismethods and data require communication with the FTA Regional office and documentation:
• Nor' --standard transit noise and ibratleon modeling and analysis methods not described in this manual (including nonstandard adjustments, computations, and assumptions). This includes modifications to standard FTA noise and vibration methods. • Non-standard transit noise and vibration reference data not described In this manual (Including measured data, substitution data, data at iron -standard reference distances andlor speech, new transit ircrIso± sources, and transit noise sources operating in non-standard conditions). • Norrsrandard transit noise and vibration impact criteria not described in thus manual. including the maximum sound pressure level metric.
• Non-standard methods of evaluating cnnstrurtlon noise, including non-standard construction noise impact criteria.
• Other noise rra7deling took besides the FTA Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet or Traffic Noise Model j` lskt,SJ for highway noise modeling. such as the deveIopmerrt of a finite element method model.
• Any transit noise and vibration analysis that involves an impact area or noise source that Is controversial.

Docurnenitation Guidelines - The use of nor --standard noise and vibration analysis methods or data requires the following doctrrneotatiorr components in a technical' memorandum attached to the end!'Ogrirrtirtal docuroe rot:
▪ Background
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 criteria. Include any additional relevant Information.
tEDERAt. TRANSIT A ratiNtsTFATronl MJ?
04-28
Cant.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3284
11942
RTC -1455

Responses to Comments
• Statement of Benefit
Berieity deacribe the benefit rrf the non -default noise and vibration met l aids or data to the transit protect. I:ascribe the appropriateness of the ror-default methods ar-date as well as why the standard method or data are Ir►su&Flclent or problematic. • Non-standard Data Description
Describe the nonstandard name cir vibration data in detail. Include source type, manufacturer, reference conditions (speed, distance and operational eandltittes), tram of data supplier, Arid a date associated with data developmeittlmeasurernent. For measured noise or vibration data, provide corresponding data documentation (such as a data measurement or a deielopment report). For substitution data, a comparison been the non-standard data and C0,FreSpOkilfig standard data should be provided, Furthermore: if outside sources recommend the use of the rion-standard data (such as a technical society, a standards organization, err a vehicle rrrenufacturer), refereiKes foi those recommendations should be included. • Non-standard Methods Deseription

6.f erithe the non-standard noise or vibration analysis method in detail. This should include a detailed desctiptlon 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 and the corraeponcfing standard method in the context of the transit analysis. If the method has been validated against measurement data, a description of that validation analysis should be provided, If the method is derived from another- source (such as a different transportation noise or vibration method), provide corresponding do <umeritatio n for that source A description of how the method is conservative (for exarnple, estimating the worst - case scenario) or same disrrrssban en the probability of exceeding the predicted bevel should be proovided. Furthermore if outside sources recommend the use of the non-standard method (such as a technical society or standards organization), references for those recommendations should be included.
• Non-standard Toolis Jesrrfpt*on
D is scribe in detail any non-standard noise or vibration models that have not been explicitly recommended iii this manual. This should include a detailed description of the tool (including data used, the computations implemented in the tool, any modifications or adjustments to the tool or the corresponding data, and the usage of the tool), a dhcription of the validation of the tool (including reference documentation and validation analyses)., and a comparison between the non-standard dird tool and the equivalent standard tool in the context of the transit analysis, Quantitative comparisons, such as the standard deviation of the non-standard tool and an estimate of the least mean square of differences between the standard and non-aordard took should be provided and explained. A di cription of hn,v the method Is conservative (tor example, estimating the worst -rase scenario) or some discussion an tht 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 organization), references for those recommendations should be included_
FEpiMAL YRAMSIr ADMINirraaTif3N n
04-28
Cent,

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3285
11942
RTC -1456

Responses to Comments

ENDNOTES
Rees for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Art Council on Environmental Quality. 40 CFR parrs. I S00 -15O3. 19713.

National Envitonmeteral Policy Act of 1869, United States Congress, 42 U.S_C §4331, 8869.

U.S. Department of Tranapartadoas. Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration. "Environmental Impact and Related Procedures,' Final Role. S2 Federal Register 32646-32669, January 2014 (21 CFR pits T7 I ).

U.S. Department of Trarispertadots, Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration, "Planning Assistance and Standards." Snarl Rule S8 Fedend Register 58064_ June 2014 (23 CFR part 430).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency_ "Information on Levels o4 Environmental Noise Regtisite to Protect Public Health amidWelfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," Report llslo S50t9.74-404, 'Washingt"aa. DC.

March 1974.
t Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise. "Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control." Environmenrl Protection Agency, the Department of Transportation, the Department oI Housing and Ur hoar Development, tl.e Department of Defense, And the Veterans Adnd Narration, Waddington DC, Jesse 1980.
it
I2
it
14 U.S. Department al Housing and Urban Development "Environtnental Criteria and Standards of the Department of Housing and Urban Development" Anal Rule, 44 Federal Register 4686 I Washington t'C, 12 July 1979(14 CFR pare 51}.

Anseritan National Standards Institute, "Compatible Land Use With Respect to Noise," Standard S1.2.3-11984.

New York NY, May 1980..

American National Standards Institute, -Quantities and Pr0CndurB;a for Description and Measurement of Environmennl Sound," ANSI SI2.9-1498/Part S. New York. NY. January I9"98.

T_ J_ Schutz, "t4oise Rating Criteria for Elevated Rapid Transit Structures," U.S. Department of Transportation, Report Na Uh1 TA41A•06.00'19•79.3. roll DC, May 1979,
T, J. Schultz, "Synthesis el Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance," found of fire Acoustical Society of Arrrerica Vol

63. No. e, August 1978.

S. Fidell, D. Bather, T.J. Schulte, "Updating a -Dosage-Effect Relationship for the Prevalence of Annoyance Carta pis General Transportation Noise," Jetrinti of the Ace rsArcd Society of America. Val. 89. Ns. I. January I99 S. Fidel, -The Schultz Curve 25•yreasa Later- A Research Perspective." found of thr Acoustotd Society arf Aunerioa, VOL I l4, No. 6. Pt I, December 2043.
' Lgh•Speed around Transportation !date and vlfnatfon Impact Ass tsrnent'. QTIFRA/ORD• I23IS, U.S, Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Adninistration, 2012.

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106: P L 89-66S, I S October 1966, 'r The Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Sectian 4114; P.L 89-670. S October L 966. 'x U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Federal highway Administration, "Protectinn of HIstori,e Froperu&r." Final Rubs. 6,5 Fedennil Regigio 7772. J my 20U (3b CFR 800).

FEpiRAI TRANSIT AI3MINI5TRATI(]N 739
04-28
Cent.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3286
11942
RTC -1457

Responses to Comments
"Eligibility and JustJI cation Requirements for Noise Intdation Projects," Program Guidance Letter 12.09, Nt.f41mbsir 2D 2 httos/norrois faa govfa worts rato-+guiremu inters" vuidatrce laws/met la/aka-Deb 2012-09- n se•'nsulatian,pdil.

I4
rr
z3
14 at
7,
24 7a
J.
72 ss
tr
U.S. Department of Henrsfng and Urban Development "Env ronmenral Coterie and Sunda' de. Vol. 12. Jay 1979_ amended by 49 Federal' Register 560. d January 1964 (24CFR part 5I} U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. "Federal Aviation Regulations Part ISO.

Airport Noise Compatibility Planning"January I9tiE.

LES. Department of Trannpertatiotf. Federal Railroad Adolf nisbation.'Use Or Locomotive Horns at Public Highway -Rail Made Crossings." Final Rule. 70 Federal Register 21.844, October 2013 d49 CFR 222).

U.S, Department al Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "FHWA Traffic Noise Model User s Gtrde," Report No, FHWA-PD•96.009, Washington. DC. January 1999. Also. "FHWA Traffic Noise Model User's Guide (Version 2.5 A endmin)," April 2004.

J.G. Rtes, C.€. Hanson, R.V. Ham" "Houston Southeast Corridor Environmental Impact Statement BAT Noise and Vibration Assessment" technical memorandum prepared by Harris Miler Miller 8r Hanson for Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Houston, Texas, September 20, 2045.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Popuhrion Distribution of the United St1ies as. a Function of Outdoor Noise Level," Report Na. 35019-74-009. June [974,
T. hi. Johnson "Tire Importance of Velide Throttle Setting Information for Rail Transit Noite Impact Assesvrnenu,•" Prue, inter-Nene 2@02. New York. NY. August 20112.

U.S. Deparunent of Transportation, Federal Highway Adninisuratiouv, "FH4'VA Highway Traffic Naive Prediction Model." Fi WA D -T7- I!d8, December I976.

American National Standards Institute, "American National Standard Quantities and Procedures for Description and Meauurernent of Environmental Sound. Park 4 Noise Assessment end Prediction of Long•tern, Community Response." ANSI 12.9-I9%. New York I49fs_
C. Harris. "Handbook of Acoustical 'Measurements and Noise Control," International Organization for Standardization `Acoustics -- Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors •- Part 2- General method of calculation." ISO 4613.2.

American Society for Testing and Materials. "Standard Guide. for Measurement of Outdoor A•wtrighterf Sound Levels," F IJSI4-81. phiadelphia 1984_
Aanerltan National Scandal de lustlturte, "Method for the Measurement of Sound Prea.suae Levels," ANSE SI. l3-i97I(RI97b), New York, I97I.

U,S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Measurement of Highway -Related Noon," FEIWA•PD.96.046, May 1996.

J.T Nelson. "WhecVRadl Noise Control Mamal.'• Transportation Cooporatios fSenseareh Report No, 23.

Transportation Research Soard. Washington_ DC,
"Challenges in Maintaining Quiet Streetcar and Light Rail Systems," Session No, 409, Transportation Research Board Amami Meeting Washington DC. January 20 14
FEDERAL TRANVT ADMINISTRATION 240
o 4-28
Cant

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3287
11942
RTC -1458

Responses to Comments
Pl.
36 s4
46 41
ai
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Adninitration, "Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway - Rail Grade Crossing" Final Rule 70 Federal Register 2IB44. April 27, 2065 R49 CFR 222). "[interim Anil Rule for the Use of Locomotive Morns at Highway -Rai Grade Crossings.- Federal Railroad Adminlatration, Final Environmental Impact Statement December 2003.

T.A. Burch, R.E. Nugent, "A Reduced - le .Railway Noise Barrier's Insertion Loss and Absorption Coeficieuts: Comparison of Reid Measurements and Predictions," fotlmaf arSound and l+ihrmritn. 749.759.

October 2003.

U,S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. "Highway Noise Barrier Design Package." August 391]0.
"High -Speed Ground Transportation Norse and Vibration Impact Assessment" DCTIFRAJORD. 13115, U.S.

Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration, 7412.

American National Standards Institute, 'Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings," ANSI 53.29-1983 (ASA 48-1983).

International Oeganizaiian for Standardization, "Evaluation of Htrenan Exposure to Whole -Body Vibration. Part 2 Cori iiu ou9 and Shock -induced Vibrations in Buildings fl -0014z)," ISO -2631-Z 1989_ International. Organization for Standardization, "Mechanical Vibration and Shock Evaluation of Human Exposure to 'Whole Body Vibration: Part 2 - Vibration in Buildings (I to f167 H4" ISO -2631-2. 2003.

J. T. Nelson. H. J. Saurenman,'State-of-the-Art Review Predirdon and Control of Ground -borne Noise and Vibration Inanr Rill Transit Traltiti," U.S. Dept merit or T°ansportation Urban Mass Truupnitatiwa dministration, Report No. UIMTA-144-06.0649,93-4, DOT-TSC-Uh1TA-83-3, December 1983. a° Y. Tabu, "Vibration PuAtrtion Problems in Japan." Inter.Noise 75, Sendai, Japan. I973, (pp_ 4O-472) -472)
rr
J. k Zaple H. Saurenman, S. Adel[. "Ground -Borne Noise and Vibration in Buldings Caused by hail Transit - Transportation Research Board, FInd Report for TCRP Project D.12, December 2949.

J.T. Nelson. HI Saurenman, G.P. Wilson. "Handbook or Urban Rail Noise and Vibration Control," prepared under contract to U,SJDOT Transportation Systems Center. Report No. UM TA -MA -04-0099-82-2. February 1902.

International Organization for Sundardaar on. "Mechanical Vibration - Ground -borne Noise and Vibration Arising from Rail Systems," ISOAPD1S 141337-1:2005"
° Institute at Environmental Sciences and Technology_ "Considerations in Clean Racial Design," RR-CCOI$_ 3, A4
66 Si
20'5,
U.S, Department al Transportation, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, "Vibration Characteristics of the Tranirapid TRO8 MagIevv System" Depart No. DOT-VNTSC-FRA•d2.06. March 2001

5. i irKenra, "A Study of Build Amplification from Ground -Borne Vibration,' lciaut-Con 2W 1 Portland.

Oregon July 25-27, 201 I.

American National Standards Institute, "Acoustical Terminology." ANSI S I. 914.

J.T. Nelson. H.J. Saurenrrran, `A Prediction Procedure for Rail Transportation Ground -Borne Noise and Vibration" Transportation Rtrseoth Recce I I [43, August 1988. 'FEDERAL TRAnISIT ADMINISTRATION 24I
04-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3288
11942
RTC -1459

Responses to Comments
J. T. Nelson. "TreMet Track Vibration Isolation Tests." Final Report for Portland Tri-Met. October I49l3, J,T, Nelson H.J. Sarre*nlnan. 'Ground -Borne Vibration Tee-eur verb MARTA C -Car' report prepared Mr Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. November 15, 1981.

Seur+ennwrr "Prdlmrroaryr Results of Ground•Borte Vibeaelon Tests with Bft.RT+Miami Vehicle" tetb-11 memorandum prepared for US DOTITransportttion Systems Center, contract DOT-TSC-1746.

February { 901
9l
xr
9l
ar
Yl
Ssurennun, "Ground -borne VibaatJon Tears with NFTA Prototype Vehicle at the Transportation Test Center." technical memo -medium prepared for Transportation Test Center. Project No, P -B3 -C-0107& 3 August 1963.

H.J. Satrrenman. "Noise and Vibration Tests wlrh Pordend Trt-Mat Prototype VeHde at the Transportation Test Center," technical memorandum prepared for Transportation Test Center, Project No. P -B? -C-42649. 26 March 1484.

Rao Carman. D.L Watry, "Measured Vibration Reduction Performance of Ballast Mat Installation for Light Rail Vehicles on Embedded Track" APTi,. I997 Rapid Transit Conference of the APTA, V, 3-16/ay & Structures and Construction { 1997 -By.

DA Towers, "Evaluation of the Grraurld-Bourne Vibration Reduction Properties oil lira Derived Aggregate! Installed on the Denver RTD Light Rail System," Harris Miller Miller and Hanson Inc, 20 I 2.

F. E Richert. J. R. Hall. Madera of SOS and Foundations, Prentice -Hall. Inc., Englewood Clifds, NJ, 1970.
a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Noise Iron Construction Equi pasterns and Operations, Building, Yx
ti3
Equipment and Home Appliances,- NTIDIM f, 31 December 97 I.

Ss7lety or Automotive Engineers. "Exterior Sound Levet Memsurarnem Procedure for Powered Mobile Construction Equipment" SAE Recommended Practice Jf36a 1976:

Society al Automotive Engineers. "Sound Levels for Engine Powered Equipment" SAE Stindard J9521t I97#_ Departmentol Transportation, FedeeaF Highway Administration. "FMWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide," FHWA-HEP•05.054. January -100C Available at ktp_Lkwww,fhwaslot.gosderwironnionclnotsekonsoucsion notsehtorni.

Yl E Thalheimer, "Construction noise control program, and mitigation strategy at the Central ArteaytTunnel Prot" Nurse C{tntral Eng J. 48(S)t September C cobra- 2100, 157-1W, Li
Yr
r•
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. "highway Construction No Handbook" FHWA=HEP-fld-0I5. A.ugusr 2006.

DJ. Martin. "Ground Vibrations from Impact Pile Driving during Road Consu uction," Supplen1eetary Report 544. United Kingdom Department of the Environment. Department of Transport Transport and Road Research Laboratory, I9f30.

J.F. Wiss, "Vlbratiora duringConsw-uc* r1O;pGraplona." JowngalofCorrs'!rrrtrl n.D. rs hoe, American Society of Curd Engineers, 100, No. CO3. 239-24E September 1474.

J.F. Wass. "Damage Effects of Pilo Dieing Vibrations." Highway Research Record. No. I55, Highway Research Basarrd'. 1947.
;FEDERAL TRANSIT AJ3MINPJTRATON 747
04-28
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3289
11942
RTC -1460

Responses to Comments
D.A. Towers. "Ground -bone Vibration from Slurry Wall Trench Excavation For the Central Artery'Tunnel' Pr oiect Using i°iydromill Technology ` Frac FruterNeke 95. Newport Beach. CAL July 1995.

Swiss Consultants for Road Construction Association, 'Effects a# Vibration on Constructiort' VSS-SFR54'd-3120.

Zurich. Switzerland. April 1992
American Public Transportation Association. Public Tronspertcnron Pactbauk 55th Edition, March 2004.

American National Standards Institute. 'Preferred Frequendes Frequency Levels and $and Numbers for Acvustkj1 M®xaurernents,'ANSI SI.6-I9B4 (ftxQpb).

U,S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Information an 1,0,00$ of Environmental Norse Requisite to Protect Public Health and We]lai a with an Adequate Margin of Safety,- EPA Report No. 35009-74-0 04. March 1474.

National Academy of Sciences, -Guidelines far Preparing Environmental Impact Statements an Noise," Report Iron Committee on Bloacoustic and 6wmech riot (CHABA) Working Group 69 February 1977.

American Public Trandt Association,' Noise and Vibration," I9BI Guidelines for Design of Rapid Transit Facilities, Section 2.7, 1913I.

T_J. Schultz, ,.Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise Annoyance." jeurnri of the Acoustical Satiety ofArnerko; Vol 64, Na, 2 August 1978. 377-405,
FEDERAL TRAMIT it13MVINA57RATt1}hl ]4J
04-28
Cent.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3290
11942
RTC -1461

Responses to Comments
04-28
Cant
U.S. DepartrrionI of TronsporictioIrt
Federal Transit AdrnInfstral9€�n
U.S. Department of Trail vaE c,+tation
Federal Transit Admin'tst aton
East Building
C200 New Jersey Rvenraa, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Jmps:Aawrhares_aotgariKmaire earrrh-inno«rrtann

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3291
11942
RTC -1462

Responses to Comments

EXHIBIT F,

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3292
11942
RTC -1463

Responses to Comments
Conservancy Territory Map
li,�, --
...,..—�_._ ,.�....._.�
MI
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3293
04-2

11942
RTC -1464

Responses to Comments

EXHIBIT F

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3294
11942
RTC -1465

Responses to Comments
MENA& CIN Seam WOW
luOs 011 MO m,:. W� µ
MEE M.. nrotel FM*. _I» • XI I.I.

Yr a9G.. V. J A :M
tielo.n.o. lo...n. a .n
Mfillaak
J♦ oft. In JrI
Mmtort wIL+.N MO %.1.
— ✓Wo4e... .1 450 '10
— co... w
MEI ...UM__� Jr
..r u0 p. n. uW.r..a...ry.J 04
- tr0 Ili lLe
▪ O.
.0a1,W
IIMMI .....Is.. 9.1M • ION
ION
® Iwti.. .n►a III. u4
.+.d..r.•JI.'...np. IW 4lu
NW
I J.....

Idle ron NMI'
O..CI..X IJ3 JI. ar :J.9 .fie
TEIi �y
k I ay 5... cam^.
rram�
- lu..m..a.r.a
to
ago
re J4ta.in :u,•
- 113.0.4040
r�....e..Yw.r.e
Mn hwa.. anoe1....

Land Use and Zoning Map
City of Rancho Mirage
#'wI!gJ.N M.11xgww
Pevw•Yy C9�I.a
it-Vq1Eelitbuy A I.I Elsochik7fflivor, CA 9:'3741
0430

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3295
11942
RTC -1466

Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter 04
Western States Council of Carpenters
August 20, 2024
04-1 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.
04-2 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.
04-3 The comment states that the WSRCC previously commented on the previous circulated MND on April 9, 2024 that weren't address in the RMND and provides a summary of comments to follow. Responses to the previous comment letter are addressed in Response to comments 01-1 through 01-30. Please see Response to comments 04-4 through 04-30 for responses to this comment letter. 04-4 The comment provides background information on the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters and an introduction to the comments that follow. The comment also requests that all notices related to the project be sent to the WSRCC. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.
04-5 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. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-4.
04-6 The comment makes general recommendations for the 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. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. 04-7 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.
04-8 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.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3296
11942
RTC -1467

Responses to Comments
04-9 The comment is an introduction to the detailed concerns provided later in the comment letter. The comment states that the RMND 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 RMND 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 04-11 through 04-20. 04-10 The comment states that the mitigation measures in the RMND fail to adequately analyze or mitigate the project's impacts and are improperly deferred, so an EIR is required. The RMND 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 01- 10 through 01-19.
04-11 The comment provides background on significant effects under CEQA. The comment states that the RMND fails to provide analysis on the project's biological resource impacts The comment states that the RMND 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. Please refer to Response to comment 01-10.
04-12 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. Please refer to Response to comment 01-12. 04-13 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. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-13.
04-14 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. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-14 Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3297
11942
RTC -1468

Responses to Comments
04-15 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. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-15. 04-16 The comment states that additional measures are necessary to reduce operational GHG emissions and energy use. The comment states that the RMND is not consistent with the GBC, noting the lack of EV vehicle accommodations. The comment states that because this analysis is missing, the RMND 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 RMND 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. The commenter incorrectly states that because the CARB requirements are deemed not appropriate, that the project would be relieved of the GBC EVCS requirements. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-16.
04-17 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. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-17.
04-18 The comment states that project requires significant revisions and resolutions of evidence which at least calls for a revision and recirculation of the RMND if it does not prepare an EIR. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-18.
04-19 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. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-19.
04-20 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. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-20. 04-21 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.
04-22 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. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-22.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3298
11942
RTC -1469

Responses to Comments
04-23 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.
04-24 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. 04-25 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. 04-26 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. 04-27 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. 04-28 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. 04-29 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.
04-30 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
November 2024
3299
11942
RTC -1470

Responses to Comments
Comment Letter 05
ADAMS 93ROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
KEVIN T GARM1rwHAEL
CSRIS1 NA%I. CAR0
THOMAS A. ENSLOOW
NEuLA11 O. fEL?ERMAN
RICHARD N. FRA#JCA
ANCREW' J.. ORAF

TANYAA EAJLESSERIAN
DAfRCAI N. JOHNSTON
RACNAEL E. ROSS
AIDAN P. A5AR IMAA;
ALAU RA. R. MrGLIpRE
TARA C. RENCIFC.

Of Cft,'Aaai
MARC D. JQSEPII
DANIEA. L. CARGsOYC1
FPi,M1�T:Ln�

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
961 RaATEVt*V Bo LiLEVARb, SUITE 1404
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA RADS-0-7057
TEL -1160i, QB1=11560
FAX (SS -0) E6B-B0.2
n., -au lloaaamabeefaawa.11. enm
August 20, 2024
ATTN: Ben Torn+s. Planning Manager
City of Rancho Mirage
6c-)-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 91.'270
Email: bent*ranehomiraza ees.gov

SACRAMENTO OFFICE
CI0CAPIT()A.MAAA-SUITEIS0
S4LRAiREN To, CA aM A-tr a
TEL {SARI, 411-E3-01
FAX (E1 E)444-6704
Re: Comments on the Recirculated Initial StudvlMitigated Negative Declaration for the Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage Project INCH r0„-1t130267t Case Nos. EA21-0002., GPIMA21-0001. ICA2l-0002, MOD21- 0044. and TPM23-t)Op2l.

Dear Mr, Torres:

We are writing on behalf of Californians Allied for 1a Responsible Et onumy ("t ARK CA") to provide comments on the revised and recirculated Initial ,Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Revised IS/MND") prepared by the City of Rancho Mirage ("City") for the Ritz -Carlton Reneho Il7i raw, (SCH 2112403021,17, Case Nos, E.,l1-040`0, GPZMA21-0001. DA21-0002, MOD2 llt.1[1 1. and TPM23-0002) ("Project"), proposed by Dana Sang International (Apliliorant"), The City previously circulated an ISMIND fer public; comment. from Mardi 11 to April 9, .20:24. CARE CA submitted timely comments on the 1S/MND demonstrating that the ISS1ND lacked substantial evidence to support its conclusions and provided substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the IS!MND failed to adequately disclose and mitigate the Project's potentially significant impacts on public health, air quality. energy. and transportation. In response to CARE CA's comments, the Revised IS'/ MND includes a health risk assessment which shows that, without mitigation, the Project's cons( ruction emissions would result in significant health risk impacts, as previously demonstrated in CARE CA's comments. The Revised IS/MND identil.es mitigation which the City claims would fully mitigate this impact_ but the mitigation is inadequate and the Revised ISAVIN1Ys significance conclusion remains unsupported by substantial revidence,
?15l-U177acp
pmMan Argrk? Favor
05-2
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3300
11942
RTC -1471

Responses to Comments
August 20, 2024

The Revised IS/MND fails to otherwise correct flaws identified in CARE CA's comments. The .Revised ISIMND's air quality, energy, and transportation analyses were not updated to respond to or otherwise aticlress CARE CA's comments. and remain unsupported by subst_aantiad evidence.

The nisi ant com monis further prot, ido sultstataalial tn'idtsnee supporting lair argument that Ehee 1-i'c tsr:i wt IPJlat resull in patentiallyz.tigniricani nrtine and vilaraatiura inlpatcls no ndcequnta'ly nnflk7t+ci and miligoled in Ihre Rcvised 151141ND_ The CD: - cal -moil approve the Project un7il the errors in the LLrst iscerI IS+1l NI) are remedied by preparing an envaroarnent..a1 impact report CUT') %vitach fully discloses and eu tigniee• that Prraju,i I'ra pualaenl iaallx' him:aarts_ We reviewed the IS/MND with the assistance of noise expert Jack Mcighart.t and air quality and health risk expert. Paul E. Rosenfeld. Phi) from Soil / Water I Aix Protection Enterprise t"'S4'APE 'I,'2 The City must Separately respond to the technical comments. We reserve the right to supplement these comments at. Later proceedings and hearings related to the Project.-:

I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
CARE CA is an uninecirporared association of individuals and labor targtltll'tat.ions Ihat may l e al IV arru elv all'pr::1eiI by Ifni' p oienEta] 'at hltc' Wall worker health and safety hazards. and the environmental impacts of the Project_ The coalition includes Rancho Mirage residents Norman (*wrier and Michael Sanholtr.'r, the Dit;triot Council. of Ironworkers and Southern California Pipe Trades DC 16, along with I he=ir members, their families. anti other individuals who live and work in the City of Rancho Mirage and in Riw'ersid.e County.

ARE CA advocates for protecting the environment and the health el' their communities' workforces_ t'ARE CA seeks to ensure a sustainable construction industry over the long -terns by supporting projects that offer genuine economic and employment benefits, and which minimize adverse environmental and other impacts on local communities_ CARL" CA members live. wort.', recreate, and raise their families in the City of Rancho Mirage and surrounding communities_ Aecordingly. they WOOtl be dirrectlN' affected by the Project's tenvireianuuntal and a l°fr. Meighan a c0mm6at5 rind curricula vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit A ("Nfeighan { "nraam accts" t.

I.]r.ltusrenroll( rscYammanta rantl curricula vitata carer nti 114C EW Ll har atrr us Ex ilhEt li ( SW.APE t U '.'::1I § {iFs(lt)tllb(: PRA_ § ?t -177O); baba -444d nm for Loyal ('nntrfd r ]i�aAer,•r fieiad r13m r+sAetar) t2€7t1°Ip 1_'t Cal. App. 4th 1lS-t 11110,1203: sae,. tnealraarte 1 rrrrvcveriia a. Ateanterey Water Dist. p 1997) 50 CaLI. Ap pp 4th I I D't3, 1121_
7 1 e 1 GU7eu11r
p ,.ponabd un.wsp Yd
T
05-2
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3301
11942
RTC -1472

Responses to Comments
August 20, 202.1
Page .3
health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the ['Project itself.

Thr'y will be first in line to he exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist (IItwi te.

In addition, CARE CA has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sist7aa roll& 9 levolo rnenl and ensure H safe working environment for Its members. I•ut-trotraar"nlaiily rleirinwnI>al projorI.s r::on;jearlsrSrrlirr: future jobs b making it mere difficult anti more expensive for business and industry Io expand in the region. and by making the area less desirable for new businesses and new residents. Indeed, continraenl environmental degradal ion can, anal liras . Ca Uri t >,nstr•urrion moral ariutrisg and other restrinticons on growth that:. in turn_ reduce future employment opportunities.

IT. TILE 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 MR protects not only the environment, but also informed self-government."F The EIR. has been described ats "an ertvirnnntenln] 'alarm he1]' whose putmose ii is to alert I he public ore! its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached eminent]] points of no return .96 CE A's purpose and goals niusi be met through the preparation of an EI71., except in certain limited circumsltaances.7 CEQA contains a strong presumption in favor of requiring a lead agen€_y to prepare an ELR. This presumption is reflected in the "fair argument' standard. Under that standard, a lend agency "shall' prepare an Elf{ whenever substantial evidence in the whole record before the agency suplsart.s a fair argument that. a project may have a significant effect an the environment. u
9 ,See Pub. Resoanrras Ci:orin, §'2i000; r'F',14,k rsridk!Iint's, § 10UU' .

F Citit nt.a of Goletu !t rrl% er. Bel, of Shpt ''ihora rGokits Volley") (1t190) l 2 Cal..3r.1 562. 564, internal citetiort a emitted_
C'rutairfyof Tayo i'. Ilorty t!97;11 112 Cai.App.3ci 795. kilO. , Pub. Re4vurres Code, 4 21 IN
Pub Resources Coda, lj 210111), s abd. Id!. 21dJ82:2, "►shad_ Itl} CEQA f;uideI uea, f i ➢r36U2, subd. ;k1{il. I50ti-t_ subds, MI I t th141): Laurel ifeig!rf.r In prnvemrraf :tsars. r, . Regentsnftiar I.`mi+. of OIL {" ',sure! 11 ghts li"i (M1).1}{1 Cal.•1th i 112, i i2 I; ,No Oil, lets, a w City of lass tla'ageles I )9 ",7,1 i:3 Ca1.3d fiat. 75.52: S.ar oi4rso. Ararlrt+inn Society, lire r' COY . Vani:4Lzrry (W95) 3:3 CH] App.'Ilh M. Inn - 1 CI, 9ur,it l3afrr'irr1l t err,'de'aan 1 rnnrnd., l+ar, r. Cify of Ertcianik+s t'Cr'rrrlii Botanical') (191)1) "2,1 CulApp.lth 1;597. ]5Q1- 1602,
lib laiil;acp
I wANVd 4n Amid po-,+
05-4
Cont.
05-5

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3302
11942
RTC -1473

Responses to Comments
August 20. 2112-1

Ln contrast, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared only when. after preparing an initial study. a lead agency determines that a project may have i significant effect on the environment, but:
(I) revisions in the project plan or proposals made by. or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed nivative declaration and initial study rare released for public review would avoid the effects err m ,h' the Weds to u point rrrira'rr cicarI: no significant effecl on Ow e.'rrv/Tonmen? rrraarhrf necur, and (2) there is no kraIasfurmtirif evidence in light of the whole record before the public aaene'r ala :a i the project, :are revised, may have a significant effect on the entrironmenat_
Courts have held that if "no FAIR has ht)en prepared for a nonoY empt. project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result insignifieauttadverse impacts. the proper remedy its to order preparation of an FIR." a" The fair argument standard creates a low threshold" favoring environmental review through an Fill, rather than through issuance of a negative declaration,11 An agency's derision not to require an MR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the contrary, iy
"Substantial evidence" required t.rr aulnlatirl 0 fair argument is defined as "enough relevant information anal renew -ado. in I'm-I-meet'fi'urn thi. , mlurm aticn dud a fair argument can be made to qupperi a conclusion. even though other conclusions might also be reached."1" According to the CEQA Guidelines. when determining whether an FIR is required, the lead rag sncy is required to apply the principles set forth in Section 15061. subdivision (f):

I I In marginal cases where it is not near whether there is suhstnnt ial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guide=d it, the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an affect on H Pub. Ressaaart'es Code, § 2tt]a14.5 (r!mph.risis added).

Srr, .g., (Immunities for a Better Es.nirotaneiti N, &nth Coe. t rlir Qhaaalify Munugeaetmi Dist. (2t11O) 48 Cal.ith 330, 3111-320,
r r'r`diz°rea Acir,rarr Xe Serve All t5taadmits r. Thdrralvy (19901 2 Gal..Atrlr.3dd 748. 754 ak Sierra s':'laat r. ('orr.aaf.y of Sonoma 1199 r) t3 CaI.Apta.-4th, 130;, 1318: aee also Friends ref B Street r.

Crly ea,ffla e rrrd (i9Ltt1} 1t)h Caal. ,pp.3rl 9$8, 1CI0r.' CFrr"enda calli Stray["). t`If'there was substantial evidence Iha#. the proposed lrr ais t might have as sitnificaant environmental impact, evidence to the emafiratry is riot sulfuric+amt to support 0 deci r,., t,L disperse with preparation don ElIt tantl adept at negnt.0%.e tl 'laarett(n, IsvmlraU.si• ez,1141 tic 'rarerts :Ir;:uPri Thar the project might have asignifireni environmental rnamental impact").

CEQAGuidelines.' 153$4, €ubd, taat.
161.am6^a[i
.0a" ft. myrkscoNm'
05-5
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3303
11942
RTC -1474

Responses to Comments
August 20, 2024

the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shallprepare an EIR.'4
Furthermore, CEQA documents, including EIRs and MNDs, must mitigate significant impact,s through measures that are "fully onfaaxeable through permit csondi(ions. agreements, or other legally binding hislt-uments.'IF. Deferring fornlula-alinn of milegritiun nieaa:sureH Io post-HlsiIrevael studies is generally impermissible - 1'' hliligatiari niei irie+.,iftoptcd after hrojeei allot}roviil deny the- tsublie the epporrurn ry I,tr cuniinmil on the Iirojeivt as modified to In ig:iic imtraarls.t7 Il iac^trdi calrical3 crf Bloc ific I1i11iWag ion 1irc ure« is impractical until a liter s1Age In Oho Prujeed, sjicxril'it irrrforanainen i'rilevist rnusl lie ariiculaaleal and further ailstn-trvalp most ho made contingent upon meeting the -so performance criioria.18 Courts have held that simply requiring a project applicant too obtain ae future report and then comply with the report's recommendations is insufficient to meet the standard for properly deferred mitigation. m
With respect to this Project, the ISJIti1ND fails to satisfy the basic purposes of CEQA. The 1 IMNli fails to adequately disclose, investigate. and analyze the Project's potentially significant impacts, and fails to provide substantial evidence to conclude that impaco will be mitigated to a less than significant level, Because the IS11111VT1 lacks basic information regarding the Projerl"s potentially s.igniftcaanl impacts. the 1S/5/ND's etpnclu sicm "hat. the Prc jen:l will lha e a legs than significant impact on the environment is unsupported _ ' Moreover, ~;ulostzinti:tl evidence shows that the Project may result in potentially significant impacts that are not reduced to less than significant levels with the mitigation nieasuri included in the I3[MND.

Therefore, a fair argument can be made that the Project may cause significant impacts requiring the preparation of an EIR.
4 The Project Would Result in Potentially Significant, Noise Impacts
it Pub.Itescaureos Code. § 21061.5.
16 CEQA dluidelines, § It31'?I3.-1. asubtl. 1110(2),
i+ Sundstroin r. County of Mendocino (196.8) 202 Cail.Antr.3d 2?90, 408-309; Pub. Resoureee Code, 5 210€11,
lr Gentry al. City of r rri..ria s 1095) 36 CHI.ApipAth 1359. 1393: Quail Botanical, rilpra, 20 Cal.Alyl►.ith et rig, 160.1. t'ei_
18 Id,
is id..

Pub_ Rescruraes Code, 4 21064.5.
ile1.007eLp
0S-5
Cont
05 6

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3304
11942
RTC -1475

Responses to Comments
August 20. 2024

1. The Revised IS!MND's Construction Noise Significance Threshold is Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
The Rev i ed 1S. TI+1I] stale' that, to evaluate whether the Proj(rt will gentry a potentially -iFnif!eant IetiIporary construction noise levels at 'air -Hite seniit.ivsa receiver local ions. to S"► c1T3A threshold wrm adaptts1 from the Naationaal Institute for'Occupational Safety rind Health's t" NItt4I I' ,} (•rit.e=ria i'or RecommendedStandard'. Occupational Noise Exposure. -1 The: Revised ISJI11Nl finds that noise itrttraar ls from cons'. ruct inn act its would be leans, than sign ifis°„irot bec..:rause there would rttat exec"U! 1 a daytime noise level limit, of Sr) (IBA Leq.2.2 The application of this threshold for residential receptors ig not- supported by sultsr tntiatl evidence. Mr. lwlt?•iaaan explains that the NIOSI-I threshold referenced in the, ISJ1 MNDwas developed ns a threshold to prevent oe.upaation al noiaie-induced hearing lows. The threshold does not reflect any consideration of whether residents.' ability to work from home. relax. or converse would besignificantly impacted by increases in poise levels resulting from the Project's construction. •a The Revised IS/MN1)'s discussion of operational noise impacts acknowledges that effects taf noise below the level of ht+=aiing ltir , including "human reactions of annoyance mid dissatisfaction- can constitute significant noise impacts, A.9 such. the City's exclusive reliance on n heaaring l.eatAs thri ;;lauld to a=vriIu ate: raignifIcant cxrnsi rur.tion noisy imparts t.s 4; thal ylipritird.etd b :Albs ]',:nil a it e r isle+rat'H. and masks potentially significant noise impacts that fall short ol'resulting in hearing loss_ They Revised IS/I4tND's; t35 dBAconstruction noise threshold is also not supported by substantial evidence bee:Fatlse it fads to reflect whether the Project would result in Igloneratiun of n Sulastty -(i& temporary or pCT fre ta I arre se in ansbicrtti noise levels in the vicinitti- of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of Other agencies."'-''' Crib Iurnias courts have clearly held that "the lead agency should consider both the increase in noise level and the absolute noise level associated with a project "'x" The courts have held that reliance on a maximum noise lev=el as the sole threshold ofialgnificaanecr fair nosh iinpracta t'toltite a C`'CQA, latilause3 it Alibi to consider 'r Id, at 18
IS/MND. Appendix E, pg. 21.

Meighan Comment pg. 3.
s' Id, tit :i
MAIM). Appendix E, pg. 19.

Appendix t<ofthe CFAA
iIuud'calin
;IT keep deer;ldatrndmra,r Quiet r. f'rrrrnivaif .'idnlxa Clara (2015I ` 011 iC'tilApto.1tth 711. 733: gees Krn and {7rtrdirrer Farms, t.t.f' r. +''r'rra0.irfhi=r•rr ( ..):20) 1., Ca1.App.6th 811, 8.)t (citing Beets Oar Mountains ifietl.
7ar,1,007am
P
0'5-6
Cont
09-7

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3305
11942
RTC -1476

Responses to Comments
August 20. 202-1

whether the magnitude of changes in noise levels ii significant.-' in Keep our Mountains Quiet r. County of Santa Clara. '.13 neighhorsa of a wedding ven.rto sued over the County of Santa Clara's failure to prepa-re an EIR for a proposed project to allow use permit€[ for wedding an other party *.tents at a residential property abutting an open space preserve Neighbors anti their noise expert cctrita'nded that previous events at the facility had caused significant noise impac'1s tlii i reverberated in neighbors' litanies and disrupted the use find enjn>mend nl'thiiii- prciperty,'" The C"nunly's El ft relic it on Alit noise sttanelairds std. forth in its noise ordinance :is its thresholds for significant noise expo=sure from Ilia project., deeming any itrcrea.se to be insignificant sea long. as t1iu absolute tieaisselr•a•r-i !lid not exceoti those standards. i i 'fhe`. Court exsirtiitied ra long lints cif CEO t tine°ti a+ lrir ti I1114 1. uniformly held that conformity with land use regulations is not conclusive of whether or not as project has significant noise import ' _= in holding that rhr t 'trunty s reliance on the project's compliance with noise regulations dial not comets tul substantival evidence- supporting the County's finding of no significant illtim l In King and Gardiner Farms, LLC tt. County of Kern., the Court of .3l+larol cited keep our Mountains Quiet and decisions cited therein when it rejected Ilse use ore single "absolute noise level" threshold of significance (construction and operational noise ilnpac:ts were only deemed significant of they exceeded ti5 dHA.

CNEL) on the grounds that the sold use= of : uc i n threshold fails to consider the magnitude or :ti aal agency failed to "refer to
evidence showing why the magnitude of an increase was irrelevant in determining the eiignifiraanoe of a change in noise,"24'
The Reviled ISAIND itself. in its discussion of operational noise impacts, acknowledges that "'ju.Jnder CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitudes of 11'irrg & CAA rdiner Forms, Lei, 4I'5 Cal_slttia_5th at $(p& f,>i s orir Mrarraatarir; Quiet r. € on (y of Srxar,ttx aura t201b) 235 Ca1.App, 4th 71.4.

Rio rd. at 724_
31 Id, at 73.2.
(r1, ritiz4'nx [or F₹eapoosible t71•apn Crsnurrnaravrrl P. illy of Grand Trrrne, 4200 'JEW C"id.A.pp-(th 1323.13eaa:oft, ENO Gold Milting Corp. Gratuity ofIMFDorado (1 )225C'ul.+'kpp.r3 'aa Council u, Pearly cel lid IJvr rdo (198'2) 131 Cal.4pp.3d 350, 354, cr EQiA nowhere cells for e,vrilatni,iou of the impacts of a proposed project on anca:ris-ting general plrin":1.
1d. it 732-T14: 14: $oe +iIs lki:ra.,g & Garrlira+ r Forms, i:L C V. Couvtt:Y of Kern (202 0) Cal.App.`'ith 811. S9:3, as rncx1ille'd on 6'aaavl r rrOu?raring (Matr 2tt, !Nan, e'1 King rind (rrardiner Form -3, , LL!", wu-pro,, Cal.App.Bfh.814. ar, Id at $94
716 i .CN1 Tn,ic
'-•' pkydpew
O5-7
Cont.

O5-8

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3306
11942
RTC -1477

Responses to Comments
August "2t). 20'21
Page H
the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise -sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents n. significant: adverse environmental i ipact." +s :' is evident in the Appendix (T of the CORA Guidelines' reference to "substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels" this requirement is not limited to operational noise impacts, and would include analysis of temporary construction noise impacts, 37 Ikre, the Revised 1SININD's construction noise threshold violates t"'11Q.A's rI+€lttirorn ant that the load a=ge^ne citnwider both tho ine:rotlso in noise= i{ vel and I ho ale eilutrt noise! F-.:vol .tskcx•e,91 c°(l ek ith a project. The construction noisy iiiri'shohl is a nuolininni rouse'tht't'.hol€l th.il run €H toortntsitler rho long:niltide of 11101' I_5OH in noise over ambient levels. Under the City's single threshold, the increase in noise is irrelevant g atnt so bong, Ease the overall levels do not exceed a particular level, But, as in KingandGardiner Flans, the Revised IS/MND mails to refer to substantial evidence showing why the magnitude of an iiac:re;a a wait irrelevant in. determining the significance of a change in noise, An E1R, must be prepared that applies a legallyadequate construction noise threshold.

2. Construction Noise Impacts are Potentially Significant and Unmitigated
The Revised IWNIN Ys operational nui ti analysis nitexa. noise standards that use increases over ambient levels. Referencing guidance from the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise ("Fi('(lN"), the Revised IS/MND provides that 'if the ambient noise environment is quiet. (<ti{1 d13A) and the new noise source greatly increases the iloise levels. an impact may oo ur_"48 The ISM,IND describes what inertias Q.1.3 over the existing ambient noise level would be considered sir'ni ticant:

When the noise levels at existing and future=. noise-raensitivee land uses residential. etc_):
* are less than 60 [IBA I.e+€t and the Project crea=tes ii readily perceptible 5 (IBA t.eq or grt'cal ear 1 rtFject-related nS i je IWO iTlg re D4U. of ■ r€ange€ from 60 to ts,7i rifiA heq end the Proj€ct creates a barely perceptible 3 dt3A Leg or greater Project -related noise level increase; or • already exceed 65 diBA Ireq,, and the Project creates a community noise level impact of greater than I ,5 tiHA Leg (1 ICON. i 99?').3r ffi !SJMI). Append' I,, e la
C EQA Guitlr=Ifties, Aplse=fdix G. Sect.irm XIil,
"IMAM). ). Appendix E,
Id.
7 16t•tler^a[Ir
Cipahte. me. rogxInspaper
05-8
Cont_

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3307
11942
RTC -1478

Responses to Comments
August 20, 202-1

'applying these tanclartk to the Project's construction act s-ities. Mr..

Meighan demonstrates that the Projects con.straaclien noise impacts would exceed these thresholds at the nearest residential sensitive receptors. Mr. Meighan observes that ambient noise level at the sensitive receptors are below 60 dl3A,-1".

Far exa.n pie. the ambient noise level m I+ airion f.3 (Mirads Estates) is measured at t . 1 dB.A. as shown in Tahiti= 5-1."
TABLE 54: 24.HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
facelift*
Desolption
Energy Average Noise Level
(ISM 4.Y
Daytime
Evening
Meltrne
U
Located north of the Project site near the
existingVittas of Mirada single-family homes and
an open dirt parking lot.

49.7 46 7

4.4.1 L3
Located near the eastern boundary ©t the
.Protect site neer the existing Ritz -Carlton hotel
and vacant land.
53 :

48.©
4$.1.

L3
Located by the western boundary of the Project
site near to the gated entrance of the Mirada.

Estates.

SD.4
46_6
41,7
Since ambient levels are less than 60 tIBA, a 5 dg A increase in noise (58, •t x113,1) over the MND`s threshold would he significant. Increases greater than 5 dBA are shown in the noise study's Table 10-2.
r""Aeleighan C:ammene,. p2. 3: ISPAND, Appendix E, Table 1,- a , " IS11ND. Appendix E. J g. 2°}.
71 n tdR}7acp
ann+ee an recv;§nt
05-9
Cant

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3308
11942
RTC -1479

Responses to Comments
August DI 2024

TABLE 10-2: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Nnise Leve s $BA L.el
Receiver
Location'
Construchon
Qemolltien
site
Preparation
©ret6
Building
[(instruction
moving
Iwrchtie[tti[rat
Coating
tt�tll7i
levels'
R1
413.8

52.2 511.4

46.6 48.1
42,1

52.2 R2

65. Z

69.6 67.'8

65.9 65.5

59.5 69.6
R3

66.9 70.3
68,5

66.6 66.2

60.2 70.3
R4
871

70.6 68.8

66.9 66.5

60.5 70.6
R5

65.8 70.2

68.4 66.5

66.1 60.1
70-2
R6

61.8 65.2

63.4 61,5

61.1 55.1

65.2 R7

63.1 66.5

64.3 62.8

62.4 56.4

66.5 R8

53.7 56.1

54.3 52.4

57.0 46.0

56.1 Mr. Meighan observes that every single construction pha-e except.

Architectural Coating would exceed proposed thresholds at receivers R3, R-1, and R5 which are the closest locations alone Mirada Cirele.at.' Mr. Meighan further demonstrates that The esceedanres may be greater than analyzed in the Revised IS/MND_ After remodeling remodeled the analysis, is, using the source inputs of Table 1t1-1 in Appendix E. and using those with the spec Levels and calculations in the E'ecleral Higiwwwl: Administration's Roadway Noise Construction Model. Mr.

Meighan modeled It noise level of 89,7 cll3A raft receptor R3 (greater than t e 70,3 analyzed aed in the ISM 141T)-"M'r..Meighan concludes that the 12 dBA increase over ambient levels analyzed. in the Revised IS/MNP and 81 OA increase calculated I 111r- 14'1eighan would represent a'resadily perceptible' itic rea.se in ambient noise levels. Mr. Meighon's finding' provide suhstantini evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project will result in a significant noise impact which the Revised IS/MND fails to disclose or mitigate, The Cite must analyze and mitigate this potentially significant impact in an EIR

3. The Revised IS, ND Fails to Mitigate Potentially
Significant Vibration Impacts from Jackhammers nncl Loaded Trucks
The Revised ISfMNII disc loses that Vibration impacts from use of jackhammers and loaded trucks would result in potentially significant impacts on nearby residences, As shown below. Table 13 -ti of the Revised ISMND di:atioses M"oighnn Comments, pg, .I: ISTNIENTr, Ary. RPndix E, Tab1P 10-2 'r N1i"ighnn Coirnm nts, pg -I
7I t} 1 -aka 72icp
Opn,frdc, iaOK+bo 1014.•
05-9
Cant_
05-10
Page Za of 64 in Comment Letter 05
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3309
11942
RTC -1480

Responses to Comments
August 20, 2021

that, jackhammers and loaded trucks would exceed the Revised 1S1 1.ND" '80 \All significance t,hrelshokl if used close to residences.4-i Toole 13.44 Unmitigated Consbuerlan EquI men! YIb cI1on Levels Roc54 r 1
ilrerNer OhreIIon 1....15 wage
TLvrslonld
t1Ud$l4
•
Pge$4.C lel_i
Wont* In
Corot.
kElhiLly
(NWT
— 1
E S
w +a
t
};. E
a
a ai
a
4 ++ x-
µl
59i
!.M
_ _
448
'3.4

45.5 416
I _.

