WRITTEN
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
1 From: Alena Callimanis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 2:52 AM
To: Linda Evans; John Pena; Kathleen Fitzpatrick; Steve Sanchez; Deborah McGarrey Cc: Monika Radeva; Jon McMillen
Subject: Comments Regarding September 17 2024 Consent Calendar Item 6 on Travertine Good day Honorable Mayor Evans, Mayor Pro Tem Peña, Council Members Fitzpatrick, Sanchez and McGarrey, I would like to address some of my concerns regarding Consent Calendar Item 6 on Travertine.
Point 5 Highlights the construction of the Jefferson St. /Avenue 62 circulation improvements. Please note, this is NOT the Jefferson St. extension from Avenue 58. This is just the internal project’s “Jefferson Street”. I am bringing this up because I feel it is critical, given the concerns that the Jefferson Street extension approvals will take a significant amount of time, that the Travertine Developer be asked to start the process for getting approvals to build the Jefferson Street Extension. There is nothing happening with the rest of the project that would preclude that process of approval of the Jefferson St. extension from being started today.
This leads into my second concern, which is regarding air quality and that building the Jefferson Street extension is vital to the air quality of the Trilogy and other surrounding communities. The DA states the development "will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare". The statement is applicable to inside the Travertine development itself. Without the elevated roadway on Avenue 62, there is no Travertine and there was no consideration of air quality impacts in the EIR of the elevated roadway and the concentration of vehicles on Avenue 60, Ave 62 and Monroe.
As you are aware, the affect of air quality impacts to folks in the Coachella Valley has recently come under closer scrutiny at CVAG. One of the important topics being discussed is how there has been no consideration of “Hot Spots” being created in the Coachella Valley. One such hot spot is the Travertine Development, where the Trilogy community is surrounded on three sides by significant new traffic. In the EIR, for phase one of Travertine, the analysis of traffic on Monroe between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62 goes from 1600 to 5000 vehicles. For most of Monroe, except for the non-Trilogy property inset, the houses are 20 to 30 feet from the Monroe wall, so traffic will be less than 50 feet from houses. The traffic on Avenue 62 west of Monroe goes from 600 to 6300. And that traffic will be going over the 36 foot elevated roadway. The EIR did not even analyze the additional traffic on Avenue 60 between Madison and Monroe. This is forming an air quality hot spot around Trilogy with the subsequent impact on sensitive receptors (senior citizens). And this is in addition to the significant air quality concerns for the area already expressed by SCAQMD.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 - WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS BY RESIDENT ALENA CALLIMANIS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 6 - TRAVERTINE PROJECT - COMMENTS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2 Therefore it is incumbent on you to accelerate the approval of the Jefferson extension in order to mitigate the negative air quality impacts to Trilogy and other communities by spreading out the traffic.
Regarding the approval of the Mello-Roos designation, the developer is removing from themselves the cost of the fire station and other infrastructure improvements. I suspect that would also include flooding damages to infrastructure. If you recall, Fire Station 32 cost $6.8 Million when it opened in 2010. I don’t know what the cost would be today, but it begs the question why would a new home buyer want to be saddled with a Mella-Roos tax for the costs of a fire station and other infrastructure costs when they could go on the other side of the dike to Coral Mountain with similar health and wellness facilities without the extra burden and worry about flooding and about paying for a fire station and infrastructure. I am having concerns that Travertine will find 4 or 5 developers willing to take on this project with this designation and surrounded by a 30 foot dike.
And the final topic is flooding. If you remember in the Planning Commision meeting, the developer described one of the flood diversion methods as using LEXAN, which is a clear plexiglass-like material. This would allow flood control and also would not impact views. We had a construction engineer who worked with LEXAN describe the issues with LEXAN, which is extremely sensitive to UV light and pitting with blowing sand. It can shatter after a few years. Also, all the flooding studies were pre-Hillary. If you recall in the City Council meeting, when Mayor Pro Tem Peña asked about flood control, the developer said that they were considering building a berm that gradually went from 3 to 5 feet, to 16 to 18 feet. That does not sound like a firm flood control plan, which should have been detailed in the EIR.
I know the “norm” now is for 50 year development agreements. I am really concerned about the City being saddled for 50 years with a project that is being built in a flood plain.
It really should be dropped back to 25 years.
Thank you for reading this long note and your consideration for any of these topics and changes.
Respectfully,
Alena Callimanis
81469 Rustic Canyon Dr.
La Quinta, CA 92253
919 606-6164
[email protected]