R2
66 .15 .4
d ,5

14.4 /4.4
₹Si
No
13 ;1 40-3
113
ell
S '.3
$fir
"7ri
M
33 54.4

75.4 624

53.4 13.4
IC
Wit
R5
t9 441

66.6 738
7335
IC
No
Ri5
De. 35!
599
66,9
67/
. 67.9
50 No
The Revised IS," lNI)1'laims that these potentially significant, impacts would he mitigated through implementation or M11/4,1 -NOT -1.. which provides:

During proposed project construction, the applicant shall require that large - loaded trucks and dozers (greater than 80.000 pounds) shall not be used within 50 feet along the entire southern property line, Instead, small rubber- tired or alternative equipment shall be used within this area during proposed project construction to reduce vibration effects. if all mobile equipment used &luring proposed project rxutstructian are less than 80,000 pounds, then the U-fxii huller mitigaat ion is not required -6
But this measure does noii apparently apply to either jackhammers or loaded trucks I w1, sources of potentially significant vibration- Mr, Meiglraatt ohsc�rvet4 (hot fil l N I. does nor apply to sources weighing less than 84,000 pounds it As such.. [his mitigation tneii:,tire £k s not mirlg-ale cihrotion from jackhammers. which arc unalor 8{.), WO pounds. Concerning lo.,ailriI irticks, hilwT NC1T l's 80 -feet vibration buffer zone mitigation only opplitw ce "rrucks and dozers (grower than 8.0„000 pounds)." Mr. Moighan explains that 140,000 pounds is the maximum legal weight allowed for trucks on the interstate highway system in the. United States, and that most trucks operating on the Project site would therefore be loaded below the 8.0,000 pound threshold weight, Thus., MM-NOl-l's WOOD -pound exemption tlwrDfure effectively excludes leaded trucks. Additionally_ the Revised IS/MND fails to provide evidence that loaded truck or other mobile equipment weighing less than 84.000 -H I NIMNtt, pg. 154.
161d. lit. Ii5t5.

Mc?ighun C.omaniuils. pg. 2.
7IF!111.7og:

Om Wed rawkk, palm
05-10
Cent.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3310
11942
RTC -1481

Responses to Comments
August 20, 2024

pounds would not result in potentially significant vibration impacts.47 As such, neither the Revised 1SAINLt nor the noise study provide substantial evidence demonstrating that MM-NOl-I would mitigate significant vibration impacts from jackhammers and loaded trucks. These potentially significant impacts remain unmitigated, requiring preparation of an I+]Ill..

4. The Revised ISIMND Fails to Mitigate Potentially
Significant Vibration Impacts from Vibratory Rollers
The Revised ISIMND assumes that construction could require two rollers.-'# but the IS)14IND foils to disclose potentially significant vibration impacts from. vibratory Taal -A during construction. Mr. Meighan observes that vibratory rollers were not considered in the noise* study or reflected in MM-Nt l -1, +1' Ilse of vibratory rollers is reasonably foreseeable because they are well -suited for work on granular soils like sand, gravel_ and crushed stcine,. ? Here. the Revised I /MNIYs geotechnieal report indicates that site materials consist generally of outcropping pre -Cretaceous retasectimentary rocks, overlain by an approximately I- to 3 -foot layer of gravelly sand with silt to silty sand with gravel, G1 Further, the Revised IS/MND does not preclude use of vibratory hailers.

Mr. Meighan detrionArates that vibratory rollorH would result in greater vibration impacts than the larger bulldozer analyzed in the Revised ISIMNI}.

Whereas as large bulldozer would have a vibration f,ouroe level at 25 feet of 87 Yell#, a vibratory roller would have a i1 VAR source level. Mr. Meighan calculates that the 80 Vd.133 vibration threshold would be exceoded. at 76 feet during the use of a vibratory roller."- An Ellil must he prepared to analyze and mitigate the potentially significant impacts from this equipment.

Meighan. Comments, pg. ;3.
"1S ISIMND. Appendix A-1- PDF pe.. ;3u.
19 NIc ighnn. Comments, pg. 4.
'.wLJJtiquap Inc.. Sail C'ompaetion EinndIx i. 2011,
htitis:eAvww,mulli.4100.00iiihnu Compar'tion Handbook low ris 0212 I)oiladr rA4r12ri 1Y','r_cao11 I.PEl'.-pg. I I.. 13; hill Te-/ytitiwti,±'TaE.IPP,4'a'a'Rae LUiintiVW.,con jlor} )1S4''FF�t13Tlr4- f.roflrr9�. yaiJ•in-swnwuactisaas•workl: JLLta� lsyxi5� la alit2.usrrre Ioeftvues-c�C- roller s?s;rsit7d=AftnB )orl-IlitverNie:r_SO aVsfill'ilZvliFPlLII92.211.131"2p8U14Ttlt2ewBwE 'a ISIMND.. Appendix II. pg. 109
Meighan Comments:, pg. 1
SJ Idi
7161-fla7asp
grinVd Ai rorkead piry6Or
05-10
Cent_
05-1.1

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3311
11942
RTC -1482

Responses to Comments
August W. 21)21

5. The Revised IS/MND Fails to Disclose and Mitigate
Potentially Significant Noise Impacts from HVACs
The Revised IS.I`MND provides that operational noise impacts would be significant. if Project -related operational (stationary -source) noise levels exceed the Rase exterior noise level standard of -i Ill:l.1 Leq during the nighttime hour` {If}:tltil �r.in. to 7:110 aa.7rt.a fu tt•rpi4't-ac nsirivii ri!siEleniiiil and irrtltitutHalal uses in the i rojncI r u+l y nrl sa. F,.I The Revised TS/Al NT) rtalculri i i i rl i th i. I i m e open i l iontal noise levels as high as -l-1.6 iliti at. int:Mien In. only 0.•I af1.\ under rhea I +113:1 thrcasholcl.r'= This cu11llusicin is based on Ihtt aisi,UrtllatK 9 titan 1Pl",!t_' u1111 <Itr PSI Imated tit Cat1{eraal.e for an aveenge minutes per hour dtiring the alaiyt hours5. 11114 28 minim es per hour during the nighttime hours, r-.6
Mr. Meighan explains that the Revised 1SIh1N1} likely underestimates the amount of time HVAC systems would he running Mr. Meighan observes that in Rancho Mirage, the average daily temperature can reach a high of over 105 degrees Fahrenheit in July•`' liven the daily minimum can reach as high as 79 degr€es. As a result. Mr. Meighan stores that it would not be uncommon for an lIVAC system to l_be running oonsta.ntt;.. Mr, Meighan calculates that if the nighttime FI AC ran for ju tl l more minutes per hour (2li 0 minutes) than assumed in the MINIM) (28/60 minims). the -15 (IBA threshold would be broken."' As such. en excertlanee of the nigh tl'init:! calker@atlo'n is pur-,rible'- rl'hIS POIentiali%' signit` iiTii ipnprzt'l rIILISt be analyzed and mitigated in an El};L_
6 The Revised TS/MND Fails to Consider Noise and
Vibration Imparts from Construction of Utility Trenches According to the Revised ISi MND, 'the proposed project would require sewer. water, and fire -serve water line lateral connections to the existing facilities in Frank Sinatra Drive.°':°°' The geet,eelinical report. Appe=ndix O, states that "[simile blasting may be necessary in the deeper cut, areas of the site, and may be desirable from an efficiency standpoint even where ripping with heavy equipment is feasible:49 liut the Rn ise11 IS +Mil's noise and 'Vihrsrtion analysis does not address the possibility of blasting. This omission undermines the Revised ISIMNI 's findings because blasting can generate large noise and vibration impacts beyond what has ▪ ISItkLND, Appendix E, pg. 21.
r' Id. pit. 45, r1'ablal t).2.
rA hi. iet: 43.
• Meighalei'::om1m+tnt . pg_ 4 -re,
"Id. at. r•.

IS111,1ND., pg. tO.

ISIMND.Appendix 0, pg_ 17.
16r-tkrati
Ohante. me.' rogxaMaper
O5-13

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3312
11942
RTC -1483

Responses to Comments
August 20, 2024
Page lil
been disclosed in the Revised ISJMND.11 The City roast evaluate ira an CUR whether blasting is required for the construction of the Project. analyze the potentially signifitiant noise and vibration impacts, and identify feasible mitigation.

B. The Project Would Have Potentially Significant Health Risk Impacts
1, Health Risk Impacts Are Significant When Evaluating
Both Construction and Operational Phases
The Revised I I4'IND includes a. health risk aAsessrarent ol'the Project's construction phase, (32 The HE - A estimates an unmitigated cancer risk of';32.23 in one million anti a mit.igal ed cancer risk of 6,65 in one million. which is below the IS/lviNIV'A It} in one million significance thre shold.m° This cancer risk does not reflect the eomniitnitv's exposure to toxic air contaminants from the Project's operations. As explained in CARE CA's comments on the first. ISJ'AMND, diesel particulate matter would be emitted from the Project's emergency generator.

SWAPE explains that. the Revised IS/AMND's iIRA is not supported by substantial evidence because it fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk resulting from Project construction and operation togetheY '''"1 According to ()Flee of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment e OEI-LHA') guidance, the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each ago grouping and Then summed to yield cancer risk at the receptor location;". SWAPE observes that the ISVMND's HRt'\ fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over theenur;see of the ProjecCs total construction and operation.

SWAPE prepared a screening -level health risk analysis for the Project's operational phase, using the annual PIill0 exhaust estimates from the lSr+MND's CaIEElllocl "Ritz Carlton Rancho Mirage" model's output f1ks. 'r PM 1.4 emissions are commonly used as a proxy far 1IPAI emissions in health risk assessments to rrr Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration impact 2..ssossment Manual. pg_ 117. 1 itl, available at httrn tfwww iransil..dui.eca-/sitosrfta_rloi,aovltilesidooslresearch• inaaovationill813➢liransit mica-and•vibrai:ion-ii aet-asr-.s ment-nianuaal-tia-report-nu-01234.pdt; A sesama?nt oI'the thounri Vibration Daring Blasting In Mining Projects Using Different Computational ,kpprootlies. Hos eini et al., http' 5 wv4;netarv,,ximlartis-lresp;llrt`tE9•f 2i- Ifii3t ax ISLl N . _Appendix A.2..
sa ht aat 5.

SWAPI Uotrranwrri, « pt+- 2.
rift Id.
$° Id, at 3.
16L-0fS p
Q5-13
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3313
11942
RTC -1484

Responses to Comments
.4umist 20. 202i

ensure that all Dl'M emissions are included — not just the fine size eguissions,l7 The total excess cancer risk associated with Project operation is approximately- -12. I in one milli.on.' 14Vhen summing' the Project's initi=ated construction -related cancer risk (6.65 in one million). as estimated. by the Revised 1S.I1 IND, with 514":1 PE's capevaa:nonal cancer risk (I2. -I in one million), the excess cancer risk is approximately 49 in one million over the course of a 30 -year residential lifetime.€' This cancer rink, exc Bede the 10 in one million Aignil carrwe thresholel, re4atrltinginn significant i npact.`ic' This potentinity a igniiicant impact must he analyzed and mitigated in an EiR,

2. The Revised IS/Ml+Trs Mitigation for Significant Health Risk Imparts is Inadequate
The Revised IS/MND estimates an unnnitiga3ted cancer risk or 32.23 in one million which would be: reduced to 6.65 in one million via implementation of Mi 1_ A - i. ' MM-r11Q-1 dills for use of Tier 11 construction equipment, but "in the event of changed circumstances (e.g., changes in the availability of specific types of construction equipment), the applicant may submit a request to the City to apply an equivalent method of achieving larajjex:t-generated construction emissions that fall below the numeric canner risk standards established by the South Coast Air Qrwlity Management District (SCAQMD)."72. "IT fiat c1oc umentation ele+monetrtaIi i thaat prcaje ^t -generated caonstructirn omissions °iII remain below the applicable SCA.QMD cancer ruck thr-e.Rshold. than the City may approve the alternate construction method(s). at they Q'ity's discretion:7a
n7Jatina:lnauthearnswea:1iob.enra.win do •s.n+tien'<•ironinent12,022 lulu-tTnrater-IiRA-Renort.relf ('When evaluating health risks for DEM, paarticulaate, matter with as diameter of 10 microns or less fPM1€) was # alaoe(ed. as as surrogate for DPM COE1{-IA 2015?`):
https.iilionumont c.`oviD rcunrenWeritera'1'ie€ in 763142-Aiir-quality ('The conger and chronic health risks are based on the arantral average concentration ofPIY11t1 (used as a proxy For DEEM"):
bt.tos:1/ww•w:sandirarocounty.eovfkontentkaamistOods/ProientP nnninalC.nt:tonwood Srxndblinefll1i[HA 1 640Air'-!o2()Lageal ,„Dilf t"The; maximum daily on•site emissions of exhaust PM10 (a proxy for DP'at.) during grading are anticipated ID LE* 0_6 'tetanal per day"):
lrtipa;afIlla i.eopanr+r.opr.are.gov,9 -It33-'3lsittee ltnrmtla•r'iII"t11a.7�ri�le- J F017H OTI.Ai lCmc'ti'G'NhVh'fxU•t7t1!nseteSn:iv.IT43ZS lTAV vbZftxll NI70it CHZ'i SZeM0 {"'PM1O emissions were used as a proxy for DPM.."3;
lattras.l:fw ve.b aurnontca,gsnallpcacurnentC'.ent roVicv03 2.78A13 •'4ir=B adze' (-The cancer and chronic health risks are based on the annual average concentration of PM 10 tu.sed as a prey for DI'l t}' ). '96 SWAP13 Comments. pg, Cy,
td.
7D The Revised LS/IVEsID ecntains no operartional air quality mitigation. Km Q•1 applies only to construction equipment. and would not rednce operational health risk.

Pa IS&IND, App+tndtx A-2. lag.

ISIMND, pg, tom.
ra id.
:1 n 1.411) race
PrnlvC mRroc r pa OW
X75-14
Cont..
05-15

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3314
11942
RTC -1485

Responses to Comments
August 20. 202-1

The Revised 1Si/ ND fails to discuss identify. quantify emissions reductions from, or anal analyze the feasibility of obtaining any equipment which would purportedly provide the "alternate construction methods" to achieve Tier 4 equivalent. construction emissions reductions. This analysis is required to be included in the C' EQA document, and cannot be deferred until after Project approval Moreover, MM -, Q-1 improperly defers fitrrnulralion of alternative construction methods shcerltl Tier 4 equipment not be available, Courts have held that deferral of mitigation may be permitted only where the lead agency: (1) undertakes a complete analysis of the significance of the environmental impact: C2) proposes potential mitigation measures early in the planning process; and (.) articulates specific performance criteria that would ensure that adequate mitigation measures wore eventually iinplemeentcd.}-s
MM -1Q-1 fails to adequately propose potential mitigation measures early in the planning process. The HRA's analysis of the Project's mitigated health risk impacts assumes all construction equipment would he Tier -1 Final, However, Tier 4 Final equipment is of limited availability_ Th The ISJ141ND fails to demonstrate that similar reductions would be achieved through use of "alternative construction ine.thod(s)." . cx.ordingly, the IS/MND must identify alternative construction methods that would achieve the neceesary reductions to meet the 10 in tine million threshold- Although MM-AQ-1 requires the applicam to submit documentation showing that theepreajeet-generated construction emissions would remain below the threshold. the ISJAIND must include substantial evidence demonstrating that such reductions are feasible.

MM-AQ-1 fails to articulate specific performance criteria that would ensure that adequate mitigation measures are eventually implemented. If Tier d equipment is not used, MM .A -1 requires that "i tijocumentation using industry - standard emission estimation methodologies shall be furnished to the City demonstrating that estimated project -generated construction emissions would not exceed the applicable St: AQMD cancer risk threshold," This measure fails to specify what type of documentation and methodologies would be aerepted by the City'_ This ambiguity may allow the applicant to rely on methodologies unsupported by :• ubs trmtial ttidence:, In the initial isfmND, the City claimed that l:eemat e the Projeerm emissions would aioi exr:eed Localized Signi'l eancc Tiiirwholds ("`I.,STs") 71 Corn lye. fur &QlerEn.''t e'. City of Richmond (2010) 101 Cai.Apµ--tth 70. 95. foul. Native Plata Sony' e • City of Rancho Cordova (`0301-3) 172 Cal.App- tth 093, ta21.

South 17oost AQi i13, 2922 Air Quality ratison5rnmont Plan Policy 1*iet, available at but-nF-lltvww,reom€,r.nvleior4ytiQt'ault-ao4tiroeklean.air-nianslajr-ono tty-rnnnagoi nt-nlnns 2-air- quality-manteeesent-ulaultinal-2x21-tuinapR3lnck-boat trnesl,uelt?'sfrr;n=4• t t 51-cx:I7arp
O5-15
Cent_
O5-17

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3315
11942
RTC -1486

Responses to Comments
August 20. 2021
Patera 17
the Project's localized air quality impacts would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial air pollutant concentrations But CARE CA's initial comments demonstrated that LSTs do not apply to MO and other TACs. and, thus do not disclose the magnitude de of the Project's emissions and resultant health impacts."; The initial IS/MND also claimed that health risk from construction activities would be leas than significant because construction would last 22 months. and not constitute ra long-term (30 -year) source ofTAC emissions.7@ But. CARE CA explained Ihni the 0E1 -11-1A risk assessment guidelines recommend an 1 —IRA for short-term construction exposures to T:1 Cs lusting —longer than 2 months,h And in the Revised IS/MND, the City failed to consider the combined health risk of the construction and operational phases of the Projcc .. To ensure that health risk impacts would be reduced below the 1t} in one million significance thresholds, MM-AQ-1 must 1w revised to require a quantitative HRA that considers all components of thc' Project before any alternative Construction methods can be approved.

Because MM AQ l improperly defers analysis and formulation ol''mitigation measures and its effectiveness is not supported by substantial evidence, the health risk impact identified in the Revised IS/MND remains potentially significant. An FIR must be prepared that Fully mitigates this impact.

III. CONCLUSION
The Revised IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project will have less than significant impacts. Moreover, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project's impacts may be significant and unmitigated Due to the Revised 18/MND's deficiencies, the City cannot conclude that the Project's impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant. level.

March 18lliriND, pg. $t.
'7 South toast Air tlurllrtw Moe g.arnord I Ili tit 1., heal P.ncell-bed Sigiiitia:aree Threshold shold
Methodology lJlnne 2X13, Revised July 2Ot]8)
w v� tis aomtl.revlskies/tee'milt-soxtriv/o :dailhnndbeok( oeulizeL•sienificawe threshe d&final-lst- mc•thodoloatw•durum r►l.ttcttaslvirsn=2: Mara:ilwvwv`.aamsl.go+rr'ht3m+afroles-aomnlinncrekae,aaalzllr-tttinlixv- analvsas-hand ookllaunlized-ssinifit-.nicv-thresholds.
re far.

T] Cake of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (GEEEAI. Rik Assessment Guidelines:

Guidance Manual ter Preparation of Hoalth Risk Assessments. If ebrua y 2015. (GE1-EA 2015),.

Sr4.0rion 8:2_MI t snav'r Risk I 'aaluaatiri[a of Short Term Projects, pp. 8-17f Fl:
]>trns;lAnehha a,govivirhTatrl'nntire-yri I.•snn1_snct�rnm-er[[[3iansx-rntinu_tiI- pre+naaraation-heaalih-ri sk-tJ.
71 5 t4XliEtOp
am[sd an recrabeaaaar
0547
Cont
05-18

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3316
11942
RTC -1487

Responses to Comments
August 20, 2021
Page IS
CARE CA woes the City to prepare an Elft which complies with CEQA and rally addresses the issues raised in this comment letter and the unresolved issues in CARE CA's original ISIMN1l.

Attachments
APM:aep
715 1410acp
Sincerely,
Aidan P, Marshall
canlexf mcw!ma, PI Mr
05-18
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3317
11942
RTC -1488

Responses to Comments

EXHIBIT A

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3318
11942
RTC -1489

Responses to Comments

WILSON IHRIG
ACOUSTICS. NOISE & VIBRATION
August 20'6, 2024
Mr. Aidan P. Marshall
Adani Broadwell JoReph & Cardazo
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000
South San Francisco, CA 94480
SUBJECT': Ritz -Carlton Residences P► Iect
Rancho Mirage, CA
DRAFT* Review and Comments on IS/MND Noise Analysis
Dear Mr, Marshall,

CALIFORNIA

WASHINGTON
NEW+lORK
WI #24.001.41
As requested, we have reviewed the information and noise impact analysis for the Ritz -Carlton Residences Project in Rancho Mirage, CA. The project promos to expand the existing Rita, -Carlton hotel with 106 residential dwelling units, a 6,966 square foot restaurant, and a 23,843 square foot venue. The site is bordered to the south by residences along Mirada Circle. This letter Is basal on the recirculated iuly 2024 initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MIND) prepared by the City of Rancho Mime, with an emphasis •on Appendix E. Rite-Cw1tun Residences Noise Impact Anafris, prej.}arecl by Urban Crossroads and dated February 18, 2020_ Wilson lhrig is an acoustical consulting firm that has practiced exclusively in the field of acoustics sincc'1gC6, Duringour almost 58 years oloperatien, we have prepared hundreds of noiSe studiesfor Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. YYt have cane of the largest technic -al laboratories in the acoustical consulting industry, We also utilize ina;lustry-s-tanclarcl acoustic►1 programs such as Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCN Ml 1, Sou ndPLAN, aired CadnaA. in shoat,. we are Wt iI qualified to prepare environmental noise studies and review studies prepared by others.

Adverse Effects of Noises
Although the health effects of noise are not tak la as serious] y in the United States as they are in wither countries, they are real and, in many parts +rfthe country, pervasive, Noise -Induced Hearing Larei. if a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she rimy experience nnlse-inLinccd bearing impairment or Toss. In the tlnitoti States, both the. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and t1Le Nationaal Institute for Occupational Safety and ' More Information on these and other adverse effects of noise inay be found In Gurdefines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Llndual1,ared DSchwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switiedand, 2999. ihttpsr// www.wSo,IntipublIcations/l tam/a6SG72}
B3 I WILSHIRE ®OLULEARRD, I7th FLOOR LOSANGEL6, CA ROOT 9131TL3$ita WWWWRLSONIHRIG,COlM
05-19
05-20

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3319
11942
RTC -1490

Responses to Comments

WILSON IHRIG
1t8t,carltorrt Res#derices Necircukrted ['WAIN')
CcimmeptrvoriftiseAndy
Health (NIDSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise.

Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise Is speech interference, En addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased wonting capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of tale speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise, Typical indoor speech levels are. 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any nose above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is t& raise one's voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result.

Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by snaking it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been finked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological effects, Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often cxp erience secondary! y effects such as increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work perf irmanee.

Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human's bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the "fight or fight" response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction, Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease.

Impaired. Cognitive Performance. Studies have estahlished that noise ea po one impairs people's abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes) and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and Jncmorizing snore difficult This is why there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments_
Mitigation Measure does Not Remove all Exceedances

significant? MM -N01-1 graters drat large -loaded trucks and dozers (greater than 80,000 pounds) shall not be used within 50 feet along.; the entire southern property line," The treasure limits the heaviest equipment from use at the most sensitive locations.

However, there are several errors with this logic. The first is Table 13-6 shows that jackhammers are over the 80 VdB construction vibration threshold. Yet MM -NC I-1 does nothing to reduce or regulate vibration from sources significantly less than 80,000 pounds. A Jackhammer is less than 80,000 pounds. As such, this mitigation measure does not bring vibration from jackhammers under the limit and there still are umnitigated significant impacts in the MND, Additionally, the 50 -foot vibration buffer zriiw mitigation is only for "trucks and dozers (greater than 80,000 pounds)" This 80,000 -pound exemption is significantly too lenient, 80,000 pounds Is the nraximam weight any truth can be for use on the interstate highway system in rile United Statess. n'ttosllow.,ihwa.dot.geviirPix
lr�
05-20
Cunt_
05-21

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3320
11942
RTC -1491

Responses to Comments

WJLSON IIIRIG
rldfz-Carlton. Resfderaees Recircurated f5/aa4�4F?
C0rottne'rtt] vet NUtSe Amer s
California has the same restriction on all truck traffic within the state3. It stands to reason that most trucks are then at or below the legal threshold weight and would not be subject to the MND's vibration buffer zone mitigation. This means the weight chosen for the mitigation is too high. - any truck that exceeds it is not legal to drive away from the site to the next destination, and is therefore unlikely (or illegal) to be used at the Project site in the first place_ Finally, the MND provides no evidence that correlates truck load (e.g., 80,000 lb) with vibration generated by the trucks or experienced at the wayside. The MND therefore provide no analysis or proof that this BO,000 lb limit is meaningful - which could he done by citing case studies, building computer models, or discussing, applicable regulations. Truck speed and the presence of bumps or uneven surfaces along the haul road are also defining variables. notjwrst truck load. Requiring less- vibration inducing constrtctian equipment is a legitimate mitigation measure - but it must be accompanied by documentation showing that it will feasibility reduce levels, which is proven by calculations of new, mitigated levels in the original model_ Analysis Improperly Considers Construction Noise Thresholds Appendix E s:tdte_s that "The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health INIOSHI has recommended that all worker exposures to noise should be controlled below level equivalent to 8S dEA for eight hours: to minimize occupational noise induced hearing loss" (page 13) and because of this uses an 85 dBA construction noise threshold.

The B5 dBA "hearing loss" threshold is not an appropriate threshold for evaluating all potentially significant impacis on sensitive receptors from increases in ambient noise. This was developed as a threshold to prevent occupatiortal noise induced hiring loss. Given that an Impact is defined in the MND as a "substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project" (page 19), it stands to reason that a 'substantial' Increase in the <60 dEA ambient levels. would occur before a hearing loss threshold. The ability to work from home, relax, or even the capability to have a carnversatianwould be impacted before noise reaches an BS dBA level. By relying can the 8S dBA threshold, the MND fails to identify these potentially significant imparts.

The MND already cites noise standards that use increases fiver ambient levels, sting that the 'Fedora l Interagency Corn m ittee on Noise l F]CON) developed bma..ida nee to be used for the assess me nt of project -generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level' (page 19), continuing that 'although the FICONrecommendations were specifically developedtoassessaircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used In environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics" (Page 24). The FICOt recommendations provide that "if the ambient noise environment is quiet ( <60 dBA) and the new noise sourre greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur" (page CO)..

Other jurisdictions explicitly use thresholds tied to ambient levels for construction noise. The Las Angeles CEQA Thresholds Gtridea on Page 1.1-3 states that a 'prol:ect would normally have i s ign iica nt impact on noise levels from construction if ... Co nstru ction activities lasting more than one day would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 10 dBA or more at a noise sensitive] use." hips:/friot.ca,zov{prortrams{traffic-u prat
ritto5:1/0 ar tv,cpvlirfCrgssraae, sF
ansftezai-truckacr=ess{weiz at -I ruitaalon
wdlcei rf-ilesfreferencestAni_pr
Pa
05-21
Cant -
05 -22

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3321
11942
RTC -1492

Responses to Comments
WIi,SC N IHRIG
Rftr-C+rrttorr Resrderrres RPeircututed WWI)
LUmrucniS.O+i Noise Analysis
Table 5-1 shows that all ambient noise levels are below 66 dUA. There are no noise measurements taken at the sensitive locations along Miranda Circle, However, noise measurement location L3 is exposed to noise from Frank Sinatra Drive, which should have similar trait levels and overal]. mbientcondMons, The day their ambient is measured at 53,4 tlBA. Since ambient levels are less than 60 dBA, the 'readily perceptible' increase of noise would occur at 5 dBA over the MND's threshold based on J CON, which is 59.4 dRA_
Table 10.2 presents modeled construction noise levels. Every single construction phase but Archltecmral Coating is over broth proposed thresholds at receivers R3, R4, and RS, which are the closest locations along Mirada Circle. For receiver R3 during site preparation (the worst -case scenario), Appendix E models a level of 70,3 dBA. We built our own model, using the source inputs of Table 1I1-1 in Appendix E, and using those with the spec levels and calculations in the Federal Highway Adniinitrmotion's dF'H1h+Aj Roadway Nos : Construction Msxlel RCN MI. We mock! led alevel of 09.7 dBA. This result is attached as an Appendix to this letter. The discrepancy is because of the lower source levels used in Table 1Q-1 of Appendix E in the MND. These recorded source levels shouldi be included as a supplementary appendix to verify their validity and measurements assumptions, As it stands now, the MND may be underestimating impact ]rvets. Without citing the source levels that are rntich lower than what is typically used in the FI1WA RCNM model. it stands to reason the caicrtlation may be hawed. The MND's construction noise model is 12 dIA over ambient levels, while our construction noise model is 31 dEiA over ambient levels, 14 IBA is usually coiisi ei ere d a do ubl i rig of l mid ness5. Both would represent a'readily perceptible' increase and a'+iubstanrial' tempo Tory increase in ambient noise levels, As such, this should be more thoroughly in an Environmental Impact Report.

Analysis May Omit Possible Construction Vibration Exceedance While the construction vibration was analyzed in section 16,4, the assessment or mitigation measures do not consider or restrict the use of a vibratory roller. The buffer distances identified in mitigation measure MM NOI-1 were calculated using a large bulldozer, which has a vibration source level at 25 feet of 87 VdB, compared to 94 VdB fora vibratory roller, Project design feature NO1-1 prohibits the use of large bulldozer within a buffer zone„ but not vibratory rollers. The use of a vibratory roller should either be prohibited in a new NOT, or if a vibratory ris]ler is nocess2ry for the construction of the Project,a modified butter distance would need to be implemented to avoid exccedance;s of the specified vibration threshold at nearby receptors.

Using the same procedure used in Table 13-b ofAppendix E of the IS/MND, the 86 VdP construction vibration threshold 1s exceeded at 76 feet during the use of a vibratory roller. The reef+re, a new NCI - 2 should be added banning the use of a vibratory roller, or NOI-1 should be modified, as below changes in bold);
During proposed protect Cuttstrifetlon, the applicant shall require. drat large-lrock'4 trucks, vibratory rvlfei, and dozers (greater than 8(),000 pounds) shalt nut be used within 76 feet along the entiresou thorn property brim Instead, small rubber -tired orcdternafivecquipmcnt sitatl be used within this area ciu ring proposed gmlec•t construction tion to reduce vibration ef(i2cts, h ps:lJwwwr,nite5,nrIvJ51ilIir tp44u9 ' ur
er�n4
r3BF4i�nd.#itnl
PegeA
05-23

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3322
11942
RTC -1493

Responses to Comments

WILSON IHRIG
Nice-rrurttror 8estrkrncrs Recirculated t5%,1 D
Curnrrtcntr LW Th'L Atlritail
if ail non -vibratory roller mottle egwprent used during proposed prafer•t eoIIstr•rtrtrotr ore lessMon B0,()O)pounds, then the 5Ufootbuffer mitigation Npin trequired, Analysis has Optimistic Assumptions Regarding FIVAC Source Levels section 9-2.2 of Appendix E details source levels and assumptions for the air conditioning units and states that I -VAC units are "estimated to operate for an average 39 minutes per hour during the daytime hours, and 2E minutes per hour during the nighttime hours." This may not be rcalistis for conditions in the Protect vicinity. In Rancho Mirage, the average dally temperature can reach a high of over 105 degrees Fahrenheit in luly<', Even daily minimum can reach OS high as 79 degrees. As a result, we believe that it would not he kutt'takflh1R n for an HVAC system to he running, constantly, As presented in Table 9-1 Ln Appendix E, Ate Conditioner Units are the only source considered for nighttime predictions. Table 9-2 shrews that nightticne operational noise levels are as high as 44,6 dBA (at R3), only OA dBA under the 45 dBA threshold. lithe nighttime I-IVAC r -an for 4 niore minutes during the hour on a hot night, the 45 dBA threshold would be braken'. An kVAC system running 32 minutes out or 60 is very likely to occur in hot summer night conditions. As such, an exceedance is possible and shouldbe studied In an Environmental Impact Report Conclusions
There are several errors and omissions in the AND noise analysis, including improper construction noise thresholds, missing analysis of typically used equipment and optimistic operational noise assumptions. Correcting these would potentially identify several significant impacts which require mitigation. Please feel free to contact me with any questions can this Information.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
jack Meighan
-Associate
rancho mirage rkkz comments on the rsmnd noise analysis,dccx trttp s:llweatherspark.conV5121 WilAverane-Sommer-Weather-In-ikanchp-tJlinarte-Ca dorn a-United- StatesiPFrgures-Teroperakure
This is u5.Irig the formula 10IogIU.FiltX1l, U F.is thage Factor, the % of time where the equipment is running.

Pag 5
4 05-23
Cant.
05-24
X5-25

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3323
11942
RTC -1494

Responses to Comments
Roadway Construction Noise Modell (RCN iM ),Version 1.1.

Report date 8/2DI2D24
Case Description:

Reaeptar #1 --
Baselines (dBA,)
Descriptiar Land Use Daytime Evening Night
R3 Residential 85 85 85
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) ([IBA) (feet) (dBA)
Dozer No 40 85 21 9
Backhoe No 40 8O 21 L'
Results
Caiculated (dBA) Noise Limits (dBA)
Day Evening Night
Equipment *Lmax Leg Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lrnax Leq
Dozer 92.5 88.5 N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 87.5 83-6 N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A
Total 92.5 89.7 N/A 58.4 N/A NIA N/A N/A
*Calculated Lmax Is the Loudest value.

Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
Day Evening Night
Lrnax Leg Lmax Leq Lrnax Leq

N/A NIA NIA N/A N/A N/A

N/A NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A 31.3 N/A NIA N/A N/A

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3324
11942
RTC -1495

Responses to Comments
b
WILSON IHRjG
ACGUST C5, 4:OSE ♦ VIDI,A-IGN

JACK MEIGHAN
Associate
Jack joined Wilson lhrig in 2021 and is an experienced acoustics engineer with expertise in projects involving rail transit systems, highways, CEQA analysis, environmental noise reduction, mechanical drawing reviews, and mnstructitrn noise and vibration mitigation, He has hands-on experience with project management, including client coordination and presentations, as well as in designing, developing, and testing MATLAB code used in acoustics applications. Additionally, his expertise includes taking field measurements, developing test plans and specifying, purchasing, setting up and repairing acoustic measurement equipment, lie has experience in using Traffic Noise Model (TNMJ, CadnaA, EASE, Visual Basic, LxabView, and CAD software.

Education
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA Project Experience
Metro Regional Connector, Los Angeles C4
Planned, took, and processed measurements as part of a team to determine the effectiveness of floating slab trackwcark fora new subway in downtown Los Angeles that travels below the Walt Disney Concert Hall and the Col burn School of Music_
Rodeo Credit Enterprise CEQA Analysis for New Construction,. Palmdale C4 Wrote an accepted proposal and executed it for a noise study project to determine noise mitigation requirements on a new housing dive iopment. Led all aspects o[the project and managed the budget during all phases of progcct completirrn. Completed 5 separate projects of this type for this devel oper.

Blaekhal1Studios, Santa Clurita, CA
Led the vibration measurement effort fora new souncistage directly adjacent to an existing freight and commuter rail line. Tested equipment, processed data, and analyzed results to determine the vibration propagation through the soli to the proposed snundstage locations, and was part of the team that developed mitigation techniques tor the office spaces directly next to the rail line.

Octuaia Residential Condos CEQA Study, San Francisco, CA Calculated the STC ratings for the proposed windows to meet Title 24 requirements, modeled the acoustic pert'ormance of furor and ceiling structures, researcher{ noise codes, helped with a mechanical design review, and wrote a report summarizing the results for a new Condominium project being developed in San Francisco.

San Diego International Airport Terminal I Replacement, CA Conducted interior noise and vibration measurements, analyzed measurement data to help determine project criteria, modeled the existing and future terminals in CadnaA, and was part of team that did a complete HVAC analysis of the entire terminal, as part of a CEQA analysis where a new terminal far the airport is being designed.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3325
11942
RTC -1496

Responses to Comments

WILSON IHRIG
radii MerWh®n - NAN 2
Five Points Apartments Noise Study, Whittler, CA
Tookrteeasurenaents, researched sound data and solutions, and recommended mitigation for a new apartment complex that was located next to an existing car wash, as part of a CEQA review, IISC Ellison Vibration Survey, Los Angeles, C4
Conducted vibration measurements as part of a survey to determine the effectiveness of vibration isolation platforms that are used to insulate cell ,growth in a cancer research facility_ Determined die ettectiveness and presented this information to the client, Researched and recommended a permanent monitoring system so the client could view data in real time.

TENS° Condos "Popping' Noise Investigation, Los Angeles, CA Was part tit team that lrivestigated the nraise Source Dian unwanted popping noise in luxury condos in Downtown Los Angeles. Helped isolate the noise source location with accelerometers to determine where vibrations were occurring first and used an acoustic camera to determine where in the condo than noise was coming from.
2000 University Project, iierkely, C4
Wrote .i e'tanstrltctiaan nuke monitoring plan based on environmental noise calculations, wrote a repel rt slim marl ing the reratdts, anti attending meeting with the client to discuss options, Bay Area Rapid Transit (PORT) On -Track, CA, Seat Francisco Bay Area, CA* Day to dxty project manager, responsible for meetings, presentations„ and coordination with the client for an ongoing noise study on the HART systen:a. Developed MATLAS code to process measurements and determine areas where high corrugation was present, contributing to excessively high in -cal- noise levels, Performed noise measurements inside both the right of way and the vehicle +chin, in addition to rail corruption measurements, California f-605/SR-60Intera"hange improvement Los Angeles, CA* Developed a noise model Of the area that predicted snood levels for abatement design, in addition to conducting noise measurements and analysis. Lard the Team in use of the FHWA Traffic Noise Model Software for the project involving three: major highways and two busy interchanges extending over 17 miles in southern California
Sound Transit On -Track Seattle, WA*
Tarok measurements, fixed equipment and developed software In MAT LAS to process Corrugation Analysis Trolley mcasurcmcnts as part of an ongoing noise study on the Sound Transit Link system.

Tested vihranean data to determine the hest measurement and processing technitpoes to stare the data in an online database for in -car measurements.

L4 Metro CRRC Railcar Testing, Los Angel , CA*
Led the effort to plan the mesirurernents, de termini,' measurement locations and flnallz the test pan_ Vortnulated a method to capture ;-peed data directly from legacy/ train vehicles, Execuread noise and vibration specification measurements for new rail cars delivered by CRRC, City of Los Angeles, Pershing Square Station Rehabilitation Noise Monitoring, CA* wilt noise models, wr,ate a construction noise plan, and assisted In cm -site construction noise issues as they arose fora renovation of the Pershing Square metro station in downtown Los WttrtrtthmcpApt' tit woren farWffw>:, "trip
05-27
Ccnt

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3326
11942
RTC -1497

Responses to Comments

WILSON IFIRIG
,sack Meighun — Pew 3
Angeles, Trained construction personnel in techniques for noise reduction and how to conduct noise monitoring measurements to meet protect specifications.

City of Grange Metrolink Parking Grrrvge Construction Monitoring, CA t Wrote an adaptive management vibration monitoring plan, set up equipment to inoniterr live vibration levels, and generated weekly reports as part of an effort to build a new parking garage.

Designed, planned, and cr3mpl€5ted measurements to predict and mitigate pile driving construction impacts at three historic building locations adjacent to the construction site. Coordinated with the client whenever an on -site problem arose.

LA Metro Westside Subway Construction, Los,4&LueMs CA'
Planned, organized, and processed ni t e measurements for the Purple Line extension construction.

Implemented both long term microphones to measure noise levels and accelerometers to measure vibration levels in existing subway tunnels. Oversaw noise monitoring at sensitive construction sins for the project and worked with the contractor to find ways to reduce, construcli n noise levels by approximately 1Od6.

Montreal' R ru Express Nldttropofftaln, Canada*
Conducted vllyratl,rn priapzagatinn rn easurc merits used to create Models tsi predict operational vibration levels frrr an under -construction transit line. Managed equipment, solved prcoblems In the field, and wrote parts of the report summarizing the findings of the acoustic study.

NHCRP Barrier'
Tiairk on -highway nteasuremenCs and wrote. designed, developed, and tested MATLA6 code to identify specific spectrogram's to use for analyses for a project evaluating barrier reflected highway traffic noise differences in the presence of a sink absorptive or reflective noise barrier. siemens Railcar Testing for Salmi Transit, Seattle, WA* Measured in -car noise and vibration for new rail cars delivered by Saemens. Developed new internal techniques for measurements based ,on the written specification . Contributed to the team that helped identify issues that new cars hid in meeting the St Fund Transit specifications for noise and vibration. Participated in developing the test plan and specified then acquired new equipment i'or the measurement.
'Toronto/Ontario EjUUnion Crosstown Light Ralf, Final Design, Canada* Assisted in vibration propagation measurement , analysis, and recommendations for mitigation for a 12 -mile light rail line bath on and under Eglinton Avenue. Set up and ran equipment for at -grade measurements with an impact hammer for underground measurements with an impact 1tad cell that was used during pre -construction borehole drilling. ' Word' *RN. pirrrro rrtarfc iW for Misraii furry
05-27
Ccnt

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3327
11942
RTC -1498

Responses to Comments

EXHIBIT B

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3328
11942
RTC -1499

Responses to Comments
SWAPE
Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and
Litigation Support for the Environment
2655 29r'" Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 9114O5
Matt Hagernann, P.G, C.Hg.
(945)8-87-90I3
m h aFte m an n @sw eine_cam
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
proserr#e Id r@swapeconi
August 2C, 2024
Aldan P. Marshall
Adams 8roadwell Joseph Si Cardozo
601 Gateway Blvd #1000
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Subject: Comments on the Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage Project Dear Mr. Marshall,
We have reviewed the July 2024 Recirculated initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") for the Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage Project ("Project") located in the City of Rancho Mirage ("C[ty"). The Project proposes to construct 106 residential suites and hotel villas encompassing approximately 200,474 -square feet ("5F"), 23,84C -5F of event space, 6,273 -SF of commercial, 5,510 -SF of amenity space, and 499 parking spaces on the 16.13 -acre site.

Our review concludes that the IS/MND fails to adequately evaluate the Project's health risk impacts. As a result, emissions and health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project relay be underettirtwated and inadequately addressed. An Environmental Impact Report ("EMI should be prepared tcladequately assess and mitigate the potential health risk impacts that the Project may have on the environment.

Air Quality
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The IS/MND conducts a health risk analysis ("HAAN) evaluating impacts as a result of exposure to diesel particulate matter ("DPM") emissions from Projectconstructiosn. Specifically, the Health Risk Assessment Technical Memorandum ("I -IRA Memo"), included as Appendix A-2 to the MiND, estimates that, after the implementation of Mitigation Measure ("MM") AQ-1, the maximum caneer risk posed to nearby, existing residential sensitive receptors as a result of Project construction woutd be 6.65 in one million, which would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") significance threshold of 1D in one million (see excerpt below) (p. 5, Table 3), I
75-30

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3329
11942
RTC -1500

Responses to Comments
Table 3, Construction Health Risk Assessment Results - Mitigated Impact Parameter
Cancer Risk - MEIR
Chronic Hazard Index - MDR
CEQA
Threshold
10 LO
Le vet of
SigriI ioance
_e5s than Significant
Leas than Significant
Soufua. Anscihmerrt S
Mots- CEQA 1 CaYttomla Erh'Ironmar\tal Quarry Art; MEIR .. Maximally. Fxp aed Individual Resdant The IS/MND, however, fails to mention the DPM impacts cr evaluate the health risks associated with Project operation. The I5/MND's evaluation of the Project's potential health risk impacts, as well as the subsequent less -than -significant Impact conclusion, Is unsupported for four reasons.

First, by failing to, prepare a quantified operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEC4" j's requirement to make "a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences."' Second, operation of the Project is anticipated to generate 1.,06.8 daily vehicle trips, which would produce additional exhaust emissions and continue to expose nearby, existing sensitive receptors to DPM emissions dp. 178). However, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to evaluate the TAG emissions associated with Project operation or indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger adverse health effects. Without making a reasonable effort to connect the Project's TAC emissions to the potential health asks posed to nearby receptors, the IS/MND is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to correlate Project -generated emissions with potential ,adverse impacts on human health and fails to uphold the warehouse best practices as established by the California DOJ, Third, while the IS/MND Includes a HRA evaluating the health riskimpacts to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction, the HRA fails to evaluate the combined lifetime cancer risk to nearby, existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together, According to DEHFIA guidance, 'the excess cancer risk is calculated separately for each age grouping and then summed to yield cancer rlsk at the receptor location,"2 The ISf MND's HRA fails to sum each age bin to evaluate the total cancer risk over the course of the Project's total construction and operation. This is unsupported and an updated analysis should quantify the sum of the Project's construction and operational health risks to compare to the SCAQMD threshold of 14 in one million, as referenced by the IS/NI ND (p, 71, Table 3-4).

Fourth, the Project's implementation of MM -AO -1 is unsupported. MM-AC2.1 states:
"Use ofTier 4 Engines Prior to the commencement of Construction activities for the project, the applicant shall require its construction contractor to use California Air Resources Board {CARBG, certified Tier 4 engines for ail diesel -powered equipment pieces that are 75 horsepower or "Sierra CJulsv. County of f; lame." .uprerne Court of California, December 2018, available at:
linos;f/cenaoonal. orsidecisions/f'?©7/5ierraN20C ub%20v.% tCoouniv%20of%20Fresno.pdf. "Guidance Manual for preparation of Health Risk Assessments: 4EHFIA, February 2015, available at:
https Tioehha.ca.Rov/media/downlnardi/crnr{2i]15aaidancemanu.al.Rdf p. a-4 2 05-30
Cent.
05-31
05-32
O5-33

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3330
11942
RTC -1501

Responses to Comments
greater throughout all phases of construction. In the event of changed circumstances (e.g., changes in the availability of specific types of construction equipment), the applicant may submit a request to the City to apply an equivalent method of achieving protect -generated construction emissions that fall below the numeric cancer risk standards established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCACIitw1D)" {15/MND, p.223).

The IS/MND faits to analyze the feasibility of procuring any proposed "equivalent method" emissions controls described in MM-AQ-1, and instead defers that analysis until after project approval. The IS/MND's claim that "the applicant may submit a request to the City to apply an equivalent method" is inconsistent with CEQA's requirement to disclose unmitigated and mitigated emissions in the CEQA document, and to avoid language, when writing mitigatinn measures, that is "vague, unenforceable and lack [s] specific performs nce criteria."= By omitting specific methods of mitigating health risk Impacts, the Project is inconsistent with CECA Guidelines §1512E.4ia}{1)(B), which states:
'Where several measures are available to mitigate an impact, each should be discussed and the basis for selecting a particular measure should be Identified. Formulation of mitigation measures shall not be deferred until some future time"
The IS/MND is consequently required under CEClAto elaborate upon all proposed, feasible mitigation.

Until the IS/MND and associated documents refine the definition of MM-AQ-1, the Project's less -than - significant health risk determination should not be relied upon.

Screening -Level Analysis Demonstrates Pntentailly Significant Risk )iii a t We prepared a screening -level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, which is a screening level air quality dispersion model.' AERSCREEN uses a limited amount of sate -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 is estimated using AERSCREEN, a rrnore refined modeling approach should be conducted prior to approval of the .Project.

We prepared a preliminary HRA of the Project's construction and operational health risk impact to residential sensitive receptors using the annual PMlo exhaust estimates from the IS/MNO's CaIEEMod "Ritz Carlton Rancho Mirage" model's output files. Consistent with recommendations set forth by c7EHHA, we assumed residential exposure begins during the third trimester stage of Ilfe. Subtracting the 667 -day construction period from the total residential duration of 30 years, we assumed that after Project construction, the sensitive receptor would be exposed to the Project's operational DPM far an additional 2:17 years. The IS/MND's operational CaIEEMod emissions indicate that operational activities will generate approximately 85 pounds of DPM per year throughout operation. The AERSCREEN model relies on a continuous average emission rate to simulate maximum downward concentrations from point, area, and volume emission sources, To account for the variability in 'Sierra Club v. County of Fresno.' Supreme Court of California, December 2018, available at:
hopslicegaportal.orefdecisionsf190715ierra%20C,lub%20v. 6201ounly%20of%20Fresno.ndf, p. "AE Released as the EPA Recommended Screening Model," U.S. EPA, April 2011, avraikible at:
httm:fi www.eoa,eovfs
tes/default/fi
es/2020-10/cocurnents/2011041I aerscreen release merno.c 05-33
Ccint
05-34

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3331
11942
RTC -1502

Responses to Comments
equipment usage and truck trips over Project construction, we calculated an average DPM emission rate by the following equation:
grains 64.€I ih s 453,6 grams 1 day 1 hour
Emission Rate x x x — .60122 g/s
(second 365 clays lbs 24 home: 3,600 seconds
Using this equation. we estimated a construction emission rate of 0.00122 grams per second res") Operation was simulated as a 16.13 -acre rectangular area source in AERSCREEN, with approximate dimensions of 361- by 181 -meters. A release height of three meters was selected to represent the height of stacks of operational equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, and an initial vertical dimension of one and a half meters was used to simulate instantaneous plume dispersion upon release.

An urban meteorological setting was selected with made' -default inputs for wind speed and direction distribution, The population of the City of Rancho Mirage was obtained from US. 2022 Census data.' The AERSCREEN model generates maximum reasonable estimates of single -hour DPM concentrations from the Project Site. US. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA') guidance suggests that in screening procedures, the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant to be estimated by multiplying the single -'hour concentration by 10%,6 The IS/MND indicates that 'the neatest sensitive receptors are single family residential dwellings adjacent and south of the project site' ( p. 83}. However, according to the ERSCREEN output files,the MEiR is legated approximately 175 meters downwind of the Project site, Thus, the single -hour concentration estimated by AERSCREEf4 for Project operation is approximately 0.8993 µQ/m3 t?PM at approximately 175 meters downwind. Multiplying this single -hour concentration by 10%, we get an annualized average concentration of 0.08993 µg/'m3 for Project operation at the M EIR.7
We calculated the excess cancer risk to the MEI R using applicable FIRA methodologies prescribed by OEI-I4A, as recommended by SCAQJvfD.ESpecifically.guidance from DEHHA and the CARS recommends the use of a standard point estimate approach, including high -point estimate (i.e.95t" percentile) breathing rates and age sensitivity factors {"ASF") in order to account for the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early -in -life exposure and accurately assess risk for susceptible subpopulatirons such as children. The residential exposure parameters, such as the daily breathing rates d"BR/Selo , exposure duration t."ED"}, ASFs, fraction of time at horse ("FAH"), and exposure frequency {"EF"} utilized for the various age groups in our screening -lever HRA are as follows:
t "City of Rancho Mirage,' OS. Census Bureau, 2022, avaiiabt:e ar:
he As:// datacom! rnnns.o ref olaceJgeo Id/0659500.
6 "Screen Ing Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of Stationary Sources Revised," II.S. EPA, October 1992,uvahrubieo#,Jttr:/I www.eDa.aov(5it,?51.defauIt/iiles12-ill_0-(l9/dokementsiesta-4541-92-019 Ocrirlf. 'See Attachment A for FIRA calculations and Attachment 8 for AERSCREEN output files, "Supplemental Guidelines fur Preparine Risk Assessments fur the Air T AIC5'F L7t Spots' Infomnation and Assessment Act." SCAQMD, October 2020, available at: tittp:// http://www.aqmd.govfdocsidefault- sourceinianninetrisk-assessment/ab-25Eui-stionlemental-euidelines.pdf?sivrsn=19 p.19; see also "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEIiHA, February 201.5, available at: httns;I/oeh
1a,ca,eceimedialdown leac
sic rn r12tt 15 a uieenrernanrxal-grdf.
4 05-34
Cant.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3332
11942
RTC -1503

Responses to Comments
Exposure Assumptions For Residential Individual cancer Risk Breathing Age Exposure Fraction of Exposure Exposure
Age Group Rote Sensitivity Duration Time at Frequency Time (L/kg-day)9 Factorlc'' (years) Houle11 {days/yeari1z (hours/day) 3rd Trimester 361 10 ❑.25 1 350 24
Infant {0 - 2) 1094 14 2 1 350 24
Child (2 - 166} 572 3 14 1
350 24
Adult (16 -34) 261
14 073 350 24
For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete vacates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor{"CPF"y in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrarns per kilogram per dav (mg/kg/day') to derive the cancer risk estimate. To assess exposures, we utilized the following dose algorithm:
where:

BR
DQSCIIIR,perage group = Cab- EF x LB {fI x A x CF
Doseern = dose by inhalation (mg/kg/day), per age group C■ir= concentration of contaminant in air{pgfm3)
EF = exposure frequency {number of days/365 days}
eR/RVv = daily breathingrate normalized to body weight (t/kgJday) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x1U-6, Ng to ring, tto m3)
To calculate the overall cancer risk, we used the following equation for each appropriate age group:

ED
Cancer RiskA1R = Dosc,l, x CPF x ASP x FAH x AT
9 "Su pplementaI Guidelines for Preparing Risk Assessments for the Air Toxics 'Hot Spots' information and Assessment Act," SCAOMt , Cklober 2020, avellabieat: htta:itwww,aomd,aav/does/defau't-sourcefuarm oalrsk- assessmentlab-25138-Suppler+entail-guialelinNs-pdf?sfvrsn=19rµ. 19; see also "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." C7€HHA, February 2015, available at:
https:f /ooh ha.ca. Q ov/mediaf down loads/cm r/2015gu idan ce rnan pal. pdf , I"Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: httrrs://ooh tia.ca.eovfrnedia/downloads/urnr12015.euIda ncenianual,pdf, p- 8-5 Table 8.3. 11 "Frisk Assessment Procedures-" SCAQMI], August 2017, available at: hitp://www-agmd-goy}ducs/default- s©urce/rule-book/Proposed-Rules/14Ct1/riskassessmentprocedures 2017 080717.pdf, p. 7. 12 'Risk. Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at hops:f/oehha.caeovfinedia/downloads/crnr/2U1Si?uicancemanu ai.pdf, p_ 5-24, 5 05-34
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3333
11942
RTC -1504

Responses to Comments
where:

Dosexe = dose by Inhalation {mglkg/day), per age group
CRF = cancer potency#actor, chemical -specific (mg/kg/day)" ASF = ageseositivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group {far residential receptors only} ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period river which exposure duration is averaged (always 70 years) Consistent with the 561 -day construction schedule, the annual annualized average concentration for operation was used for the remainder of the 30 -year exposure period, which makes up the latter 0.48 years of the infantile stage of life, as well as the entire child stage of life {2 —1S years} and adult stage of life (16 — 30 years). The results of our calculations are shown in the table below.

The Maximally Exposed Individual at an Existing Residential Receptor Age Group Emissions source
Duration (years) Concentration
{ugfm3)
Cancer Risk
3rd Trimester Construction 0.25
Infant {f1- 2)
LOO511 ULliOn
°pe/Rtron 0.42 0,0899 6.0E -r36
Total 2 6.257E -0s
Child {2 - 16)
Operation 14 0.0890 3.26E -R5
Adult (16 - 30)
Operation 14

0.0899 3.61E-06
Lifetime
30 414E-65
`construction -related cancer risk calculated by the ISf Mtric was used.

As demonstrated in the table above, the excess cancer risks for infants, children, and aduks at the MEIR located approximately 175 meters away, over the course of Project operation, are approximately 0.397,

6.2r 32.6, and 3.61 in one million, respectively. The total excess cancer risk associated with Project operation is approximately 42.4 in one million. When summing the Project's construction -related cancer risk, as estimated by the ISJMND, with SWAPE's operational cancer risk, we estimate an excess cancer risk of approximately 49 in one million over the course of a 30 -year residential lifetime (p, S. Table 3).'' s3 Calculated, 6.65 in one million (IS/N1Na's estimated commotion -related cancer risk) + 42A in one million {SWAPE's estimated operational cancer risk} =49 in one million. 6 05-34
Cent,

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3334
11942
RTC -1505

Responses to Comments
As such, the child and lifetime cancer risks exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 1d In one million, result:ng in a potentially significant impact not previously addressed or identified in the LS/MND,' The purpose of the screening -level HRA ism demonstrate the potential link between Project -generated emissions and 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 a balance between the costs of adding detail and refinement to an assessment and the benefiu associated with that additional refinement' (U.S.

EPA, 1992).

In other words, an assessment using basic tools (e.g., simple exposure calculations, default values, rules of thumb, conservative assumptions) can be conducted as the first phase for tier} of the overall assessment }i.e., a screening -level assessment).

The exposure assessor or risk manager can then determine whether the results of the screening - level assessment warrant further evaluation through refinements of the input data and exposure assumptions or by using more advanced models;" Screening -level analyses warrant further evaluation in a relined modeling approach. Our scree ning-lev el HRA demonstrates that construction and operation of the Project could result in a potentially significant health risk impact, and therefore an EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associated with both Project construction and operation.

Disclaimer
SWAPS has received limited discovery regarding this project, Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercEsed, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, Is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. 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 be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,
u Moreover, the health risk posed by operational emissions is not reduced to any extent by MM AQ-1 because MM AQ-1 applies only to construction equipment arid does not reduce operational DPtN emisslons- 7 05-34
Cont.
05-35

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3335
11942
RTC -1506

Responses to Comments
i
Matt Hagemann, P.C., C.Hg.
�F l �+}y
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

Attachment A: HRA Calculations
Attachment 0: AERSCREEN Output Files
Attachment C: Matt Hagemann CV
Attachment V: Paul RosenfeldCV

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3336
11942
RTC -1507

Responses to Comments
Attachment A
Operation
Emission Rate
Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Daily Emissions (Ibs/day)
Total DPM (Ilan)
Emission Rate (g/s)
Release Height (meters)
Total Acreage
Max Horizontal (meters)
Min Horizontal (meters)
Initial Vertical Dimension (meters)
Setting
Population
Start Date
End Date
Total Construction Days
Total Years of Construction
Total Years of Operation

0.0424
41732328767
&4.8
0,001219726,
3 16.13
361.32
180.66

1.5 Urban
17,633
2/1/2023
11/29/2O24
667

1.83 28.17
05-36

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3337
11942
RTC -1508

Responses to Comments
the Maximally Exposed Individual at en Existing Residential Receptor Age Group
Emissions Source Duration (year)
Concentration
(u�,1rn3}
Cancer Risk,
3rd Trimester
Construction
Infant (0- 2)
Ccr"rstnjcticin
C�perca#fon .'

6.20E -0S
Total 2

6.20E-06
Child (2 -16)
Operation 14
©.0299 3.26E-05
Adult (16 - 30) Operation
14 0.0899 3.61E-06
Lifetime 30 4.24E-05
* Construction- related cancer risk calculated by the IS/MNJD was sued_ 05-36
cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3338
11942
RTC -1509

Responses to Comments
Attachment B
AERSCREEN 21112 / AERMOD 21112
TITLE: Rancho Mirage Ritz -Carlton Operation
07/23/24
00:54:08
****************************** AREA PARAMETERS **************************** SOURCE EMISSION RATE:

AREA EMISSION RATE:

AREA HEIGHT:

AREA SOURCE LONG SIDE:

AREA SOURCE SHORT SIDE:

INITIAL VERTICAL DIMENSION:

RURAL OR URBAN:

POPULATION:

INITIAL PROBE DISTANCE =

0.122E-02 g/s 0.968E-02 1b/hr

0.107E-07 g/(s-m2)

3.00 meters
361.32 meters
180.66 meters

1.50 meters
URBAN
17533

0.148E-06 1b/(hr-m2)

9.84 feet
1185.43 feet
592.72 feet

4.92 feet
5000. meters 15404. feet
*********************** BUILDING DOWNWASH PARAMETERS ***********=*********7.

BUILDING DOWNWASH NOT USED FOR NON -POINT SOURCES
************************** FLOW SECTOR ANALYSTS *************************** 25 meter receptor spacing: 1. meters - 5000. meters

MAXIMUM IMPACT RECEPTOR
Zo SURFACE 1 -HR CONC RADIAL DIST TEMPORAL
SECTOR ROUGHNESS (ug/ni3) (deg) (ni) PERIOD
1* 1.000 0.8993 5 175.0 WIN
= worst case diagonal

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3339
11942
RTC -1510

Responses to Comments
********************** MAKEMET METEOROLOGY PARAMETERS ********************' MIN/MAX TEMPERATURE:

MINIMUM WIND SPEED:

ANEMOMETER HEIGHT:
259,0 1310.0 (K)

9.5 mRs

10.900 meters
suRrAcE CHARACTERISTICS INPUT: AERMET SEASONAL TABLES
DOMINANT SURFACE PROFILE: Urban
DOMINANT CLIMATE TYPE: Average Moisture
DOMINANT SEASON: Winter
ALB EDO:

BOWEN RATIO:

ROUGHNESS LENGTH:

0.35 1.50

1.000 (meters)
SURFACE FRICTION VELOCITY (U*) NOT ADUSTED

METEOROLOGY CONDITIONS USED TO PREDICT OVERALL MAXIMUM IMPACT

YR MO DY JDY HR
10 01 10 10 01
H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M -a LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBED© REF WS -1.30 0.043 -9,000 0.029 -999. 21. 6.0 1.000 1.50 0.35 0.50

HT REF TA HT

10.0 310.0 2.0
************************ AERSCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES *********************_

OVERALL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS BY DISTANCE

MAXIMUM
DIST 1 —HR CONC
(m) (erg/m3)

MAXIMUM
DIST 1 -HR CONC
(m) (ug/m3)

1.00 0.6816 2525.00 0.3230E-91
O5-37
Cont
Pale 41 of 64 in Comment Letter 05
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3340
11942
RTC -1511

Responses to Comments

25.00 0.7203

50.00 9.7569

75.00 0.7963
100.00 0.8209
125.60 0.8491
150.00 0.8750
175.06 6.8993
200.00 0.8871
225.00 0.6696
250.030 0.5596
275.01 0.4937
300.00 0.4418
325.00 00.4060
350.00 0.3755
375.00 0.3488
400.00 0.3253
425.00 0.3043
450.00 0,2855
475.00 8.2685
500.00 0.2532
525.00 0.2394
550.00 0.2267
575.00 9.2152
600.00 0.2045
625.00 0.1948
650.00 0.1858
675.00 0,1775
700.00 0.1699
725.00 0,1626
750.80 8.1560
775.00 0.1498
800.00 9,1440
825.00 0,1386
850.00 0.1335
875.00 0.1288
900.00 0.1243
925.00 0.1200
950.88 0.1160
975.00 0.1123
1000.00 0.1088
102S.OO O.1054
1050.00 0.1022
1075.00 0.9916E-01
1100.00 0.9626E-01
1125.00 0.9351E-01
1150.00 0.9090E-01
1175.00 0,8843E-01
1200.00 0.8607E-01
1225.00 0.8384E-01
1250.00 9.8167E-01
2550.00 0.3188E-01
2575.00 0.3147E-01
2600.00 O.31O7'E-01
2625.00 6,3067E-01
2650.00 0.3028E-01
2675.60 0.2990E-01
2700.00 0.2953E-01
2725.00 0.291.6E-01
2750.00 0.2880E-01
2775.00 0.28.45E-01
2800.00 0.28.11E-01
2825.00 0.2778E-81
2850.00 0,2745E-01
2875.00 0.2713E-01
2900,00 0,2581E-01
2925,00 0.2651E-01
2950.00 0.2621E-01
2975,00 0.2591E-01
3000,08 0.256.2E-01
3025.00 0.2534E-01
3050.00 00.2506E-01
3075.00 0.2478E-01
3100.00 0.2451E-01
3125.00 0.2425E-01
3150.00 0.2399E-01
3175,00 0.2374E-01
3200.00 0.2349E-01
3225.00 0.2324E-01
3250.00 0.2300E-01
3275.00 5.2277€-01
3380.00 0.2253E-01
3325.00 0.2231E-01
3350,09 0.2246E-01
3375.00 0,2224E-01
3400.00 0.2201E-01
3425.00 0.2179E-01
3450.00 0.2158E-01
3475.00 0.2136E-01
3500.00 0.2116E-01
3525.00 0.2095E-01
3550.09 0.2075E-01
3575.00 0.2055E-01
3600.00 0.2036E-01
3625.00 0.2016E-01
3650.00 0.1998E-01
3675,00 0.1979E-01
3700,00 0.1961E-01
3725.00 0.1943E-01
3750.00 0.1925E-01
3775.00 0.1908E-01
O5-37
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3341
11942
RTC -1512

Responses to Comments
1275.00 0.7960E-01
1300.00 0.7762E-01
1325.00 0.7571E-01
1350.00 0.7358E-01
1375.00 0.7213E-01
1400.00 0.7045E-01
1435.00 0.6885E-01
1450.00 0.6730E-01
1475.00 0.6582E-01
1500.00 0.6440E-01
1525.00 0.6302E-01
1550.00 0.6168E-01
1575.00 0.6040,E-01
1600.00 0.5916E-01
1625.00 0.576E-01
1650.00 0.5681E-01
1675.00 0.5570E-01
1700.00 0.5463E-01
1725.00 0.5359E-01
1750.00 0.5258E-01
1775.00 0.5160E-01
1800.00 0.5065E-01
1825.00 0.4974E-01
1850.00 0.4885E-01
1875.00 0.4799E-01
1900.00 6.4716E-01
1925.00 6.4635E-01
1950.00 0.4557E-01
2075.00 0.4480E-01
2000.00 6.4405E-01
2025.00 0.4333E-01
2050.00 0.4263E-01
2075.00 0.4154E-01
2100.06 0.4128E-01
2125.00 0.4063E-01
2150.00 0.4001E-01
2175.00 0.3948E-01
2200.00 0.3880E-01
2225.00 0.3822E-01
2250.00 0.3765E-01
2275.00 0.3711E-01
2300.00 0.36158E-01
2325.00 0.3606E-01
2350.00 0.3555E-01
2375.00 0.3506E-01
2400.00 0.3457E-01
2425.00 0.3410E-01
2450.00 0.3363E-01
2475.00 0.3318E-01
2500.00 0.3274E-01
3800.00 0,1891E-01
3825.00 0.187,4E-01
3850.00 0.1857E-01
3875.00 0.1841E-01
3900.00 0.1825E-01
3925.00 0.1809E-01
3950,00 0.1.793E-01
3975.00 0.1778E-01
4000.00 0,1762E-01
4025.00 0.1747E-81
4050.00 0.1733E-01
4075.00 0.1718E-01
4100.00 0.1704E-01
4125.00 0.1690E-01
4150.00 0,1676E-01
4175.00 0.1662E-01
4209.00 0.1649E-01
4225.00 0.1635E-01
4250.00 0.1622E-01
4275.00 0.1509E-01
4300.00 0.1596E-01
4325.00 0.15634E-01
4350.00 0,1571E-01
4375.00 0.1559E-01
4406.00 0.1.547E-01 O5-37
4425.00 0.1535E-01 Cont
4450.00 0.1523E-01
4475.08 0.151.2E-01
4580.00 0,.1500E-01
4525.00 0.1489E-01
4550.00 0.1438E-01
4575.00 0.1467E -01
4600.00 0.145.6E-01
4625.00 0.1.445E-01
4650.00 0.1434E-01
4675.00 0.4124E-01
4700.80 0.1414E-01
4725.00 0.1403E-01
4750.00 0.1393E-01
4775.00 0.1383E-01
4800.40 0.1373E-01
4825.00 0.1364E-01
4850.00 0.1354€-01
4875.00 0.1345E-01
4900.00 0.1335E-01
4925.00 0.1326E-01
4950.00 0.1317E-01
4975.00 0.1308E-01
5000.00 0,1303E-01

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3342
11942
RTC -1513

Responses to Comments
****».*4***#*********** AERSCREEGJ MAXIMUM IMPACT SUMMARY *********•*******•:.•1 3 -hour, 8 -hour, and 24 -hour scaled
concentrations are equal to the 1 -hour concentration as referenced in

SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT OF STATIONARY SOURCES, REVISED (Section 4.5.4)
Report number EPA -454/R-92-019
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance_perrnit.htm
under Screening Guidance

CALCU LATI ON

PROC EDUR E

MAXIMUM
1 -HOUR
CONC
(ug/m3)
FLAT TERRAIN 9.9059

DISTANCE FROM SOURCE

IMPACT AT THE

AMBIENT BOUNDARY
SCALED
3 -HOAR
CONC
(ug/m3)

SCALED SCALED SCALED
8 -HOUR 24 -HOUR ANNUAL

CONC CONC CONC
(ug/m3) (ug/m3) (ug/rn3)

0.9059 0.9059
182.07 meters

0.6816 0.6816 (7.6816

DISTANCE FROM SOURCE

1.00 meters
.91359 N/A

0.6816
N/A
05-37
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3343
11942
RTC -1514

Responses to Comments
ATtar.ilrroot C
SWAP E
Technical Consultation, Dale Melyslaa and
Litigation Support far Ihb Environment
Matthew F. Hagemalw, P.G., C Hg., QSD, QSP
26S6 2971i Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(9441887-4013
rnhaizeanann eswane,cvtrt
Geologic and Hydrogc ialtgi r Characterization
1 nvestigati on and Remo diation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
Industrial StormwaterC®mpiience
CEQA Review
Education-
MS. Degree, Geology California State University Los Angeles, Los Angles, CA, 1984.

B.A. Degree, , Geology, thmribolLit Stag University, Arc;atr, CA, 1.981 Professional Certifications;
(-al i fnrnia Prritcssional dleoingist
C.aIiforniaCettifieti I Iydrogeololii,t
Qualified 5'v`.T'PP Developer arod Practitioner
Professional I` penrnce
Mitt has 30 year of ex}. hence in environmental policy, contaminantassc'xantent and remediation, storrnwkater compliance, and CFQA.moiety. FTc ~relit ntne velars with the U_S. EPA in the RCRA and Sufi crh]nL1 program.; ainl served as EPA's ,Senior Science Policy Adva'i r tr1 ills Wrtsterra Regional Office where he identified ernergirrg tl,n ts to grouind water front, perchlorate and Ml'13E. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Flydrngerrlogist in the oversight of the ssecsment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure, fie led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCM) and r:lirested efforts ar improve hvdrogerilragic characterization and waiter quality monitoring. For the p t 15 years, as a founding ptrtrt awittr Si41APF, Matt has developed extensive client rola tionships and ha managed complex projects that include consultation as an expert witness and a regulatory specialist, and a manager of prc7jects ranging from industrial storrnwater compliance to CEQA review of impacts from hazardous waste, air quality and greenhouse Maserrmissic,ns.

Positions Matt has- held include:
• Pounding Paltrier, SoiifWater/Ai r Protection Enterprise (SWAPI' ) 010— present); • Geology Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 - 2104,2017; • Senior Environmental Analyst, Konte_x H2O Science, Inc. (200U • • 2UU3); 05-3

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3344
11942
RTC -1515

Responses to Comments
• Executive 17irector, Orange Coast Watch (2[101 , 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and l Ivd.rogoologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency {i9w- 1998);
• t-lydrr:ger}logist, National Park Service, Water Rts'}urc Division (i 991s.- 21XX/, • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Consciences (1993 199);
• Instructor, College of M Grin, Department of Science 119i1t)-1995 ; • Geologist, U.S_ Forest Service (1986 - 1 9911); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (19E4 -1 &4
Senior Regulatory and Litigat ien Sup iori Analystl
With SWAPE, Mitt's responsibilities have included:
• Lad analyst and testifying expert in the review oftrver 300 environmental itnpact reports and negatiye declarations suite 2003 underCEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources. water 9uati►y, air quaity, greenhouse gar emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agmies at the local and county level to include additional charaeterication of health risks and implementation of prOieCtiVe measures t+) rVdatre w (3rktr exposure to hazards from Maim and Valley Fever.
• Stormwatcr analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at more than 1Ctl industrial facilities.
• Expert witnes_ti onnumerous cases including, Mr example, perfluorooctarroic acid (PFOA) contamination of groundwater, MTl3E litigation, air tCtiftrta at hazards at a thud, Cl RCIA compliance: in anssei rnent and retatxdiation, and industrial stCarmiti'ater contamination. • 'Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusir.an concerns_ • ixad analyst and testifying expert ill the review ofcnvironmentall issues in license applications for large uslar power plants before the California Energy CornmiL on, • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sirs in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of p •cl�tkra:!te contamination to Southern California drinking water wells.
• Managetr and designated expert kir litigation support under proy'iisiuris of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasciline to seurc s drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas. stations throughout Cali ferrnto.

With Komex 1-I2O Science inc_, Matt`s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a.report son the extent of perchl, orate ccrntantinatii n that was used in testitnciny iv the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior reearcherinthe development ofacomprehensive, electronicallyinteractivechronolog_y of MT H use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in thedevelopmento#acomprehensive,electronicallyinteractivedininulcigy of perchlorate ti e, research, and regttlatinn.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationiwide costs for 64713E remed.ia lion and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newwspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions et an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Kes+arch to support litigation to rr, tert drinking water Allpplier. that have been contaminated by MT'EIE InCali titirniaarid New Yar".-
2 05-3S
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3345
11942
RTC -1516

Responses to Comments
• F_xpert wvihwem. testimony in a case of oil production -related contamination in Mississippi. ✓ Lead author for a multi -volume remedial investigation report tor an operating school in Los Aligelos. that nnet strict regulatory reyu.irements and rigorous deadlines. • Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites ut consultation with clients and regulakirs,
Executive Director
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts in restore dater quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared iksine papers In the areas of treatment and disinfection of wasirewaitr and control of the dischargeot grease to sewer systems, Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits far the control of urban rtutott and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Mitt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Cuundl and Orange County Cutstlfeeper as well as with business institutions ontIuding the Orange County Pittsanes CilUi UM IL Hydra eningy:

Asa Se tru I-iyckrt-rg ollogist With the US. Environmental Pnatection Agency, Matt lei investigations tc) characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare fsland Naval Shipyard. Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island N,-al,al Station, Alameda Navel Station, Moffett Field, Mother Army Airfield, and. Sacramento Army Depot. Specific, tivitie^s were as follows:
✓ Led efforts to model groundwater flow and con tarn maid transport, ensured adewittacy tat trnnoniterrngnetworks, anti assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for eY aluatiori of groundwater r sampling practices arid laboratorY analysis at nnilitary bases,
• I dentified emerging issues, wrote tewchrecal guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA warkgroups, including the Superfund Crowrndwater IL'chniral loo wain and the I woderal (facilities iiwarurn.

At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and 0ohn. 1 -le used analytical models and a GIS too show torus of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii Ail.' County of Maul
As a hydregevlogist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Sate Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination, Specific a hvities included the following:
• Received. an EPA Bronze .Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water,
Managed the So7IeSrnurce Ai -littler Program rind protected the drinking wkalet faf twit, communities through destvahon tinder the Sate Drinking Water Act. I -le prepared g►exAug Er repaint, conducted 3 05-3S
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3346
11942
RTC -1517

Responses to Comments
public hearings, and responded tti public ciintnients from residents who were very concerned about the i mpactof designartion.
• Reviewed a number of i nvironnten to 1 I mpact Statements for planned major det'eltrpmenLs, including large txi za rdous and solid kv;i to d rti p rial facilities, mine rsTlrinration, arid w iIi r transfer,
Matt served is a hvdre?geolcsgist with the kCRA Hazardous Waste prugt rn. 'Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrrigeilogicrove ligationofhazardriuswasteSitesit determine compliance with Subtitle'C reytrlrmertts
• Reviewed and, wrote `part tl" perniits for the disposal of hazardous waste • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste. sites ancdled it sc#➢c}nsthatforttred the basis for 5:I gm1icuit enforcement actions' that were developed in dose coordination with US, EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor's investigations of waste sites.

With the National Park Service, Matt directed $.0rViCe-WitiO investigations +af contanninant prevent degradation of %vaalor quality, including the Following tasks:
▪ Applied pertinent laws acid regulations including, CERCI , RCRA, NT PA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining and landfill contaminants • Conducted wateis1 1-scaleinvest;lgatOnsofcontamin rntsntparks,irrcludiny Y'Lll{5W5toneand Olympic National Park,
• Identified high -levels of perchl{irite in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park, sup eritttencii:a'►t on yr wpriate rr spisttse actions ttncit..,r C RCL.A. • Served as a Park Service representative nn the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a 05-38 national Ivorkgroup_ Cont
• Developed a prtrgrrarn to conduct env➢roivnental compliance audits of all National Parks whsle serving on a; national workgrnup.
▪ Ca -authored two papers cm the potential for water contamination from the operat rin of p+'rsii ran] 'watercraft and s?tovirrnobiiles, these papers serving es the basis for the development et nation- wide policy on the use oI these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to the I'tderalMulti-AgencvSource Water AgrernaentLinde rthe Clean IA'ater Action
):alicw:

Served senior maanagen rnt 35 the Senior Science nce Policy Advisor with the US. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.

Activities included the following
• Advised the regional Administrator and senior manage molt on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasraline additive M'1 -BE and ammonium perrhloritetu contaminate drinking 'voter 51.1,pplies.
• Shaped EPA's national response to these threats by serving zm workgroups andby contributing to guidance, inchidiinig the Office of lies.carch and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• lnnproved t '± technical training of EPA'S seuaitific and engineering 5th. ▪ Earned an EPA Bronze Medal ➢ a,r re -pre -stinting the region's 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to be=tterirrtegrate icntific

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3347
11942
RTC -1518

Responses to Comments
principles into the policy .making prices.
• I.:stablished national protocol for the peer review u# scientific documents.

Dealoi y.

With the U.S. FornistService Matt led investigations to determine liilislope stabilitvof areas proposed for timber harvest hi the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities seed as follows:

Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial phelogra}thi: interpretation and mathematical models ho determine slope Sxability,
• Coordinated his research with cur `unity mi„nnhers who were concerned with natural resource protc,ctivti.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole 9c ur+a of chinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (Inter listed on the Sr.ipertund NPI..i in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon_ Dimes included the following:
• Supervised year long effort for soilarid ulliiwater aunphng. * Conducted aquifer tests.
• investigated active faults beneath sites proposedfor hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least ono course per semester at the community college and university levels,
■ Al San Fronds Stall! University, heid in adjunct faculty position and taught coo rses environmental geology,+ocseanogra}shy (kb and lecture), liydrogoilrogy, and groundwater contamination
▪ Served as i committee member tor graduate and trnclergra+duate students. ✓ Taught courses in can it nrncrrtal geology and ocealvigniphy at the Colltse of Maria.

Matt is currently a part time geology instructor at Golden West College In Huntington Beach, California where he taught from 2[11{] to 20]4 and in 21717.
invited Testimanf, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M,F., 2108. Disclosure of liazardons Waste is.sues under CEQA. Pre ntatiun to the Public Environmental Law Conference,. Eiig se, Oregon.

Hagemann, M,F., 2008, Disc kisuire of Hazardous Waste ISSiiesunder C QA. Invited pewee, , . i In t EPA Region 9, San 1'ranciscu, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regniataon, Policy M king and Public Participation. F3rownfields2005, Denver, Colorte ao.

Hagemann, M,F., 2111,x{, Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River arid Inapacks to Drinking Water in Nevada and Idle Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Croundwater -frost, I-5 Vegas, NV (served on co nferenceor&ani: committee).
5 05-3S
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3348
11942
RTC -1519

Responses to Comments
Hageman n,M,F.,21104- Invited testimony to aCalifornia Senate omunitteehearing (milli-tuxirn at schools in Southern Cabin= ia, Los Angeles.

Brown, A., Farrow, I., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 20()4. i\a Estimate at Cots to Address h'!TDE Releases from Underground Storage -T. -inks and the Resulting impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the G ri i i nd, Water and Diiron rn mt-rital Law w Cain ference, Nations I Growl in d cvMi r Association.

H:agernann,M.F.,2004. Perchlorate C+antaminaticrnofkkieCrr1oradnRiver arid Impacts. l Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust,.

Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organ' zing committee), Hagent anri, M.1,20t03. Perchlorate Contamination otthe C' lciraa o River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern US. Invited presentation b a speciat committee meeting of the National Academy of SCietr.CeS 1rvtne, CA_
Hagemarin, M F.2t163_ Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado Rtver. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga,. CA.

Hagernann, M.F.,24163. Perchlorate Cuntaminationafthe ColciradoRiver. invited presentationtoa meeting of tribal repcsontattvcs, Parker, AZ
Hagemann, M.F., 21103. impact cat Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter- l'ril'a] Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe, H agarn an r,, M.F., 20[)3, The Emergence at Pr rchl+irate as a Widespread Drinking Writer Contaminant iiiv tcd presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hageman n, M.F., 21163. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination_ Tnviteci presentation to theC,Iitorrila Assembly Natural Resources C.omrnittee.

Hagemaim, M.F„ 21163, Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a me tingof the National GraundwaterAs[§taciatioil.

Hagem..inn, M ., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chrnriologv of MTF E in Groundwater. Presentation to a rrtc tang ot the National Groundwater Association.

HagernInn, M.F., 2002, AChronology of ArMTIWinGroundwater and an Estimate ofCosts k Address Impacts hi Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meetingt the Society ut Env ironrnental journalists.

Hagernann,M'.F..21}D2. An Estimate of the Cost toAddress lvfTE3Ec ntaminationinGroundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to anreetingofthe National Groundwater Association.

Hageman:n,M.F.,2002. AnEstitnateoF:ustscisAddrsstiMIREReleawsfrurnUndergmiindStar.g 'ranks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. k'r ntatrrin to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and 5 hi iv Under}, uund Storage'Eanic Program nallagara,
6 05-3S
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3349
11942
RTC -1520

Responses to Comments
Hagemainn, 141.F,, Ml}1. From Tank to Tap: A Urron. logy of M1'BE irr GrcundwaLer• linfarrhliahcd report.

I—kj riann, MI_F_r 20111. Estimated. Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Crnundwaicw 1.isad as. Drinking Writer.

Unpublished report,
Hagemann, M_F., 2[101, Estimated Casts to Address MTLIE Releases (rain Leaking Und rgmYmd Storage Tanks, Unpublished report.

Hageruann, M F., and V1r3Mouwerik, M., 19Y9. Potential Water Quality Concerns Rely to Snowmobile Usage- War Resources Division., National Park Service. T'eclanical Report, VanMouwerik, M. and Hageinann, M_€. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage_ Water Resources Division, National Turk Service; Pechnical Report_ Hageniann, MS.,. 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks'? The George Wright Society Eliaimual Meeting„ Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, l4t,F,, 1997, The Potential for MTliE to Contamunate Groundwater, U.S. EPA Stiperfttnd C:roundwaterTechnical l'vnrm Annual Meeting, Lass Vega, Nevada.

Hagernann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Reri,2diatinn, Moffitt Field Nava]. Air Station, Conference on intrinsic R€inediatiun of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City_ Flagemann, M.F_, f ukunaga, G_I., 1996, The VulnerabilityofGroundwater to Anthnrpogenic C ayrtitaminants on the l5ILrnd of M ui, l-lativnii_ 1-latvaii Water Works Association Annul Meeting, Maui, October 1L)%,
Hagemann,, M. F„ Fukaiaaga, G.1-„, 19%, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in. Central Oahu, Hawwart Proceedings, Geographic information Systems iii Environnienkal Resources Management, Air and Waste I'd rinagornent Asso.elatian Ptrblicatiwrn VIP -61, Hagemann, M,F,, 1994, Groundwater Charncteri2, th n and CI can up atClosing Military Bast's in California. 1'roceedirigs, California GroundwaterResources Association Meeting Hay;emann, M.F. and Sabot, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Croundwa _ Recharge Demonstration Pro rarit., Iiasre d.ing-s, Sixth Biennial nnial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge ut Groundwater,
Hagernann, M.F., 199,3_ U.S. EPA Policy on tire* Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 7 05-38
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3350
11942
RTC -1521

Responses to Comments
Hagernann, MT., 1992: Dense Nrnagveons Thee I Jquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce oI Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Anni.w 1 M eting, v. 35.

Other Ex perience_
Slected as subject matter expert for the California Prafessianat Geologist licensing examinations, 2009-2011.
05-3
Cont.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3351
11942
RTC -1522

Responses to Comments
Attachment D
SWAPE
Teckulcabt Consullallo+, Data Analysts and
utlpailan Suspect tar Use EI'ucnment
NOIJ.. ►4'AI1itt ,&u( riForldC'1'I[.714 l':IW'r'i i t ISE 2059 29lt1 y :sit. Suits 20l
yams Moiirc , Cslrfo nia 9045
Amr had flnierfelti, PhD.
!«1i4'nl (Mai 795.7315
C c :d3t4)a92-55,55
rlla) ts2.5s9I
[matte prrsrnrrIttixnscpr.eatrs
Pine{ Rosenfeld, Ph.l)..

Chentiod Fate rod 'l'rnnsport & :1ur Dispersion ' frititlirl K Principal Finerrnmrrenta! Chemist Risk A.ssesrm ent & Rvmediatinn Specialist Education
€'h.D. Soil Cherniatrt, Liimmsty of Washington, I t3). IJ -striation DTI volatile nrtaanic compound Iiillralion. hi.S. £.nvironmenbl Science.. LL,C, Berkeley, 199. on organic war. to cuurtomics_ Ft A Environmental Studies, TLC. Santa Barbara, 1991, Focu9 on wa•_5tewata;r treatment - Professional Experience
Dr. Row...deld has WU 25 years of c;+sparicee c conducfing cnvrnrmneaital investigations and risk asseasmciits for evaluating impacts to human' health, Nrsperty', and etorilogical receptors: His explertine reclines en the fate and transport of envilonmehntalcontaminants, human health ask, exposure as:reszsment, and +rmlogical restoration. Dr Rosenfeld has s.:saluated and modeled saniorimis fast oil spills. IandCii[a, hoile-rs and iatciaerators. priyacts stacks, storage tanks. cunIntitil animal 1'a i tis Bons. industrial, military and a.vncultutal sources. unconventional oil drilling operations. and toanmsrtive and construction engines, Hip project experience ranges from monitoring and modeling of pollution *MI OS In evaluating nnpaets of pollution on ',Yorkers at industrial facilities and residents in surrounding, communities. Dr. Ioeenfohl has also auutaasafsilly modeled stxposure to otrhtainin niN distributed by water iiasta:rns and s•'ra vapor intrusion.

Dr. Rosenfeld has int.estitcatec1 and dosigrnod nmo&Minn migrants and risk asuman-icesir for contaminated sites containing' least. heavy metals. mold. bacteria. particulate matter. petroleum hydroc-ar'brrms. chlorinated solvents. pesticides. midi uitnde waste, dioxins and forams. semi- and volatile organic c.ompatmds. PCBs. PA1-Is. crec9ale, pc7cblorale as busies- pc:r• and poly-Iluoroaik?r•I substanreat. (PFOA,PFCIS), unusual polymers_ furl uxysc-natra (MTBE ), among other poLtutanle- Dr. Rosenfeld also has ecperi•cnce evaluating greenhouse gas inflexion$ 5.0m vario¢9 projects and is an expert on the a es..sment of odors from utdrtstrial and agritarittrrJ1 sites, as well 23 Iha avaluatiM1 ofodcr nuisance impacts and to iuuolveien fin abasement or odorous aaitiexiom. As a principal scientist at SWAPE. Dr Rosenfeld directs air dispenaion modeling and exposure af9s.:samcnts, He hays served as an overt witness and testified about pellutiun sources earrsint, nuiaanee anc1'or personal injury at sites and has testified as an expert witness on numerous taasu involving expusllre to wait, water andair cue ,taminantn from indu trial, railroad, agricultural. aril military aomass.

Paul h. Rosenfeld. PhD,

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3352
11942
RTC -1523

Responses to Comments
Professional History:

Snil Waster Air Protection ILinciprie (SWA1'IL): 2003 to present Principal and Founding Partner 41CI,A School of Public Health.. 2t]07 to 2011; I ecturer (A latent Kes!c rclrer) UCLA School of Public Health: 2003 to 20Oti_ Adjunct Professor UCLA Environmental Science and Engineering Program: 2002-201,1. Doctoral Intern Coordinator UCLA Institute of the Environment,. 2001-2002: Research Associate Kornes 1110 Science, 2001 to 2003, Senior Renretlixrtir+n Scientist National Groundwater Association, 2002-20041 Lecturer
San Diego State University, 1x.99-2081: Adjunct Professor Anteon Corp__ Sawn Diego_ 2000-2001: Remcdiation Project Manager Ogden (nowArnec). Sour Diego_ 2000-2000: Remedintion Project Manager Bechtel. San Dieiao, California_ 15'99 2000; Risk Assessor King Connl3_ Seattle, 1996 — 1999; Scientist
James River Corp,. Washington. 1995-96: Scientist
Big Creek Lumber. Davenport. California. 1995: Scientist Plums Corp, California and USF'S,Tahoe I993- I Y995:, Scientist Pcac:e Corps and World Wildlife Fund, St. Kitts. West Indies. 1991-199-3; Scientist publications
Rosenfeld P. E.,. Spaeth K. !Ullman 1t.. Bressler R.. Smith. C;.. (2022) Cancer Risk rand. Diesel Exhaust Exposure Aninne Railroad Workers. Il'trier _lirNail Pallulinrr_ B3,171 Remy, I..I.., Clay T., Byers. V.- Rosenfeld P. E. (2019) hospital. Health, and Community Burden After Oil Refinery Fires. Richmond, California 2(107 and 2012. Environmental breath 113:48 Simons, R.A. Sao, Y. Rosenfeld, P._ (2015) Modeling the Effect of Refinery Emission On Residential Property ValueJournal of Real Estate Research. 27(3):32I-342
!lien. J, A. Zapata A. R., Sutherland A. J,. Malmen. D,R.. Chow. B. S,. Wu. L. E., Reoenreltl, l'. E, Hesse. R. C.. (2012) Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic t ermpound Exposure A Community In Texas Citl,''l'exay Evaluated Using Aerrnod and Flinpiria Data. Arnericc viol acid (VP ern'lrrrrrrrrodd Science, 1#(6). ()22-632.

Rmenfelit, P.E. & Fend, I,. (201 I ). The Rao yfIli arc,.' w• ifage. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing. { hereanismolt, N.L',. c& Rosenfeld, 1'.L. (201E ) !frnfrlin)fkk rrfrl'ralhaito r l'ry 'rrtirrrr ttrxr! €'leancer I'nxhu tirux Bea rrrc riceN in the .4grociwrnicnl Industry, Anistterdum . 1 Isevi er l'i.[hi isllnrg.

Gonzalez. J.. Peng. I... Sutherland. A,. Wrrlle:r. C. Suk. H.. He us. lt.. Rosenfeld, P. (2011)). F'B'I ; ; , ,.I Dioxins'Fut inns in Attic Dust Collected Near Fortner PCB Production and Secondary Copper Facilities in Snu a 1..

Pranceaht Environmental rtal Sciences, 113-125.

Feng. L,., Wu, C., Tarn., L., Sutherland. A -I.. Clark, J,J., Rosenfeld, P.E. (2010). Dioxin and Fursu Blood Lipid and Attic Dust Concentrations in Populations Living Near Four Wsu:fd Treatment Facilities in the ! Jnitecl States, .luutrrrul afErrr=ter ►!mecca! Health. 73(6). 3<I.46,
Chet inisinoIt f.P,. & Rosenfeld, RE. (2010) HurnJbw4 rrfPollution Prarmurtionand Cleaner Production: Best Practices in the Wood and Paper Industries Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing, Cherernisinotl: N.P.. & Rosenfeld, P.E. (2009) Handbook cif Pollution Pr errrirut and Cleaner Prodtictiuu: D xr Pructice.s in the Pei-rah:win hrrhe,ary_ Amsterdam_ Elsevier Publishing_ Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.

05-39
Cent

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3353
11942
RTC -1524

Responses to Comments
'Vu. L. Taira, L., Clark. J.. Rosenfeld, P. (2009), 1?iostin.and furon blood lipid concentrations m popula ionN Iivti near flour wood ironmoni,, facilities in the C i-ii1 d Slalas. if'7T i'ruaawe7rr?rt:s rrry F'cologi and the Ernuro orort, Ain PoWilton. 123 (17). 319-327
Tarn L. I(_.. Wu C. D..„ Clink J. J. and Rosenfeld. P.E. (2008).:k Starictical Analysts Of Attic Dust And [Hood Lipid Clonswiiirations Of I'etrasilrlat,.p.Dibenzudi.u+cin ( CDD) Toxicity Equiva1 ii Quotients (`1Li. In Two Populations Near Wood Treatment Facilities. Orgaxolrerkven C'rrratpotnuts; 70,002252-002255.

Tarn L. K. l'4rtt C. D., Clark 1 J. and Rosenfeld. P.E. (200#l) i11ethaxig For Collect Samples For Assessing Dioxins Arid Other Tnv'irtitrniertlal Conran -onions In .kui: Dual: A Rev=iew. /)rganoberiugen Compounds, 7f1 1)0027000530, -
Hensler. A.R. A. Scott. J. J. J. Clark. Rosenfeld, P,E. (2007). Attic IDnw1 and Human Blood Samples Collectec nc.rr a 1'1}rerier Wood Treatment FaCilillk. Ih•rarrrtornrenrur ReSeurch., 105. 194-197 R€isenfel, P.P., J. J. J. Clark. A. R. Ilansloy, NI. Suff . (2007), The Use of an Odor Wheel Classification for Evaluation of Human Health Risk Criteria for Con>ftora Facililicw, Ferrer &rerr & T4tcFrrrr?fcm3 55(5), 345-357, Rosenfeld, P. E., NI. Buffet (2007). 11-io Ariaiesnv' (1' Odour Wheels FUT Odours Of Drinking % i net, Wrasteu"ater_ Compost And The Urban Environment 1!'arer Science d- Techrrofcny 55(5)_ 335-344.

Sullivan. P. I Clark, J_ L. Agurdv. F_ J_. Rosenfeld, P.R. (20117). Tour Legacy. St"errhetrc l'oxims to the Frac>!r_ truer, cvad.Itr ol-limo-in:el Otto. t3aat ni 1Ia.L at'biusettt: Elsevier Publishing Rosenfeld, P.E., and Su1Tt 1,13. {200.4. Ctaniroi of Ccrrnpw st Odor Using High Carbon Wood AA, Water s rc •.•. end Technology_ 49(9)471-17E.

Rmsenfehl P. F. J.!_ Clark. L11. (Niel l Suftet {2'004} ir• Valruo of An Odor -Quality -Wheel Classification Scheme For The Urban Environment. [Taro Tmarrninii?air r'ederri,ron'a" Ts-chart:al rXhI ni€n mead (!onference ITrTF7'F.`0 2094. News Orieatrrs, ( tuber 2-6, 2014,
Rosenfeld, P.F and SuIki. 1.}fi. (2OO4 Understanding Odoranis Assuciatedl With Compose, Biomass l ...Ili :•L-• and the -1 and Application of 13rosiit tts. ilflrBrSerence ram,Tecirnofr3gy, X9(9}, i93-199 Rosenfeld, f'.E., and greet 1.1i. (2'004)" Control of Compost Oder Using High Carbon Wood Ash. ifilarce c.,crcnce rrrrl rechrrnla+gr. 49(9). 171-178,
Rosenfirtd, P. E. Gray, M A.. Sellew-. P', (2004). Maarsazrenrent of 13i +solids Odor and Odorant Emissions from J'indrovis. Static Pile arid 13iolihar. /rarer Environment Research. 76(4)... 310.315.

Runenrctd, P.1L l3r•y M and Sutler_ M. (2002). Composer Derrrufistrudlam Projcca- Sacramento California TJstnc.

Ihgh-Carbon Wood ; tsli to Control Odor at a Greed A1atariats Composting Fa ity. lav grcaac4 frosrc ,'llonogerrnerrr E 0UP'dPttPalrc _-lf arts" Office. Publications Clearinghouse {MS -6a). Sacramento. CA Publication 4412.02-008.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and C.L Henry. (2001). Chaaruateriaation of odor emissions from ihreE different bitrxoLids_ niter Sod ant riar €>limuon" 1.27(1-4), 173-191.

Ramettl'eld, P.E., and 11m-, C. T.. (2000). Wood ash control of itrkar ernisNions from blirsolids application Journal ofEmornrrarriJnIal Qrtclrtt'- 29, L662-I66S_
Rosenfeld, F.E.. C.L. Metter and D. Bacon, (2 011. Wasiewuter dewattling polymer alYsiet an biaaaolids oskr ami...ions and microbial activity. Water EnvironmentResearch 7 (41), 363-361.

Rosenfeld, }'.1?., and C.L. ibenry- (2001). Activated Carboy and Wood A,�h Sorption of Viirroloceater, Compcnt. aarrl 13iosolirls Odorants- Walser r Ernorrcurm nr i a. eurr"ft. ?3- 3it8-393.

Paul E. Rosenfeld.Ph.D.

Pane .1 ill 12 Ocdobcr 2022
O5-39
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3354
11942
RTC -1525

Responses to Comments
Rosenfeld. P.E., and Henry C. L. (2001). High carbon wood etch circa on hiostlids microbial atctnity and odor.

Wafer ErsOrrwirnerrr Reseurrh, 131(1-4). 247-2fi2.

Cholla,k. T" and P. Rosenfeld. (1998). Can cost Amendment Handbook Ft Landscaping. Prepared for and distributed by the City of Redmond_ Washington State.

Rasaenfeld, P. E. (199'2). The Mount 1 ikamuigat Crater Trail_ fierat)ge wlltaga Jn& q'Si_ Kirk,_ 3(2).

Rosenfeld, P. E. {19)3). High School Biogas PrOJOCI tra PreVent trafOreStatiOn On St, Kitt. Brr+rargcs ne , a'tarrart, 7(1),
Rosenfeld, P. E. 11998). Chatracterization, Quantification. and Control of Oder Emissions From Iiiostalidd Application To Forest Soil, Doctoral Thesis. l-nil-cre tr' of Washington College of Forest Resources, Rosenfeld, P. F. (1994). Potential 1"Iilifatitnn at1' Small Diameter Trees on Sierra County Public Latnd. T T, thesis reprinted by the Sierra County Economic C'ttuucil. Sisrra Count)'. California, Rosenfeld, F. F.. (1991), Ilan to Build a Small Racial ,Anaerobic Digester & t.lses Uf Fliogabs In The Fiat .And Third titrorld. Bachelors Thesis I niyersit), o1 Califurrniaa.

Presentations:

Rosenfeld, P.E . "Ilia scionce far Perlr.taTrinated Chemicals (PF;1S): What makes r n diatio SO hard?" Vac.

Seminars. lmcrnational. (Way 9-10, 2018) Ribs Filth Avenue. Suite 101 Seattle. WA.

Rosenfeld, P. E: , Stit1terland, A; Hesse., 1i.; Zsipets,, cl" (Ue'iahsr 3-C,, 2013)= Air dispersion modeling of volatile organic emissions from ruultiple natural gas 'wells lit Lbteatur. TX. t}r il'esteed Ro irtuerl Adieeng, Aster carp Chemical :S'ociery. . Lecture conducted from Santa Clara, CA, Suk. ILL.; Waller, C.C.; Fagg. I..., Ciocutelei, A. Sruthkrltanar ;kJ.: Wi:slrnr-Stock, T.; Sahel. R.h..; Hesse, RC.; '5-39 Rosenfeld, P.E. (June 2f]-23, 21110). .1.trazine: _'1 Persistent Pesti ide in L1tban Drinking Water Cont {. rhun £rrvirottrna dal Pooh rion. ] cture conducted from Bodo . MA_ Peng, L Cia+nrale/_ J:: Srok. H.L.; Sutherland. „T,. Walter, CC.; Rrisdarm-SLacl T.: SAM, R 14.: I a, `hL; Tless.c R:C.. Rosenfeld, P.E. {June 20-23. 2010). BringingErnironrncnlal Justice to East Si Louis.

Illinn s" f'rhun Errrenorrrrreerrtul PrAuris,n" I_ec7 ore coutincicsl from Disarm. MA.

Rosenfeld., P.F_ (April I9-23. 2009). Perllettrocte iti4 Avid (PFtlA) and Perllunroactu.ie Sulfetnat IIFFOy11 Contamination in Drinking Water From the T]sc of A4;iixius Fihn Forming Foams (AFFF at Airports in the l Tinted States. 210 [sand Water .5infrliii and 20f9r)Grnrirtd rl'uter Prrareeiiorr Council Spring.ileetrrag. Lecture conducted from Tuseani. AZ.

Ro$enicld, P.E. (April 19.23, 20{113) Cost to Filter Atraaine Contamination 1rnm prinking Water in the United States" Contamination in Drinking Water From the Use of Aqueous Film Forming Foancs (AFFF) at Airports in the United Suites. ?O }9 Grrnand l#"execs Summit and 20+.19 Ground Welter- Prott?coon Council Spring ,1,reenng.. Lecture conducted front Tuxeurr, AZ.

Wu. C.. `['am I... Clarks J., Rosenfeld, P. (tai -22 Jut}'. 2009}_ Dioxin' and fur= Hood lipid concentrations pop tlatitais Iiwing nmar four wood treatment facilities in the United States. 13rebhia. C.A. and Popov, v,. edl .-Jar pelfirattrur Al 71; Procer-tim s of liar .g a err awnek Intzrrrrrrlrt mid Cm9fererre+e on liotkiing, t fr xrrlrrrrg mind rernogeorarrr rsAir Poifrarfezrx, i.mttrreik:ondaaetrd Born Tallinn. Estonia, Rosenfeld, P. P. (Ooolser 1i-1tt, 2007) MOSS Perini Cummuni14" l?sposure To Coniiim nanls From A Releasing Facility. i"rre 2)'"' Arrnu tl irrrNrrpafiortal C:tza erNrBrea aa, &k.Sedirrrim and Water. Platform lecture conducted Trani University of Massaehusetts. Amherst NIA.

Pahl E. Rosenfeld. Ph.D.

Pa_; ,1of 12 October 2022

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3355
11942
RTC -1526

Responses to Comments
Rosenfeld, P. F (fie -tuber I5-L£S, 211t17i_ The Repeated Traipar.�s of Trililarn-ccuitarttira.tteai Water hit • :t Surrounding Community Perm Repeated Wacsle Spi115 From A Nuciearr Power Plana, Tire 13""rinnual Totzrrrsr(az.rr41 Conference -8 on Sams Sediment and Water. Platform lecture conducted from University of assachusettts. Amherst hl<
Rosenfeld, P. E. (October 15 -Ill. 2rtll7). Somerville Community Ew.-posureTat Crufletninrintc loom Wood -treatment Facility Emissions, 'The rf.-Imau 1Internationai Co€zfcrcnaca orr Soils .7rearioneur and iiater, L.iiurr ccanducicrl from I'niw argil of A'larguacInsetts. r\mlrerst ALA.

Rosenfeld P. L (March 21107). Production, Chemical Properties, Toxicology, & Treatment Case Surdies. of 'frichloruprupane(TCP). The Assaaeiaattortfi»EAVIrorrrraeruerlHealth and Scatiaraeest=l£ S}Annddaalf1leetirr _Lecture Loud acted Iri+ra} San Diego, C:1,
Rosenfeld P. F (hfanli 2097). Blond and rAl.tic Sampling for Dioxin,T'uran. P.ATI. end 1b'Icua1 FArtaturc in Florairi.

Alabama. The .4.EfifS An a ol.l,leutixrg. Lecture eOtiductal from San Diego. CA.

Henslcj Scott. A., Rosenfeld P.L Clark. J..1.1 (August 21 - 25.2006), Dioxin Containing :Attic Dust And 1lrrrnan I#luaad t :urtlaleta Collected Near A Forster Wcsxl Treatment Facilitw°. The ?htdh internraadanntil eip vrra r rrn dale emoted Persistent Orjgartic Pollutants - L)IL)UN2lY)6. Lecture conducted from Radisson SAS Scamdirunwiat Hotel in Oslo Norwm,.

Hensley Alt, Scott_ A. Rosenfeld P.11, Clark. J.J.J. (November 4-8. 2006). Ilioxiat Containing Attic Duct And Hinman 131oard Samples. Collected Near :4 former Wood Treatment Facl]in' _]PfM 1±4 :lrtrarat? ,lfecitr rt Exposirdarrr. League aaanducted from Boston Massachusetts.

Pnnl Rsrwrinfeld PIv<I}. (October 24-25. 2.005). Fete, Tr aciport and Paseaeri a of l'1'tv, and moiled (Awnvralw.

Mea sy c CS.'P1 OA. Ccra:ttee, Rdsk & Lailg€rtton C:erraference_ Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel.

Philadelphia. PA.

Paul Rosenfeld PM). (September 19, 2005). Nominated Flame Retardants in 1 raanndwvater Patliwawax to Human Ingestion. Toxicology and Re'mediratron PEVA E'mergeng Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton I[oold. Irvine California_
Paul Rosenfeld PhD (September 19, 20051. Tate, Transport. Toxicity. And Persistence of 1_2.3-TCP. P MJ Energang t'orrtaarrrinant Conference. Leclerc conducted fin -1m Hilton Bole] in Irvine. California, Pnn1 Rosenfeld. Ph.D. (September 26-27.2005). Fain. Transport and Persistence of P1iBE.s.. a1•It:aley°r Graaaarrth'awe'r Conter+eruat Lecture conducted front Rita. Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Rev- California.

Paul Rosenfeld PIaD_ (lane 7•S„ 20019. Fats_ Transport and Persistence of PFO . and Related Chemicals_ Internaataotrnl Scacdety I }ear ma ttmental tw ar•errsres. Facia rasa Emergartg Ca%rrkmenarnrs, Lecture titre conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel_ Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport.Pcrsisteii and Taxieology of PFOA anti Related Parfloorechamicals, 2fItS Na ttoiw1 Grrar eekvcrrer iiisocrratrorr Ground 'Voter And Ensrctrone oral Lcru• C'rrrtfere ere:.

Ledltire conduit;led l;r4llrl Vviulnunt Baltimore Bolt w H *bair, BIrltinidre Maylattd- Paul Rosenfeld Fli.D. (July 21-22. 201,15), Nominated Flume Relentianris in Groundwater: Paathwar, t© Homan ingestion, Toxicology and Rernediaation. 20115 Mamma/ Groundwater .-t ymichatrort Grvaarrtf Prater un:r Environmental Law Cofference. Lecture conduct --ii from 'Wyndham 13 i1timore Inner Harbor. Baltimore A IaiyIand Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D, and Rob Hesse R.O. (Nay 5.G, 2004). Text -butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicolog_v, :A National Problem and I_'ngi &t tit ed Liability, Natrona( Groundutrater .4ssavatian. Frr irantmartarl Law C,Difettmce. Lcr'ture conducted from Calve-- Plaza Hotel_ Chicago Illinois.

Paul E. Fa,menleial. Ph.D,
Pate S o f 12 October 2022
05-39
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3356
11942
RTC -1527

Responses to Comments
Paul Rosenfeld. Ph.D. 6 \1arr,la 201141. Perchloralr Toxicology, ,tleerrng of du: Antencan Jrourtrlrrai r nest.

Lecture conductedfrr,n1 Nlr,4ai4 lrizonrr,
Hagerman. hi,P.. Paul Rosenfeld. Ph.D, and Rob Il,assa (2004). Perchlorate Caxltamination of the Colorado River.

Meeting of tribal represerrra1rees. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.

PaulRosenfeld, PFI.D. {April 7, 20041. A National Damage Assesstanent Model For PCk. iktbd Dry Cleaners.

Dr}aclearrer S'yrnpa.rlrarai. C ah,f6rrttu (:ground Water- i.ssacrutreat_ T t*utuii , aattduured frotat Addison Hotel, Saerantentn•.

Cali Fonda.

Ratoenfeld, P. I. Crrov. M... (June 2003) Twtr stage biuliltcr for hitaraolids composting odor control, Seventh internumor;;arf in Sure drier t:Jn Stte iirwerrrediutfun Yynrepenteen Battelle (:'oryererace Orlando. FL.

Paid Rusentrlal; Lrin.lf, Anti kitties Clark PItFJ (Fehtuuri 21121, 2003} L;tad,-ts[andittg Historical IIse. Chemical Properties T,atic ill. and Regulator)Cluidance or 1.4 Disstwne. iVora - ai (:rrarenelirarer;;.rsochtlrnn "'xartrfrrre er 1'a c'ae.r Conferencc Supply and Emerging C'orrfiatrrinantr.. Lecture conducted from 1.1.:Q11 Ttegen,.-v Phoenix Arizona, Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 20,03). Underground Storage Tank- Litigation and R,7nediaiion, C'airfor-nec? CL'1}4 k'or1r tar. Lecture conducted outs[ Marion Hotel, Anaheim California.

Paul Rosenfeld,. Ph.D. (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Rernedinliort. EPA C'nder-grorarrdSera,reage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Saertanaeuto California Rosenfeld, P.R. and Suffei. M. (October 7- 10, 2002)- !Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and frtrtiratrud {artaces.y s. Sixth .•l rnnrraal Sy'rrtpns ern Ctrs Off F'luwrr rrr tJi ,galrecrlri.' a nvir a r.nrenl. lief runt v✓ruf Rae,. asse,rteariail. Leonetti, mei:Meted froth Barcelona Spaiaa- Raeeufeld, P.F_ and Su1Twl, M. ilk tzsber 7- lit. 20W). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor. &xlh Arousal Sync posatin On [1f Fl atnn'. r'ri the' Alta die Er vitwi rrlNtn. 1nrerrrutrrrrrd Waxer .-Itronurfrj,+r. Lecture conducted from Barcelona *tin,
Rosenftild. P.E and Greys. M. A. (September 22-24. 2002). Hiiocycic Composting For Coastal Sago Restoration. t"Crnthive.si f3eo.tobers 14aariag.(ement i.s.trrcicrtprari. Lifeline ennrhi ted from limlesNivsr W,a_chingten_.

Rosenfeld, P.E. and 'Limy. II, A (November t1-14, 2002). Using High -Cartoon Wood Ash to Control Odor M Cat�rra Materials Compnrding Facility. Surf Si'ieace Sactet....-M ruu! Confersroe- Lecture conducted from Lulianirpoli iJar±.laneL
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2001)), Two stage bioiilter for bioetialids csmipo:ding odor control. i1'eatcr Envtm'rat eat Feaferatacarr Leinure conducted from Anaheim California Rosenfeld. P.E. (October 16, 2(1[1 J1. Wood ash and bit liner control of etirripeat rider. Bra-fest. Lccturc conducted tram tlt. nii SIi tea, CalifirrnL2
Rosenfeld, P.T. (261001). 13iosvm diction Using; Orgahric Sail Amendments, L'nitfamrrr ROSOttrCe Recovery ;l.ssocruattori. LceLurec ralucicd from Sacramento Calirornia Rosenfeld, P.F.. ('_L. Henry. R. 11aarnson (1998). Oat and Grass Seed (termination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Etaiistti0ava Fallon ing lhosolids Incorporation With. High -Carbon Wood -Ask Water Lrr}yrtnlInlenr F'eeleruiron 12th .l►rlttlal Rewdaials and 1Simolids dfonogernent Conference Pma'erdtrrg.s- Lecture caanducied from Bellevue Washington,
Rosenfeld, P.E., and Fleur.; (1999). :Li essltiatinn "Cash incorporation with bia'e€vlids pm odor reduction. Sail ;' rarrcGSociett' of.looretlea. 1k4IUUt Wa7ndtiw•tcittrurn Si:it I.sal.c City l.!tall.

Paul E. U
l's;c dr ol 12 ( lohcr 2022
05-39
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3357
11942
RTC -1528

Responses to Comments
Rosenfeld, P.E,.. C; L Henry. R HarrdsoiI. (199 ). Comparison of hiicrobial Activity and Odor ElniSSit1415 fium Three Different Flinsolids Applied Lied to Forest 8 oil. !Inman and {'atfdwwi. Lecture condiacied f'mm Seal ll latile urgani[ emissions frt,n tombs AI. mot. .;Adages Tec tnologi aK. Corona California; tS iti,U€Jd1 grant awarded to Kan Diego State University.

Goal; in+^caligatc effect of hisisolid.'i fix restarraatinn and reniediadion of dcgrack ti coastal sage soils. 21104.

King County. Dsparlsitent of Research and Tech=log, Washington State. SIt1U,fl4U grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal. To investigate odes ,unrisatiuns from hicwolidn application and the atilt:;t of pelyrner^s and ash ii VOC emissions. 1995.

Northwest Biosolids ?Management Association, Washington State. S20,01Rl grant awarded to investigate at'fL-t of polymers and aide un w'OCC emissions from biosolids. 1997.

Paul E. Rosenfeld. Ph.D.

Pager 7 .a1 12 October 21)22
05-39
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3358
11942
RTC -1529

Responses to Comments
James River Corporation. fkcgtrn: $1O.1X10 grant was awardied to investigate the; stieoessi of ge net leak v engincenwl Poplar trees with resistance to round -up_ 1996.

United State Forest Service, Tahoe National For.. SI5.UU1) grant teas a%3Iti4d to investigating fire eaalogv' 044th Tahoe National Forest, 1995.
[tie3Engg Foundation, Washington D.C. S500 grant watt nvvetrd4-d to construct a. Large anaerobic digester tin St- Kim i1`esti Indies. 1993
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:

In the Superior Court ofthe'Staie of California, County or San 13emsudino I3slly W.ldneL, Plaintiff v. -N. t1NSE Railway C''oanpan Case No. C1't'I)4171ISI0
Rosen Feld Jiepmition If -17-21!22
In the Slate Cowl o r ilibb County. State oi'{3cutrgiu
Richard Hi4 Iii rron. Plaintiff vs Norfolk Stvuthern Railwav Company Case No. 10-SCCV-092007
Rosenfeld Deposition 101.6-2022
[n the Civil District Court of the Parish of Orleans. Stoic of Louisiana 4IiIt rd Clark. Plaitltifrv=s, Dixie Carrirs. inc. et aL Case No. 2020.03891
Rosenfeld Deposition 9.15.2022
[n'rho Ciri•wi coui-h rt.it'ingsston County, Slate oft Missouri_ Circuit Civil 11tivxion Shirley Rails_ Plaintiff v s_ Canadian Pacific Railway and Soo Line Railroad Case Not 1 S-I.V-CCO020
Rosenfeld Deposition 9-7-2022
In The Circuit Colin of the 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough Cnuniv, Florida Civil Division Jrmny' C. Daniels, Plaintiff tx. C'SN Intnspnialiwo Toe Case No. 20 -CA -55112
Rosvanteld Deposition 9.1-2022
In'lite Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri Itiieth Luke et. al. Plaintiff vs. Monsanto Company et. at.

Cast: No. 19SL-CC031:71
Rosenfeld 1_1epansiiirsn 31.25.2022
M lira Cineriit Court ofthe 13th Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County.Honda Civil Division Jeffery S. I miotte, PlalntilTss. CSX Traaatiportatioti Lac.

Caw No, NO. 211 -CA -0049
Rosenfeld Deposition S-22-2022
[ti State ,t i District Court, County of SL I„otli!1 Sixth Judicial Di.ariet Greg Bean, Plaint ill. vs. Soo Lime RA ilrtkaal Company Case No. 69-D1 CV -21-7(i0
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-17.22022
In United States District Court W'eslern I3istrict &Washington at Tacoma, Washington John D. Fitzgerald Plaintiff vs. BNSF
Caga No. 3'2 i-+:v-05'2Fd#t-RJ13
RosvenfeftlDeposition X.-41-2022
Paul E. Rosenfeld. Ph.D.

PagK 8 of 12 Ovioher 2i l22
05-39
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3359
11942
RTC -1530

Responses to Comments
In Circuit Court ttfthc Sixth hadicial Circuit. Maio n Minor -5 Rtacl:} 3Tnntihuff Plaintiff 4's_ Nrctffulk Souther
C450 Ni.i20-L-56
Rosenfeld Deposition 8-3-2022
in Court of Common Nem, llauniltvn Couiat+r Ohio
,toe Wiggins Plaintifivm C°S`
Case No. A2004464
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-17-2012
In the Superior Carui't of the State of Califoimit, Counts of Kern Ueurge I itFanto vs. BNSF Railway Company'..

Case No. WV -19-103-087
Rosenfeld 1] p tsit i+wn 5-17..21122
In the Circuit Court of C'ook County Illinois
Buhb4 Finites4 S. Penn Central et- al,
Case No, 2020-L-0005540
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-1ti-21122
In l !sited Status District Court c aster District of Florida Albert Htartnnui Plaintiff tits, Illinn Central
Casa N. 2.20-ev-1633
Rosenfeld Deposition 4-4-2022
in the Circuit Court of the 4't Judicial Circuit. in and Fair Duval County, Florida Batliaari Stele 4a. CSX'lraartsFiorta3iun
Casa No 36 -219 -C8 -W8796
Rosen le Id Deposition 3-15-2l)22
In United States District Court Easter Dititrict of Nen 'fork Romano et 411, s s. Northrup Clrumanun Cirrpor iti n
Gass No Ifi-ev-5760
Ro meld Deposition 3-1O-2022
In the Circuit Court of Conk County Illinois
Ganda Benjamin vs. Illinois Central
Case No. No, 2019 L 007599
Rosenfeld Deposition 1.26-2022
In the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
Donald Santis vs. Illinois Control
Casa No. No, 2019 L.003 -124i
Ro cnfdld. t position 1-24-„022
In the Circuit Coat ofCouk County [Ilitl ois
1:nt I [4 Ic non 4 s G3NSF
Cabe No 2019 T. 0100675
Rosenfeld Deposition 1-I8-2(22
In the State Court of Bibb County State of Georgia
Dwayne Il, {Jarrett vs Norfolk Southern
Case No. 20-SCCV-e91232
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-10-2021
Paid Paid f.. 14,renla:kl. I'It,1J,
Iate9'iif 12 Lti orrice �)+2....
05-39
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3360
11942
RTC -1531

Responses to Comments
in the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois
.Toseph Rueri a vy. RNSF
Case No. 2019 11.007730
Rosenfeld Deposition 1 I-5-2021
In the United &'tatti District Court}'nrthe District of Nebraska Steven Giiklf vs. IINS1
Case Nix. ,1:2Lf-ev-Lt312f1
Rosenfeld Reposition 14-28-2021
In the Montana Thirteenth District Court of Yellowstone C0111:0' lanes Ladurs vs. Sego I3ne Railroad and BNSF
Case No, DV 1.94056
Rosenfield Deposition Itl-21-2021
In the Circuit Court Of The Tivetnioth Judicial Circuit. Si Clair Comely. Illinois lViartlsri Custer et al,cvt:_ Cerro Moo Products, Inc.

Case No 0i9 -L-22 J 5
Rosenfeld Deposit ion 3.14-21121
Trial October K-4-2021
In the Circuit Csitut of Cook County Illinois
Joseph Rafferty etty vs. Consolidated Rail Corporation and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d•bra

AMTRAK,
Casa No. 18-L. 45
(Rosenfeld Deposition 6.25-2021
in tho United State District Court For the Northern t)ismict of Illinois Ilecr,ysi Ronneoe ins Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation d lara 11ETRA Rail Case No, 17-cv-8517
Rosenfeld Deposition 5-25-2021
In II10 Sarperior Court of the Stutz of Aril of n Its iota For the Cirnly oflitiorcopa Mary Trvi,n el aI. vic- The City ofFhennik. v. Cox Cactus Firm. L.1.C.. Utah Shelter System.;. Inc.

Casa No. C V201.27-1)494749
Rosenfeld Deposition 3-7-2021
In the linked Slaw District Court for the Einstein District of rehas: Beaumont Division Robinson. Jeremy et al vs. CNA Insurance CanlpatiN et a1..

Case No. 1: T 7-ev-000508
Rosenfeld Deposition 3.25-2021
In the Superior Court oldie State of California. Cotner of San Bernardino Cary Garner, Pemonal Representative for the Estate yr y'lelvin Garner vs., BNSF Railway Om Masi,,, .

Case No. 1720288
Rosenfeld Deposition 2-23-2021
In the Superior C purl of tii Slate of California, Count) of I .rs Angeles. Spring Street Courthouse Benno M Rodriguez vas_ Union Pacific Railroad_ A Corporation_ et al.

Case N0 185'r`fCYtl11cti2
Rosenfeld Deposition 12-23-2020
In the: Circuit C'otut of Jackson County, Missouri
Karen Cornwell.. Plaintiff, vs_ Marathon I"eilolenrn. LP. I f+atttanl- Case No 1716-C V 10006
Rosenfeld lkpirsititrn 8-3U-2019
1'art�l l Fe.,,enlckl. Ph.D.

05-39
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3361
11942
RTC -1532

Responses to Comments
in the l`uiled States District Court For The Dit;trii of Nev. Jerye, Duarte el al. Planal I`tS, v&. United States IsletaIs Refining Company et. ul, Defendant.

Case N. 2:17-ev-01624--ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition 6-7-2019
in die united States llisfrict Court of Southern District nf'Iexus, f Avestan Division MT Carla Mast k va. Conti 1683.. Satiffahris-GlafDlI & Co. Battler KG MS "Conti Perdido" Defendant.

Casa No. 3:15 -CV -00106 cotasnl',rimedwith 3:I5 -CV -R[1237 Rosenfeld Deposition 5-9-21111
In 11ie Superior Court of the Slate of California In/knit For 11te County Of Los Angeles - Santa Monica C+ ole-Traddao-Bates el al_, 1•a. lfrara Khan rn et aI_, 1'h-.rorul4l to C_'.a4c No. BC61.563fa
Rosenfeld Deposition I-26-2619
In 1 lt4 Superior Court of'the Suite of C iii I`utaiite inAll d For The Count!,Of I_uk .Angeles — Santa Monica The Sun Gall -vie! Valk)' Council ofGavernnt ants el al. vs El 'idobe Apts. Inc. 7t al.,4 Defendants C_`asa lado. BC 446N17
Rosenfeld Deposition 10-6-201g,'i'riuI 3.7.19
In 1 :niicd Stales District Court For The Dislrici oil -Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiffs vs. The 3M C :pan at al_ Defendants Case No_ 1:16-s;v-02531-R13J
Rosenfeld Deposition 3.13-2018{ and d-3.2tJI8
to 'lire District Couri DI' Regan County, Texas_ 112rt' Judicial District Phillip Bales ot ail.. Plaintiff IN. Dow Agru th lieits, LLC, et nl__ Defendants Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition I I-17-2017
In 11ua Superr+� r Court of the Slane of Cali Isltiiia let And l;or 11ae County Of Contra. COMA Ssritons ii al,. Plannifs vs, Chrvnan Colkar tR3n, et 4. Defendants Cruse No C12-014SI
Rosenfeld Deposition 1 I.20-2017
fn 11ie Circuit Court Of The 'I'Wetuietlf Judicial C'trout, Si Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer at al., P1aintilf vs. Cerro Flow Products. Ins., Defendants Cate No.. ' :o. 8]19-'C-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition 11-2.3-22017
In United States Distttet Court For The Southern Dist:net of 14lississippi Gtr!. Nlan.uul N. The BP Exploration et al.. Defendants Case Nv. 1:1'9-ev-ilf :15-R11W
Rosenfeld Deposition A-22-2{,120
lt117tc Supericsr Court bribe State of California, For The Cotmty of I -o@ Ang.Aes Warm Gil.liert and pent' (Frills r.. Plairitifi't's. BMW of North America. T Case No. LCI020I9 to wr BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition I3-16-2017. Trail 11 -2N -201g
to the N Girthern' Distri Let Court ofMi€aiessippr, C3reenvil la Divesion Brenda 3, Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs. vs. Mcriior Inc., et al., Defendants Case No. d:16-ev-52-DM11-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition July 2017
fetid F. Fed nlcIsl. I'Ii,I),

05-39
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3362
11942
RTC -1533

Responses to Comments
In ']he Superior Court of the Suite of Witshingtion, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Basis et al.. Plaintiff V6. Cedar (-rove Composting Inc., Defendants Case Ni.i0,-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition. Februarys 2017
Trial Mandl 2017
1st fhe Superior Cott -1 nl'the State of California, County of Alameda Charloi Spain_, Plaintiff vs. Thermo Flatlet -Scientific. et L. Defendants Case No„ R(314711] 15
Rosenfeld Deposition September 2015
In 1he tetra District Court In .,ttnd For Powt lxiek County Rinse II 1). Wenburir. et at, PIaoritilltos vs, Doug llok:sbergen, et al,, I)e.rendaiitx Case No t.. l ALI021R7
Rosenfeld Deposition dttgvst 2015
In 'ibis Circuit Cutirt ist Dill's) Couniy, Vest Virginia Robert Andrews. tit nI. v. _Addero. et al.

C'iki6 Aoiiln No, I4-C.30ii(1tl
Rosenfeld Disposition Jung 2019
In 'The Iowa District Court for Muscatine County
Laurie Pream n et al. Plaintiffs vs. Drain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No. 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition Islay 2015
in the Circuit Court lrfihe 17Th Judicial Circuit, in mid For liftman]. Count), Florida Walter liint{xt et. al.. Plaintiff. vs. Cif)' of Fort Lauderdale_ Florida, i!'tIiinieipality„ Defendant.

Case No C.ACE070303513 (2('i)
Rmenleld Deposition Decemhrr 2014
In die Coon ly' Court oflkallas Count,.

Liksi Pall- el =tl,.FlaintiIT, t'x.:tinihit el :it tklIriititali.

Case No cc- I I-01fiF(I-r.

Rosenfeld Deposition.. Marchand Septentber20131
Rosenfeld Trill April 2014
In the Court if Conunon Pleas ot friscarawas Count) (hio iolut Michael Abiclu, at nL Plaintiffs. vs. Republic Servia , Inc.- a aL, Defendants Case No. 200X C1' 1 fi 0741 (Cons, w. 2009 CV 1(I r)987) Rosenfeld Deposition October 2012
In the United States District Court far the Middle District of Alabama_ Northern Division Jam es iR. Benefield, et al., I'lainlitTs, vs. International Paper Company, Dependant.

Civil ALtian :lu. _ I. _: - 1 _INIL zt- m
Rosenfeld Depoi, itmu Jul 2'iJ10, lone 2011
In the Circuit C'tlnrt of.iclfers in Cnutit4 .Stlalaama Tacaaiette Mora Anthony. el al.. Plaintiffs. v. Drummond nd Company lac_ et al.. I) tendantc Civil Action No. CV 20[18-207(s
Rosenfeld Deposition September 20I [)
In the United States District Court_ Western District Lafayette Di .iiiou Aelile et L. Plaintiffs, tiffs, x'e, t_'ngo Petroleum Corporation, et al.. Defendants.

Case No 2 _C)7CV l 052
Rosenfeld Deposition Jule 2W
Paul f F,o,colel<L. Ph.I).

05-39
Cont

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3363
11942
RTC -1534

Responses to Comments
Response to Comment Letter 05
Care CA
August 20, 2024
05-1 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.
05-2 The comment restates that the MND was circulated for public review from March 11, 2024, though April 9, 2024, and that Care CA has previously submitted comments stating that the MND lacks support for the conclusions and mitigation measures regarding potential impacts related to public health, air quality, energy, and transportation. The comment also states that the HRA does not adequately analyze the significant impacts regarding potential health risks. Additionally, the comment states that the recirculated MND failed to address the previous Care CA comments. Please refer to Comment Letter 02, where the previous Care CA comments were addressed. The Care CA letter and responses will be available for the public review in the Final MND.
05-3 The comment summarizes comments to follow, concluding that the MND does not comply with CEQA and states that an EIR is required. Additionally, the comment indicates that additional comments are included in the comment letter from Jack Meighan and Paul Rosenfeld which require response. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required. The comments from Jack Meighan are addressed in Response to Comments 05-19 through 05-27 and the comments from Paul Rosenfeld are addressed in Response to Comments 05-28 through 05-35.
05-4 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. 05-5 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 05-6 through 05-18.
05-6 The comment summarizes the conclusions from the MND related to construction noise impacts. The comment further states that the NIOSH threshold referenced in the MND does not reflect consideration of the ability for surrounding residence's ability to work from home, relax, or converse from home during construction activities and should not only rely on thresholds that would trigger hearing loss. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-14
05-7 The comment states that the 85 dBA noise construction threshold is not appropriate because it fails to reflect if the project would result generation of an increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, etc. The comment further Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3364
11942
RTC -1535

Responses to Comments
summarizes court cases where the court deemed that there was a need to analyze the magnitude of change in noise level and the use of an absolute noise level. Please refer to Response to Comment 01-14.
05-8 The comment states that the MND's threshold does not analyze both the increase in noise level and the absolute noise level, and an EIR must be prepared. The updated MND analyzes the increase in noise level and shows that the temporary increase in construction noise will be less than the typically - used 20 dBA Leq limit.
05-9 The comment states that project construction activities would result in a significant impact related to construction resources on noise sensitive land uses, specifically the surrounding residences. The comment states that the ambient level at the nearest sensitive receptor is below 60 dBA and therefore an increase of 5dBA in noise would be significant. This comment begins by referencing operational noise standards and comes to its conclusions based on construction noise level predictions.

Construction noise criteria are not the same as operational noise criteria. Operational noise analyses were performed and resulted in showing a less than significant impact. Also, the construction noise analysis has been updated (and included as Appendix E-2) using the FHWA RCNM model (as suggested in the comment) and the calculated results still show a less than significant impact. In any case, construction activities are temporary and are evaluated by different standards. 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. 05-10 The comment states that the MND states that the vibration impacts from jackhammer and trucks would be potentially significant, however, MM-NOI-1 does not apply to jackhammers or trucks and therefore does not mitigate vibration impacts from jackhammers. The construction vibration analyses (included as Appendix E-2) have been updated to include jackhammers, trucks, and vibratory rollers, and MM- NOI-1 has been revised to include those pieces of equipment. Further, the buffer included in MM-NOI- 1 has been increase from 50 feet to 75 feet. 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.
05-11 The comment states that the noise study does not consider the vibration impacts of vibratory rollers, and impacts are potentially significant. The updated construction vibration analyses includes vibratory rollers and is included as Appendix E-2. 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.
05-12 The comment states that the MND does not address or mitigate noise impacts from HVAC systems. The comment status that the assumptions for the operation time per hour is longer, and would result in potentially significant impacts. The author of the noise and vibration study report (Urban Crossroads) states that they have tested many HVAC systems and spoken with many manufacturers about this, and they have concluded that an HVAC unit would fail to function in a year if it were to run at 100 percent all the time. They have empirical measurements on hot days and the typical run time has been found to be 45 minutes or less during daytime hours and 30 minutes or less at night. 05-13 The comment states that the MND does not address noise impacts related to blasting associated with construction of utilities. No blasting is proposed as a part of the project and therefore was not analyzed.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3365
11942
RTC -1536

Responses to Comments
05-14 The comment states that the MND's HRA does not include a sufficient analysis on construction and operation. The comment also summarizes the findings and data from SWAPE, prepared for the project's operational usage concluding that the health risks result in significant impact and recommends the MND should be analyzed and mitigated as an EIR. The data and findings from SWAPE are addressed in Responses to Comments 05-28 through 05-35.
05-15 The comment incorrectly states that the MND does not evaluate the feasibility of obtaining any equipment that would potentially be used as an alternative method under Tier 4. As described in MM- AQ-1, Documentation using industry -standard emission estimation methodologies shall be furnished to the City demonstrating that estimated project -generated construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD cancer risk threshold with the alternate construction method(s). If the documentation demonstrates that project -generated construction emissions will remain below the applicable SCAQMD cancer risk threshold, then the City may approve the alternate construction method(s), at the City's discretion. This analysis would only be required if the project would occur if the project applicant would not be able to use Tier 4 equipment. Further, a performance standard (SCAQMD cancer risk threshold), has been identified in the mitigation measure. 05-16 The comment states that MM-AQ-1 improperly defers mitigation. Please refer to Response to Comment 05-15.
05-17 The comment states that tier 4 equipment has limited availability and the alternative construction methods need to be identified in the IS/MND. The comment further states that MM-AQ-1 fails to identify a specific performance criteria and fails to analyze the combined impacts of TACS during for construction and operational phases.

The need for alternative construction methods would only occur if Tier 4 were not to be available. If this were the case, it is not known the exact mix of construction vehicles that would be available, in which case, MM-AQ-1 relies on the applicable SCAQMD cancer risk threshold. Further, the project would not include any overlap between construction and operation. 05-18 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 02-20 and 05-6 through O5-17, the MND complies with CEQA, and impacts are less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, EIR is not required. 05-19 The comment provides a summary of the project description and provides an introduction to Wilson Ihrig. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.
05-20 The comment provides background information on potential health effects related to noise. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.
05-21 The comment states that all sources generating significant vibration levels were not included in the analysis. Please refer to the Response to Comment for 05-10.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3366
11942
RTC -1537

Responses to Comments
O5-22 The comment states that the construction noise criteria used for the impact analyses are not appropriate. Please refer to the Response to Comment for 01-14.

O5-23 The comment states that vibratory rollers were not considered in the construction vibration analyses.

Please refer to the Response to Comment for 05-10.
05-24 The comment states that the assumptions used for the HVAC system analysis were not appropriate.

Please refer to the Response to Comment for 05-11.

O5-25 The comment includes concluding remarks and reiterates a summary of concerns regarding noise. The comment also states the noise analysis is inaccurate and calls for the MND to re -elevate the noise analysis. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.

O5-26 The comment includes the roadway construction noise model conducted by Jack Meighan. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.

O5-27 The comment includes the resume of Jack Meighan. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required.

O5-28 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.

O5-29 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 02-25 through 02-28 and 05-30 through 05-34.

O5-30 The comment states that the evaluation of potential health risks and conclusion of a less than significant impact is incorrect, and the comment introduces four reasons for this. The detailed reasons are addressed in Responses to Comments 02-25 through 02-27 and 05-31 through 05-33.

O5-31 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. Please refer to Response to Comments 02- 25 where these concerns are addressed.

O5-32 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. Please refer to Response to Comments 02-27 where these concerns are addressed.

O5-33 The comment incorrectly states that the MND does not evaluate the feasibility of obtaining any equipment that would potentially be used as an alternative method under Tier 4. Please refer to Response to comment 05-15.

Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3367
11942
RTC -1538

Responses to Comments
05-34 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

42.4 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 EIR. Please refer to Response to Comments 02-28 where these concerns are addressed. 05-35 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. 05-36 The comment includes HRA Calculation. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required
05-37 The comment includes AERSCREEN output files, The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required 05-38 The comment includes the resume of Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required 05-39 The comment includes the resume of Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. The comment does not identify specific issues with the adequacy of the MND. No further response is required Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3368
11942
RTC -1539

Responses to Comments

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage MND
November 2024
3369
11942
RTC -1540

ATTACHMENT 4

CITY OF RAMC O MIRAGE

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-2898 (760) 324-4511/328-2266

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
To:

State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Chief Deputy County Clerk
3470 12th Street
Riverside, CA 92501
Project Title/Case Nos. Environmental Assessment Case No. EA21-0002, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21- 0001, Development Agreement Amendment Case No. DA21-0002, Major Modification Case No. MOD21- 0004, & Tentative Parcel Map Case Number TPM23-0002 (TPM38768) — Ritz Carlton Rancho Mirage Applicant: Kam Sang Company on behalf of Newage Rancho Mirage LLC/ Ritz Carlton Project Location: The project site (68900 Frank Sinatra Drive) occurs along Frank Sinatra Drive approximately 0.85 miles southwest of the intersection with Highway 111 within the City of Rancho Mirage (APNs: 689-330-026, -028, -031, -032, -034; 689-020-012, -014; & 689-331-001, -018). Project size is 35.07 acres (excluding previously approved Tennis Villas Site 7.96 acres on APN:689-330-011).

Project Description: Consideration to construct the Ritz Carlton residences which is a modification to previously approved entitlements consisting of 106 condo units; event space and room for amenities; subterranean parking structure; and additional residential parking spaces. Additionally, the Sky Mesa recreational area will include a restaurant, additional lawn event space and pool area. As part of the proposed project, a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment is proposed to amend the Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the project's Sky Mesa Recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) on approximately 3.88 acres (APNs: 689-020-012 & 689-020-014). A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM38768) proposes to establish three parcels (excluding Sky Mesa area) with Parcel 3 of the map containing condo units (Ritz Carlton residences). A Major Modification is proposed for modifications to the prior 2006 entitlements by providing updated engineering, architectural, and landscaping plans for review and also includes new development with the Sky Mesa recreational area. Lastly, a 10th Amendment to the existing Development Agreement with Newage Rancho Mirage, LLC (the "10th Amendment") is proposed.

Please note that the proposed project (excluding Sky Mesa) is a modification to the originally approved 2006 project entitlements that included residential villas and condominiums.

Notice of Determination
Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Public Resources Code, Section 21108 or 21152. The City of Rancho Mirage has approved the above described project on and has determined:

1. The project ['will LEI will not have a significant effect/impact on the environment.

2. ❑ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. ® A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

4. Mitigation measures // were ❑ were not made conditions of approval for the project.

5. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan ® was ❑ was not adopted for this project.

6. A Statement of Overriding Considerations ❑ was ® was not adopted for this project.

7. Findings ® were ❑ were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

The City Council adopted the following Finding: The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is to certify that the project file and record of project approval are available to the general public at: City of Rancho Mirage, 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270.

Mitigated Negative Declaration - Rancho Mirage City Council Date:

Ben Torres
Planning Manager
I hereby certify that the City of Rancho Mirage has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the Mitigated Negative Declaration and hearing record the project will not have a sip f iT7f0t on the environment.

Date:

Ben Torres
® Lead Agency ❑ Responsible Agency Planning Manager
3371

ATTACHMENT 6
ff;2 CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2025 - 2:00 P.M.

MINUTES
Meeting Location:

City of Rancho Mirage
City Hall - Council Chamber
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CALL TO ORDER - 2:01 P.M.
a) Flag Salute: Led by Commissioner Curran.
b) Roll Call: Bryant, Curran, Grey, Vice Chair Chanter, Chair Agostini — All Present.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Grey noted the flags were at half-mast to honor former President Jimmy Carter. He also addressed the fires in Los Angeles County and shared a personal story about a coworker who evacuated and lost his home.

Vice Chair Chanter shared her experience with the 2017 Tubbs fire in Northern California, where over 5,000 homes were lost. She emphasized the importance of community support during such difficult times. She also thanked City staff for their hard work in preparing the meeting, noting the time spent reviewing the agenda.

Chair Agostini echoed the previous remarks and expressed appreciation for staff's efforts in preparing the presentation. He thanked everyone for their time and extended a warm welcome to the year 2025. He also shared his heartfelt sympathy for all the families and victims affected by the fires.

Commissioner Bryant commented that he supported the City Council's decision to adopt abbreviated minutes for meetings and noted that full meeting videos would be available online 24/7.

Commissioner Bryant explained that Planning Commission members volunteered their time and faced significant preparation with today's agenda including 4,000 to 4,500 pages. He thanked staff for their support and emphasized the Commissioners' shared goal of improving the quality of life for residents and fostering a vibrant business community.

NON -AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following individual provided non -agenda public comments: Brad Anderson.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 12, 2024, Regular Meeting.

MOVED/SECONDED BY GREY/CHANTER TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 12, 2024, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED 5/0. 01/09/2025 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Milt
72

ACTION ITEM

1. Periodic Review of Development Agreements: Rancho Mirage Self Storage, Westin Vacation Club, Makena (Stonebridge), Del Webb, Ferrari, The Residences at Rancho Mirage Country Club, Section 31 Specific Plan, In -N -Out Burger, Tentative Tract Map 36620, Porcupine Wellness Center, Rancho Mirage Auto Center, Eisenhower MCA, and Desert Island Hotel.

Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney provided a brief summary of development agreements.

Lezlee Perez, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.

The following individuals provided public comments: Mark Coons, Rob Kovacs, Mike Massoodnia, and Tim Adams.

A discussion ensued.

MOVED/SECONDED BY GREY/CURRAN TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND

THAT THE SUBJECT DEVELOPERS AND/OR PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CURRENTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS: RANCHO MIRAGE SELF STORAGE, WESTIN VACATION

CLUB, MAKENA (STONEBRIDGE), DEL WEBB, FERRARI, THE RESIDENCES AT RANCHO MIRAGE COUNTRY CLUB, SECTION 31 SPECIFIC PLAN, IN -N -OUT BURGER, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36620, PORCUPINE WELLNESS CENTER, RANCHO MIRAGE AUTO CENTER, EISENHOWER MCA, AND DESERT ISLAND HOTEL.

MOTION CARRIED 5/0.

PUBLIC HEARING

2. Priviere Villas - Environmental Assessment Case No. EA24-0001; General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA24-0001; Tentative Tract Map Case No. TTM24-0001 (TTM38868); and Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP24-0001. Applicant: MSA Consulting, Inc. on behalf of Palm Coast Modular. Consideration of a residential community, consisting of 28 residential lots, accessory dwelling units, and associated improvements such as retention areas, paved drive aisles, and two points of access. The 10.08 -acre project site currently consists of vacant undeveloped land located east of Via Josefina and south of Ginger Rogers Road. The primary access point will be on Via Josefina. The project includes a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment to amend the project General Plan and Zoning designation from Very Low Density (R -L-2) and Medium Density Residential (R -M) designations to Low Density Residential 3 du/ac max. (R -L-3). APNs: 685-100-007 & 685-110-017.

A. Consider the recommendation for the Planning Commission to adopt Resolution No. 2025 - PC -(Next -in -Order), that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2025 -(Next -in -Order) approving and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2024101279) for the Proposed Project based on Environmental Assessment Case No. EA24-0001.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2025 -(Next -in -Order) approving General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA24-0001), to change the underlying zoning designation of the 01/09/2025 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Milt
73

Subject Property from Very Low Density (R -L-2) and Medium Density Residential (R -M) designations to Low Density Residential 3 du/ac max. (R -L-3), Tentative Tract Map No.

TTM24-0001 (TTM38868), and Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP24-0001.

Pilar Flotterud, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.

Christopher Brizuela from MSA Consulting, Inc. and Adam Nester, CEO of Palm Coast Modular, made a presentation.

A discussion ensued.

No public testimony was provided.

MOVED/SECONDED BY CHANTER/GREY TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2025 -PC -(NEXT -IN ORDER) RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:

1. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2025 -(NEXT -IN -ORDER) APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH#2024101279) FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CASE NO. EA24-0001.

2. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2025 -(NEXT -IN -ORDER) APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (GPZMA24-0001), TO CHANGE THE UNDERLYING ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM VERY LOW DENSITY (R -L-2) AND

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R -M) DESIGNATIONS TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 3 DU/AC MAX. (R -L-3), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TTM24-0001 (TTM38868), AND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE NO. PDP24-0001.

MOTION CARRIED 5/0.

3. Ritz Carlton Rancho Mirage — Environmental Assessment Case No. EA21-0002, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21-0001, Development Agreement Amendment Case No. DA21 0002, Major Modification Case No. MOD21-0004, & Tentative Parcel Map Case Number TPM23-0002 (TPM38768). Applicant: Kam Sang Company on behalf of Newage Rancho Mirage LLC/ Ritz Carlton. Consideration to construct the Ritz Carlton residences which is a modification to previously approved entitlements consisting of 106 condo units; event space and room for amenities; subterranean parking structure; and additional residential parking spaces. Additionally, the Sky Mesa recreational area will include a restaurant, additional lawn event space and pool area. As part of the proposed project, a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment is proposed to amend the Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the project's Sky Mesa Recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) on approximately 3.88 acres (APNs: 689-020-012 & 689-020-014). A Tentative Parcel Map (TPM38768) proposes to establish three parcels (excluding Sky Mesa area) with Parcel 3 of the map containing condo units (Ritz Carlton residences). A Major Modification is proposed for modifications to the prior 2006 entitlements by providing updated engineering, architectural, and landscaping plans for review and also includes new development with the Sky Mesa recreational area. Lastly, a 10th Amendment to the existing Development Agreement with Newage Rancho Mirage, LLC (the "10th Amendment") is proposed. Please note that the proposed project (excluding Sky Mesa) is a modification to the originally approved 2006 project entitlements that included residential villas and condominiums. The 35.07acre project site (68900 Frank Sinatra Drive) occurs along Frank Sinatra Drive approximately 0.85 miles southwest of the intersection with Highway 111 within 01/09/2025 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Milt
74

the City of Rancho Mirage (APNs: 689-330-026, -028, -031, -032, -034; 689-020-012, -014; & 689-331-001, -018).

A. Consider the recommendation for the Planning Commission to adopt Resolution No. 2025 - PC -(Next -in -Order), that the City Council take the following actions:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2025 -(Next -in -Order), approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2024030267) for the Proposed Project based on Environmental Assessment Case No. EA21-0002.

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2025 -(Next -in -Order), approving General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA21-0001), Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM23-0002, & Major Modification Case No. MOD21-0004.

3. Introduce and adopt Ordinance (Next -In -Order), approving Development Agreement Amendment (DA21-0002).

Ben Torres, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.

The following individuals provided public testimony: Louie Lopez, John Sisley, Rob Ramos, Zack Cohoon, Joseph Barrera, Josh Gastelum, Omar Cobian, Zach Strasters, Aidan Marshall, and Kramer Kristin Greenwood.

A discussion ensued.

MOVED/SECONDED BY GREY/CHANTER TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO THE 02/27/2025 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION FAILED 2/3.

MOVED/SECONDED BY CURRAN/BRYANT TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2025 -PC -(NEXT IN ORDER) RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:

1. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2025 -(NEXT -IN -ORDER), APPROVING THE MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH# 2024030267) FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CASE NO. EA21-0002.

2. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2025 -(NEXT -IN -ORDER), APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (GPZMA21-0001), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP CASE NO.

TPM23-0002, & MAJOR MODIFICATION CASE NO. MOD21-0004.

3. INTRODUCE AND ADOPT ORDINANCE (NEXT -IN -ORDER), APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (DA21-0002).

MOTION CARRIED 4/1 WITH COMMISSIONER GREY ABSTAINED.

ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to consider, the Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 4:47 P.M.

Prepared by: Deanna Mendoza, Development Services Technician Date Approved by Planning Commission: 2/13/2025
01/09/2025 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Mi

ATTACHMENT 7
ff;,2 CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2023
12:30 P.M.

MINUTES
City of Rancho Mirage
City Hall — Council Chambers
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CALL TO ORDER - 12:30 P.M.

RoII CaII: Doczi, Greenwood, Lockyer, Milander, O'Donnell, Patel, and Sanborn.

Doczi, Greenwood, Milander, O'Donnell, Patel, and Sanborn — Present Lockyer — Absent
Ben Torres, Planning Manager, informed the board that Board Member Lockyer will be resigning from the Architectural Review Board effective March 1, 2023.

MOVED/SECONDED BY GREENWOOD/O'DONNELL TO EXCUSE BOARD MEMBER LOCKYER'S ABSENCE. MOTION CARRIED 6/0.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 23, 2023
MOVED/SECONDED BY GREENWOOD/MILANDER TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 23, 2023 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

MOTION CARRIED 6/0.

ACTION ITEM

1. Review and recommend to the City Council the Architectural Review Board annual report for 2022.

Ben Torres, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.

Public comment: - None.

MOVED/SECONDED BY GREENWOOD/PATEL TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE AND FILE THE 2022 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD REPORT. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN AND MOTION CARRIED 6/0.
2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Merrgs

DISCUSSION ITEM

2. Environmental Assessment Case No. EA22-0012, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA22-0002, Specific Plan Amendment Case No. SPA22- 0002, Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM22-0004, Development Agreement Case No.

DA22-0003, and Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP22-0001 — Desert Island Hotel. The Desert Island Specific Plan Amendment will occupy 17.2 acres within the existing Desert Island development. A General Plan/Zoning Map Amendment is to amend the underlying designation of Private Open Space (OS/PV) to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) for 10.5 acres of the existing Desert Island golf course for the development of a new 42 -key boutique hotel and 11 private hotel residences along with passive outdoor gathering areas, tennis, pool, cafe, and yoga amenities. A new golf training park and new maintenance building will be built to replace the existing driving range and old maintenance building being displaced by the hotel project. Located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Island Drive on a portion of the Desert Island golf course (APNs:688-040-001; 688-050-002; -005; 688-060-008; - 023) Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.

Chair O'Donnell opened the meeting to board questions for staff.

Board Member Greenwood asked what the relationship with the HOA is? What is the oversight that Desert Island Homeowner's Association has and what review has happened? Ms. Lopez stated that the project has received HOA approval, which is on file with the Planning Division and the applicant and team have met with the residents of the community.

Board Member Greenwood commented on the roofing component of the two-story building and expressed his concerns. He asked for confirmation that the existing Clubhouse will not service or provided any function to the hotel.

Ms. Lopez stated that the applicant has expressed that clubhouse staff would be crossed trained.

Board Member Greenwood asked in what ways would the clubhouse staff assist the hotel functions.

Ms. Lopez deferred the operational question to the applicant.

Chair O'Donnell asked if any other board member had further questions for staff.

Board Member Doczi asked about the access gate and when it would be open.

Ms. Lopez explained the main gate would remain open during the hotel's operation.

Board Member Doczi, asked for an elaboration the hotel entrance, circulation, path of travel, and turnaround point.

Ms. Lopez deferred to the applicant.

Chair O'Donnell asked the applicant to make a presentation on the revised project. 2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Mear3l`�7es

Paul Depalatis, the applicant's representative, further clarified the comments made earlier and deferred to the project architect regarding the architectural questions. Mr. Depalatis further explained the project components and their proposed location and the changes that had been made to the project with highlighted details.

James Myer, the project architect, answered the board members' questions and explained the design philosophy is for minimalistic architecture. The intent is to maximize the open space and landscaping he emphasized that the residences and hotel be densified to maximize the natural landscaping. He stated that they have not contracted a mechanical engineer but would internalize everything to try to have a minimal footprint.

Chair O'Donnell asked if any other board member had any other questions of the applicant? Board Member Doczi asked how the pool area's fencing would be proposed.

Mark Lenning, the project landscape architect, explained the design of the pool area.

Majna Dukic, Development Services Director, added that the project would have to comply with all safety codes for both the commercial and residential pools.

Chair O'Donnell asked if anyone else had questions for the applicant.

Board Member Greenwood commented that the site is a commercial development that would need to comply with ADA standards and asked for clarification on how these standards are being met.

Mr. Myers explained the ADA design and mechanical plan design.

Ms. Dukic added that if that is something that the board is concerned about, the board can direct staff to ensure that all mechanical equipment is screened with the final development plan if the project is approved. If there are changes that go outside of the approved boundaries, then either a minor modification or a major modification application would be required.

Mr. Myers addressed the mechanical concerns. He also explained the reasoning behind the vision and articulation of the project design. He discussed the different material types such as wood, stone, and color elements.

Board Member Greenwood asked about the operations, support functions, and programmatic functions of the hotel.

Mr. Myers explained the concept of the support functions.

Board Member Doczi asked applicant to explain the landscape areas between the Grand Aisle parking area and the hotel entrances.

Mr. Lenning, project landscape architect described his team's approach to the landscaping design.

Chair O'Donnell asked the architect about the parking. He asked if Mr. Myers had tried working on different design overlay to move the Grand Aisle parking to a different location in order to create a pedestrian -oriented instead of vehicle -oriented design. 2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me l`e4as

Mr. Myers explained that the concept of the grand isle and it was meant to celebrate the concept.

Chair O'Donnell commented he is struggling that this could be a landscape court and layers of landscape elements and summarized his concerns regarding the drive aisle design.

Miguel Nelson, project applicant and owner, described the hotel's open space and how it enhances of the quality of this area.

Chair O'Donnell opened the meeting to board discussion.

Board Member Milander asked the is the next process for the project.

Ms. Lopez answered there are three options. Option 1, the project can be recommended approval by the ARB as is and go to the Planning Commission, option 2 the project can be recommended approval by the ARB with conditions of approval that have to be met before the FDP is approved and then go to the Planning Commission with those conditions, or option 3, the project comes back to the ARB for further review.

Board Member Milander asked if the FDP would come in front of the board.

Ms. Lopez answered no, the FDP is approved at staff level.

Mr. Torres answered for clarification the FDP is the full construction submittal. Planning staff reviews it for conformance of the final approved plans and also final conditions of approval to confirm that all conditions are being responded to as well.

Board Member Doczi said that the project is seeking six entitlements: General Plan Zoning Map Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Parcel Map, Development Agreement Case, and Preliminary Development Plan, and asked for clarification on what the ARB was reviewing and approving.

Ms. Lopez asked if the board is hoping to move this forward but come back to review site plan and landscape plan.

Board Member Milander clarified that Board Member Doczi would like to approve the entitlements without approving the design of the project.

Ms. Lopez clarified that at this point what is being approved by the ARB is the Specific Plan Amendment and the Preliminary Development Plan.

Board Member Milander summarized his comments and questions. He feels that they learned nothing new from the previous meeting except for the location of the mechanical units.

Chair O'Donnell clarified the board and Planning Commission's role. He stated that project can stand on its own and the details would be worked out.

Board Milander questioned the functions that are missing to fully analyze the project.

Vice Chair Patel concurred with Chair O'Donnell.
2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me rugs

Board Member Doczi added his comments and questions.

Board Member Milander added his comments and questions.

Chair O'Donnell asked if Doczi can put his comments into a motion.

Ms. Lopez asked board members to list out the concerns for the applicant can respond to the questions and comments.

Board Milander stated that the board had previously provided a list of concerns to be addressed and they weren't addressed.

Ms. Lopez asked if give the board would like the applicant to revisit the list and provided a revised project.

Board Member Greenwood commend the applicant for what they are doing there, but noted that this project was headed to a continuance. He stated that there is a lot that still needs to be determined from a program standpoint, the construction methodology has to be a blend and take into account the consistency. This type of methodology is taking precedence over trying to blend in a mixing of additional architecture. He expressed interest in seeing a restudy of the two-story building of bring it closer to the design of the one-story residence units. He said he would be supportive of a continuance of the project and a restudy of elements of that nature.

Public comment: - None.

Chair O'Donnell asked Board Member Greenwood to state a motion.

Board Member Milander asked the question of continuance versus just denying the project.

Chair O'Donnell confirmed that we are asking for a restudy.

Board Member Greenwood concurred with asking for a restudy.

Board Member Greenwood mentioned he would like to see a continuance of the project.

Chair O'Donnell add that it is a consensus that the board would restudy the project.

MOVED/SECONDED BY GREENWOOD/PATEL TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PROJECT BE

CONTINUED TO A DATE TO BE DETERMINED BY STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO RESTUDY BASED ON THE BOARD COMMENTS. MOTION CARRIED 5/1

3. Environmental Assessment Case No. EA22-0018, Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP22-0004, and Street Name Change Case No. STN22-0001 — Linea. Applicant:

Prest Vuksic Greenwood Architects for Linea Rancho Mirage, LLC. Consideration to construct 9 single-family residences on 4.63 acres of vacant land on the southern half of Tract Map No. 35089 between Ginger Rogers Road and Via Florencia. The project consists of 3 house concepts and range in size from 4,870 to 5,688 square feet. This project includes a request to change the current street name of Bellavia Court South to Via Linea. (APNs:
685-351-001 through -016).

Note: Board Member Greenwood recused himself from Discussion Item 3. 2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me yr s

Joy Tsai, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.

Chair O'Donnell opened the meeting to board questions for staff.

Board Member Milander inquired about how the subdivision and grading plans were approved and completed without Architectural Review Board review.

Ms. Tsai clarified the project site's history: The tentative tract map was approved in 2008 and the map was extended throughout the years through automatic time extensions from the state.

The final map was recorded in 2018. She further stated that subdivision improvements are required as a part of the subdivision process.

Board Member Milander asked why the residential rear yards are not a part of the project and as a part of their review.

Ms. Tsai explained that as the project is a small tract home development, landscape plans for the rear yard are not required and that only the front yard landscape plans are required.

Board Member Milander asked whether the street name change will affect both private streets in the subdivision or not.

Ms. Tsai responded that the street name change request is only applicable for the south side of the Ginger Rogers Road and that the north and south half of the subdivision have different property owners. The project property owner requested to change the private street name in order to differentiate their project.

Vice Chair Patel commented that the project is well thought off and very articulated architecture as well as the layout of the plans over simple architecture that works very well.

Board Member Sanborn inquired about the reason why the project is being presented to the ARB if they are only proposing single-family residences.

Mr. Torres replied that the project is being presented to the ARB because the applicant submitted a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) application for home designs for the subdivision. If the applicant were to submit applications for single-family residences under Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), then the residences would be reviewed at the ministerial level.

Chair O'Donnell asked about the side -loading garages and pointed out that there is only one lot that proposed a side -loading garage. He asked staff to confirm whether the City's zoning ordinance allows a reduction of front yard setback for a side -loading garage.

Ms. Tsai answered in the affirmative to Chair O'Donnell's question.

Chair O'Donnell asked the applicant to make a quick presentation.

Andrew Adler, applicant, presented the proposed project and addressed the board members' questions.

Chair O'Donnell asked if any other board member had questions for the applicant. 2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me ies

Board Member Milander expressed his concern about water usage.

Mr. Adler elaborated the landscape design intent for the project and the CC&R's that will be in place.

Board Member Sanborn asked about placement of the solar panels and vents.

Mr. Adler answered member Sanborn's questions and concerns.

Chair O'Donnell expressed concerns about prevailing wind and solar orientation and the layout of the homes. He recommended that the applicant re -study the floor plans of the homes based on prevailing wind and solar orientation. He pointed out that this community will be a community with a garage -dominate facade. He asked if there was a way to allow reductions in setbacks with a side -loading garage to improve the community's curb appeal.

Mr. Torres replied that side -loading garages may be set back a minimum of fifteen feet from the front property line and that the building setback line for the front is twenty-five feet for the Very Low Density Residential (R -L-2) zoning district.

Chair O'Donnell asked if a minor modification or variance could help reduce the building setback requirement another twenty five percent.

Mr. Torres responded that the director may grant a minor variance, up to a maximum of ten percent of the standards being modified, if certain findings can be made.

Public comment: - None.

Board Member Milander added if it was possible to add provisions to prohibit live turf.

Mr. Torres added that municipal code permits no more than 10% of landscape to be water intensive uses for all development projects.

Ms. Tsai clarified that the City's landscape standards are already incorporated as a standard condition of approval for all projects and that the City's landscape standards provide that only ten percent of the total landscaped area (in addition to turfed area) is allowed to be non -drought tolerant species.

MOVED/SECONDED BY MILANDER/SANBORN TO RECOMMEND THE PROJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS PRESENTED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN AND THE MOTION CARRIED 5/0 WITH BOARD MEMBER GREENWOOD RECUSED.

Note: Board took a five-minute break.

4. Environmental Assessment Case No. EA22-0014, Development Agreement Case No.

DA22-0002, and Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP22-0002 — Eisenhower Medical Center Memory Care, Child Care, and Administration Building. Applicant: Prest Vuksic Greenwood Architects for Eisenhower Health. Consideration to construct three single story buildings on 4.31 acres. The buildings will consist of 19,890 square feet for a memory care center, 17,116 square feet for childcare center, and 37,724 for an administration office.

Located at the southeast corner of Country Club Drive and Wilshire Palm Drive. (APN: 682- 010-021).
2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me Ir [' 2s L

Ben Torres, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.

Note: Board Member Greenwood recused himself from Discussion Item 4.

Chair O'Donnell opened the meeting to board questions for staff.

Board Member Milander asked if staff could go over existing zoning, and what is being proposed to change.

Mr. Torres clarified they are not changing the zone. The zoning for this site is Public/Quasi- Public zone.

Board Member Milander asked, what is the height of the parking lot lighting? Mr. Torres explained that the height of the light poles is 16 feet 6 inches excluding the base.

Board Member Sanborn inquired if the applicant had any meeting with the neighboring community to over the site plan development and landscape.

Mr. Torres mentioned that the applicant can respond to that question.

Chair O'Donnell questioned the day care vehicular traffic and intensity.

Mr. Torres explained that Mr. Ali Tourkaman, Eisenhower representative can better explain the hospitals staff schedule.

Chair O'Donnell asked the applicant to make a quick presentation.

Nicole Williams, project representative addressed the Board Members traffic questions and concerns.

Mr. Tourkaman elaborated on Eisenhower staff schedules.

Chair O'Donnell asked about the day lighting sources.

Ms. Williams answered that they are providing daylight into multiple spaces.

Chair O'Donnell asked the applicant to make a quick presentation.

Vice Chair Patel, made a positive comment about the projects design.

Public comment: - None.

Board Member Milander expressed his concerns about the neighbors to the east and the lighting in the parking lot. He inquired if there was something that the applicant can do to improve the lighting for the neighbors to the east.

Mr. Torres answered Board Member Milander's questions. He added how staff will notify the neighbors making them aware of the project and giving them an opportunity to submit public comments or attend future public hearings.
2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me s

Chair O'Donnell ask Board Member Doczi for his opinion on the landscape edge. He also questioned if covered parking with downward lighting should be encouraged.

Board Member Doczi went through several areas of the projects as part of the discussion.

Mr. Tourkaman addressed the lighting and the noise concerns.

Chair O'Donnell asked if engineering had taken a look at this project and made any proposing changing the median so that someone can make a u turn.

Mr. Torres mentioned engineering made recommendations/comments and staff provided this to the applicant. At that time the applicant wanted to move forward with their own driveway approach.

Ms. Dukic clarified that shared drive would require a consent from the property owner.

Chair O'Donnell inquired about the vacant property on the west and if there have been plans to acquire that property.

Mr. Tourkaman confirmed that they looked into that property and the property is not available.

Board Member Sanborn added his comments and questions.

Board Member Milander summarized his concerns about the parking lot lighting and would like to make it a condition that it operate until 6 pm and then minimal low site lighting for non- operational hours.

MOVED/SECOND BY PATEL/SANDBORN TO RECOMMEND THE PROJECT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE LIGHTING CONDITION. MOTION CARRIED 4/1 WITH BOAD MEMBER GREENWOOD RECUSED.

5. Environmental Assessment Case No. EA21-0002, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21-0001, Development Agreement Amendment Case No.

DA21-0002, and Major Modification Case No. MOD21-0004 — The Ritz -Carlton Phase II Expansion. Applicant: Kam Sang Company for Newage Rancho Mirage LLC/ Ritz Carlton.

Consideration to construct the Ritz Carlton residences consisting of 106 units ranging in size from 1 to 3 bedrooms, 23,840 square feet of event space, 6,273 square feet of restaurant, 5,510 square feet for amenities, a 381 -space subterranean parking structure, and other recreational amenities on a 35.01 -acre project site which includes the existing hotel. A General Plan/Zoning Map Amendment is also proposed to amend the Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the projects Sky Mesa Recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs -H). Located at 69800 Frank Sinatra Drive. (APNs: 689-330-026; -028; -032; -034; 689-020-012; -014; 689- 331-001; -018).

Ben Torres, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.

MEMBER PATEL LEFT THE MEETING AT 3:25PM
Chair O'Donnell opened the meeting to board questions for staff. 2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me t2ts

Board Member Milander inquired about the prior zoning of Sky Masa area.

Mr. Torres answered that a portion of the Sky Mesa area is currently zoned Mountain Reserve.

He mentioned in order for this area to allow restaurant and other uses they are proposing a change of zone to Resort Hotel.

Board Member Milander expressed his comments and concerns.

Ms. Dukic clarified that the current owners purchased the property a few years ago prior to that, the project had other ownership.

Board Member Milander inquired about the City's rules about the retaining walls and the max heights.

Mr. Torres, answered we typically take into consideration the height from the highest adjacent grade.

Ms. Dukic added that our standard municipal code maximum is 6 ft, unless proposed with a Preliminary Development Plan.

Board Member Sanborn asked if the project would be seen from Highway 111.

Mr. Torres, answered that you shouldn't be able to see this from Highway 111. Overall, it is going to be a two story product but we have the existing hotel that will be more visible along Highway 111, the residence portion of the project will be at the back of property.

Ms. Dukic added that concern was a part of their initial design in our preliminary conversations, and they did pay attention to what would be visible from Highway 111 and that would be the Sky Mesa portion.

Board Member Greenwood asked if the applicant shared their goals for the development schedule.

Mr. Torres will defer that question to the applicant to answer.

Board Member Greenwood added his comments and questions.

Mr. Torres explained the project design and location where the services will be handled.

Board Member Milander inquired the grading numbers.

Mr. Torres referred the board to the Preliminary Grading Plan and asked the applicant to further elaborate.

Board Member Sanborn asked if there is a sheet that shows the retaining wall system.

Mr. Torres referred the board to the grading plan and exhibit sheet 15-15 that provided the information.

Chair O'Donnell asked what interactions the applicant had with the Mirada. He also inquired what was previously proposed on the site.
2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me s

Mr. Torres explained that a project was proposed around 2007, but that project was never built.

Chair O'Donnell asked if this was a less intensive project then what was previously proposed.

Mr. Torres responded that the previous project prepared an Environmental Impact Report and for this project a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.

Ms. Dukic added the units counts might have been somewhat similar and the Sky Mesa portion is the one thing that is unique and new to this consideration.

Chair O'Donnell asked the applicant to make a brief presentation.

Everardo Garcia, project Architect presented the proposed project and addressed the concerns brought up.

John Hicks, applicant representative presented and further elaborated on the project. He addressed and discussed the landscaping and retaining wall concerns.

Chair O'Donnell asked the applicant to provide their project presentation. He would like to see more on operations of exiting hotel. Will the hotel continue to allow the residents of Mirada to utilize some of the amenities of the hotel.

Mr. Hicks explained the operation and services of the hotel and how they will still continue have amenities available for the residents.

Board Member Milander expressed his comments and concerns about the retaining walls and the disturbance of the landscape.

Mr. Hicks answered that rock formation will remain intact. That is a primary feature, and everyone agrees to that. He explained concept of the geo wall retaining system.

Board Member Milander expressed his concerned about the noise of the mechanical units.

Mr. Hicks discussed the mechanical equipment.

Ms. Dukic added that the applicant had a noise study conducted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.

Mr. Torres confirmed that a noise study had been conducted and noise level were determined to be less then significant.

Board Member Milander asked if an Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the previous development.

Ms. Dukic confirmed that the previous project did a full EIR. For this project we worked off analysis done there and expanded to adjust to the project as well.

Board Member Milander asked if the lawn area will be grass.

Mr. Hicks responded it will be synthetic turf and perimeter landscaping will be desert themed. 2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me 6s

Board Member Greenwood asked if the Sky Mesa restaurant will replace the Edge.

Mr. Hicks responded that both restaurants would remain operational.

Chair O'Donnell asked the applicant questions about the roofs and the designs.

Board Member Greenwood added to the roof discussion.

Board Member Milander asked about the ramping walkway to the Sky Mesa restaurant.

Mr. Hicks responded they have conducted an extensive grading plan for the project as a part of this submittal. He stated that they worked with a civil engineer that has been involved through the entire time.

Board Member Milander would like to see more information to be able to vote for approval. He mentioned his concerns about grading and would like visuals.

Chair O'Donnell, asked about vehicle circulation.

Mr. Hicks explained the concern about vehicle circulation.

Board Members Milander and Greenwood added questions about the vehicle circulation.

Board Member Milander asked staff if there a point in the project where story poles are installed.

Ms. Dukic added that is not a standard requirement that is asked for all applicants. She mentioned if it was something that the board would like to see, the applicant can respond to the request.

Board Member Greenwood added his comments and questions.

Board Member Milander added his comments and questions.

Chair O'Donnell added his comments and questions.

Board Member Sanborn summarized his concerns regarding the hotel's landscape design.

Ms. Dukic clarified that the hotel requires a 50 ft setback due to the Resort Hotel zone and it is a greater setback then other zoning standards within the City.

Board Member Greenwood added his comments and questions.

Public comment: - None.

Chair O'Donnell add that it is a consensus that the board would like to see more information and asked for a motion. He directed staff to summarize the comments provided.

Mr. Torres summarized the boards comments:
2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me 7es
r

1. Provide renderings and line of sight exhibits from viewpoints along Highway 111 and from Mirada to the project.

2. Provide a construction section of the walkway within Sky Mesa.

3. Provide more details and construction information on the geo-mesh retaining walls.

4. Provide more information on the Sky Mesa buildings, including mechanical equipment and how the building will be constructed into the mountain.

5. Look into the landscaping to see if fewer plantings are possible and scale the landscape symbols.

6. Provide cut/fill information on the grading plans.

7. Install story polls on the property for buildings B-5, B-6, B-7, B-9, B-12, & B-14.

MOVED/SECONDED BY MILANDER/GREENWOOD TO RESTUDY THE PROJECT BASED ON THE BOARD COMMENTS. MOTION CARRIED 5/0

ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to consider the Architectural Review Board adjourned the meeting at 4:41 p.m.

Prepared by: Deanna Mendoza, Development Services Technician Date Approved by Architectural Review Board: 3/27/2023
2/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Mer3 gs

[K. CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2023
12:30 P.M.

MINUTES
City of Rancho Mirage
City Hall — Council Chambers
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CALL TO ORDER — 12:30 P.M.

Roll Call: Doczi, Greenwood, Milander, O'Donnell, Patel, and Sanborn.

Greenwood, Milander, O'Donnell, Patel, and Sanborn — Present Doczi— Absent

MOVED/SECONDED BY O'DONNELL/GREENWOOD TO EXCUSE BOARD MEMBER DOCZI'S ABSENCE. MOTION CARRIED 5/0.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 27, 2023 & March 13, 2023 MOVED/SECONDED BY MILANDER/GREENWOOD TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 27, 2023, AND THE MARCH 13, 2023, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 5/0.

DISCUSSION ITEM

1. Environmental Assessment Case No. EA21-0002, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21-0001, Development Agreement Amendment Case No.

DA21-0002, and Major Modification Case No. MOD21-0004 — The Ritz -Carlton Phase II Expansion. Applicant: Kam Sang Company for Newage Rancho Mirage LLC/ Ritz Carlton.

Consideration to construct the Ritz Carlton residences consisting of 106 units ranging in size from 1 to 3 bedrooms, 23,843 square feet of event space, 6,273 square feet of restaurant, 5,513 square feet for amenities, a 381 -space subterranean parking structure, and other recreational amenities on a 35.07 -acre project site which includes the existing hotel. A General Plan/Zoning Map Amendment is also proposed to amend the Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the projects Sky Mesa Recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs -H).

Located at 69800 Frank Sinatra Drive. (APNs: 689-330-026; -028; -031; -032; -034; 689- 020-012; -014; 689-331-001; -018).

Ben Torres, Planning Manager, presented an overview of the project.

Chair O'Donnell opened the meeting to board questions for Staff. 3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board M
3

Board Member Greenwood asked if a line -of -sight perspective was taken from Highway 111 and about the project's visibility.

Mr. Torres answered that the only line of sight perspective was the one that was provided from the Quick Quack Car Wash along Highway 111. He added that given the location of the project site the existing hotel would shield the new development from being visible along Highway 111.

Majna Dukic, Development Services Director added that a visual analysis was conducted as part of the projects Mitigated Negative Declaration, and no significant impacts are expected.

Board Member Milander asked about the amount of site grading.

Mr. Torres added that the applicant's team is working on the grading calculations.

Chair O'Donnell asked the applicant to make a quick presentation.

Everardo Garcia, project architect described the Sky Mesa walkway, detailed that it would be supported by columns, and elaborated on ADA access. He also described the geo-mesh retaining walls naturalistic appearance. Mr. Garcia also elaborated on the Sky Mesa restaurant design concept and provided details on the mechanical equipment. He also addressed the prior comments regarding the landscaping and explained their concept of making it more naturalistic, reducing the plantings and using appropriate sized plants.

Board Member Greenwood asked about the conceptual cut sections for the retaining wall on the grading plan. He mentioned that the plans are showing single line profiles and that only there doesn't appear to be a lot of space to create a tiered effect.

Mr. Garcia mentioned a couple of ways on how they can install the walls.

Board Member Greenwood added that he thinks the wall proposal makes sense. He brought up the benefits of adding scrubbers to the mechanical design of the restaurant.

Chair O'Donnell commented on the Sky Mesa walkway renderings regarding the number of columns and asked about the ability to pull it back 20 or 30 feet.

John Hicks, Applicant added there might be an opportunity to maybe change its orientation but mentioned the walkway was calculated on maximum ADA heights, slopes, and cross slopes.

Chair O'Donnell added this is a typical design challenge as the various design schemes are reviewed and try to make it accessible. He mentioned the walkway needs to be studied more in depth.

Vice Chair Patel commented that there is a potential for the Sky Mesa walkway supports to be an asset to the design.

Board Member Milander discussed the retaining walls and focused on the areas where there is a 20 foot vertical element and had questions regarding landscaping.

Mr. Hicks answered that vertical planting of materials grow up by a creeping and mentioned various types of landscaping that will grow out of the edge of the slope. ' 3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me s Page 2 of 9

Board Member Milander, added that one of the things that he had been wondering about was the prior project didn't seem to have large retaining wall. He brought up the differences between having two access point or a looped road.

Mr. Hicks answered when this project was put together there were discussions as to what would be expanded, parking needs, and the buildings function.

Board Member Milander inquired about a split-level development and the projects cut and fill numbers.

Mr. Hicks added that the amount of earth movement would go up exponentially in a split level design. He mentioned the amount of effort that goes into doing a cut and fill diagram by summarizing the sets and mentioned it is in process.

Board Member Milander asked questions about the Sky Mesa area regarding slopes and ADA access.

Mr. Hicks explained the grade transition at the restaurant level, detailed the grade changes, and explained how they tried to minimize the projects footprint.

Public comment:

Omar Cobian, member and representative for the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Union, discussed the benefits of hiring local contractors and also utilizing apprenticeship from state certified apprenticeship program.

Chair O'Donnell opened the meeting to Board discussion.

Board Member Milander mentioned some of the project details could be further elaborated like the retaining wall height and the verticality of that next to adjacent residences.

Majna Dukic, Development Services Director, suggested that staff can bring up the wall issues as part of our Planning Commission agenda packet and review as well as City Council.

Board Member Milander provided comments on the Sky Mesa walkway ground disturbance.

He mentioned removal of this feature from the project and the applicants can come back and present it again in another format or take it out completely in lieu of another type of ramp. He added that he it is just a massive grading project. Lastly, he mentioned that he would like to see the restaurant building developed and provided comments on the accordion door system.

Chair O'Donnell asked Board Member Sanborn about the project's grades.

Board Member Sanborn answered he agrees with the other Board Members with the comments brought up regarding the depth of the stepped wall. He mentioned grading calculations are very complex, and he agrees there's probably a little more elegant way to accommodate ADA access.

Board Member Greenwood mentioned he likes visiting the hotel and Ritz -Carlton is a first-class organization. He explained he understands what the applicant is trying to do with the retaining 3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board M
3 es Page 3 of 9

walls to create depth and a more natural aesthetic but it requires further development in the form of a condition.

Mr. Torres elaborated on the entitlement process with the Planning Commission and City Council. He mentioned one of the standard project conditions is that projects must submit a Final Development Plan and this is when Planning Staff reviews compliance with conditions of approval. He also described that the project will also need a Grading Permit, so there's additional levels of review to ensure that the proposed conditions are complied with.

Board Member Greenwood asked if the City typically provides a condition that the final construction plans come back before this body for review.

Majna Dukic, Development Director added once the City Council approves the preliminary plans, the final plans are approved at Staff level if they are deemed to comply with the approvals.

Board Member Greenwood added with respect to the Sky Mesa restaurant he thinks it's going to be a nice amenity integrated into the mountain. Mr. Greenwood mentioned the design approach of the walkway leading up to this would benefit from additional study. He would lean towards finding an amenable condition here that can push this through into the next step and find a way if everyone would be open to this to find a way that either you know the walkway comes back in front of this body for review or whether we provide a condition to provide some better direction.

Vice Chair Patel strongly believes that the Sky Mesa walkway needs to be redesigned and then brought back to the Board for study and approval. He thinks this needs to be reviewed with stronger design, better aesthetics, and low impact to the to the surroundings.

Chair O'Donnell added that the general intent of the prior landscape comments were not so much to eliminate plant material, but to look at the plant material at some level of maturity so that plants could be placed in proper areas to thrive.

Chair O'Donnell asked for a motion.

Board Member Milander focused on the parking garage entry and how it looks like we're seeing almost 60- feet of building.

Mr. Torres answered that viewpoint is taken from the bottom at the ground level but from the surrounding it's going to look like a two-story product.

Board Member Greenwood made a motion for approval of the project with the following conditions that a detailed cut section of the retaining wall be provided for the engineering department's review and consideration. He elaborated with something that considers the actual system, its depth in relation to height, any tiering or step back, and its relation to its surroundings. He also conditioned that the walkway heading to the Sky Mesa area that that piece of the project brought back for ARB for review for further design and development.

Vice Chair Patel seconded the motion.

Board Member Milander requested clarification on the retaining wall condition. 3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me ir l i s Page 4 of 9

Board Member Greenwood answered that in his opinion on this system has a direct impact to the guests and not the public. He would trust that this developer is not going to do anything that's going to speak negatively to the project. Ultimately, he cares that the system works but doesn't feel like we need to condition the height.

Ms. Dukic added they they'd be obligated to obtain the necessary engineering and grading permits for that as well.

Board Member Milander asked if the Sky Mesa walkway in a developer point of view was a required feature.

Mr. Hicks answered no, he mentioned they would be inclined to remove it from the project if the project could move forward.

Board Member Milander added that would be his recommendation.

Board Member Greenwood modified his motion to add if the developer wishes to maintain the elevated walkway that will come back to the Board for consideration. He also added if they can bring the access internal and the design is mitigated then there would be no need to bring this back before the ARB.

Vice Chair Patel agreed with the modifications to the motion.

Board Member Milander asked Staff if that would be considered a separate project if they submitted for instance one year or 6 months in the future.

Ms. Dukic explained if the applicant wishes to remove it and then bring it and bring in the future it would be considered a separate project at that point.

MOVED/SECOND BY GREENWOOD/PATEL TO RECOMMEND THE PROJECT TO THE

PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE TWO CONDITIONS FOR THE SKY MESA WALKWAY AND THE RETAINING WALL. MOTION CARRIED 5/0.

2. Environmental Assessment Case No. EA22-0012, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA22-0002, Specific Plan Amendment Case No. SPA22- 0002, Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM22-0004, Development Agreement Case No.

DA22-0003, and Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP22-0001 — Desert Island Hotel. Applicant: FM 71777, LLC. The Desert Island Specific Plan Amendment will occupy

17.2 acres within the existing Desert Island development. A General Plan/Zoning Map Amendment is to amend the underlying designation of Private Open Space (OS/PV) to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) for 10.5 acres of the existing Desert Island golf course for the development of a new 34 -key boutique hotel and 11 private hotel residences along with passive outdoor gathering areas, tennis, pool, cafe, and yoga amenities. A new golf training park and new maintenance building will be built to replace the existing driving range and old maintenance building being displaced by the hotel project. Located south of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Island Drive on a portion of the Desert Island golf course (APNs:688-040-001; 688-050-002; -005; 688-060-008; - 023).

Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner, presented an overview of the project. 3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me ir l i es Page 5 of 9

Chair O'Donnell opened the meeting to Board questions for Staff. He asked if due to the removal of the second -story element would the project be overparked.

Ms. Lopez answered yes, there's a surplus of 117 parking spaces. Within the Grand Aisle there are 93 parking spaces, which is 55 parking spaces over the required. Ms. Lopez explained that the applicant has said that the Grand Aisle is one of the main design features for the hotel project.

Vice Chair Patel asked about the purpose of removing the second -story element.

Ms. Lopez answered that the applicant can explain a little bit more elaborate on their motivations to remove the second story and for the staggering.

Board Member Greenwood asked was there any additional discussion between the applicant and Staff on the operation of the hotel as it related to mechanical equipment storage and back - of -house areas.

Ms. Lopez answered no.

Chair O'Donnell asked the applicant to make a quick presentation.

James Meyer, the project architect, summarized the changes that included breaking the hotel buildings' into four one-story buildings and the addition of an onsite housekeeping area, lobby area, and a manager's office. He also elaborated on the other changes where additional enclosed areas on the endcaps of the hotel buildings to accommodate mechanical equipment were added.

Chair O'Donnell opened the meeting to questions of the applicant.

Board Member Greenwood asked the if there would be double loaded parking spaces by the maintenance building and if that area is currently used as parking. He asked why the project was so overparked.

Mr. Meyer answered that there would be double loaded parking by the maintenance building that would be used by valet for clubhouse events. Mr. Meyer clarified that the area is currently used as overflow parking. The Grand Aisle is a key design feature, and the number of parking spaces is a byproduct of that design.

Chair O'Donnell asked for clarification on the Corten steel staircases on the north hotel buildings.

Mr. Meyer clarified that the Corten steel staircases are the entrances for the north hotel buildings.

Chair O'Donnell expressed his concerns about housekeeping and staff space in relation to the hotel room immediately across the breezeway.

Mr. Meyer clarified Chair O'Donnell's housekeeping and staff concerns.

Board Member Greenwood asked about access to the units on the north buildings. He asked if there are entrances on the north side of the buildings. 3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board M
3 4 !1
of 9

Mr. Meyer replied that access is limited to the south side that fronts the Grand Aisle. There is no access on the north side.

Board Member Greenwood asked where the center breezeway between the two buildings leads to.

Mr. Meyers answered to the golf training area.

Board Member Sanborn asked questions about the golf course.

Mr. Meyers answered that the reconfiguration of the golf course would be limited to two tees and the driving range.

Board Member Sanborn asked the applicant to elaborate on the changes to the current golf course configuration.

Board Member Doczi added his comments about the golf course configuration.

Board Member Milander stated his concerns about the mechanical plans and overall accessibility.

Mr. Myers explained the redesigned site plan provided accessibility to all rooms.

Board Member Greenwood asked about the lobby and housekeeping location and inquired on the potential impact to hotel guests.

Mr. Myers answered the back -of -house questions.

Board Member Greenwood expressed his concern with the project accessibility of the program non -scarce access.

Mr. Myers addressed the design concepts.

Board Member Milander added his comments about operational issues.

Mr. Myers added that the intention is to receive a recommendation from the ARB and then iron out the operational functions prior to Planning Commission consideration.

Ms. Dukic added that is very common to see minor changes throughout the project's building process as well.

Public comment:

Karolyn Lamson, resident of Desert Island community, asked for clarification on the HOA approval and inquired about the entitlement process.

Ms. Dukic gave Mrs. Lamson a business card and suggested she contact staff to go over the entitlement process.
3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board Me eir l ipes Page 7 of 9

Ms. Lopez confirmed that the original submittal of the project had an HOA approval letter and added that HOA Approval Letter was dated August 2022 and was signed by the HOA president. No other further communication had been received in writing as of the meeting date.

Board Member Milander asked if the applicant could explain the HOA's current position on the project.

Ms. Dukic suggested that is something that can be addressed by the Planning Commission or City Council.

Chair O'Donnell opened the discussion to Board comments.

Board Member Milander summarized his concerns on the overall operational functions and site layout.

Board Member Sanborn added his comments and suggestions about the golf course circulation.

Board Member Greenwood echoed Board Member Milander's comments and concerns.

Mr. Myers thanked the Board for their consideration and expressed his excitement of the project and overall design.

Ms. Dukic clarified that the ARB is a recommending body, not an approving body. The purview of the ARB, per the municipal code, is to consider the exterior appearance of the building's structure, signs, lighting, street furniture, landscape planting, and site development. Noticing of the entitlement project will occur for the Planning Commission and City Council, which are public hearings. Public Hearing Notices are mailed out to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site.

Board Member Milander asked Ms. Dukic to please clarify the Municipal Code again to the Board.

Ms. Dukic read Rancho Mirage Municipal Code Section 2.30.080 Elements of Design Consideration. The elements of design consideration shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the exterior appearance of buildings, structures, signs, lighting, street furniture, landscape planting, site development and other outdoor appurtenances. The purpose of the ARB review is to obtain the best example of design presented.

Chair O' Donnell stated that the ARB is a recommending body and it is understood that there are other checks and balances in the form of the Planning Commission and City Council review.

Vice Chair Patel suggested that the ARB recommend approval of the architecture and leave the other issues to be addressed by the Planning Commission.

Board Member Milander made a motion to recommend the Planning Commission approve the architecture, landscape, and site development with the exemption of the site's circulation.

Board Member Greenwood asked for clarification on the recommendation. 3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board M
3 6es Page 8of9

Board Member Sanborn added that the ARB are a recommending body for the Planning Commission and can recommend certain elements while differing to the Planning Commission on issues.

Isaiah Hagerman, City Manager, stated that the project could go forth and have the current issues be further worked out by noting it for the Planning Commission review. He thanked the Board for their efforts and clarified that the next step would be the Planning Commission review, a public hearing, which would require notices to be sent out. This would allow the public to be notified instead of continuing with public meetings that do not require public notification and thus cause confusion in the community.

Chair O'Donnell restated the motion on the table. The motion is to recommend the project to the Planning Commission with the condition that the Planning Commission further review the site circulation for the project.

MOVED/SECOND BY MILANDER/PATEL TO RECOMMEND THE PROJECT TO THE

PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FURTHER REVIEW THE SITE CIRCULATION. MOTION CARRIED 4/1 WITH BOARD MEMBER GREENWOOD VOTING NO TO THE VOTE.

ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to consider the Architectural Review Board adjourned the meeting at 2:51 p.m.

Prepared by: Deanna Mendoza, Development Services Technician Date Approved by Architectural Review Board: 5/22/2023
3/27/23 Approved Architectural Review Board M

ATTACHMENT 8

RECORDING REQUESTED BY

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
(Exempt from Recording Fees
Pursuant to Government Code
Section 27383 - Benefits City)
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY CLERK

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDERS USE
10TH AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
AND

NEWAGE RANCHO MIRAGE, LLC
This 10th Amendment to the Development Agreement ("10th Amendment") is entered into this day of , 2025, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, a municipal corporation ("City"), and NEWAGE RANCHO MIRAGE, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Newage"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code and Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code.

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage ("City") is recognized as a charter city and a political subdivision of the State of California for certain purposes; and WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Development Agreement Statute"); and WHEREAS, the Development Agreement Statute and the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code authorizes the City to enter into a property development agreement with any person or entity having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such real property in order to establish certain development rights in the real property; and
10th Amendment Page 1
3398

WHEREAS, on or about August 5, 1983, the City and Federated Development Company ("Federated") entered into a Development Agreement ("Original Development Agreement") under the provisions of the Development Agreement Statute pertaining to the property described therein and which was recorded on November 29, 1983, as Instrument No. 247445, with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and which is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and WHEREAS, in connection with the Original Development Agreement, Federated applied for and received approvals from the City for General Plan Amendment No. 83- 84, Zone Change No. 83-82, Tentative Tract Map ("TTM") No. 19397, and "Conceptual Land Use Approval" in Land Use Case No. 83-P-145; and
WHEREAS, on or about August 22, 1985, the City and Federated amended the Original Development Agreement ("1st Amendment") pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, to revise TTM No. 19397 and make associated changes to the "Conceptual Land Use Approval" in Land Use Case No. 83-P-145, which was recorded on February 10, 1986, as Instrument No. 31768 with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and which is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and
WHEREAS, on or about November 22, 1989, the City and Federated entered into a 2nd Amendment to the Original Development Agreement ("2nd Amendment") pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute, which was recorded on December 27, 1989, as Instrument No. 453119 with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and which is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and WHEREAS, consistent with the 2nd Amendment, the City adopted a Specific Plan Overlay and amended the General Plan to permit property designated for general commercial use to be developed for "community centers, including specialty retail stores, offices and small high end department stores"; and WHEREAS, portions of the Subject Property were acquired by MCO, with Federated retaining title to Lots 11, 12, 14, 48 and 50 of Tract Map No. 19397, and on or about June 6, 1991, the City consented to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement between Federated and MCO concerning certain rights and duties under the Original Development Agreement, the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment and which is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and WHEREAS, on or about September 19, 1991, MCO, Federated and the City entered into a 3rd Amendment to the Original Development Agreement ("3rd Amendment") to substitute newly revised exhibits to the 2nd Amendment which was recorded on November 25, 1991, as Instrument No. 409130, with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and which is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and
10th Amendment Page 2
3399

WHEREAS, on or about November 19, 1992, MCO, Federated and the City entered into a 4th Amendment to the Original Development Agreement ("4th Amendment") which was recorded on January 8, 1993, as Instrument No. 7776 with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and which is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the 4th Amendment, MCO agreed to develop a certain portion of the Subject Property known as the "Villa Site" that would be operated under a condominium -hotel concept, whereby the units would be partially available for hotel rental, and the hotel facilities would be accessible to the condominium owners or users, in accordance with the zoning and development standards in effect City wide at the time of the issuance of the building permits for the Villa Site; and WHEREAS, on or about November 30, 1995, certain property owned by MCO was transferred to FDC Real Estate ("FDC") pursuant to an Assignment of Rights under Development Agreement by Federated to FDC, with the City consenting to such assignment on December 7 1995, by approving a Consent to Assignment; and WHEREAS, on or about June 19, 1997, MCO, FDC and the City entered into a 5th Amendment to Original Development Agreement ("5th Amendment"), which extended the Term of the Original Development Agreement to December 10, 2011, which was recorded on July 25, 1997, as Instrument No. 262788 with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and which is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and
WHEREAS, or about November 2, 2000, MCO and the City entered into a 6th Amendment to Original Development Agreement ("6th Amendment") which added Tentative Tract Map No. 28741, a revision of Tentative Tract Map No. 24857. which was recorded on April 24, 2001, as Instrument No. 2001-173795, with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and which is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 2, 2000, MCO and FDC (which soon thereafter divested itself of all rights title and interest in the Project Site) and the City entered into a 7th Amendment to the Original Development Agreement ("7th Amendment") whereby MCO was permitted to elect in its sole discretion to proceed with development of certain portions of the Amended Tentative Tract Map No. 29389 which was recorded on April 24, 2001, as Instrument No. 2001-173794 with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and which is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and
WHEREAS, on or about March 19, 2005, MCO and the City entered into an 8th Amendment to the Original Development Agreement ("Eight Amendment") whereby 10th Amendment Page 3
3400

MCO was provided with the opportunity to construct 138 two-story hotel villa units on the Villa Site which MCO could either retain or sell, in whole or subdivided, subject to certain restrictions on use and occupancy set forth in the 8th Amendment which was recorded on January 25, 2006, as Instrument No. 2006-0058746 with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and which is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and
WHEREAS, on or about July 28, 2005, GENLB-Rancho ("GENLB") acquired a portion of the Subject Property from VA Rancho Mirage, L.P. ("Vail") which included the current site of the Hotel ("Hotel Site") formerly known as the "Lodge at Rancho Mirage" site, along with a portion of the Subject Property commonly referred to as the "Tennis Site"; and
WHEREAS, on or about July 28, 2005, the City consented to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement between Vail and GENLB with respect to the Hotel Site and the Tennis Site and concerning certain rights and duties under the Original Development Agreement as amended to date and which is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and WHEREAS, on or about December 16, 2005, GENLB acquired the Villa Site from MCO; and
WHEREAS, on or about December 15, 2005, the City consented to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement between MCO and GENLB with respect to the Villa Site and concerning certain rights and duties under the Original Development Agreement as amended to date and which is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and
WHEREAS, on or about September 30, 2006, GENLB and the City entered into a 9th Amendment to the Original Development Agreement ("9th Amendment") which was recorded on October 27, 2006, as Instrument No. 2006- 0790342 with the Riverside County Recorder's Office and which is incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and
WHEREAS, Judi Bikulege, Vice President of GenLB, in a letter dated December 29, 2010, notified the City of GenLB's assignment of rights and obligations under the 9th Amendment to Rancho California Investments, LLC ("RCI"), an entity in which GenLB's principal shareholders retain a majority interest, and RCI's expressed assumption of the obligations of GenLB under the Ninth Amendment; and
WHEREAS, Sebastian Casano, Vice President of RCI, in a letter dated October 30, 2012, requested that the City consent to the assignment of the 9th Amendment to "Kam Sang Company Inc. or any of its affiliates, including Newage Rancho Mirage LLC 10th Amendment Page 4
3401

("Newage") conditioned upon the acquisition of the Project by Newage and the assumption by Newage of the obligations of RCI under the [Ninth Amendment]"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to an Assignment and Assumption of Agreement GenLB had expressly assigned it rights and obligations under the Ninth Amendment to RCI and RCI has expressly assumed such rights and obligations; and WHEREAS, on or around November 1, 2012, the City consented to that certain Consent to Assignment of 9th Amendment to Development Agreement, between RCI and Newage, concerning certain rights and duties under the Original Development Agreement, as amended to date, and which is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth at length; and
WHEREAS, Newage has proposed this 10th Amendment to the Original Development Agreement which includes the following: 1) Environmental Assessment Case Number EA21-0002 for the environmental review of the Project, which currently includes a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration that includes Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Noise, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources; 2) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21-0001 for a zone change from Mountain Reserve (MR) to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) for the Sky Mesa portion of the Project Site; 3) Development Agreement Case No. DA21-0002 for a 10th Amendment to the Original Development Agreement; 4) Tentative Parcel Map Case No.

TPM23-0002 ("TPM38768") which is a parcel map for condominium purposes which establishes three parcels for the Hotel Site (excluding the Sky Mesa area) which include Parcel 1 (2.699 acres) for the existing Spa Suites Site, Parcel 2 (15.995 acres) for the Hotel Site, and Parcel 3 (11.873 acres) for an event space, parking structure, and 106 residential condominium units; and 5) Major Modification Case No. MOD21-0004 for the project entitlements which consist of 106 residential units that include 1 to 3 bedrooms, 23,843 square feet of event space, 6,273 square feet of restaurant, 5,513 square feet for amenities, a 381 -space subterranean parking structure, and other recreational amenities; and
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing Recitals, the City has determined that this 10th Amendment is appropriate under the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, this 10th Amendment is voluntarily entered into in consideration of the benefits to and the rights created in favor of each of the parties hereto and in reliance upon the various representations and warranties contained herein; and WHEREAS, the application for this 10th Amendment was considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council at duly noticed public hearings in accordance with the Development Agreement Statute and Chapter 17.56 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code; and
10th Amendment Page 5
3402

WHEREAS, this 10th Amendment will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and securing orderly development of the Project and Project Site (as specifically described in this 10th Amendment below), assure progressive installation of necessary improvements, ensure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within the City at the least economic cost to its citizens, and otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Statute was enacted; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that such orderly development of the Project and Project Site will provide many public benefits to the City through the imposition of development standards and requirements under the provisions and conditions of this 10th Amendment, including, without limitation, the creation of job opportunities and additional tax revenue for the City's general fund; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the parties that all acts referred to in this 10th Amendment shall be accomplished in such a way as to fully comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, title 14, §15000 et seq.), as each is amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, this 10th Amendment is made and entered into in consideration of the mutual covenants and in reliance upon the various representations and warranties contained herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of the parties contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT:

Section 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this 10th Amendment by this reference as though fully set forth herein.

Section 2. Effective Date. This 10th Amendment shall be effective upon the effective date ("Effective Date") of the ordinance enacting this 10th Amendment ("Enacting Ordinance").

Section 3. Project Site. The "Project Site" consists of the Subject Property as more particularly described in the Legal Description attached hereto as Exhibit A for the Hotel Site which includes the existing Spa Suites, Exhibit B for the Villas Site which includes the T -Wing and Hotel Villas, Exhibit C for the Tennis Site, and Exhibit D for the Sky Mesa Site.

Section 4. Project. The "Project" includes the following:
10th Amendment Page 6
3403

a) Development Agreement (Case No. DA21-0002) — For a 10th Amendment to the Original Development Agreement;
b) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (Case No. GPZMA21-0001) — For a zone change from Mountain Reserve (MR) to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) for the Sky Mesa Site;
c) Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 38768) (Case No. TPM23-0002) — For a parcel map for condominium purposes to establish three separate parcels for the Project Site (excluding the Sky Mesa area) that includes Parcel 1 (2.699 acres) for the Spa Suites Site which is not subject to future development and remains subject to the terms and conditions of the 9th Amendment, unless modified under this 10th Amendment, Parcel 2 (15.995 acres) for the Hotel Site which is not subject to any further development and remains subject to the terms and conditions of the 9th Amendment, unless modified under this 10th Amendment, and Parcel 3 (11.873 acres) for the Villas Site (that includes the T -Wing and Hotel Villas) for the development of an 106 residential condominium units, an events space, a restaurant, a subterranean parking structure, and various amenities including recreational amenities, which shall be subject to the conditions of approval and all rights and privileges afforded to NEWAGE as successor in interest under Tract Map No. 34640, unless otherwise provided by this Tentative Parcel Map; and
d) Major Modification (MOD21-0004) for the requisite entitlements to permit Parcel 3 (Villas Site) to be developed with 106 residential units ranging in size from 1 to 3 bedrooms, 23,843 square feet of event space, a 6,273 square foot restaurant, 5,513 square feet of amenities, a 381 -space subterranean parking structure, and various recreational amenities.
e) The Parties hereto understand and agree that notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein or in the Original Development Agreement, as previously amended, the Project, as defined herein, and associated entitlements and City approvals, shall supersede Tentative Tract Map 34640, Preliminary Development Plan Case No.

PDP06001, and all related prior City approvals, as approved by City on or around, or prior to, August 3, 2006, with the exception of the Tennis Villa Units.

Section 5. Existing Hotel Units. This Section 5 (Existing Hotel Units) shall apply to the Existing Hotel, which contains 244 traditional hotel rooms/suites, as depicted in the Site Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit F. (1) Upgrades and Renovations. NEWAGE shall have the right to upgrade and renovate the Hotel's existing rooms/suites, which may include combining individual rooms/suites into larger rooms/suites in order to assure increased room rates and long-term viability.
10th Amendment Page 7
3404

(2) Lock -Off Configurations. The Existing Hotel Units which have legally approved separate entrance/exit doors may be constructed in a "lock off" configuration to permit the unit to be rented as two separate units. (3) Condo -Hotel Units, Fractionals and Timeshares Prohibited.

None of the 244 Existing Hotel Units shall be marketed, used or sold as condo -hotel units, fractionals or timeshares.

Section 6. Condo -Hotel Units. In consideration for the approval of this 10th Amendment, NEWAGE agrees that the Project and Project Site shall be subject to and comply with the City's condo -hotel regulations as set forth in Ordinance No. 932, attached hereto as Exhibit E, unless specifically provided otherwise in this 10th Amendment. Should there be any inconsistency or conflict between the development standards and limitations and restrictions set forth in Section 17.30.095 of the Municipal Code with respect to development, ownership and operation of condo -hotel units and the provisions specifically set forth in this 10th Amendment, the provisions set forth in this 10th Amendment shall prevail and be applied to the Project and Project Site.

For purposes of this section, "owner occupation" shall include the person or entity listed as the record owner of the condo -hotel unit and the owner's spouse, by marriage or otherwise, domestic partner, child or stepchild, by natural birth or adoption, parent, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, parent -in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, first cousin, or any person denoted by the prefix "grand" or "great," or the spouse of any of these persons.
a) T -Wing Units. This Section shall apply to the 48 T -Wing Units currently depicted in the attached Site Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit F, as the Building A-1 Units.
(1) Condo -Hotel Units. The 48 T -Wing Units may, at NEWAGE's option, be developed as condo -hotel units.
(2) Fractionals and Timeshares Prohibited. None of the T -Wing Units shall be marketed, used or sold as fractionals or timeshares. (3) Lock -Off Configurations. The T -Wing Units which have two legally approved separate entrance/exit doors may be constructed in a "lock -off" configuration to permit the unit to be rented as two separate units. (4) Owner's Allowable Occupancy Period. The period of time an owner of a condo -hotel unit amongst the T -Wing Units ("T -Wing Allowable Occupancy Period") may occupy his or her unit shall not exceed six (6) months, whether consecutive or non-consecutive periods of occupancy, per calendar year. This provision 10th Amendment Page 8
3405

shall replace and supersede any other restrictions or limitations on the maximum time of owner occupancy by an owner of a condo -hotel unit, including without limitation Section 1 (e) of the 8th Amendment.
(5) Additional Owner Occupancy Beyond Owner's Allowable Occupancy Period. Any condo -hotel owner shall have a right to rent its unit for additional personal occupancy beyond the Allowable Occupancy Period as set forth herein, provided that the owner pays transient occupancy taxes for each day the owner occupies its condo -hotel unit beyond the Allowable Occupancy Period, even if the period of owner occupation beyond the owner's allowable occupancy period exceeds 27 consecutive days, regardless of any restrictions that may be set forth in the City's transient occupancy tax regulations as codified from time to time in the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. This provision shall also replace and supersede any other restrictions or limitations on the maximum time of owner occupancy by an owner of a condo -hotel unit, including without limitation Section 1 (e) of the 8th Amendment. (6) Rental Availability. When a condo -hotel unit amongst the T - Wing Units is not occupied by the owner, unless it is unoccupied for maintenance or repair purposes, the condo -hotel unit shall be made available for transient rentals to the general public pursuant to the City's condo -hotel regulations as set forth in Ordinance No. 932, attached hereto as Exhibit E, unless otherwise provided in this 10th Amendment.
(7) Transient Occupancy Tax. When a condo -hotel unit
amongst the T -Wing Units is used as a transient rental, it shall be subject to the payment of transient occupancy taxes in accordance with the City's transient occupancy tax regulations in effect at the time the transient occupancy tax is due and payable, with the caveat that transient occupancy taxes shall also apply to condo -hotel unit rentals for more than 27 consecutive days, regardless of any restrictions that may be set forth in the City's transient occupancy tax regulations as codified from time to time in the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. However, whenever any condo -hotel unit is occupied by a non -owner during the owner's occupancy period via a condominium, condo -hotel or any other share, trading or exchange system or program, whether formally established or operated as a "Club" or by any other method or means, the City shall be entitled to receive 100 percent of the applicable transient occupancy tax for each day of occupancy by the non -owner based on the fair market value of the room rate that would otherwise be charged for the subject unit.
b) Hotel Villa Units. This Section shall apply to the 58 Hotel Villa Units currently depicted in the Site Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit F, as the Building B1 through B15 Units.
(1) Condo -Hotel Units. The Hotel Villa Units may, at
NEWAGE's option, convert the existing hotel rooms/suites into condo -hotel units. 10th Amendment Page 9
3406

(2) Fractionals and Timeshares Prohibited. None of the Hotel Villa Units shall be marketed, used or sold as fractionals or timeshares. (3) Owner's Allowable Occupancy Period. The period of time an owner of a condo -hotel unit amongst the Hotel Villa Units ("Hotel Villa Allowable Occupancy Period") may occupy his or her unit shall not exceed six (6) months, whether consecutive or non-consecutive periods of occupancy, per calendar year. This provision shall replace and supersede any other restrictions or limitations on the maximum time of owner occupancy by an owner of a condo -hotel unit, including without limitation Section 1 (e) of the 8th Amendment.
(4) Additional Owner Occupancy Beyond Owner's Allowable Occupancy Period. Any condo -hotel owner shall have a right to rent its unit for additional personal occupancy beyond the Allowable Occupancy Period as set forth herein, provided that the owner pays transient occupancy taxes to the City for each day the owner occupies its condo -hotel unit beyond the Allowable Occupancy Period, even if the period of owner occupation beyond the owner's allowable occupancy period exceeds 27 consecutive days, regardless of any restrictions that may be set forth in the City's transient occupancy tax regulations as codified from time to time in the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. This provision shall replace and supersede any other restrictions or limitations on the maximum time of owner occupancy by an owner of a condo -hotel unit, including without limitation Section 1 (e) of the 8th Amendment. (5) Rental Availability. When a condo -hotel unit amongst the Hotel Villa Units is not occupied by the owner, unless it is unoccupied for maintenance or repair purposes, the condo -hotel unit shall be made available for transient rentals to the general public pursuant to the City's condo -hotel regulations as set forth in Ordinance No. 932, attached hereto as Exhibit E, unless otherwise provided in this 10th Amendment.
(6) Transient Occupancy Tax. When a condo -hotel unit
amongst the Hotel Villa Units is used as a transient rental, it shall be subject to the payment of transient occupancy taxes in accordance with the City's transient occupancy tax regulations in effect at the time the transient occupancy tax is due and payable, with the caveat that transient occupancy taxes shall also apply to condo -hotel unit rentals for more than 27 consecutive days, regardless of any restrictions that may be set forth in the City's transient occupancy tax regulations as codified from time to time in the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. However, whenever any condo -hotel unit is occupied by a non -owner during the owner's occupancy period via a condominium, condo -hotel or any other share, trading or exchange system or program, whether formally established or operated as a "Club" or by any other method or means, the City shall be entitled to receive 100 percent of the applicable transient occupancy tax for each day of 10th Amendment Page 10
3407

occupancy by the non -owner based on the fair market value of the room rate that would otherwise be charged for the subject unit.
c) Tennis Villa Units. This Section shall apply to the 25 Tennis Villa Units currently depicted in the Site Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit F. (1) Condo -Hotel Units. The 25 Tennis Villa Units may, at NEWAGE's option, be developed as condo -hotel units.
(2) Lock -Off Configurations. The Tennis Villa Units which have two legally approved separate entrance/exit doors may be constructed in a "lock off" configuration to permit the unit to be rented as two separate units. (3) Fractionals and Timeshares Prohibited. None of the 25 Tennis Villa Units shall be marketed, used or sold as fractionals or timeshares. (4) Owner's Allowable Occupancy Period. The period of time an owner of a condo -hotel unit amongst the Tennis Villa Units ("Tennis Villa Allowable Occupancy Period") may occupy his or her unit shall be six (6) months, whether consecutive or non-consecutive periods of occupancy, per calendar year. This provision shall replace and supersede any other restrictions or limitations on the maximum time of owner occupancy by an owner of a condo -hotel unit, including without limitation Section 1 (e) of the 8th Amendment.
(5) Additional Owner Occupancy Beyond Owner's Allowable Occupancy Period. Any condo -hotel owner shall have a right to rent its unit for additional personal occupancy beyond the Allowable Occupancy Period as set forth herein, provided that the owner pays transient occupancy taxes to the City for each day the owner occupies its condo -hotel unit beyond the Allowable Occupancy Period, even if the period of owner occupation beyond the owner's allowable occupancy period exceeds 27 consecutive days, regardless of any restrictions that may be set forth in the City's transient occupancy tax regulations as codified from time to time in the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. This provision shall replace and supersede any other restrictions or limitations on the maximum time of owner occupancy by an owner of a condo -hotel unit, including without limitation Section 1 (e) of the 8th Amendment. (6) Rental Availability. When a condo -hotel unit amongst the Tennis Villa Units is not occupied by the owner, unless it is unoccupied for maintenance or repair purposes, the condo -hotel unit shall be made available for transient rentals to the general public pursuant to the City's condo -hotel regulations as set forth in Ordinance No. 932, attached hereto as Exhibit E, unless otherwise provided in this 10th Amendment.
10th Amendment Page 11
3408

(7) Transient Occupancy Taxes. When a condo -hotel unit amongst the Tennis Villa Units is used as a transient rental, it shall be subject to the payment of transient occupancy taxes in accordance with the City's transient occupancy tax regulations in effect at the time the transient occupancy tax is due and payable, with the caveat that transient occupancy taxes shall also apply to condo -hotel unit rentals for more than 27 consecutive days, regardless of any restrictions that may be set forth in the City's transient occupancy tax regulations as codified from time to time in the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. However, whenever any condo -hotel unit is occupied by a non -owner during the owner's occupancy period via a condominium, condo -hotel or any other share, trading or exchange system or program, whether formally established or operated as a "Club" or by any other method or means, the City shall be entitled to receive 100 percent of the applicable transient occupancy tax for each day of occupancy by the non -owner based on the fair market value of the room rate that would otherwise be charged for the subject unit. d) Spa Suite Units. This section shall apply to the existing 16 Spa Suite Units which were constructed 2015, as depicted in the Site Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit F, as the Spa Building.
(1) Condo -Hotel Units. The Spa Suite Units may, at NEWAGE's option, be converted into condo -hotel units.
(2) Lock -Off Configurations. The Spa Suite Units which have two legally approved separate entrance/exit doors may be constructed in a "lock off" configuration to permit the unit to be rented as two separate units. (3) Fractionals and Timeshares Prohibited. None of the Spa Suite Units shall be marketed, used or sold as fractionals or timeshares. (4) Owner's Allowable Occupancy Period. The period of time an owner, other than the Existing Hotel's professional management entity/company, of a condo -hotel unit amongst the Spa Suite Units ("Spa Suite Allowable Occupancy Period") may occupy his or her unit shall be six months, whether consecutive or non- consecutive periods of occupancy, per calendar year, as permitted under the December 31, 2015, Addendum to the 9th Amendment. This provision shall replace and supersede any other restrictions or limitations on the maximum time of owner occupancy by an owner of a condo -hotel unit, including without limitation Section 1 (e) of the 8th Amendment.
(5) Additional Owner Occupancy Beyond Owner's Allowable Occupancy Period. Any condo -hotel owner, other than the Existing Hotel's professional management entity/company, shall have a right to rent its unit for additional personal occupancy beyond the Allowable Occupancy Period as set forth herein, provided that the owner pays transient occupancy taxes to the City for each day the owner occupies 10th Amendment Page 12
3409

its condo -hotel unit beyond the Allowable Occupancy Period, even if the period of owner occupation beyond the owner's allowable occupancy period exceeds 27 consecutive days, regardless of any restrictions that may be set forth in the City's transient occupancy tax regulations as codified from time to time in the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. This provision shall replace and supersede any other restrictions or limitations on the maximum time of owner occupancy by an owner of a condo -hotel unit, including without limitation Section 1 (e) of the 8th Amendment.
(6) Rental Availability. When a condo -hotel unit amongst the Spa Suite Units is not occupied by the owner, unless it is unoccupied for maintenance or repair purposes, the condo -hotel unit shall be made available for transient rentals to the general public pursuant to the City's condo -hotel regulations as set forth in Ordinance No. 932, attached hereto as Exhibit E, unless otherwise provided in this 10th Amendment. Any condo -hotel units owned, in whole or in part by the Existing Hotel's professional management entity/company shall be made available for rent for transient occupancy for no more than twenty-seven consecutive days by any given transient, at all times regardless of whether the Existing Hotel or management entity/company would otherwise have occupancy rights as an owner under this section. (7) Transient Occupancy Tax. When a condo -hotel unit
amongst the Spa Suite Units is used as a transient rental, it shall be subject to the payment of transient occupancy taxes in accordance with the City's transient occupancy tax regulations in effect at the time the transient occupancy tax is due and payable, unless otherwise provided below, and with the caveat that transient occupancy taxes shall also apply to rentals for more than 27 consecutive days, regardless of any restrictions that may be set forth in the City's transient occupancy tax regulations as codified from time to time in the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code. However, whenever any condo -hotel unit is occupied by a non -owner during the owner's occupancy period via a condominium, condo -hotel or any other share, trading or exchange system or program, whether formally established or operated as a "Club" or by any other method or means, the City shall be entitled to receive 100 percent of the applicable transient occupancy tax for each day of occupancy by the non -owner based on the fair market value of the room rate that would otherwise be charged for the subject unit.

Section 7. Rental of Condo -Hotel Units. The rental of any condo -hotel units pursuant to the terms and provisions of this 10th Amendment shall not be considered as "short-term rentals" which are prohibited in the City per Section 17.30.270 Short - Term Rentals of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code since the rental of units located within City -approved hotels shall not be considered short-term rentals.

Considering the foregoing, as a condition to renting out a condo -hotel unit, the owner of the condo -hotel unit shall enter into an agreement with the Existing Hotel's management entity/company which, at a minimum, shall provide that the management 10th Amendment Page 13
3410

entity/company will collect all transient occupancy taxes required on rentals of that owner's condo -hotel unit and manage all permissible rental operations. The Existing Hotel's management entity/company shall then be responsible for forwarding transient occupancy taxes to the City in accordance with the City's transient occupancy tax regulations as set forth in the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and any related procedures and regulations in effect at the time the transient occupancy taxes are due and payable to the City, unless otherwise provide in this 10th Amendment. In addition, under no circumstances shall any owner of a condo -hotel unit or any other unit described in this 10th Amendment advertise or cause to be advertised the availability of any such units for transient purposes for any period of time. All advertisements shall be handled, managed and facilitated solely by the Existing Hotel's management entity/company and any such advertisements shall not refer to the any condo -units or any other units covered by this 10th Amendment as "short-term rentals." NEWAGE shall submit documents for recordation which clearly demonstrate the forgoing advertisement restrictions and obligations, subject to the reasonable satisfaction of City Attorney and City Engineer.

Section 8. Extension of Tentative Map. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452(a)(1), TPM38768 shall be extended for the greater period of (a) the term of this Agreement or (b) such maximum total time as is permitted in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Sections 66410 et seq.) or Applicable Law.

Section 9. Operator. NEWAGE agrees that the Project shall be operated during the life of the Project as an establishment that: (a) reflects the characteristics of the ultimate in luxury and sophistication with first class accommodations, and (b) maintains physical attributes that are extraordinary in every manner, and (c) provides a level of service that is meticulous and exceeds all guests' expectations while maintaining an impeccable standard of excellence.

Section 10. Previous Amendments. Except as herein modified and amended, provisions of the Original Development Agreement, the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 6th Amendment, the 7th Amendment, the 8th Amendment and 9th Amendment, and any addenda thereto, are ratified, confirmed and remain in full force and effect as if set forth and reiterated herein verbatim.

Section 11. Term. The parties agree that the Term of this 10th Amendment shall be ten (10) years commencing on the Effective Date subject to the extension and early termination provisions described in this 10th Amendment and this Term shall only apply to the Project Site. Upon termination of this 10th Amendment, this 10th Amendment shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect without the need of further documentation from the parties hereto, provided, however, that this termination shall not affect any right or duty arising from the entitlements or approvals 10th Amendment Page 14
3411

for the Project Site or the financial obligations of NEWAGE or its assignees and successors in interest agreed to by the parties or approved concurrently with, or subsequent to, the Effective Date or as otherwise provided in this 10th Amendment.

Section 12. Cooperation by NEWAGE. NEWAGE will, in a timely manner, provide the City with all documents, applications, plans and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations hereunder, and cause NEWAGE's planners, engineers, and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all required materials and documents, therefore. NEWAGE also shall apply in a timely manner for such other permits and approvals from other governmental or quasi -governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project Site as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project Site.

Section 13. Applicable Rules, Regulations and Policies. Except as otherwise provided in this 10th Amendment, the rules, regulations, and policies governing the use, density, intensity, design, improvement, construction, building and occupancy standards and specifications of the Project and Project Site shall be those rules, regulations, and policies in place at the time of the Effective Date. The City, however, shall be permitted to apply certain rules, regulations and policies enacted after the Effective Date to discretionary actions which are not part of the Project.

Section 14. Funding for Processing 10th Amendment and Entitlements Described Therein. The actual costs for all services provided by the City and its consultants for processing of this 10th Amendment and the entitlements described herein shall be paid by NEWAGE. All such processing costs shall not be the obligations of the City or any of its departments and divisions, and the City shall not be liable for any such costs form its general fund or any other fund. In addition, to the extent that City, on behalf of NEWAGE, attempts to enter into binding agreements with other entities in order to assure the availability of certain permits and approvals or services necessary for development of the Project Site as described in this 10th Amendment, NEWAGE shall reimburse City for all costs and expenses incurred in connection with seeking and entering into any such agreements. Any fees, assessments, or other amounts payable by City pursuant to any such agreements described herein shall be borne by NEWAGE except where NEWAGE has notified City in writing, prior to City entering into any such agreement, that it does not desire for City to execute said agreement.

Section 15. Processing Fees. NEWAGE shall pay all land use approvals, building permits or other similar permits, licenses or entitlements which are in force and effect on a City-wide basis at the time application is made for such permits, licenses, or entitlements at the time such fees are due and payable during the development process.

Section 16. Development Impact Fees. NEWAGE shall pay all development 10th Amendment Page 15
3412

impact fees that are designed to pay for new or expanded public facilities needed to serve, or to mitigate the adverse effects of, a given development project (including any species protection or habitat preservation or conservation mitigation fees) that are in effect at the time such fees are due and payable during the development process.

Section 17. Exactions. NEWAGE shall pay or provide, as the case may be, all exactions, in -lieu fees or payments, dedication or reservation requirements, obligations for on -site or off -site improvements, construction requirements for public improvements, facilities, or services required of the Project or Project Site, whether such requirements constitute subdivision improvements, mitigation measures in connection with environmental review, or impositions made under any applicable ordinance or other applicable regulation.

Section 18. Community Facilities District No. 1. NEWAGE acknowledges the existence of "Community Facilities District No. 1" which was created pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act, as set forth in Government Code section 53311 et seq. for the purpose of funding certain public safety services. If the Project and Project Site are currently subject to the assessments of Community Services District No. 1, NEWAGE voluntarily consents that it will not vote or otherwise support the dissolution of said District. In the event said District formally dissolves, NEWAGE shall consent to paying an in -lieu assessment in a manner and form, deemed acceptable by the City, as though the District had never dissolved. If, however, the Project or Project Site, or any portions thereof, are not currently subject to the assessments of Community Facilities District No. 1, NEWAGE voluntarily consents to take whatever affirmative action it needs to take on its part to ensure that the Project and Project Site, and all portions thereof, are subject to the assessments of the Community Facilities District No. 1, which includes without limitation, voting to annex to said District.

Section 19. Covenants Running With the Land and Constructive Notice.

All of the terms, provisions, and obligations contained in this 10th Amendment shall be binding upon NEWAGE and its heirs, successors, and assigns, and all other persons or entities acquiring all or any portion of the Project Site or Project, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, and the rights thereof shall inure to the benefit of the City and its successors and assigns. As such, all of the provisions of this 10th Amendment shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Notwithstanding the above, every person who now or hereafter owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Project Site or Project shall be deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained in this 10th Amendment, whether or not any reference to this 10th Amendment is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Project Site.
10th Amendment Page 16
3413

Section 20. City's Obligations. The City shall approve the permits, licenses and other entitlements as describe in this 10th Amendment pursuant to the provisions contained herein.

Section 21. Periodic Review. The City shall conduct a review of this 10th Amendment as set forth as follows:
a) Annual Review. The City will review the extent of good faith compliance by NEWAGE with the terms of this 10th Amendment annually commencing on the first anniversary of the Effective Date of this 10th Amendment. b) Notice. The City shall notify NEWAGE in writing of the date of review at least thirty (30) days prior thereto.
c) Good -faith Compliance. During each annual review, NEWAGE is required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this 10th Amendment. d) Production of Documents and Other Evidence. NEWAGE agrees to furnish such reasonable evidence and adequate documentation of good faith compliance as the City, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require. e) Cost of Annual Review. The costs incurred by City in connection with the annual review shall be borne by NEWAGE.

Section 22. Relationship of Parties. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project Site is a private development and that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder. The City and NEWAGE also hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and NEWAGE joint venturers or partners.

Section 23. No Third Party Beneficiaries. The only parties to this 10th Amendment are NEWAGE and the City. There are no third party beneficiaries and this 10th Amendment is not intended, and shall not be construed, to benefit, or be enforceable by any other person whatsoever.

Section 24. Assignment. NEWAGE shall have the right to assign its rights and obligations under this 10th Amendment, by giving prior written notice to the City, to any entity in which the NEWAGE, or its principal shareholders, retain a majority ownership interest so long as such assignee expressly assumes the obligations of NEWAGE hereunder. Otherwise, NEWAGE may not assign all or any portion of its rights hereunder nor delegate all or any portion of its duties and obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 10th Amendment Page 17
3414

Section 25. Estoppel Certificate. For and in consideration of entering into this 10th Amendment, the parties hereto acknowledge the receipt of good and valuable consideration. This paragraph shall constitute an Estoppel Certificate and shall be an independent agreement among the parties which is intended to and shall survive any subsequent determination that this 10th Amendment is invalid for any reason, by a final court decision, having jurisdiction thereof. NEWAGE represents to the City that it has no actual knowledge of any Claims, as herein below defined, against City specifically pertaining to the matters set forth in the Original Development Agreement, the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 6th Amendment, the 7th Amendment, the 8th Amendment and this 10th Amendment. For purposes of this Section, "claims" are defined as all known claims, fees, demands, costs, damages, obligations, expenditures, remedies, liens, rights or arbitration, rights of action and/or causes of action, whether compensatory or punitive, legal or equitable. This estoppel certificate legally bars NEWAGE from filing claims of which it had actual knowledge at the time of the approval by the City of this 10th Amendment.

Section 26. Hold Harmless. NEWAGE hereby agrees to, and shall defend, save and hold City and its elected and appointed boards, commissions, officers, agents, and employees harmless from, any and all claims, costs and liability for any damages, personal injury or death, which may arise, directly or indirectly, from NEWAGE's or NEWAGE's contractors', subcontractors', agents or employees' operations under this 10th Amendment, whether such negligent operations be by NEWAGE or by any of NEWAGE's contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees.

Section 27. Indemnification. NEWAGE shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City and its agents, officers and employees against and from any and all liabilities, demands, claims, actions or proceedings and costs and expenses incidental thereto (including costs of defense, settlement and reasonable attorneys' fees), which any or all of them may suffer, incur, be responsible for or pay out as a result of or in connection with any challenge to the legality, validity or adequacy of any of the following: (i) any prior agreements by and between City and NEWAGE and/or its predecessor(s) in interest; (ii) this 10th Amendment and the concurrent and subsequent permits, licenses and entitlements approved for the Project or Project Site; (iii) the environmental impact report prepared in connection with the development of any environmental determinations made by the City in connection with this agreement, the Project and/or Project Site; and (iii) the proceedings undertaken in connection with the adoption or approval of any of the above. In the event of any legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any third party (including a governmental entity or official) challenging the validity of any provision of this 10th Amendment or any portion thereof as set forth herein, the parties shall mutually cooperate with each other in defense of said action or proceeding. Notwithstanding the above, the City, at is sole option, may tender the complete defense of any third party challenge as described herein. In the 10th Amendment Page 18
3415

event, the City elects to contract with special counsel to provide for such a defense, the City shall meet and confer with NEWAGE regarding the selection of counsel, and NEWAGE shall pay all costs related to retention of such counsel.

Section 28. Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this 10th Amendment is repealed by referendum or is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions, if any, of this 10th Amendment shall continue in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this 10th Amendment as so invalidated would be unreasonable or grossly inequitable under all the circumstances or would frustrate the purposes of this 10th Amendment.

Section 29. Singular and Plural; Gender; and Person. Except where the context requires otherwise, the singular of any word shall include the plural and vice versa, and pronouns inferring the masculine gender shall include the feminine gender and neuter, and vice versa, and a reference to "person" shall include, in addition to a natural person, any governmental entity and any partnership, corporation, joint venture or any other form of business entity.

Section 30. Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this 10th Amendment and of each and every term and condition hereof.

Section 31. Delays in Performance. In addition to any other provisions of this 10th Amendment with respect to delay, NEWAGE and City shall be excused for performance of their obligations hereunder during any period of delay caused by acts of God or civil commotion, major acts of terrorism occurring in the United States of America, riots, strikes, picketing, or other labor disputes, shortage of materials or supplies, or damage to or prevention of work in process by reason of fire, floods, earthquake, or other casualties, litigation, acts or neglect of the other party, or restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental or quasi -governmental entities, enactment of conflicting provisions of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America or the State of California or any codes, statutes, regulations or executive mandates promulgated thereunder. If written notice of such delay is given to either party within (30) days of the commencement of such delay, an extension of time for such cause shall be granted in writing for the period of the delay, or longer as may be mutually agreed upon.

Section 32. Events of Default. Subject to any extensions of time by mutual consent in writing, and subject to the provisions of Section 31 "Delays in Performance", the failure or unreasonable delay by either party to perform any material term or provision of this 10th Amendment for a period of thirty (30) days after the dispatch of a written notice of default from the other party shall constitute a default under this 10th Amendment. If the nature of the alleged default is such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such 30 -day period, the commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure shall be deemed a cure within 10th Amendment Page 19
3416

such period. Any Notice of Default give hereunder shall specify in detail the nature of the alleged Event of Default and the manner in which such Event of Default may be satisfactorily cured in accordance with the terms and conditions of this 10th Amendment. During the time periods herein specified for cure of an Event of Default, the party charged therewith shall not be considered to be in default for purposes of termination of this 10th Amendment, institution of legal proceedings with respect thereto, or whether any further building permits shall be issued with respect to the Project Site.

Section 33. General Default Remedies. After notice and expiration of the 30 - day period without cure, the non -defaulting party shall have such rights and remedies against the defaulting party as it may have at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, the right to terminate this 10th Amendment pursuant to Government Code Section 65868 or seek mandamus, specific performance, injunctive or declaratory relief. Any rights or remedies available to non -defaulting party under this 10th Amendment and any other rights or remedies that such party may have at law or in equity upon a default by the other party under this 10th Amendment shall be distinct and separate, providing the non -defaulting party with cumulative rights and remedies. None of such rights or remedies, whether or not exercised by the non -defaulting party, shall be deemed to exclude any other rights or remedies available to the non -defaulting party. The non - defaulting party may, in its discretion, exercise any and all of its rights and remedies, at once or in succession, at such time or times as the non -defaulting party considers appropriate.

Section 34. Legal Action; Attorneys' Fees. Either party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute legal action to cure, correct or remedy a default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, or enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the parties hereto. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to be paid by the losing party.

Section 35. NEWAGE Default. No building permit shall be issued or building permit application accepted for any structure on the Project Site after NEWAGE is determined by City to be in default of the terms and conditions of this 10th Amendment until such default thereafter is cured by the NEWAGE or is waived by the City. If the City terminates this 10th Amendment because of NEWAGE's default, then the City shall retain any and all benefits, including money or land received by the City hereunder.

Section 36. Waiver. All waivers must be in writing to be effective or binding upon the waiving party, and no waiver shall be implied from any omission by a party to take any action with respect to an Event of Default. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this 10th Amendment by the other party shall not constitute waiver of such party's right to demand strict compliance by the other party in the future. In addition, no express written waiver of any Event of Default shall 10th Amendment Page 20
3417

affect any other Event of Default, or cover any other period of time specified in such express waiver.

Section 37. Amendments. This 10th Amendment may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the original parties or their successors in interest, with the City's costs payable by amendment applicants, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65867 and 65868 and the City's adopted procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements.

Section 38. Ambiguities or Uncertainties. The parties hereto have mutually negotiated the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and each party received independent legal advice from its attorneys with respect to the advisability of executing this 10th Amendment and the meaning of the provisions contained herein. As such, this 10th Amendment is a product of the joint drafting efforts of both parties and neither party shall be deemed to have solely or independently prepared or framed this 10th Amendment. Therefore, any ambiguities or uncertainties are not to be construed against or in favor of either party.

Section 39. Applicable Law. This 10th Amendment shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

Section 40. Nexus/Reasonable Relationship Challenges. NEWAGE consents to, and waives any rights it may have now or in the future to challenge the legal validity of, the conditions, requirements, policies or programs set forth in this 10th Amendment including, without limitation, any claim that they constitute an abuse of the police power, violate substantive due process, deny equal protection of the laws, effect a taking of property without payment of just compensation, or impose an unlawful tax.

Section 41. Civil Code Section 1542 Waiver. NEWAGE hereby waives any and all rights they or their successors and assigns may have under Article XIIIC or Article XIIID of the California Constitution and any and all rights they or their successors and assigns may have under any other applicable law to contest the fees, exactions and assessments and/or their amounts payable to the City under this 10th Amendment as follows:

In furtherance of the intentions of the parties to this 10th Amendment, NEWAGE with and under advice of counsel, hereby expressly waives any and all right and benefit conferred upon said parties by the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542, which provides as follows:
"A general release does not extend to claims which a
creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to 10th Amendment Page 21
3418

exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party."
NEWAGE further expressly waives any and all rights and
benefits conferred upon NEWAGE by any provision of any other state, federal or local statute, code, ordinance or law similar to section 1542 of the Civil Code. NEWAGE expressly consents that the waiver of rights contained in the first paragraph shall be given full force and effect, according to the express terms and provisions of the instant waiver, to unknown and unsuspected claims, demands and causes of action, if any, arising out of or relating to the waiver of rights contained in this 10th Amendment.

Initials:

NEWAGE
Section 42. Venue. In the event that suit is brought by either party to this 10th Amendment, the parties agree that venue shall be exclusively vested in the State courts of the County of Riverside, California or where appropriate, in the United States District Court, Southern District of California, Riverside, California.

Section 43. No Damages Relief Against City. The parties acknowledge that the City would not have entered into this 10th Amendment had it been exposed to damage claims from NEWAGE for any breach thereof. As such, the parties agree that in no event shall NEWAGE be entitled to recover damages against City for breach of this 10th Amendment.

Section 44. Notices. Any notice or communication required hereunder between City or NEWAGE shall be in writing, and may be given either personally or by registered mail, return -receipt requested. Notice, whether given by registered mail or personal delivery, shall be deemed to have been given and received on the actual receipt by any of the addresses designated below as the party to whom notices are to be sent. Any party hereto may at any time, upon written notice to the other party hereto, designate any other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their addresses set forth below:

To City:
10th Amendment Page 22
3419

City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Attention: City Manager
To NEWAGE:

Newage Rancho Mirage LLC
c/o Kam Sang Co., Inc.
411 E Huntington Drive, Ste 305
Arcadia, CA 91006
Attention: Ronnie Lam
Section 45. Entire Agreement. The Original Development Agreement, the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 6th Amendment, the 7th Amendment, the 8th Amendment, the 9th Amendment and this 10th Amendment and the Exhibits attached thereto contain all the representations and the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as otherwise specified in this 10th Amendment and the Exhibits attached hereto, any prior correspondence, memoranda, agreements (other than the Original Development Agreement and all subsequent amendments), warranties or representations are superseded in total by this 10th Amendment and Exhibits hereto.

Section 46. Recordation. In order to comply with Section 65868.5 of the Development Agreement Statute, the parties do hereby direct the City Clerk to cause a copy of this 10th Amendment to be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder's Office within ten (10) days after the Enacting Ordinance takes effect.

Section 47. Counterparts. This 10th Amendment may be executed in duplicate counterpart originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and all of which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [THIS PORTION LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]
10th Amendment Page 23
3420

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this 10th Amendment to be executed as of the dates written above.

City of Rancho Mirage NEWAGE-RANCHO, LLC., a
Delaware limited liability company
By:

Lynn Mallotto
Mayor
ATTEST:

By:

Kristie Ramos
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

Colin Kirkpatrick
City Attorney
By:

Its:

By:

Its:

Chief Financial Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:

NEWAGE Attorney
10th Amendment Page 24
3421

EXHIBIT "A"

HOTEL, SPA & SPA SUITES SITE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 1 AND 2 OF TRACT MAP NO. 34640-1, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 443, PAGES 11 THROUGH 16, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

APN: 689-330-031; 689-330-032; 689-330-034
10th Amendment
Exhibit "A"
3422

EXHIBIT "B"

VILLA SITE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOTS 50 AND 51 OF TRACT MAP NO. 19397, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 160, PAGES 64 THROUGH 77, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

APN: 689-330-026; 689-330-028
10th Amendment Exhibit "B"
3423

EXHIBIT "C"

TENNIS SITE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 48 OF TRACT MAP NO. 19397, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 160, PAGE 64, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

APN: 689-330-011
10th Amendment Exhibit "C"
3424

EXHIBIT "D"

SKY MESA SITE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel No. 4, of Parcel Map No. 11913, in the County of Riverside, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 53 of Parcel Maps, Pages 18 and 19, Records of said County.

Excepting therefrom any portion thereof lying within Tract No. 19397 as shown by Map on file in Book 160, Pages 64 through 77 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California.

Also excepting therefrom any portion thereof lying within Parcel Map No. 24865 on file in Book 182, Pages 35 through 37 of Parcel Maps, Records of Riverside County, California.

Also excepting therefrom any portion thereof lying within Tract No. 2864 as shown by Map on file in Book 51, Pages 82 through 86 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California.

Also excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to the City of Rancho Mirage, a Municipal Corporation by Documents recorded July 23, 1986 as Instrument Nos. 172881 and 172882 and recorded December 27, 1989 as Instrument Nos. 453114, 453116 and 453118, all Official Records of Riverside County, California.

Also excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to the Coachella Valley County Water District by Instrument recorded April 22, 1975 as Instrument No. 1975-45742 of Official Records of Riverside County, California.

Also excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to the City of Rancho Mirage, a Municipal corporation by Deed recorded October 28, 1976 as Instrument No. 165432 Official Records of Riverside County, California.

APN: 689-020-012; 689-020-014
10th Amendment Exhibit "D"
3425

EXHIBIT "E"

CONDO -HOTEL
ORDINANCE NO. 932
10th Amendment Exhibit "E"
3426

ORDINANCE NO. 932

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE AMENDING RANCHO

MIRAGE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCLUDE

DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS REGARDING

CONDO -HOTEL PROJECTS
WHEREAS, there has been a recent increase in the
popularity of the development of and/or use of condo -hotel projects among individual and business investors, national and international hotel corporations, business travelers, members of the vacationing public and developers; and
WHEREAS, this increase in popularity has created a
need for specific regulations to govern the development and operation of condo -hotel projects to ensure that such
projects are developed and operated in a manner that not only effectively mitigate the impacts such projects will have on surrounding land uses and traffic circulation, but also enhances the City's ability to adequately provide for the public service needs of the owners and guests of condo - hotel units and the general public; and
WHEREAS, the potential conversion of existing
revenue -producing lodging establishments in the City to condo -hotel projects may result in diminished revenue to the City's general fund that is used to pay for many
general municipal services demanded of the City's
residents, businesses, and transient guests of the City's many lodging establishments unless the City adopts
development and operational standards regulating condo - hotel projects that are necessary for ensuring that such projects enhance rather than diminish the City's ability to continue providing optimal municipal services; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enhance rather than
diminish the provision of general municipal services to its residents, businesses and transient guests of the City's many lodging establishments now and in the future while promoting development that will result in attracting and encouraging the development of additional revenue -producing business activities to the City; and
WHEREAS, the changing hotel market throughout the
country has created a demand for condo -hotel projects; and 1 3427

WHEREAS, the City desires to enhance its opportunities
in attracting new resort hotel development to meet the
demands of the changing tourist trade while at the same time increasing revenue for general municipal services.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
MIRAGE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. TITLE
This ordinance shall be known as the "Condo -Hotel
Ordinance."
Section 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to ensure
that the development of condo -hotel projects in the City does not detrimentally impact surrounding uses and that such development provides opportunities for the City to enhance its abilities to provide optimal municipal services not only to the prospective owners and users of condo -hotel units, but also to the general public.

Section 3. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.90.020"

DEFINITIONS OF SPECIALIZED TERMS AND
PHRASES"
Section 17.90.020 of Chapter 17.90 "Definitions" of
Title 17 "Zoning" is hereby amended as follows:
"Condo -hotel project" shall mean a project which is
operated to meet the definition of a hotel, containing
condominiums, ownership of which may be structured as whole ownership condominiums, fractional ownership with no more than 12 fractional shares per unit, or other
ownership/financing arrangement deemed by the City Council to be similar in function and/or operation, but shall not include timeshares.

Section 4. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.10.010
"PURPOSE"
Paragraph B "Individual Zoning Districts" of Section

17.10.010 of Chapter 17.10 "Commercial and Industrial
Districts! of Title 17 "Zoning" is hereby amended as
follows:
2 3428

6. Rs -H (Resort Hotel) Zone. The Rs -H zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for hotels and destination resorts, including condo -hotel projects, with limited
ancillary commercial uses, including restaurants and health spas that directly support the primary use. The Rs -H zoning district is consistent with the resort hotel land use
designation of the general plan; and
Section 5. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 17.10.012
"ALLOWABLE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL

ZONE USES, PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND
PROJECT REVIEW AUTHORITY"
Table 2-4 "Allowable Uses and Permit Requirements for
Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts" of Section

17.10.012 of Chapter 17.10 "Commercial and Industrial
Districts" shall be amended to reflect that condo -hotel projects shall only be permitted in the Resort Hotel "Rs -H" District by a Development Permit Plan and a Development Agreement, when one is required, which shall all be subject to the final review authority of the City Council.

Section 6. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 16.06.010
"DEFINITIONS"
Section 16.06.010 of Chapter 16.06 "Definitions" of
Title 16 "Subdivisions" shall be amended as follows:

9. "Condominium" means an estate in real property
consisting of an undivided interest in common in a portion of a parcel together with a separate interest in space in a residential or commercial building on the real property, such as an apartment, residence, office, condo -hotel unit or store. Furthermore, a condominium may include a
separate interest in other portions of the real property.

Section 7. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 17.30 "STANDARDS
FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES"
Chapter 17.30 "Standard for Specific Land Uses" shall
be amended as follows:

17.30.095 Condo -Hotel projects.

A. Development Standards. The development standards
applicable to Resort Hotels shall apply to all
condo -hotel projects, unless otherwise provided
3 3429

in this chapter or pursuant to a development
agreement.

B. Conversions. No existing hotel room or existing
hotel facility or structure shall be converted to
condo -hotel status unless otherwise permitted
pursuant to a development agreement.

C. Owner and Occupancy Restrictions. The following
occupancy restrictions shall apply to all condo -
hotel projects:

1. The number of units of a condo -hotel project
that may be condo -hotel units shall be
limited to no more than ten (10)percent of
the project's total sum of condo -hotel units
and hotel rooms combined unless otherwise
permitted pursuant to a development
agreement.

2. Each owner of a condo -hotel unit and each
individual fractional owner of a condo -hotel
unit shall be limited to using or occupying
any given unit owned by said owner for no
more than twenty-seven (27) days per
calendar year unless otherwise permitted
pursuant to a development agreement. Owners
may assign their use and occupancy rights to
a third party subject to the City's
transient occupancy tax regulations unless
otherwise provided pursuant to a development
agreement.

3. Outside the owner occupancy periods, a
condo -hotel unit shall be made available for
transient occupancy purposes for no more
than 27 consecutive days by any given
transient.

D. Collection of Transient Occupancy Taxes. The
following provisions shall apply to all condo -
hotel projects:

1. Each owner of a condo -hotel unit shall enter
into an agreement with a professional hotel
management entity/company which, at a
minimum, provides that the management
4 3430

entity/company will collect all transient
occupancy taxes required on rentals of that
owner's unit, outside the owner occupancy
periods, whether or not such rentals are
handled by said management entity/company.

The management entity/company shall then be
responsible for forwarding transient
occupancy taxes to the City in accordance
with the City's transient occupancy tax
regulations.
(a) Any condo -hotel units owned, in whole
or in part by the parent hotel or
professional management entity/company
shall be made available for rent for
transient occupancy for no more than 27
consecutive days by any given
transient, at all times regardless of
whether the hotel or management
entity/company would otherwise have
occupancy rights as an owner under this
section.

2. The professional management entity/company
designated to collect transient occupancy
taxes pursuant to this section must have at
least five (5) consecutive years of
experience, meeting the First Class Hotel
Standards and have no fewer than ten (10)
other properties (each in separate cities,
or distinct and separate projects in any
given city, nationally or internationally)
under current management unless otherwise
provided pursuant to a development
agreement.

Section 8. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after its second reading.
5 3431

Section 9. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this
ordinance and shall cause the same to be published
according to law.
6 3432

PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 20TH day of July, 2006.

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
ATTEST:

Elena Keeran
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Steven Quintani
City Attorney
7 CITY COUNCI
Richard W. Kite
Mayor
3433

ORDINANCE CERTIFICATION
I, Elena Keeran, City Clerk of the City of Rancho
Mirage, California, do hereby certify under penalty of
perjury, that the foregoing Ordinance No. 932 was
introduced by first reading at a meeting of the City
Council held July 6, 2006, by the following vote:

AYES: MEEPOS, MOLLER, SEMAN, HOBART, KITE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Ordinance No. 932 was adopted at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on July 20, 2006 by the following vote:

AYES: MEEPOS, MOLLER, SEMAN, HOBART, KITE
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
I further certify that I have caused the Ordinance to
be posted and/or published as required by law (GC Sect. 36933) .

ELENA KEERAN, CMC

CITY CLERK
8 3434

EXHIBIT F

SITE PLAN
(TO BE ATTACHED)
10th Amendment Exhibit "F"
3435

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
) ss.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
On before me, , personally appeared
, who proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under Penalty of Perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal)
Signature
3436

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
) ss.

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
On before me,
personally appeared , who
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under Penalty of Perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal)
Signature
3437

ATTACHMENT 9
RESOLUTION NO. 2D25 -PC -02

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL: 1) ADOPT RESOLUTION [NEXT iN LINE] APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; AND 2) ADOPT RESOLUTION [NEXT IN LINE] APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT GPZMA 21-9001, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DA21- 0002, MAJOR MODIFICATION MOD21-0004 TO PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TPM23-0002
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of the State of California for certain purpose; and
WHEREAS„ the City previously approved on August 3, 2006, an Environmental impact Report Case No. EIR06OO1, Tentative Tract Map No. 34640, and Preliminary Development PlanCase No, PDP06001. This project consisted, of renovating the existing three story Ritz Carlton hotel and adding four additional guest rooms (244 total roams), a

50.647 Spa Building with additional Spa Suites, T -Wing Building with 54 units ranging in size from 1 to 3 bedrooms (location of current Building A-1), Hotel Villas 57 two story units ranging in size from 2 to 4 bedrooms (location of current Buildings B-1 to B-15), and 25 (with a total of 49 keys) one and two story Hotel Villas on the former tennis site (located west of the existing Ritz Carlton Hotel). The hotel renovations and Spa Building (constructed in 2015) were completed as part of the 2006 entitlements. Although the 14 tennis courts, basketball court, sand volleyball court, small building, and associated improvemerts cn the 7.96 -acre Tennis Villas site were demolished, construction of the Tennis Villas never occurred but the entitlements remain valid. No modifications are proposed to the Tennis Villas, and they are not part of the current Major Modification application, The project site for the T -Wing Building and Hotel Villas (111 units in total as approved with 2006 entitlements) was partially graded but construction never occurred, this portion of the project site is part of the subject Major Modification (which now includes 106 units, event space, and subterranean parking); and
WHEREAS, Kam Sang Company on behalf of Newage Rancho Mirage LLC/Ritz Carlton ("Developer"), submitted applications for the "Proposed Project", which proposes the construction of the Ritz Carlton Residences, including but not limited to amenities and subterranean parking structure; and a Sky Mesa recreation area including but not limited to restaurant and restroorn facility, lawn event space and pool area; a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment to amend the Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the Sky Mesa. Recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) an approximately 3.86 acres (GPZMA 21- 0001) (as described in more detail on Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference); a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0002) establishing three parcels, with Parcel 3 containing 106 condo units (as described in more detail on Exhibit "C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference); a Major Modification to existing Preliminary 3438

Development Phan PDP06001 (MQD21-O004) (as described in more detail on Exhibit "C", attached heretc and incorporated herein by reference): and a 10h Amendment to existing Development Agreement with Newage Rancho Mirage, LLC (DA 21-0002) (the "Development Agreement Amendment") (as described in more detail in Exhibit "D", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference); affecting the real property generally located along Frank Sinatra Drive, approximately 0.85 miles southwest of the intersection with Highway 111, within the City of Rancho Mirage, having Assessor Parcel Numbers 689-330-026, 028, -031. -032, and -034; 689-020-012, -014; and 689-331-001, and -018 (the 'Subject Property) (as depicted in Exhibit "A", attached hereto); and WHEREAS, the Project (excluding the Sky Mesa portion, as identified in the January 9. 2025, Planning Commission staff report), is a modification to the originally approved 2006 project entitlements that included residential villas and condominiums.

The Tennis Villas project site (7.06 acres an APf: 689-330-011) located west of the existing Ritz Carlton Hotel, which was previously analyzed as part of a 2006 Environmental impact Report. incorporated herein by reference, was also a pant of the 2006 entitlements and is included in the 10th Amendment to the Project's Development Agreement. The Tennis Villas portion cf the original entitlements is not being altered or modified trorn its original entitlements, and no new information relating to significant effects and means of reducing or avoiding any effects, which was not known and could have been known at the time the previous 2006 EIR was certified. has become available; and
WHEREAS, the MND was circulated for a 30 -day public review period from March 11, 2024, through April 9, 2024. In response to comments received, the City revised the MND to clarify. correct, or supplement the information presented. The City recirculated the MND in accordance with Sections 15070(a) and 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The City has reviewed and considered the proposed Project and has determined that no significant impacts will occur with the implementation of mitigation measures. The recirculated MND was circulated for another 30 -day public review period commencing July 22, 2024, through August 20, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration •("MND") and mitigation monitoring and reporting program ("MMRP"), attached hereto and incorporated herein in the proposed City Council Resolution as set forth in Exhibit "B", based upon its determination that there is no substantial evidence in the whole record before it that the Proposed Project wile have a significant effect on the environment that has not been mitigated to a level of less than significant, and that the MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the Proposed Project and its potential impacts on the environment consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines, as described in more detail in the draft Resolution attached to the January 9, 2025, Planning Commission staff report, regarding City Council's adoption and approval of the MND and MMRP.
3439

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS.

That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2, EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.

That the Planning Commission conducted a noticed Public Hearing on January 9, 2025, and considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record for the Proposed Project. including, but not limited to, the following. which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:
(a) Rancho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Titles 16 (Subdivisions) & 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein:
(c) Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0002);
(d) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment GPZMA 21-0001 (the "GPZMA"); (e) Major Modification to Preliminary Development Plan, Case No. MOD21- 0004:
(f) Development Agreement Amendment Case No. DA21-0002; (g) The Original Development Agreement, as defined in the draft Ordinance attached to the January 9', 2025. Planning Commission staff report, and all amendments thereto, all incorporated herein by this reference; (h) The 2005 Environmental Impact Report (EIR06001) and (i) Initial Study:
(j) Notice of Intent to adopt MND;
(k) h11ND and MMRP:
(I) Notice of Planning Commission Public :Hearing scheduled tor January 9, 2025. at 2:10 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall! at 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California:
(m) Planning Commission Staff Report. attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the January 9. 2025, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(n) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to. the January 9, 2025, Planning Commission Public Hearing; and
(o) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the January 9. 2C25, Planning Commission Public Hearing.

3. 3440

SECTION 3. FINDINGS.

That the Planning Commission finds as follows:
a) That the proposed subdivision. together with the provisions for its design and improvements, are consistent with all applicable provisions of the municipal code b) That the proposed parcel map (TPM23-0002) is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in California Government Code Section 65451; c) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
d) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; e) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; f) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
g) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems;
h) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easernents, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision;
i) That the Proposed Project, and the GPZMA and Development Agreement Amendment specifically, are consistent with the General Plan, upon consideration of all of its aspects, including without limitation that the proposed amendment further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and do not obstruct their attainment; j) That proposed development under a Major Modification is allowed withing the respective zoning district as permitted under the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan;
k) That Major Modification is generally in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of Title 17 that are necessary to carry out the purpose and requirements of the respective zoning district, including prescribed development standards and applicable design guidelines;
I) That Major Modification is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan and
m) The proposed project produces a comprehensive development incorporating a more enhanced environment and architectural excellence (e.g_, appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, increased amounts of landscaping and open space, improved solutions to the design and placement of parking facilities, etc.) than would normally be possible under more standard district development requirements;
n) The design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access and public services and utilities (e.0_, drainage, fire protection, sewers, water, etc.), ensure that the proposed development would not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvemerts in the vicinity and the respective zoning district; 4 3441

c) The design, location. and proposed uses is compatible with the character of existing development in the surrounding neighborhood;
p) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and densityfintensity of development being proposed;
q) That the Proposed Project have been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the Caiifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines; and SECTION 4. RECOMMENDATIONS.

That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, the Planning Commission Findings, as set forth and described herein, and the findings and determinations set forth in the January 9, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report and the attached resolutions, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
a), Approve and Adopt the attached Resolution set forth in Exhibit "B", adopting the MND and MMRP; and
b) Adopt the attached Resolution set forth in Exhibit "C" approving Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0002), GPZMA (GPZI IA 21-0001), Major Modification Case No.

M0021-0004, and t0tt, Amendment to Development Agreement (DA21-0002), SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY.

That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution or any portion of the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect, SECTION 7. CERTIFICATION.

That the Secretary to the Planning Commission shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 8. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.

That all provisions of any resolution in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the Planning Commission that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed.
3442

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 9* day of January, 2025.

ATTEST:

Kristie Ramos, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Colin 0. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney
Jass . s 1. air
3443

EXHIBIT "A"

SUBJECT PROPERTY
(SEE ATTACHED)
3444

Aerial
Ritz Carlton Rancho Mirage
Environmental Assessment Ca se No. EA21-0002, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21-0001, Development Agreement Amendment Case No. DA21 0O02, Major Modification Case No. MQD21-00D4, & Tentative Parcel Map Case Number TP M23-0O02 (TPM38768)

EXHIBIT "E"

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM EA2I-0002
(SEE ATTACHED)
3446

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AND APPROVING A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM REGARDING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT GPZMA 21-0001, MAJOR MODIFICATION MOD21-0004, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (TPM23-0002) AND 10TH AMENDMENT TO

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITI-I NEWAGE RANCHO MIRAGE, LLC
(I]A21-0002)
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of the State of California for certain purpose; and
WHEREAS, the "Proposed Project" proposes the construction of the Ritz Carlton Residences, including but not limited to amenities and subterranean parking structure; and a Sky Mesa recreation area including but not limited to restaurant and restroom facility, lawn event space and pool area; a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment to amend the lvlountain Reserve (MR) designation for the Sky Mesa recreational area to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) on approximately 3.86 acres (GPZMA 21-0002); a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0002) establishing three parcels, with Parcel 3 containing 106 condo units; a Major 1'k/edification to existing Preliminary Development Plan PDP06001 (MOD21 4004); and a 10'r' Amendment to existing Development Agreement with Newa€ge Rancho Mirage, LLC (DA 21-0002) (the "Development Agreement Amendment"); affecting th•e real properly generally located along Frank Sinatra Drive, approximately 0.85 miles southwest of the intersection with Highway 111, within the City of Rancho Mirage, having Assessor Parcel Numbers 689-330-026, -028, -031, -032, and -034; 689-020-012, -014; and 689- 331-001, and -018 (the "Subject Property); and
WHEREAS, the Project (excluding the Sky Mesa portion, as identified in the January 9, 2025, Planning Commission staff report), is a modification to the originally approved 2006 project entitlements that included residential villas and condominiums.

The Tennis Villas project site (7.96 acres on APN: 689-330-011) located west of the existing Ritz Carlton Hotel, which was previously analyzed as part of a 2006 Environmental Impact Report, incorporated herein by reference. was also a part of the 2006 entitlements and is included in the 10th Amendment to the Project's Development Agreement. The Tennis Villas portion of the original entitlements is not being altered or modified from its original entitlements, and no new information relating to significant effects and means of reducing or avoiding any effects, which was not known and could have been known at the time the previous 2006 EIR was certified, has become available; and
WHEREAS, the MND was circulated for a 30 -day public review period from March 11, 2024, through April 9, 2024. In response to comments received, the City revised the 1 3447

MND to clarify, correct, or supplement the information presented_ The City recirculated the MND in accordance with Sections 15070(a) and 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines_ The City has reviewed and considered the proposed Project and has determined that no significant impacts will occur with the implementation of mitigation measures. The recirculated MND was circulated for another 30 -day public review period commencing July 22, 2024, through August 20, 2024.

WHEREAS, on January 9, 2025, the Rancho Mirage Planning Commission adopted Resolution [TD BE INSERTED], incorporated herein by this reference, recommending, in part. the City Council approve and adopt this Resolution, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") based upon its determination that there is no substantial evidence in the whole record before it that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment that has not been mitigated to a level of less than significant, and that the MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the Proposed Project and its potential impacts on the environment consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA 'Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the Proposed Project, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit "A"

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
That the City Council has considered all of the evidence ("Evidence") submitted into the administrative record ("Administrative Record') for the Proposed Project, including, but riot limited to, the following, which are all hereby incorporated herein by reference:
(a) Rancho► Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Title 1 (Subdivisions) & 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein;
(c) Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0002);
(d) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment GPZMA 21-0001 (the "GPZMA"); (e) Major Modification to Preliminary Development Plan, Case No. MOD21- 0004;
(f) Development Agreement Amendment Case No. 1 A21-0002; 2 3448

(g) The Original Development Agreement, as defined in the Ordinance attached tc the January 9m, 2025, Planning Commission staff report, and all amendments thereto, all incorporated herein by this reference; (h) The 2006 Environmental Impact Report (EIR06001) and (i) Initial Study,
(i) Notice of intent to adopt MND:
(k) MND and MMRP
(I) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for January 9, 2025, at 2:00 p.m_ in the Council Chamber, located at City HaII at 69-625 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage. California.
(m) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the January 9, 2025, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(n) Testimony andfor comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the January 9, 2025, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(o) Testimony andfor comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to. the January 9, 2025, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(p) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for [INSERT], 2025, at 1:40 p.ni. in the Council Chamber, located at City HaII at 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(q) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the [INSERT]. 2025, City Council Public Hearing;
(r) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to. the [INSERT], 2025. City Council Public Hearing; and
(s) Testimony and/or comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the [INSERT], 2025, City Council Public Hearing.

SECTION 3. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project. as set forth and described herein, the City Council acknowledges, accepts, and approves, and makes the following Findings and Determinations.
(a)
That the City has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and the whole record before it (including, the Initial Study and comments received) and, based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds that all environmental impacts of the proposed Project, with mitigation measures, 3449

are below a level of significance and there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment.
(b) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been completed in compliance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. (c) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan represent the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission and City Council as lead agency for the proposed Project_ (d) That the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Ivlitigation Monitoring Plan are adequate to serve as the required CEQA environmental documentation for the proposed Project_
(e)
That CEQA Guidelines provide that once an EIR has been certified, the basis for an agency's determination a further EIR is not required may be included in the agency's findings on the project or elsewhere in the record (14 Cal Code Regs Section 15164(e); however, adoption of a subsequent mitigated negative declaration is appropriate because potentially significant impacts not addressed in the underlying EIR can be substantially reduced or avoided by adopting additional mitigation measures, which the City has done via the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan.

In other words, the City has evaluated changed made to the project and concluded that significant impacts have been avoided or substantially reduced through the adoption of mitigation measures, as set forth herein.

SECTION 4. ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
That based on the Findings and Determinations set forth herein and the substantial evidence included in the Recitals, Exhibits and Evidence contained in Administrative Record, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the findings set forth therein which support a determination that all potentially significant environmental impacts from implementation of the proposed Project have been identified and, with the implementation of the mitigation measures defined and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prograrn, will be mitigated to a less -than -significant level.

SECTION 5. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
That the City Council authorizes and directs the Planning Division to prepare, execute, and file a Notice of Determination in accordance with Public Resource Code Section 21152.
4 3450

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY
That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of Resolution or any portion of the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 8. CERTIFICATION.

That the City Clerk, shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 9. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.

That all provisions of any resolution in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed.
[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK}
3451

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this day of 2025
Ted Weill, Mayor
ATTEST:
'ristla Ramos, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM;
Colin Kirkpatrick, City Attorney
3452

EXHIBIT "A"

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION & MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (EA21-0002)
(TO BE ATTACHED)
7 3453

EXHIBIT "C"

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP,

GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, AND MAJOR MODIFICATION - TPM23-0002, GPZMA 21-0001, AND MOD21-0004
(SEE ATTACHED)
3454

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO MIRAGE,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT CASE NO. GPZMA 21-0001, APPROVING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP TPM 23-0002, AND MAJOR MODIFICATION MOD29-
000C, REGARDING THE RITZ CARLTON RANCHO MIRAGE
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Mirage is a charter city and a municipal corporation of the State of California, and recognized as a political subdivision of State of California for certain purpose; and
WHEREAS. on January 9. 2025. the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program regarding the Proposed Project, and approve the "Proposed Project". which proposes the construction of the Ritz Carlton Residences. including but not limited to amenities and subterranean parking structure. and a Sky Mesa recreation area including but not limited to restaurant and restroom facility, lawn event space and pool area; a General Plan Zoning Map Amendment to amend the Mountain Reserve (MR) designation for the Sky Mesa Recreational area to Resort 1-lotel (Rs -H) on approximately

3.88 acres (GPZMA 21-0002); a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0002) establishing three parcels. with Parcel 3 containing 106 condo units; a Major Modification to existing Preliminary Development Plan PDPO6001 (MOD21-0004); and a 10'" Amendment to existing Development Agreement with Newage Rancho Mirage, LLC (DA 21-0002) (the 'Development Agreement Amendment'): affecting the real property generally located along Frank Sinatra Drive, approximately 0.85 miles southwest of the intersection with Highway 111, within the City of Rancho Mirage. having Assessor Parcel Numbers 689- 330-026. 028, -031, -032, and -034: 689-020-012. -014; and 689-331-001, and -018 (the "Subject Property); and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA21-0001) (the "GPZMA"), Tentative Parcel Map TPM 23-0002, and Major Modification (MOD21-0004) (the "Major Mod"); and
WHEREAS, on [INSERT DATE]. 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. [TO BE INSERTED] approving and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Proposed Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. RECITALS AND EXHIBITS
That the foregoing Recitals and attached Exhibits are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by this reference.
3455

SECTION 2. EVIDENCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD.

That the City Council conducted a noticed Public Hearing on [rNSERT], 2025, and considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record for the Proposed Project, including, but not limited to, the following, which are all hereby inccrperated herein by reference_
(a) Rancho Mirage Municipal Code;
(b) Rancho Mirage General Plan and Titles 16 (Subdivisions) & 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code and all relevant provisions contained therein;
(c) Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0002);
(d) General Plan Zoning Map Amendment GPZMA 21-6601:
(e) Major Modification to Preliminary Development Plan, Case No. MOD21- 0004:
(f) Development Agreement Amendment Case No, DA21-0002; (g) Initial Study,
(h) Notice of intent to adopt MND;
(I) MND and MMRP:
(j) Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for ,January 9, 2025. at 2:04 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at City Hall at 69-825 1-ighway 111, Rancho Mirage, California;
(k) Planning Commission Staff Report. attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the January 9, 2025, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(I) Testimony and/or comments from Developer and its representatives submitted cr provided at, or prior to, the January 9. 2025, Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(m) Testimony andlor comments from all persons that were provided in written format or correspondence, at, or prior to, the January 9, 2025. Planning Commission Public Hearing;
(n) Notice of City Council Public Hearing scheduled for [INSERT], 2025, at 1:00 p-rn: in the Council Chamber. located at City Hail at 69-825 Highway 111, Rancho Mirage. California;
(o) Planning Commission Staff Report, attachments and Staff presentation for the Proposed Project, and all public documents, records and references related thereto submitted or provided at or prior to the [INSERT], 2025, City Council Public Hearing:
(p) Testimony andlor comments from Developer and its representatives submitted or provided at, or prior to, the [INSERT], 2025, City Council Public Hearing; and
(q) Testimony andlor comments from al! persons that were provided in written format or correspondence. at, or prior to, the [INSERT], 2025, City Council Public Hearing.
2 3456

SECTION 3. GPZMA FINDINGS
That the City Council finds the GPZMA is consistent with the General Plan, upcn consideration of all of its aspects, including without limitation that the proposed amendment further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and do not obstruct their attainment,
SECTION 3. ADOPT GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
That the City Council hereby amends the General Plan Zoning Map, changing the existing designation from Mountain Reserve (MR) to Resort Hotel (Rs -H) on approximately 3.88 acres (APNs: 689-020-012 & 689-020-014), as identified in more detail in Exhibit "A".

SECTION 4. FINDINGS
That the City Council finds as follows:
a) That the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvements, are consistent with all applicable provisions of the municipal code; b) That the proposed Tentative Parcel Map (TPM23-0002) is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in California Government Code Section 65451;
c) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
d) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development:
e) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; f) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
g} That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
h) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements. acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision;
j) That proposed development under the Major Modification is allowed within the respective zoning district as permitted under the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan;
k) That Major Mod is generally in compliance with all of the applicable provisions of Title 17 that are necessary tc carry out the purpose and requirements of the respective zoning district, including prescribed development standards and applicable design guidelines;
1) That Major Mod is consistent with the General Plan and applicable Specific Plan; and
m) The proposed project produces a comprehensive development incorporating a more enhanced environment and architectural excellence (e.g.. appropriate variety 3457

of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, increased amounts of landscaping and open space, improved solutions to the design and placement of parking facilities, etc.) than would normally be possible under more standard district development requirements;
n) The design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle access and public services and utilities (e.g., drainage, fire protection, sewers, water, etc.), ensure that the proposed development would not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the respective zoning district:
o) The design, location, and proposed uses is compatible with the character of existing development in the surrounding neighborhood;
p) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density}intensity of development being proposed; and
q) That the Proposed Project have been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 5. PROJECT APPROVAL
That based on the foregoing Recitals and the Evidence contained in the Administrative Record for the Proposed Project, the City Council Findings, as set forth and described herein, and the findings and determinations set forth in the January 9, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report and the resolutions, the City Council hereby approves the Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM23-0002, Major Modification Case No.

MOD21-0004, and General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21-0001.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
That this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

SECTION 7. GOVERNMENT CODE 66020 NOTICE
That pursuant to Government Code section 66020(4)(1), notice is hereby given that the Proposed Project is subject to certain fees, dedications, reservations and other exactions as provided herein, in the staff report and conditions of approval (collectively, "Conditions"); and these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications. reservations, and other exactions, and that the applicant is hereby notified that the ninety -day approval period in which the applicant may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a). has commenced upon the date of adoption of this Resolution. 4 3458

SECTION 8. SEVERABILITY
That if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Resolution be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 9. CERTIFICATION
That the City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.

SECTION 10. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
That all provisions of any resolution and/or General Plan Zoning Map, in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution as adopted by the City Council that are in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, are hereby repealed. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
3459

The foregoing Resolution was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on by the following vote:

CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE:

Ted Weill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Colin I. Kirkpatrick, City Attorney
6 3460

EXHIBIT "A"

GENERAL PLAN ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT CASE NO. GPZMA2400001
(SEE ATTACHED)
7 3461

General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA21-0001) Exhibit O Project Boundary
O Parcel Boundary
Land Use Designation
Very Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Resort - Hotel
Mountain Reserve
DUDEKm°
200
SOURCE. ESRI Clam)/ Imagery 2019
FIGURE 1.12
Existing and Proposed Land Use Designations
O Project Boundary
O Parcel Boundary
Land Use Designation
Very Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Resort - Hotel
Mountain Reserve
Ritz -Carlton ,/
Residences
Ritz -Carlton Rancho Mirage Initial Study
3462

EXHIBIT "B"
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TPM23-0002 (TPM38768)
(SEE ATTACHED)
s
3463

•
uliLITT PPCNI0El35
Enna WIMP 5100
M▪ r �aamll.y!an laa
eM af. -
aao oWta. ati a
an ant ala an Mina
F EDENILANQ r0VHT
am aaa ::aim ate. ®"
- Pr.1F1 A P.P.. am.. at W1
frar
mint= ULF
NOM kw Arr.

Mal. 3-1/111- IS
al
HOtt
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38768

IN THE CITY CF RANCHO MIRAGE

COUNTY CF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
0WHER/5WJ®aIVIE E
nEI G Anal WORE BL
_ONO Ma Mana
aa�a �.al a ne.

POEM rkliiikATION

VIONITY MAP
SSi *el ifls.U4'.T wIt
Pral If It
Waal.

WF
KE SHEET ] FR5 LEV& ff#dROI
FNISTIMG EASEM'FiJT HOUS oily im?m rllxaM Ita
AP PUP. Mal wan anrIFrle 10 uriWtr n=10. a .cawi.vr IF Marna. Mir rlIPAWa5 1IEIP memo P war me:.re ...we war m.^
/����1 �iy I� weer r can a a anal. Hia Aral I! 9w at 0101 a Y¢ U of s a Zinn' valCra.AM fa f1q m [real, Vtlte Stag W141 MTV
WtWarn P.M Farr Gan U 11.00, an Ana Ina*.
ana ar .sir 1 na a sax Aram
e r.e. I,-
' in Y hart Id IVE MUSS rla ar am IfSita NA. IF a W 1KW6f a la+a.av P Pak Mal n IP anal arab Mal Man ▪ a arra a. wisp aUn as Nana p ass m- p IaN.r. a Iaa
p r as a >.ala a'aJga aa.laR a aas a aaaava
• P1413 Or Anal pap ala anal .n Cala anOn.
: M a as ra sans las, manana. a . w �m®.er c ws Iran
l- .a. eta.
o<'Flnai®ad Una
411 r Iw Mann MIMI ar Inerla.i]m wt TRCY[O wa Dada WSW. IEISEa MW.arw n. WaF.1 M a_lan f. l aRJU'I PT Ina Vaal
Pear r SIMI . IMP as IMAM 1 NCIC ia}Ca P a; IV[ a Ara
Pt 'Puna pa dm aWailr arra OF Para man, .a a nadd a m me a a� adf Wan ry a ▪ yalma Fain Fa was neat a a.. Ella a SflInae l.e 4. 1. =MID Al r P It Ur A Ma
w raw ar g.ml. Ma+ acr a'aat oiMan f H NW! RI .AI¢.

FIR, pina ma in Enna nd nemaa n aana
• maaT a® MP 'arm. pa ear, �0. aV 6e as Ft a[ 1 Asa a Ina N Oa.. YiE9.aF areal aE aSai4 renal!
PEIQP95P EASE DrEHT hptrES
[pI MORE •I• NMI tepee R Ti' WE as Mae a q Pahl a 0+P sa II. aax a aBaal a am a PVT
Y5U1 a G6 P T e aai . mere r r 10 r r UPS a Ns_ a aal Cana. a_r. arainP;. -+SafJ Yf F.

Fr �i M 9111 Y ltliiaS LU9BW Y aiai.
inn Aar P.,

1.w.ui ILIS Ita.I i;
'Pa%•7021h
aaantaa

TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP ND. 38768
FQFYP FMK 6WY:'hA CR,
AJI.FL'• T -fl -U.1E, €51. 1151. Orfar ta.11
FAbI€15 YIFA61, fA
It
ere
atria
eal
merry re
VS
3464

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 38768
LEG#L DESCRIFTIOM
..C11
M.P PM e x UP P—rall.a ie . .1 al r*J.6—..V Ire
tr• 11? 1646* I, . are 7S'l N a -o a., urn pPaRM. P Ii4M P II.S'a v R,aa a as ••••• wag
mew • 1 PM I [SM NI ..IaAt w rld, aiw r 4 a Y 1411..... N... n+N 41 I MKT ..... mom. ti PIT. . MP. PT 1I iu . aaPPaa .Ara..*.. w Mkie.Y PIN. PPM St PARaU 4 IR II —! PPM.. POMP.

Web_ t
Ina W, -a. IP P. t..1 IMP a..r N.. 151 R StW mw a MOM
TI!llPli94®IC IIBP_rY 4.ri Fri ale. Pal 14 at.155 wW.. d . .

MEM MIR >i .1.®Pw ' PM PI ET., MOP PP. Na I. M. PC YO.L NAffiurI

11.6.1.1. 6 MITA AI.Mr
ar.RP!t■P Maar a..® 41.10.. an.Y 'JdR MP 1. 1431.1 1.141 .60 MI: PPM IMPS.. a.! e an. pit r:r . . Ary +gin Ilr..',sm ' rarR.6 W.I.

N L. 4�nfSt!! N PP.. ZrM. 111. M I�AlR PIT l JIC 94141 a a. MIN Pf Mee. 4._ _I odia as .std,rri .fart Aebr Y la4e 11±1. 6 ra la¢. ii ±tat rte isa ,d,iam' • em, mAa.agr a� rr ar earl. Me aaea r pr. 2s la.ip
4114 .1 RA1 '�i0/T. �flt�inWYaY'..a@Iw.. 6P.R.rYO[] 5!!• P..JSeJ Ili. ar IPI iFT 1Q:
ritm e. as 41�V� ry cup ePrR a MPar4 PPP. un Nr ra P
ofPPP .151 ria4�IsibP i del.eP t .I a rCMBtf• • F?� llso PPP isuI. a il6Tr RR 16411 t 1e MIt at MM1114 aIRW Cr R. 1411 a MI IR pm, .1.11617.1K MC IMP R um., art M .1.11617.1P*
f ..La P•MP PIMP oweIt1 .o rare 11111.
eWaT. se r.�. a —re— AM a 6141 I. 11411 Isla VP— PPP M!R,1 '111 =NW ▪ .s M Cr CP
.. ..PRT -0R.RE �.PRR4 PP P. i Mf. R 44111 P .6 P Yw r E Taal A.l
iraa a 1V1 Ml. MP Na YEA, 4@ Mel laPaP PW Aitia la R r 13 Y Hid ai err .d Taal —I gaol a,iiII[tias dS Rlera.iei=kg EASE riYwIaur MEMO* avow e a saw oar aaT.PAPaa1P a4.WK. 141111 R PM MI. A PIP PP.MM PP. PIPI Rah: MP MP .+14144rryniu .r'e Rd IMO. al R. AI II 11.41.w IiJlal C. IS
P.U.LLT as1 w'iCrYaYWu1Ytf®Y.f a.. aKs'.SY ..! I..-4 me PRroMPP.

P e.P Ia raaaaah,Ye W R. a PPP . R. rf, • aw .a 4 rag Pan IaaP >i purer Pm; I PAP a5JA1f®II id x a It I. Iat Pl. 1161 • oat ir .141_` Me. 4 .ee aawwT Y. AM -1 YriY CAE OfMiI Rr.Y�YM1 i IrV! a ioa a .efit PO'. A Ldw Jil I. ...P.

Pis'n _I N
- awl YRa E. pro..
1 . as Ail 'a - ac SP u..a 1PS �o P R.ra aaW4 a' 414E . R Palaa:9 a a. Mf v . ppm. rr ,Rq+li1 na M.e . YiU. P MN I@. + aRM1 If A5 .R PP MEI PIM WPM MR I. 11 .

PP W It_It
_Pap• Par ✓.. PP ni nSt M PM REA.. RfdN. [email protected] Yy'fYE PP.. I Yy 141141 I✓�4e1 i'e. rWF'u S at N rS a.Ya La a�IWT.i -LS IN,-.m'lRk IIP'!l'43laiif'rinf 11[Gl.o Ya AL1a.}' tar A 3Y PPM 15YNP..d Y. R aPTea.T t1 IIYM KYV*PPP dwfta4'r IWw cup .1.6 YYW..ak ma.... MLw Yaawaa .RI-IJ~R eat ma1e9 aair�mw sa Ida a cols s EPP. Taos fPa .r . fr aslwI alga 2f ao I4Pr iL1! 11,.11 Na: as a.e . ea.. qa ae1Pa I... Ia+ n. 1.1 aaaav4e a✓• R aaaa.N rr .. M at m a. 1aS PPP. •C..il.4 PIMP PM PPM 4II.Y IM la1C IZMI.R 4f. -IMP Mk ,`6154 MCIPPIT...a.i1Y i I.P. R MP IR. wr. IIr of W 4.-4•Mw Y3fr¢ IS. PP .14 ilia XIW'r3a6�t m rprl..Il. r.iT1lPP r IS IMP A6iIM R POP ielaISTllPIP.1 .R.p9 l PEP 1. ViNM PT P +n. MR. Pt Ca. TM. R m!!1 MI P' RRR°. da II fa1434 YR MITw®la0 P1.wPf48L Ba' W' IMP fW!
. T. PAP.* I. k alt oar paw a.RI 1p' Wag. 'par 'Roam 41WfI RI. - Ill t T ' 4 mom I +A as aS T L.A.Sr IMP IaRI®A Sllfl �Iald 9[ #MV. Y!. YC sm. R v. = 1I m MP. M' a 1.4.41. INC Z o Iii2 KeWi> iY RIlls Ir4'Ys41 :6721 YGe Iiaeil 744.4..""Lt .o r m .ale 111.4Irt wow >a K'R'saAa
>•ea ePrrwla a.a +#><.ISP I. eat }116111 u.!P Rie,r.1.w P I /11m[ Haw PP. ilirim®Mlt a. MOW . i_a a - Mr a 4.16.1Y. riei fs raffia 15 N5'tr, a. 1t.1 tar cup Pe1YW1 sjSt wlN5 oat ad'a. 'e anw 41'1
. eaas 1Y�1 s yr GIs ao .,tr e4 a srr.yr Ri . Ta .1.w.1 P Cart bil aJr of PP IRR P.M i a..a Galt R PPM.. M M PPM ■ Tan AV_ 1 PIS IMP IS .. PP P. R.I. IPe A EWE R 4,P I®w w MRS. P A 111!1' NW Na11 PPM J1. aa}a a.....PP.1. am
a +aPr..q.P t P. 0P 1. RaM. .IrarM t mrT4 ....r 11'+11 Al If 1411141 s MEP MP P. PM IP-11601 RMP. 14111 few (a. a N1rr43. P MD PM
a PM IN. fa
T MP A.1. 11414 aft. d.a.s . IP.I IMP
. IPPi 1611 !1w. M. P PERM .171.“ IEN
.PP fIRPM A1M PPP. PP Or PI !l P lot .Pei K FNwl Plt Y at al Y PP 81'411 LP "- I* sa.

RC IT wPHIT spa
• IMwIMS AV RAP 15 1MRIi1 K 4 OR'z i.�la nl .a.mR V TAE. '5111 11 Malta SO .46. .aeaea! trtar.

Aa it UPI 4F PP IIa 141114*, !a My lasal. i• ant ,I 141.141.6[.014 o!•1. II P. aTM al R.P.

P PM Cr MI IMRE

4. AaralP-a•.s 61111±®

IN THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
COUNTY OF RiVERSILE, STATE or CALIFORNIA
FOR cc DOMINION' PURPOSES
ra5mi1ti
Ill,
.A Ndl dai77
41,N1I1111 lal?1J1
nP.1P1 n' a1PMa 1.t.1.4 rlmrrl,aml

TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 38748
epgl.a 141141. yaltArn ai.
•P.I .'■ {da-336-02i, an, OP. G.N. 0.45
Fink= YMAGiL CF
1615. 5/aa
AB el
a�P r.rle
P.M. PM
rsmw w
POP
11 3465

EXHIBIT "C"
MAJOR MODIFICATION MOD2I-0004
(SEE ATTACHED)
9 3466

PROJECT CASE NUMBERS: EA21 -0002,
GPZMA2I -0001, MOD2I -0004, DA21 -0002
THE RAT _ � �- RLTON

RESIDENCE
RANCID MI' �� = E
3467

SHEET INDEX

LANDSCAPE

AREA BREAKDOWN

P ROJECT TEAM
COVER
A-0.1
A-0.2
A-0.3
A -R.1
A -R.2
A -R.3
A -R.4
BUILDING A-1

SHEET INDEX & PROJECT DATA

OVERALL SITE PLAN

PARTIAL SITE PLAN

SITE ENTRY RENDERING

THE VENUE RENDERING

THE LOUNGE RENDERING
BUILDING A-1 RENDERING
C-1.0
C-1.1
C-1.2
C-1.3
C-1.4
C-1.5
C-2.0
C-2.1
C-2.2
C-2.3
C-2.4
C-2.5
C-3.0
C-3.1
PARKING LEVEL P3
PARKING LEVEL P2
PARKING LEVEL P1 / GROUND FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

ROOF PLAN

ELEVATIONS - THE VENUE

ELEVATIONS - THE VENUE

ELEVATIONS - RESIDENTIAL UNITS

ELEVATIONS - RESIDENTIAL UNITS

SITE SECTION

LINE -OF -SIGHT STUDY

THE VENUE PLAN

RESIDENTIAL UNIT PLANS
BUILDING B-1 to B-15
V-1.0
V-1.1
V-1.2
V-1.3
V-1.4
V-1.5
V-1.6
V-1.7
V-1.8
V-1.9
V-2.0
V-2.1
V-2.2
V-2.3
V-2.4
V-2.5
V-2.6
V-3.0
V-3.1
V-3.2
V-3.3
V-3.4
TYP. DUPLEX/TRIPLEX FLOOR PLANS
TYP. FOURPLEX FLOOR PLANS
TYP. FIVEPLEX FLOOR PLANS
BUILDING B-5 FLOOR PLANS
BUILDING B-9 FLOOR PLANS
BUILDING B-11 FLOOR PLANS
BUILDING B-12 FLOOR PLANS

TYPICAL ROOF PLANS
BUILDING B-5 & B-9 ROOF PLANS
BUILDING B-11 & B-12 ROOF PLANS

DUPLEX ELEVATIONS

TRIPLEX ELEVATIONS

FOURPLEX ELEVATIONS

FIVEPLEX ELEVATIONS
BUILDING B-9 ELEVATIONS
BUILDING B-11 ELEVATIONS

SITE SECTION

UNIT FLOOR PLANS

UNIT FLOOR PLANS

THE LOUNGE ENLARGED PLANS

THE LOUNGE ENLARGED PLANS

THE LOUNGE ENLARGED PLANS

SKY MESA AREA
R -1.0A
R-1.0
R-1.1
R-1.2
R-1.3
R-1.4
R-2.1
R-2.2

SKY MESA COLORED SITEPLAN

SKY MESA ENLARGED SITEPLAN

SKY MESA FLOOR PLAN

SKY MESA ELEVATIONS

SKY MESA ELEVATION & SECTION

SKY MESA ROOF PLAN

SKY MESA RESTROOM PLAN

SKY MESA RESTROOM SECTIONS

RETAINING WALL LOCATIONS
AL.0.00 SITE PLAN
AL.0.01 ENHANCED RETAINING WALL PLAN VIEW
AL.0.02
AL.0.01
AL.0.01

ENHANCED RETAINING OVERALL ELEVATION A&B

ENHANCED RETAINING WALL ELEVATION DETAIL A&B

ENHANCED RETAINING WALL AXONOMETRIC VIEW

COLOR & MATERIALS
CM -1.0 PHASE II EXPANSION
CM -1.1 SKY MESA
LR-0
LR-01
LR-02
LS -01
LS -02
LS -03
LS -04
LS -05
LS -06
LS -07
LS -08
LS -09
LS -10
LS -11
LS -12
LT -01
LT -02
LT -03
LT -04
LT -05
LT -06
LT -07
LT -08
LT -09
LT -10
LT -11
LT -12
LN-01
LF-01
LF-02
LF-03
LF-04
LF-05
CIVIL
SHEET INDEX - ILLUSTRATIVE REF. PLAN

SHEET ORGANIZATION MATER & MASTER

PLANT PALETTE - RESIDENTIAL

SHEET ORGANIZATION MATER & MASTER

PLANT PALETTE - SKY MESA

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

LANDSCAPE NOTES

LANDSCAPE FEATURES PLAN - RESIDENTIAL

LANDSCAPE FEATURES PLAN - SKY MESA

LANDSCAPE FEATURES PLAN - SKY MESA

LANDSCAPE FEATURES PLAN - SKY MESA

LANDSCAPE FEATURES PLAN - SKY MESA
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-11
C-12
C-13
C-14
C-15

TITLE SHEET

DETAILS & TYPICAL SECTIONS

SITE GRADING - GROUND LEVEL
SITE GRADING - P2 LEVEL
SITE GRADING - P3 LEVEL

SITE GRADING - SKY MESA

YARD DRAIN -GROUND LEVEL -NW CORNER

YARD DRAIN -GROUND LEVEL -NE CORNER

YARD DRAIN -GROUND LEVEL -SW CORNER

YARD DRAIN -GROUND LEVEL -SE CORNER

YARD DRAIN -GROUND LEVEL-WESERTLY SITE

YARD DRAIN -GROUND LEVEL-EASTERTLY SITE

RETAINING WALL LOCATION & SECTIONS
PLAN WALL NO. A & B

RETAINING WALL LOCATION & SECTIONS
PLAN WALL NO. C, D, & E

RETAINING WALL PALN & PROFILE WALL - F
PROJECT CASE NUMBERS:

EA2I -0002, GPZMA21-0001,
MOD2I -0004, DA2I -0002
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE NARRATIVE:

THE PROJECT'S ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IS CONTEMPORARY DESERT

ARCHITECTURE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING RITZ-CARLTON
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. COLORS AND MATERIALS RELATE BACK TO THE

EXISTING HOTEL AND ARE INFLUENCED BY THE SURROUNDING NATURAL DESERT TO GROUND IT ONTO THE SITE.

BUILDING A-1

THE VENUE

PRE -FUNCTION SPACE

MAIN EVENT SPACE

AUXILIARY SPACES

VENUE TOTAL

EXTENSION COMMON SPACE

RESIDENTIAL UNITS

PLAN TYPE
PLAN A - 1 BR/1 BA
PLAN B - 2BR/2BA LOCK -OFF
PLAN C - 2BR/3BA LOCK -OFF

RESIDENTIAL UNITS TOTAL
BUILDING A-1 TOTAL
BUILDING B-1 to B-15
COUNT
26 12
10 48

NET AREA
5,600 SF
11,135 SF
7,108 SF
23,843 SF
3,960 SF

UNIT AREA NET AREA
27,638 SF
19,740 SF
19,180 SF
66,558 SF
1063
1645
1918
90,401 SF

RESIDENTIAL UNIT TYPE
PLAN 1 - 2BR/2BA
PLAN 1X - 2BR/2BA
PLAN 2 - 3BR/3BA
PLAN 2X - 3BR/3BA

RESIDENTIAL UNIT TOTAL

THE LOUNGE

ENTRY LEVEL

LOWER LEVEL

THE LOUNGE TOTAL
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

SKY MESA
COUNT
15 14
15 14
58 UNIT AREA
2131
2117
2461
2525

SUBTOTAL
31,965 SF
29,638 SF
36,915 SF
35,350 SF
133,868 SF
2,444 SF
3,069 SF
5,513 SF
139,381 SF
AREA

RESTAU RANT

RESTROOMS

SKY MESA TOTAL

TOTAL PROJECT

PARKING BREAKDOWN
6,273 SF
693 SF
6,966 SF
236,748 SF

PARKING PROPOSED/PROVIDED
THE VENUE (1 SPACE PER 50 SF)*
RESIDENTIAL UNITS (1.1 SPACES PER GUEST RM)
RESIDENTIAL UNITS (2 SPACES PER UNIT)**
RESIDENTIALGUEST SPACE (1 SPACE PER 2 UNITS)
SKY MESA RESTAURANT (1 SPACE PER 80 SF)
TOTAL PARKING PROPOSED/PROVIDED***
223 SPACES
53 SPACES
116 SPACES
29 SPACES
78 SPACES
499 SPACES
*BASED ON EVENT SPACE AREA
**58 SPACES PROVIDED IN 2 -CAR GARAGES, 58 SPACES PROVIDED AS A COMBINATION OF 1 -CAR GARAGE PLUS DRIVEWAY SPACE
***381 SPACES PROVIDED IN SUBTERRANEAN PARKING STRUCTURE SUBTERRANEAN PARKING AREA (BUILDING A-1)
P1 LEVEL
P2 LEVEL
P3 LEVEL
TOTAL

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
26,783 SF
50,853 SF
91,596 SF
169,232 SF
OWNER:

KAM SANG COMPANY, INC.
411 E HUNTINGTON DRIVE, STE 305
ARCADIA, CA 91006
(626) 446-2988
CIVIL:

FOCUS ENGINEERING, INC.

CONTACT: CHARLIE LIU
25 MAUCHLY #317, IRVINE, CA 92618
(949) 450-0590

P ROJECT DATA
ARCHITECT:

LCRA
CONTACT: EVERARDO GARCIA
35 HUGUS ALLEY, STE 220
PASADENA, CA 91103
(626) 449-9698
LANDSCAPE:

DESIGN STUDIO OF MICHAEL MCKAY
CONTACT: MICHAEL MCKAY
246 FLOWER ST., COSTA MESA, CA 92627
(949) 378-3238
PROJECT ADDRESS:

GENERAL PLAN
LAND DESIGNATION:

LOT SIZE:
68900 FRANK SINATRA DRIVE

RANCHO MIRAGE GENERAL PLAN

RS -H (RESORT HOTEL)

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER
AREA
689330031
698,827 SF
689330026 & 689330028
505,497 SF
689020012 & 689020014
174,653 SF
689330032, 689330034, 689331001
& 689331018
148,565 SF

TOTAL LOT AREA
1,553,500 SF / 35.07 AC

TOTAL LOT EXISTING HOTEL
COVERAGE: BUILDING A-1
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

SKY MESA

TOTAL COVERAGE
(DIVIDE BY TOTAL LOT AREA)

P ROJECT DESCRIPTION
167,635 SF
76,161 SF
109,244 SF
6,966 SF
360,006 SF
(23.17%)

THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THREE DIFFERENT BUILDING(S)
HEREBY REFERRED TO AS "BUILDING A-1", "BUILDING B-1 TO B-15" & "SKY MESA".

BUILDING Al
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TWO-STORY BUILDING INCLUDING:
1) HOTEL EVENT SPACE & ANCILLARY SERVICE AREAS
2) 48 RESIDENTIAL UNITS (KEYS)
3) 2.5 LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING
OCCUPANCY TYPE:

A EVENT SPACE
R-2 RESIDENTIAL
S-2 PARKING
BUILDING B1 - B15
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
- TYPE IIIB
- TYPE VB

TYPE IA
BUILDING STORIES:
2 -STORIES

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS & THE LOUNGE
INCLUDING:
1) 58 TWO-STORY ATTACHED TOWN -HOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS
WITH ATTACHED GARAGE WITHIN 15 SEPARATE BUILDINGS
2) TWO-STORY LOUNGE
3) POOL TERRACE & SECONDARY POOL AREA
4) SURFACE GUEST PARKING
OCCUPANCY TYPE:

A LOUNGE
R-2 RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
- TYPE VB
- TYPE VB
BUILDING STORIES:
2 -STORIES
TOTAL PROJECT KEYS: 106

SKY MESA
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOTEL AMENITY SPACE INCLUDING:
1) POOL TERRACE & BATHROOMS
2) OUTDOOR EVENT SPACE
3) DINING AREA
OCCUPANCY TYPE: CONSTRUCTION TYPE:

A DINING AREA - TYPE I
BUILDING STORIES:
1 -STORY
SHEET INDEX & PROJECT DATA A-0.1
Ritz Carlton
March 10, 2023
3468

1 k

EXISTING

CONSOLIDATED /

TRASH COLLECTION
I'
•

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
Ritz Carlton
* Qt
• Atfoo
•
1 6 3.0
Ut
Q *t
0440
•

KEY PLAN
✓
r
/ EXISTING HOTEL
r

PHASE I I
EXPANSION**
*SEE SHEET R-0.1 FOR MORE SITE INFO
*SEE SHEET C-0.1 FOR MORE SITE INFO
SKY
I MESA*
! ' r
OVERALL SITE PLAN A-0.2
3469

NOT TO SCALE
;EPA i
February 15, 2023

•
r
I
r
I

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
J

EXISTING
HOTEL
BLDG.

EXISTING
Ali
HOTEL
BLDG.
4 14
'ill 41
LEGEND
NO.

BUILDING TYPE
A-1

RESIDENTIAL UNITS W/

ATTACHED EVENT SPACE
B-1
(4) FOURPLEX
B-2
(4) FOURPLEX
B-3
(5) FIVEPLEX
B-4
(3) TRIPLEX
B-5
(5) FIVEPLEX
B-6
(2) DUPLEX
B-7
(3) TRIPLEX
B-8
(5) FIVEPLEX
B-9
(7) SEVENPLEX
B-10
(5) FIVEPLEX
B-11
(3) TRIPLEX W/ ATTACHED
LOUNGE
B-12
(3) TRIPLEX
B-13
(3) TRIPLEX
B-14
(2) DUPLEX
B-15
(4) FOURPLEX
PARTIAL SITE PLAN A-0.3
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3470
SCALE: 1/32" = 1' iuci

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
THE VENUE RENDERING A -R.2
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3472
LEM I

BUILDING A- 1
THE RITz-CARLTON

RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE

104'-10"
N
N
0 In
45'-34"
27'-0"
N
N
N
128 27'_0"
24'-0"

DRIVE AISLE
21'-0"
27'-0"
21'-0"
21'-0"
27'-0"
PARKING ELEVATOR _

ATTENDANT LOBBY
616.0'
27'-0" 21 -0"
27'-0'
21-0 "
27'-0"
•
■
■
■
■
■
24 25
26 27
25 2q
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
35 5,1
40 41
■
42 43
■
44 45
46 41
■
45 4P
■
50 51
52 ■
53 54
55 56
■
57 27'-0"
21'-0"
21'-0"
I5'-0"
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
67 68
6a
1O
11 12
73 74
75 76\17
15 7a
SO
51 52
55 54
55 56
57 55
Sci
q0
9I
92 c13
q4
q5
ci6
ci7
c1S
cicl
100
104
102
103
104
105
106
107
11O
■
■
■
■
■
■
\
IOq
i

HOTEL & VENUE

PARKING
(251 0 302 SPA05S)
SLOPE
616.0'
156
N
21'-0" Jr Jr 24'-0" 27'-0" JrJr 27'-0" JrJr 27'-0" JrJr 21'-0" JrJr 27'-0" �

DRIVE AISLE
27'-0"
27'-0"
■
2OO 2O1
27'-0"
27'-0"
LOBBY
62O.O'
■
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
•
•
•
•

KEY PLAN
•
J
i
J
PARKING LEVEL P3 C-1.0
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3476
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

O
0 r -
in

PARKING
ENTRY
626.0'
28'-0"
1 1
24'-O"

DRIVE AISLE
50 51
18'-O"

LOADING
AREA
5% MAX. SLOPE
DN.
628.0'
I q' -O"
% SLOPE
•
5% MAX. SLOPE
ft 27T -O"
' ° rr
288'-3"
THE
VENUE
626.0'
SLOPE
UP
650.0'

MOTORCOURT
24'-0"
17RIVE AISLE

HOTEL & VENUE

PARKING
51 OF 502 SPACES) ,0
LOBBY
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
•

TO MAIN

HOTEL &
SPA
GUEST

DROP-OFF
ENTRY
PLAZA
LOBBY
650.0'

KEY PLAN
•
•
•
•
•
•
PARKING LEVEL P2 C-1.1
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3477
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
TEM I

F0 634
W
9 0
r
Ul
48'-52"
640.0'
5LOPE

RESIDENTIAL

UNITS PARKING
(44 of 8I SPACES)
2i'-0" 21'-O"
■ ■
22 25 24 25 26 21 26 241

OPEN TO
BELOW

OPEN TO
BELOW
VENUE

GARDENS
21'-0"
288'-5"
LOBBY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS: PLAN A, PLAN B, & PLAN C
(UNIT PLANS REFER TO SHEET C-3.1)
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
50 633
•
•
•
•
33 3q
PLAN
A/

KEY PLAN
•
•
•
PARKING LEVEL P1 c-i .2
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3478
SCALE: 1/16" = l'-0"
TEM I

ENTRY
LOBBY
675®.®'
RESIDENTIAL UNITS: PLAN A, PLAN B, & PLAN C
(UNIT PLANS REFER TO SHEET C-3.1)
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
,

KEY PLAN
A-1
B-6
B-5
r --
J
FIRST FLOOR PLAN C-1.3
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3479
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
TEM I

ENTRY
LOBBY
("ao.o
RESIDENTIAL UNITS: PLAN A, PLAN B, & PLAN C
(UNIT PLANS REFER TO SHEET C-3.1)
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE

KEY PLAN
•
•
•
N.

SECOND FLOOR PLAN C-1.4
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3480
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
LCRA

BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
•
•
•
•

KEY PLAN
•
•
•
•

ROOF PLAN
C-1.5
LCRI
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3481
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

_0 005.5'
650'
knj
640'
4 628'

1.0 •
I
i
I
I
11 MIL WWI
fi
T T-
.444
1 T '^ T -i' — 1 i ti I T i
I i
*1. t 'lf .i•. n;: 1.. .i _ . ..

Ai lariMiiiiiiiiNnEralMEHffiMaiTurN.MMialMEdi

75.5' s

FRONT ELEVATION
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
660'
640'
r
628' ,s
ELEVATIONS - THE VENUE C-2.0
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3482
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
LCRA I

.,I
-�'�
:
r�
-
411
I .��: .e Y-�_.... �� a r, 6i*. 1 54'1}

--
'mill�'_._.—_ �
it ►��lt
_ •, �
_
IIIIIIIIIIMwIII
• a b - _• I .
-..`. . _
is
DINH'

II
I
�� _ _���

milkilillnalirmu‘I iumentuniatirrimp
If
* n ... �z I -
Lrl. iri .k '7 +_r.T • vi rr 4 y'. $ ' 1 .. +. ,..1- 11.111, �P. , . a r l ,f p r , a �A���A��©�!i
J►.,�li..'[ Jiid ��- ',��*3,tionL:47..atalleumeAktio.......minsahia-im!- i - �!�

riCal i Mill
L i1
1111
r��liit�� �i��IMI � � ��s�o��'Or. nuitram .m
Li

4. I
_:
+' iot.�s=ia
iii`lla; 1 r Ms��MIM I M
wR
17::111111:�r

7.17-:'.
..:M=M MOMMEMEEM
���[L`ti4.o.ft2'�w►�aFarl',l�iiUlir.4-a
NMI .&6ii'M'Zr�
- ' I 14i�1 ti®®aea Tr I•

61 �NI
d
rrtr
r �� •a® ! Win ��___ ��i�� —� n ili..�il �I
•
'--®v---®o----s--s®--v ------ter.
imemonommi ■emu a
Miraitaaaaaaai•a i iw.aaaa r . :: ., 'k-
d
rrtr
r �� •a® ! Win ��___ ��i�� —� n ili..�il �I
•
'--®v---®o----s--s®--v ------ter.
imemonommi ■emu a
Miraitaaaaaaai•a i iw.aaaa r . :: ., 'k-

YTS. .'VC
Y
a���ra�N�211eeelIe F.' 3 4e M, i��YA�Y III _
-� �trI1:W11'. K .tr� .�G9F'?r2et
•rtme a:�4LT_LP l.1s Try w srs

SOUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
ELEVATIONS - RESIDENTIAL UNITS C-2.3
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3485
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
:CRAI

HOTEL

PORTE COCHERE
tr M fffl`h\ ly

THE VENUE
628%
3 PARKING
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
B-4
LEGEND
POOL TERRACE /633'$

EXISTING NATURAL GRADE
SITE SECTION C-2.4
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3486
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
LCRAi

PROPERTY LINE
LEGEND
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
LINE OF SIGHT FROM INTERIOR WINDOW (OVER 5FT FENCE)

EXISTING NATURAL GRADE

LINE -OF -SIGHT STUDY

NEAREST HOME
C-2.5
LCRI
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3487
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

TO MAIN
HOTEL

WOMEN'S
COAT
CHECK
/STORAGE
WATER

FEATURE
VENUE

GARDENS

KITCHEN
3,809 SF

PRE -FUNCTION
SPACE
5,600 SF A
ENTRY
COURT

MAIN EVENT SPACE
11,135 SF
ENTRY
LOBBY
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
ELEV.

LOBBY

KEY PLAN
THE VENUE PLAN C-3.0
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3488
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
TEM I

26"-2"
F
MASTER
BATH
?d1 -6„

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN A
1,063 SF
-17' .- --
/
15'-72"
LII
MASTER
-.

BEDROOM
- i
�..z
I4' -lo- X --lY-fyyI
I
I
1 '‘ 4
MASTER
- - -

BEDROOM
64' -II" X IS' -5'°
ilif
9 r RE TF�.O��#
�
I_ �'
,
,5x11"x21"_
Ai
ni-
A
MASTER
BATH
I
I
MASTER
BATH
'fir
4 . ..

LE:
��
I
0011
t

KITCHEN
1111
Abh,
W.I.C. —o
_
'I II
iiM
a -2
lo'-.'
IC" -iv"
�► 46-5'
.r

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN B
1,637 SF
BUILDING A-1

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
if+
F
MASTER

BEDROOM
I4' -!o' X IT -II"
MASTER
BATH
1 241-5"
y
I5. -S
MASTER

BEDROOM
41_q,,.
'1
MASTER
BATH
IC "
(11

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN C
1,902 SF

KEY PLAN
RESIDENTIAL UNIT PLANS C-3.1
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3489
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
i

BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ CARLTON
2ESIDENCES,

RANCHO MIRAGE

24'-611
MASTER

BEDROOM
-14
H)
H)
MASTER
BATH
PLAN 2
PLAN 2x
Imo'=I®2:1

UPPER LEVEL

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
24'-8"
MASTER

BEDROOM
MAST
BATH
1 4
DUPLEX (B-10 & B-2)
/
2-011
/
—14
� I
2'
—1
m
Cl
L
24 -811
R.

GREAT U
ROOM

ENTRANCE
-

KITCHEN
0 20'-02"

ENTRY LEVEL
81'-q"
14'-52"

BEDROOM
GARAGE
PLAN 2
PLAN 2x

BEDROOM
GARAGE
20'-af" I 20'-I I "
81'-q"
1'4;I- II II
�///lam/
GREAT
ROOM

ENTRANCE

KITCHEN
DUPLEX (B-10 & B-2)
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15
THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE TYP. DUPLEX/TRIPLEX FLOOR PLANS V -1.O Ritz Carlton SCALE: 1/8" _''-°�� _ I
oee»nezq zaz 3491
♦
_♦
4 ♦
cl
0 ♦ - ♦
O
N♦ _
4 1-
-I4
H)
(1 \
tC
1-
-®•
-14
4 -It
24'-6'1
/ I
DECK
MASTER

BEDROOM

UPPER LEVEL

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
17'-6"
MASTER

BEDROOM
2 MASTS
BATH

BEDROOM
24'-8"
1'-6"
/ /
DECK I; -a
MASTER

BEDROOM
25'-711
PLAN 2x
MAST
BATH
TRIPLEX (B-13, B-8 & B-3)
/
21-0" 241-81:
2'
GREAT
ROOM

ENTRANCE I

KITCHEN
20-02'1
14-5-2

BEDROOM
GARAGE
20'-�i ❑
GARAGE
12'-0"
110'-or2 ❑
18'-5,"
I7'-2211

15'-22

BEDROOM
GARAGE
20'-cl"
10'-Q2
241-8"
GREAT
ROOM

ENTRANCE

KITCHEN
PLAN 2
PLAN 1
—1
In
U)
/
I'-6" a"
/ //
PLAN 2

ENTRY LEVEL
PLAN 1
PLAN 2x
TRIPLEX (B-13, B-8 & B-3)
♦
♦
♦
UNIT FLOOR PLANS REFER TO SHEET V-3.0 TO V-3.4.

KEY PLAN
•
•
•
•
•
•
J
•
•
J

A
111
I✓ I --r
/
" 24'-8"
14'-32 ,,,_51„2
16'_6"
18'-6..

I I ' -52..
4'-52„
24'-8" I
-6
6 ♦
♦
c
A
A
9 DECK ay
_�
I I
11 DECK
DECK
/\
DECK
/
_ry
!f I A-
1-
,

♦
=
MASTER

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
-rt
4 Q
d
..
0 ASTER
_
BATH\
BATH
BATH
• ATH
�]
BATH
MASTS
_

'
BATH

I/ \ o
i
/ X11
In
_ifl
ill
o
�—
�,
1f1
n
STER
MAST
�`
n
BATH
/ 11
BATH
a
4 LOFT
LOFT
I
♦
4 LAU.
—pt
_,
-1( 8
I--
1-
—IN
-Pt
II-
'!
ir
♦
♦
-8
I I'-2! "
2 I5'-10! "
2 q'-8! I.
2 I I'- o
17'-�i! "
2 I6'-5! "
2 I I -10
25 -1'
I I'-2! "
2 ,3
-8 I1
/3
/
/ / / / / /
138'-I0"
-1r
0 ♦4
PLAN 2

UPPER LEVEL
PLAN 1
PLAN lx
PLAN 2x
FOURPLEX (B-12, B-11 & B-1)
24'-8
GREAT
ROOM

ENTRANCE
77 KITCHEN
20'-02"

BEDROOM
----h
BATHS �-
GARAGE
PLAN 2

ENTRY LEVEL
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
20 II
PLAN 2x
GARAGE
I2'-0"
GREAT
ROOM
I'i'-ai2
IS011-I0"
I S'-6"
GREAT
ROOM
16'-52"
GARAGE
PLAN 1
PLAN lx

BEDROOM
GARAGE
24'-5"
GREAT
ROOM

ENTRANCE

KITCHEN
FOURPLEX (B-12, B-11 & B-1)
UNIT FLOOR PLANS REFER TO SHEET V-3.0 TO V-3.4.

KEY PLAN
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
•
J
•
•
J
TYPICAL FOURPLEX FLOOR PLANS V-1.1
Ritz Carlton
December 20, 2022
3492
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

r -
PLAN 2x
PLAN lx PLAN 1
PLAN lx PLAN 2
24' -a"
MASTER

BEDROOM
MAST
BAT

UPPER LEVEL

BEDROOM

BEDROOM MASTER

BEDROOM
I l l -lo°
ASTE
BATH
6-r -1O1"
MASTER

BEDROOM
MAST
BAT
16 i'-102"

BEDROOM
Ill-lO"

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTER
BATH
FIVEPLEX (B-15, B-9 & B-6)
PLAN 2x
PLAN lx
PLAN 1
PLAN lx
PLAN 2

ENTRY LEVEL
FIVEPLEX (B-15, B-9 & B-6)
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
UNIT FLOOR PLANS REFER TO SHEET V-3.0 TO V-3.4.

KEY PLAN
•
•
•
•
J
TYPICAL FIVEPLEX FLOOR PLANS V-1.2
LCRA i
Ritz Carlton
December 20, 2022
3493
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

168'-42"
/
/
24'-8"
2°
18'-6"
I6'-6"
18'-6"
1O'-6-2"
15'-22"
24'-8"
I:-6"
.c�
PLAN 2x
PLAN lx
PLAN 1
PLAN lx
PLAN 2
DECK
0 -1 -
in
m
DECK
MASTER

BEDROOM
0 —
0 DECK

BEDROOM
BATH
LOFT
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTER
BATH
5'-8
25'-1"
I11-10"
17' -
MASTER

BEDROOM
-r'-o2"
I5'-102"
I I ' -22"
121 -0"
MASTER

BEDROOM
11'-10"
Q
'-82 ‘11-82-1"
I
MASTER

BEDROOM
168'-4n"
5'-8"
—Ict

UPPER LEVEL
FIVEPLEX (B-14)
168'-10:,"
m
N
MASTER

BEDROOM
168'-4n"
5'-8"
—Ict

UPPER LEVEL
FIVEPLEX (B-14)
168'-10:,"
m
N
61I
1 '-6" 14'-I
24'-8
I ;'
2 I I' -"I 2
=6
16'-6"
10'-6 1._6"
2 18'-6"
1 -'72"
14'-12
,.-
241-8" "
//
/
PLAN 2x
PLAN
lx
PLAN
1 PLAN
lx
PLAN
2 1
♦
...�I w w
0♦
,
'I
i_
I
I

BEDROOM
♦
■
11-
—
U1
T
r
PD
;,Ir'
■
■
GREAT
♦
'�
■
_
�
-
ROOM
_�
I(V
O
-PI
BATH
�_
1<t
ci
-1(V

BEDROOM
— — — -
iy
— — — .-
r
'
00 m
OD U�
Q
—�
PDR.
-0
I
IE
\
GREAT

ENTRANCE
ROOM
°
I

KI
CHE
ITC
EN
TC I
N
1 o
BAT
I
-
cn
REF.
6 �
GREAT
GREAT
I
GREAT
GARAGE
°°
ROOM
ROOM
ROOM
i_ _[
Il 7'
E

KITCHEN
HEN
In
r
GARAGE
GARAGE
-pi
O
I .'3'1
GARAGE
L I__,_,
r- 7
.°a
'
GARAGE
�
PDR
PDR.
,. HEN
PDR
�
I
no
II
'
1 1 1
�
�
�
I I
-o
J-
1 1
1 1 1
I
I
1 1 1 1

I I I I
I
I
1 I.
1 1 1
I I I
I I
1 1 1 1 1
1 I
♦
-
I
I I
I
1 1 1 1
Icl
_r___ _1_
_
--
----
♦'_
o
-In
-IN
'
.9
r
lir
-
0 1
♦ I ♦
- 0 "
-�
�
- �'
17'-2 "
2 ---
I"I'_0 "
2 12'-O"
1'7'_O ��
2 I'-10"
20'-I I"
�,
�® 02
♦ CV♦
I68'-102"

ENTRY LEVEL
FIVEPLEX (B-14)
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
UNIT FLOOR PLANS REFER TO SHEET V-3.0 TO V-3.4.

KEY PLAN
•
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
1 J
BUILDING B-14 FLOOR PLANS V-1.3
Ritz Carlton
December 20, 2022
3494
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

PLAN 2

UPPER LEVEL
PLAN 1
PLAN lx
PLAN lx
PLAN 1
156'-7—, "
PLAN lx
PLAN 2x
2°
I'-7- -8
18 '-8 I'
10'-78"
18'-/0 "
16'-O"
1 -on 1,
le;' -6;"
11'-52"
l4'-52 i�
24'-81'
/ /
/ -KI
_
DECK
DECK
H
DECK 11
'
DECK
F a
DECK
-IN♦
�i�1\III
I
/
♦
WM
;Jr
I
1 3EDROOM

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
MASTER

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
-Ii-
I

BEDROOM
1 MASTE
°
ASTER
BATH
BATH
ASTE
BATH 1
BATH
,..

BATH
BATH
_-
ATH
MASTER
BATH
—
BATH
o
°
f
—t-4BAT
11 a
Hi-
ilik
(i
in
I
in

u --=
n
.

MASTE
1!
BATH
.

LOFT
�

LOFT
O

LOFT

1 LOFT
.
1 LAO.

It
t-
1 *I-
-♦
�R
74 ♦
♦
II
-1N
1(
N
—Icv
AT
II—
I
1 (1
I I ' -2—I
2 —10
17'—O-"
2 12 —O
l6; —�i
7 —�O
2'—O'
17'—O�"
2 2'—O'
25'-5 a
II'-2�
2 5 —8
1678 —2'
/
/
SEVENPLEX (B-7)
PLAN 2

BEDROOM
GARAGE
„
GREAT
ROOM
PLAN 1
GARAGE
I I'-72"
GARAGE
23'-0"
PLAN 1 PLAN lx
GREAT
ROOM
GARAGE
18'-611
GREAT
ROOM
PLAN 1 PLAN lx PLAN 2x
57 12
GREAT
ROOM

LOWER LEVEL
1681-2"
KITCH
GARAGE
12'-0"
18'-6"
GREAT
ROOM
KITCH
GARAGE
IS' -22'1

BEDROOM
GARAGE
241-8"
GREAT
ROOM

ENTRANCE
I=6; II II
SEVENPLEX (B-7)
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
((1
0 I
NOTE: SEE SHEET V-1.5 FOR KEY PLAN
UNIT FLOOR PLANS REFER TO SHEET V-3.0 TO V-3.4.

BUILDING B-7 FLOOR PLANS V-1.4
Ritz Carlton
December 20, 2022
3495
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
:ERA I

I51'--11„
0 27'-S"

SERVICE

WOMEN'S

RESTROOM
MEN'S

RESTROOM

KITCHEN

STORAGE

UPPER LEVEL

BEDROOM
12'-0"
PLAN 1 PLAN lx PLAN 2
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTE
BATH
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTER
BATH

BEDROOM

BEDROOM
I I'=10"
24'-S"
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTE
BATH
TRIPLEX W/ ATTACHED LOUNGE (B-5)
8'-32" ;,_6„
I . . ..

IS' -72 2'-I
" 2-7-8 2'-I
I
I I : --7-1 2
I6'-6" 2
`O''
I6'_6''
14'-32"
24'-8" I'-6"
/

6..

I
..

PLAN
1 PLAN
lx
PLAN
2 CO
DN
DN
)
(
• I N
IN
9 -
—'
-I
'
----
o
I
to
��
A
—
S
LOUNGE
—
EC

LOUNGE
I
]EJ
♦

KITCHEN
-
I

BEDROOM
!
=1i-
—
— —
o
KIT
7HFN
I
GREAT
I
in
ROOM

PD
0 ♦
.
(A-♦
c
GREAT
GREAT
,_—
i li
ROOM
ROOM

o
(
BATH
=
♦

STORAGE
Ii-
0 Y
IT
n
7 I
♦
GARAGE
YllK. '
I
, I
LOBBY
I I
GARAGE
�--�
� I
I
I I I
I
I

ENTRANCE

1 I I
I
PDR.

Ill
I DN.

I
_
44\
V
—
I
l l f l
I
1 REF. ,
0 ��----
--
GARAGE
r7
�
-
- - -
Do.

DC�

12 -O
-uV
-ice
in
w
OFFICE
1N
-
f KITCHEN
OFFICE
'
r
II

CONCIERGE
\ ir
�
ZEN
_I
in
-
o
—
STOR.

VALET
8'-0" 5'-8"
il
♦
o
r
CO1
,
m-\
-I
25'=0
14 -4'
Ioi'-I I I ��
4 12'-0' ��
17'-8 I '�
2 to =(c
I2'-0"
20'-�"
201-0 II ,
2 '
' '
y
'
m
♦
158'-4,2"
/
fo
mgr
ENTRY
LEVEL

TRIPLEX W/ ATTACHED LOUNGE
(B-5)
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
UNIT FLOOR PLANS REFER TO SHEET V-3.0 TO V-3.4.

KEY PLAN
•
•
•
•
•
•
J
•
•
J
NOTE: SEE SHEET V-1.4 FOR BUILDING B-7 FLOOR PLAN
BUILDING B-5 FLOOR PLANS V-1.5
Ritz Carlton
December 20, 2022
3496
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
wil,RA I

r
— 4
r- -
111-
111
in
♦
24'-8"
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTER
BAT r\
I'-22"
PLAN 2x
25'-7"
14'-32"

BEDROOM
11'-112"

BEDROOM
BATH
I I I -10"
DECK
MASTER

BEDROOM
PLAN 1
MASTER
BATH _
17-21
14'-52"

BEDROOM
24'-8"
DECK
MASTER

BEDROOM
MASTE
BATH
PLAN 2
I'-6"
/ /
- 1(1
O
I
N
r-
-14
- 14
♦
♦
O
O
GREAT
ROOM
AMEN

BEDROOM
BAT
PL _
GARAGE
N 2x
EH
GARAGE
GREAT
ROOM
Pl.^i_N1

BEDROOM
?BATH
2O' -O2 °
20'-cl "
12'-0"
I6'--1"
-14
0 0
LI

1 GREAT
ROOM
PLAN 2
21'-42"

ENTRANCE
20'-0 "
I10'-c;i2"
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
UNIT FLOOR PLANS REFER TO SHEET V-3.0 TO V-3.4.

KEY PLAN
•
•
•
•
•
•
J
•
•
J
BUILDING B-4 FLOOR PLANS V-1.6
LCRA I
Ritz Carlton
December 20, 2022
3497
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

♦
/
6"
31_1I
21'-10"
2'-10"
12'-22"
13'62
14'-5
22'-8..
6'-2211
31-21,
4'-32
24'-8"
3'_1"
/
//
m♦
♦
mld-
u►
4:12in
(11
S ♦
♦
N
cold
4:12
c I
(1
%
4:12
♦
...1""\ 4:
4:12
I2
-
2 -lit

N
(� N
,
N
-1�t
6 ,.
o
4:12
,:12
=
3 N
-1<t
201 221 171
-
- -_Av
O
/
cv
'J.
/3'_8" =
/ I<t
111
i
4 21'-112"
ci"-12 I'
4:12
4:12
1-
(!1
♦
4:12
�W
-1(4
I
-®
20'-02
4 1(V
(A
4:12
(011- I
I'-22"
4:12
4:12
�/
'
2 Co
®

V -I.1
ci
♦
1(v�
try
O
O
22'-12 Iii
21'-6"
I -21I
-1 I -I 4"
21'-6 I'
20'_22 �I
1I-1"
♦ /
/ /
143'-6 "
/
/
/

ROOF PLAN
FOURPLEX (B-12, B-11 & B-1)
1121-62-
- 14
`' -11-
24'-8" I 22'-8" 14'-3211
14'-3 " 31-2" 6 _22
/ /
31-a / ll
/
63 4
♦
— (`(
1 ♦
4:12
4 4:12
4:12
4 4:12
4:12
N �n
4 221-81
4:12
20'-02"
21'-6"
(`U
0 - III 61_1"
Cl
4 4:12
4:12
4:12
16'-5411
(1111-
10-
4:12
4:12
2'-10"
/ /
211-10"
51_111 611
4:12
Iv
21'-I12"
112'-62"
4:12
Cl
4 4:12
0 1-
4:12
4:12
20'-22"
1 r
-1'-104"
/
211_2211
—1(1
0 cs-
'-2"
4:12
4:12
4:12
GI' -12"
20'-02"
—I
/ 2 �
211-6"
4:12
22'-12"
4 N
. )'
O
♦ -Q
—14
—‚Cl
O
1 ROOF PLAN
FIVEPLEX (B-15, B-9 & B-6)
in
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
85 5 '- 1I
/
/
6131_1II
21'-10"
2'-1011 13'-62..
5'-10"
I I ' -0211
24'-8"
3'_,"
't•
♦
♦
I-
I
d I II
_
I I--
I
1(1
♦
��
`"
-1
w
4:12
=
4:12
N
-1(1
4:12
\O
CO
4:12
'''
4:12
/
5I-8 II
/ -14
/
20'-22"
tV
o
1 I
) in i
(w
/

T-
O
4 4:12
ci II
-1
4:12
��
4:12 CO
1-
♦
((1
4:12
♦
1►
"
-1c
-Oil
20'-O
5'_521'
2�-81I
I I'-22"
1 (11I
4:12
/ ,�
it
- 7.' 2
O
V-1.°1 =
O
I
_0
♦cW ♦
22'-12
/
21'-6"
20'-2'I
I
20'-02"
I I-7"
/
/
85'-5"
/

ROOF PLAN
DUPLEX (B-10 & B-2)

ROOF PLAN
TRIPLEX (B-13, B-8 & B-3)
TYPICAL ROOF PLANS V-1.7
Ritz Carlton
December 20, 2022
3498
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
IrLERA

IILILLI
—1N = 5'-a„
I
0 r
r
—In
t
♦
♦
LL11—ILLI—ILL
4:12
4:12
4:12
0 ♦ IA♦
/ /
20'-02"
50'-I Q
I
m
N
-1<t
9 I
/
(01
4:12
4:12
Y
N
in
LI-11 LLLI —ILLI
4:12
21'-6"
—I0
O
1 In
2'-1" 6'-1"
/
4:12
16'-5"
4:12
4:12
H
In
4:12
4:12
N
4 Z1:17
P
20'-2
4 4:12
P
21'-112"

11.2 ♦
4"
4:12
4:12
4: 12
N
20'-02°
—1(1
ci
I-
2H
V -I.01 /
2-22"
21'-O"
4:12
in
—(1
ci
in
O
O
I
c
21'-102"
O

ROOF PLAN
155'-11 4"

ROOF PLAN
FIVEPLEX (B-14)
SEVENPLEX B-7
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
(1♦ •
BUILDING B-14 & B-7 ROOF PLANS V-1.8
Ritz Carlton
December 20, 2022
3499
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1LCRA I

TYP. MECHANICAL WELL
A2
N
N /
\�
/\
N
N
N
TYP. MECHANICAL WELL A3 TYP. MECHANICAL WELL
,� = II=®II
lib' -62"
/2"
-®II
Al
/2"
14'-I"
5-52
I -I O2'
2'-22'
—[Cl
O
(V
—C
O
2'-1-
4,12
4:12
4'
-62
22'-5"
6'-52'I 5'-1 'I
I /
14'-52"
2'—IO"
/
21'-10"
ti _

PARAPET DETAIL

M TAL COP I NO
2X VsiOOV FkAM I NO

S'ONE VENEER
LYV OOr, SH AMINO

EXTERIOR STUCCO
ti _

SARREL ROOD TILE
2X V OO RAMINO
#2 SLOPED ROOF DETAIL
4:12
4:12
>
Ay
1 IL 11 LL L_
4:12
O
r
N
4:12
'K
4:12
7 T
4:12
L
L
6'—i
I -I' -I4"
4'-I I II 11-ci"
/
4:12
4:12
N
4:12
.II
4:12
4:12
P
K

LL I LI
4:12
201_22'
4:12
1761-6211
21'-I I2"
♦
-I(1
r
I
10'-62 "
N
4:12
4:12
♦
14 co
AS
20'-02
-I(1
0 4:12
2 V-1.9
IT
m
0 22'-12

ROOF PLAN
TRIPLEX W/ ATTACHED LOUNGE (B-5)
II
#1
I I I = I I -®II
5'-` II
24'-8
14'-52"
I I I -5 2
IS' -6
15,-22-1
24'-8"
5 _7
♦ _
♦
O
—I(V
r
't
I
4)
•
m�
I
cv
11±
ll J
L
I L I
,�
L1 A
L L
—I
4:12
-t
4:12
N (I
I
4:12
y
d
4:12
Y
-I(1
r
N
i
-S,-
-11-
9 in
As
-
4:12
�
4 I :12 I
I
I
IL
L
L
_
LL
�/"-
�
—IL_LI— _LI— LL IL11

1.11 "
4:12
m
I
4:12
b-
4:12
Y
4:12
I
0 2
V-I.q
I�
-1(V
t
u1
V -1.c1
sir
-14
♦
I

r-
I
�
ci
Q
I
111
4 4:12
4:12
c(1
N
tv
I
m
♦
-
O
I
/
22'-I I
2 /
2 -6
/ � -2 /
17'-I 2 /
2O -�
20'-0 ..
2 I I2'-IOI2" 2'-5"
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE

ROOF PLAN
TRIPLEX (B-4)
BUILDING B-5 & B-4 ROOF PLANS V-1.9
Ritz Carlton
December 20, 2022
3500
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
LCRA I

REAR ELEVATION
T.O. FRO,JE TlOM
3 L. TQYVER,
-RN
1 1 ■

FRONT ELEVATION - ST
MD

EETSIDE
r-`'�sret,r • �'r,

Ph wr '`"i".?, !'`w nJUMenre Jrr «� ''a i11 L
-JNi• .. . ..r,. .. , r n, YA4.

SI

E ELEVATION - LEFT

SIDE ELEVATION - RIGHT
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE

KEY PLAN
B-12
DUPLEX ELEVATIONS V-2.0
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3501
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
TEM I

T.O. PROJECTION
T. L. TOWER

FRONT ELEVATION - STREETSIDE
s
._1,4_7'. L.

HD

7.O. PROJE TIOP

REAR ELEVATION
J

SIDE ELEVATION - LEFT
FRONT ELEVATION (B-13)
T.J. PROJECTION
REAR ELEVATION (B-13)

SIDE ELEVATION - RIGHT
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE

KEY PLAN
J
J
TRIPLEX ELEVATIONS V-2.1
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3502
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
:ERA'

T.O. PROJECTION
A‘ -T. •PL. TO R

REAR ELEVATION
2N, 7:! R. 1= -
T. PL
2ND FLF. F

FRONT ELEVATION - STREETSIDE
FRONT ELEVATION (B-1)
immismum

SIDE ELEVATION - LEFT
__-= -
swim •W■a■i
bp MR. ilIMIEW„ p rill 1'7
niter MAIMINEINJ
ilimeirm
•
T.O. PROJECTION

SIDE ELEVATION - RIGHT
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
I ►�■��sf a!r.vanurwirirAmi
REAR ELEVATION (B-1)

KEY PLAN
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
J
•
•
I
J
FOURPLEX ELEVATIONS V-2.2
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3503
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
i�I

T.G. PROJECTION
T. PL. TONER
?1,0 FLR. F.
�ASTWi
Gii f�

11. ■I' CIF 'RWT
a sa
L.AS

SIDE ELEVATION - LEFT

FRONT ELEVATION - STREETSIDE
FRONT ELEVATION (B-15 & B-9)
-41.1

REAR ELEVATION
II

SIDE ELEVATION - RIGHT
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
T. FL.

S
2N FLR. .T
FA
E,r R: k41
-r. .-.`�.

T. FL
E�. +.HLR
SLAB
REAR ELEVATION (B-15 & B-9)'

KEY PLAN
J
B-9
FIVEPLEX ELEVATIONS V-2.3
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3504
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
i�I

SIDE ELEVATION - RIGHT
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
T. FL.

S
2N FLR. .T
FA
E,r R: k41
-r. .-.`�.

T. FL
E�. +.HLR
SLAB
REAR ELEVATION (B-15 & B-9)'

KEY PLAN
J
B-9
FIVEPLEX ELEVATIONS V-2.3
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3504
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
i�I

✓ .:. PRQJE TION
✓ . PL. TOV+IER

FRONT ELEVATION - STREETSIDE
•
tiMILI UM 1 MEM]
we. ffiniFf ir.:4
Fan— f mrr amain
■UMW + Via- l
"En-
2NO FLR. .r

REAR ELEVATION
mar " s r � '=�I�j�4'�+' i[r`a •++J � ° 1
M• a��4i '•.h}�;'t�',7�iNi �� : � � a A' y"�3i'w L�� io��i R � i�''4a�'li il!a"� 4'�`� �i � "4r�ri � r�r��--•, �• e �$Y?i�.��"'l7:.t �'"9tE �k�' •!'Tll"i'ii1�4 aia�"!i�'W��r'a"i'ri+'�•'ii�iivaiBii _ oni
e
ZIIIU•IIIIIII
wow
I�

SIDE ELEVATION -
LEFT

SIDE ELEVATION - RIGHT
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
I
°

KEY PLAN
•
•
•
•
•
•
B-7
B-6
•
•
J
BUILDING B-7 ELEVATIONS V-2.4
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3505
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
:ERA'

FRONT ELEVATION - STREETSIDE
TT P1�
. 9 L. TQNE _

SIDE ELEVATION - LEFT

SIDE ELEVATION - RIGHT
. w PLR. I
T. SLAB

REAR ELEVATION
''ROJE .TI ON
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
T.U. F ROJEGTION _
T.O. FROJE TION

KEY PLAN
•
•
BUILDING B-5 ELEVATIONS V-2.5
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3506
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
TEM I

B-7 3:ipr
— —
•
B-6 644'.
644
J
B-5
S\ { \n j 643'
643
cu
BUILDING B-1 TO B-15

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
B-4

POOL TERRACE
633'
i
Y'i ,^r4
600

SITE SECTION
V-2.6
LCRI
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3507
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"

til
•_4C
/-///r)[N:2)
\C),„
0 -010
•

SKY MESA
THE RITz-CARLToN

RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE,

• * %
rip • .0 *
*
•
•t

44.jar
•
�t
I
N
o
St.

F
-; 'RESTAURANT
St

THE RITZ-CARLTON, RANCHO MIRAGE

4. +t •t
(iAC
40 4
•
•
o
%%4N,
.r�
50'

SETBACK
i
i
i
i

KEY PLAN
z'-\\\
f

EXITING HOTEL

PHASE II
EXPANSION**
*SEE SHEET R-0.1 FOR MORE SITE INFO
**SEE SHEET C-0.1 FOR MORE SITE INFO
,.,
SKY
MESA*
SKY MESA COLORED SITE PLAN R -1.0A
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2022
3509
SCALE: 1 " 1'-0"

r
f
r
/

THE RITZ-CARLTON, RANCHO MIRAGE
r
N
N
/NN,
N

SKY MESA ENLARGED SITE PLAN
R-1.0
cwI
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2022
3510
SCALE: 1/8" 11-0"

//7
NN
N
N

BAR AREA

DINING PATIO

RESTAURANT KITCHEN

BANQUET KITCHEN

SHARED STORAGE
472 SF
3,049 SF
1,216 SF
1,246 SF
290 SF
TOTAL - 6,273 SQFT.

THE RITZ-CARLTON, RANCHO MIRAGE
N
N �.

N
N
N
N
N

EXTERIOR TERRACE
N
N N N
N
N
N
/
I
I
/
/
/
SKY MESA FLOOR PLAN R-1.1
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2022
3511
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

t

KITCHEN / STORAGE
a
cY
N
V
616
614
61 610
665
666
664
662
66 655
656
654
610
66e)
666
664
663,2
660
6 656
654

-®tO iHin)m F ix:Jr
men: 4 Ao:er ®sC:s, 3 Jri
®enel : 10 her ®Sets, 3
5:

J\

THE RITZ-CARLTON, RANCHO MIRAGE
/
/\ 7I
\
/
SKY MESA RESTROOM PLAN R-2.1
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2022
3514
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
TEM I

661
665
665
661
655
651
655
655
6451
641
645

SECTION A
661
665
66 661
6 651
655
655
65I
6411
645

SECTION B

THE RITZ-CARLTON, RANCHO MIRAGE
SKY MESA RESTROOM SECTIONS R-2.2
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2022
3515
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
LEM I

S
S
6 12
S
7 10
IS
4 TYPICAL FRONT ELEVATION - STREETSIDE

TYPICAL REAR ELEVATION
NO. MATERIAL
2 S
4 6
MAIN STUCCO: S!NJAY I N MOORS
COLOR STUCCO WIi.- SMOOTH 7
ACCENT STU,OO: S
DOLOR SWU.OO AIT
!RAIN ILL
SMOOT- 7
MASONRY VENEER: CREATIVE M
N
O=5O SL!!<!R SE
SH
NT!ORAL
AMS = SWlO2S SA K:)ROF I NTE AL
N S�
NES = CUSTOM SL!N OF RAFT SFL
MOVULAR ANW URBAN RECTANOL!
ROOF NO: N!WFO
N CAL 1 FORN A M
FASO
A: S!NJAM
N 71 MBERAOL7 COLOR.
7 NT CONCRETE ROOF TILE _ AURAL T! SAXONY SLATE
55 ON ELENI,
N MOORS _ 2
12=50 STONE SRO
N
OUAWRA 1 LS: CRL LASS W Nr;SOREEN OLAMF SYSTEM ANA
ORL=SLUMORAFT 337 S!R ES RA L NO OAF I N SARK SRONZ! ANON F
A
N
SH
NOS: SOOT -LAND W I NO

NCO A SIN 'ARK BRONZE F

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
S ANA BOORS = CLAC CASEMENT
N
SH
Z
S
12 IS
BOORS: SOUTHLAN N O AS AN BOORS = CLAC FRENCH BOORS ANV 5 =FOL BOORS IN ARK BRONZE FINISH
ENTRY BOORS: ETO BOORS = FORT S = E!RGLASS MULTI=
FLANK 'OOR N/=OR1ZONTAL TEXTURES ORA N N STA N F

TRELL S
OARA ! BOOR: OLOFAY OARAO! 1OORS = CANYON R
"PLANK" BOOR IN SENJAM N MOORE 2112=SO STONE SRO

ENTRY LION

SLACK FNS

METAL TR
SLACK
—ORIZONTAL
N

SH TO MATCH

DOE MODERN
NN
NO: OUO I Z!L _ S!ACON LEA OUTDOOR ^ALL F I XCURE IN
M/TRELLIS STRUCTURE: SEN IAM
N MOORE = 2115=20 TOUCAN
/sOO' TRELLIS NS!RTS/FRI VACY SCREENS: RESYSTA = CLA NO IN C S
AM COLOR (5!H N1 MATERIAL 2)
4 VENUE, BUILDING A-1, & Bi TO Bi5
TYPICAL COLOR & MATERIALS - CM -1.0
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3516

4 6
i
a
5 SKY MESA - PARTIAL FRONT ELEVATION - NORTH

SKY MESA - SIDE ELEVATION - EAST
NO. MATERIAL
2 a
4 MAN STU2O: 5!N,JAM N MOORE HO=SO SLEEKER 5E 1 �E

DOLOR STUCCO TH SMOOTH FINIS
ACCENT STUCCO: 5 ER/11 N LL

NTE RAL DOLOR STUOOO
T
AMS_5/1
SHOOT

NTE RAL
XO25 5AO< ROIP
NSH
OONOR!TE V1 ALL: SOAW OONORETE

TH SMOOTH FINISH
UAW RA 1 LS: VI E NRA L OA5LE RAIL SYSTEM ANA LEA=ENHANE ANTRAIL IN ARK SRONZ! ANON ZED FINIS

THE RITZ-CARLTON RESIDENCES, RANCHO MIRAGE
5 6
1 C)OORS: SOUTHLAN�
� R< SRONZ! N SH
N:)0"5 AN BOORS _ S
=FOL BOORS I N
METAL T I M/TRELL IS STRUOTURE : 5ENLAM N MOORE _

TOUCAN SLACK
N00 TRELL 15 I NS!RTS/PRI VAOY SCREENS: RES 'STA
OLA NO IN 014 SIAM DOLOR (SE- MATERIAL 6)
5=20

SKY MESA AREA
TYPICAL COLOR & MATERIALS - CM -1.1
Ritz Carlton
February 15, 2023
3517

Landscape Plans
N
c
These documents are the property of Design Studio of Michael Mckay and are not to be copied, reproduced, disposed of, either directly or indirectly, used for another project or any purpose whatsoever without express and written permission of Design Studio of Michael Mckay.

RESIDENCES
/
4111
,
C,
4 ACV
• •

LANDSCAPE I

REFERENCE ONLY

SKY MESA

SEE SUBMITTAL SHEET INDEX FOR SPECIFIC

SUBMITTAL EXHIBITS

RITZ CARLTON EXPANSION PROJECT
fr-

LANDSCAPE SUBMITTAL SHEET INDEX

CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL

SHEET INDEX

SHEET DESCRIPTION
LR-0
LR-01
LR-02
LS -01
LS -02
LS -03
LS -04
LS -05
LS -06
LS -07
LS -08
LS -09
LS -10
LS -11
LS -12
LT -01
LT -02
LT -03
LT -04
LT -05
LT -06
LT -07
LT -08
LT -09
LT -10
LT -11
LT -12
LN-01
L F-01
LF-02
LF-03
LF-04
LF-05

SHEET INDEX - ILLUSTRATIVE REFERENCE PLANS

SHEET ORGANIZATION MASTER & MASTER PLANT

PALETTE - RESIDENTIAL

SHEET ORGANIZATION MASTER & MASTER PLANT

PALETTE - SKY MESA

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

SHRUB PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

TREE PLAN

LANDSCAPE NOTES

LANDSCAPE FEATURES PLAN - RESIDENTIAL

LANDSCAPE FEATURES PLAN - SKY MESA

LANDSCAPE FEATURES PLAN - SKY MESA

LANDSCAPE FEATURES PLAN - SKY MESA

LANDSCAPE FEATURES PLAN - SKY MESA
Y• R
To -5
7 c
c
• U
rp •-
U c
• g ti
w �
o
o g
• u
N Q
• o
�_ a
L
Architect:

LCRA ARCHITECTS
z
J

REFERENCE
PROJECT: RITZ CARLTON EXPANSION
w
J
J
- m
D
XU)
Z
OQ
Z
H a
W zw
W
2 O
� U
Sheet Title:
p
p
p
N
CN
Q p
N
d rn
(9 W Z
N i Q
00 O
o N CI V-
i J
p
• 0
U
cwn•ZW
Ct a U)
UJ
03 D9 ryo
Z U _
w p p O
Q O rn z
O 2 g
Viscinity Map:

Project Site
•
Typical Revisions:

ADate: Description:

Sheet Title:

SHEET INDEX
Sheet Reference:

LR-0

ied, reproduced, disposed of, either directly or indirectly, used for another project or any purpose whatsoever without express and written permission of Design Studio of Michael Mc These documents are the property of Design Studio of Michael Mckay and are not to be PLANTING LEGE\D
SYMBOL
PLANT
NAME
QTY.

SIZE
WUCOLS
TREES:

ACACIA ANEURA
MULGA
22 36" BOX
LOW
C)

ACACIA FARNESIANA

SWEET ACACIA
16 36" BOX
MULTI-
-RJ\<
LOW
•

CHILOPSIS LINEARIS

DESERT WILLOW
74 36" BOX

MODERATE/
MEDIUM

X CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS

PINK DAWN
107
36" BOX
LOW

OPARKINSONIA

FLORIDA

BLUE PALO VERDE
24 36" BOX
LOW

PARKINSONIA X 'DESERT MUSEUM'

DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE
197
36" BOX
LOW

PROSOPIS CHILENSIS 'THORNLESS'

CHILEAN MESQUITE
107
36" BOX
LOW
TB
•

VITEX AGNUS-CASTUS

CHASTE TREE
17 36" BOX
LOW

BRAHEA ARMATA

BLUE HESPER PALM
5 6' BTH

MODERATE/
MEDIUM

PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA 'MEDJOOL'

MEDJOOL DATE PALM
34 15' BTH

MODERATE/
MEDIUM
■

WASHINGTONIA FILIFERA

CALIFORNUA FAN PALM
143
10'-15' BTH
40 40% SKINNED AT 15'
20% AT 12'
40% AT 10'

MODERATE/
MEDIUM
-01
LT -0
LS -07
LT -07
SHRUBS - SMALL:

S2

ASCLEPIAS SUBULATA

DESERT MILKWEED
500
5 GAL.

LOW
ss

BACCHARIS X 'CENTENNIAL'

CENTENNIAL DESERT BROOM
230
5 GAL.

LOW
s5

DALEA FRUTESCENS

BLACK DALEA
620
1 GAL.

LOW
Ss

ENCELIA FARINOSA

BRITTLE BUSH
215
5 GAL.

VERY LOW
OS7

ERIOGONUM FASCICULATUM
'THEODORE PAYNE'
185
1 GAL.

VERY LOW
S$

GAURA LINDHEIMERI
95 1 GAL.

MODERATE/
MEDIUM
S9

LOBELIA LAXIFLORA

MEXICAN BUSH LOBELIA
435
5 GAL.

MODERATE/
MEDIUM
• SALVIA

GREGGII

AUTUMN SAGE
400
5 GAL.

MODERATE/
MEDIUM
QTY: SIZE:

WUCOLS:

SHRUBS - MEDIUM:

M,

ABUTILON PALMERI

INDIAN MALLOW
30 5 GAL.

MODERATE/
MEDIUM
Mz

CALLIANDRA CALIFORNICA

BAJA FAIRY DUSTER
150
5 GAL.

LOW
M3

FALLUGIA PARADOXA

APACHE PLUME
60 5 GAL.

LOW
eM5

JUSTICIA CALIFORNICA

CHUPAROSA
230
5 GAL.

VERY LOW
s LEUCOPHYLLUM
M6

CANDIDUM
'SILVER CLOUD'
65 5 GAL.

LOW

O LEUCOPHYLLUM

FRUTESCENS
'GREEN CLOUD'
205
5 GAL.

LOW
e LEUCOPHYLLUM
M8

FRUTESCENS
'--,.NDFR CI OJD'
270
5 GAL.

LOW
M9

SENNA ARTEMISIOIDES

FEATHERY CASSIA
1725
5 GAL.

LOW
g SPHAERALCEA

AMBIGUA

APRICOT MALLOW
100
5 GAL.

VERY LOW

RESIDENCES NOT TO SCALE
SHRUBS - LARGE:

O CAESALPINIA

PULCHERRIMA

RED BIRD OF PARADISE
135
5 GAL.

LOW
e2

CHAMELAUCIUM UNCINATUM
'PURPLE PRIDE'

GERARLDTON WAX FLOWER
4 5 GAL.

MODERATE/
MEDIUM

O CORDIA

BOISSIERI

WILD OLIVE
9 5 GAL.

LOW

O CORDIA

PARVIFOLIA

LITTLE -LEAF CORDIA
80 5 GAL.

LOW

O DODONAEA

VISCOSA 'PURPUREA'

PURPLE HOSEED BUSH
30 5 GAL.

MODERATE/
MEDIUM

ACCENTS - CACTUS / SUCCULENTS

AGAVE AMERICANA

CENTURY PLANT
290
5 GAL.

VERY LOW
n,

AGAVE ATTENUATA 'BOUTIN BLUE'

BLUE FOX TAIL AGAVE
240
5 GAL.

LOW
A5

AGAVE 'BLUE GLOW'

BLUE GLOW AGAVE
140
5 GAL.

LOW
A6

AGAVE DESMETTIANA 'VARIEGATA'

VARIEGATED SMOOTH AGAVE
695
5 GAL.

LOW
Aa
AGAVE VICTORIAE—REGINAE

QUEEN VICTORIA AGAVE
55 5 GAL.

LOW
v AGAVE

VILMORINIANA

OCTOPUS AGAVE
200
5 GAL.

LOW
AO

ALOE 'BLUE ELF'

BLUE ELF ALOE
385
5 GAL.

LOW

ALOE STRIATA

CORAL ALOE
350
5 GAL.

LOW

ALOE VERA

MEDICINAL ALOE
260
5 GAL.

LOW
-

CEREUS PERUVIANUS

APPLE CACTUS
17 5 GAL.

LOW
nia

CISTANTHE GRANDIFLORA

ROCK PURSLANE
320
5 GAL.

LOW/MEDIUM

DASYLIRION WHEELERI

DESERT SPOON
295
5 GAL.

LOW

ECHINOCACTUS GRUSONII

GOLDEN BARREL CACTUS
160
5 GAL.

LOW

FOUQUIERIA SPLENDENS

OCOTILLO
475
5 GAL.

VERY LOW

HESPERALOE 'BRAKELIGHTS'

RED YUCCA
2220
5 GAL.

LOW
• .•
•
OPUNTIA VIOLACEA VAR. SANTA RITA

PURPLE PRICKLY PEAR
50 5 GAL.

VERY LOW

YUCCA ROSTRATA

BEAKED YUCCA
105
15 GAL.

LOW
wwwww.w IP
'44*
-"Mari KNEEN.
.1111111111111111111
ses
GROUNDCOVER:
• • - - - - -
D

DALEA GREGGII

TRAILING INDIGO BUSH
7000
S.F.

FLATTED
12" O.C.

LOW
CR�EPINGPORUMMYOPOR OPARVIFMIUM
S00
.F.

FLATTED
12" 0.C.

MODERATE/
MEDIUM
VINES:

BOUGAINVILLEA SPP.

BOUGAINVILLEA
160
5 GAL.

MODERATE/
MEDIUM
GRASSES:

BOUTELOUA GRACILIS

BLUE GRAMA
4800
S.F.

SEEDED
LOW
�////
G3
IA CAPILLARIS 'REGAL MIST 17301 5 GAL.

MUHLENBERGIA
PINK

I MOOD RATE/
M
G4

MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS

DEER GRASS
I 1650
I 5 GAL.

MODERATE/
MEDIUM
ARTIFICIAL TURF I 270 INSTALLED
S.F. PER MANUF.

RECOMMENDATIONS
NOTE:

SECURITY FENCE AROUND
POOL, HEIGHT PER CODE.

NOTE:

SECURITY FENCE AT EDGE
OF RETAINING WALL.

O
NOTES:
0 T-04

1. ALL FINAL GRADING PER ENGINEER.

2. ALL DRAINAGE AND DRAIN CONNECTIONS AT
TOP OF WALLS PER ENGINEER.

3. ALL FINAL LANDSCAPE DRAINAGE PER
ENGINEER.

4. ALL PATHWAYS THAT CONNECT TO ROAD

SHALL HAVE CURB RAMPS PER ADA
(AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT)
STANDARDS, PER ENGINEER.

5. SECURITY FENCING AT TOP OF RETAINING

WALLS, PER ENGINEER - DISCUSSION ITEM
WITH CLIENT.
r9 040
r0 84B.3
Architect:

LCRA ARCHITECTS
V ,
w
F-
F
w
n�
F
Z
^J
L.L
w
VJ
L.L
w
F
z
0 F
N_
Z
1 0
F
w
w
Sheet Title:

PROJECT: RITZ CARLTON EXPANSION
ti
N
N
rn
Z
0 U -
J
U
W
(U
0 2
U
Z
CC
w
U
z
w
0 w
ti
Viscinity Map:

Typical Revisions:

ADate: Description:

Project Site
Sheet Title:

SHEET

ORGANIZATION
& PLANT

PALETTES
Sheet Reference:

LR-01
3519

These documents are the property of Design Studio of Michael Mckay and are not to be copied, reproduced, disposed of, either directly or indirectly, used for another project or any purpose whatsoever without express and written permission of Design Studio of Michael Mckay.

N
FS 620

EXISTING

GRADE AT
RESORT
FS 634
TW 642.5
FG 642
FS 640

EXISTING
GRADE
IC 640.5
FG 640

SKY MESA - NOT TO SCALE
LP 651
TW 652.5
TR
658.5
+HP
655
TW 654.5
FG 653
TC 648.5
FG 645.5
646.5
FG 642.5
TC 644.5
FG 642
FG 644.5
TW 652.5
FG
FS 646
FG 650.5
TW
FG
FS 650
'F‘,51W 649.5
\FG 649
FG 648
TW 65
FG 6
R
TW 653.5
FG 653
FG 653
FG 655
FG 653
50 652
FG
652
FG 650.5
FG 649.5
FG 651.5
FFE
652
TC 655.5
FG 653.8
TR 662.5
FG
654
G 650.5
FS 652.4
FG
656
651
FG
651.5 TW 654.5
FG 650.5
FG
658
FG
660
FG 653
FG 652.5
TC 653.5
FG
659
FS 651.5
FG
662
FG
658
FG
656
FG 648.5
FG 648.5
FW
648.5
FG
649
FW 648.5
FG
647
6 ..0
V •46,5
5 +FG FW 646.0
642
FG
648.5
PA
FS
649.0
TW 646.5
644.5
TW 650.5
FG 650
+FG
642.2
FW 648.5
LS -12
LT -12
644.5
FG 641
\F(
5 PLA\TI\G LEGEND
SYMBOL
PLANT
NAME
QTY.

SIZE
WUCOLS
TREES:

ACACIA ANEURA
MULGA
0 36" BOX
LOW

ACACIA FARNESIANA

SWEET ACACIA
0 36" BOX
MULTI-
TRJN<
LOW

CHILOPSIS LINEARIS

DESERT WILLOW
30 36" BOX

MODERATE/
MEDIUM
•
OX

CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS

PINK DAWN
0 36" BOX
LOW
•PARKINSONIA