Loading...
2021-04-13 SalaFirefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?Print Re: RESPONSE To YOUR EMAIL OF EARLIER TODAY JULY 13, 2021 ( Coral Mountain Resort EIR Comment Follow -Up) Ilona Sala <ilonalsala@gmail.com> Tue 7/13/2021 4:06 PM To: Diane Rebryna <drebryna@telusplanet.net> Cc: Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov>;bdvatland@gmail.com <bdvatland@gmail.com>;Ken Jones <kenjonesmail@aol.com>;Dave Wiezel <hnldjw@yahoo.com>;mike charles <mgacharles@yahoo.com>;Agnes Collins <ascollinsl@telus.net>;Linda Evans <Levans@laquintaca.gov>;Kathleen Fitzpatrick <kfitzpatrick@laquintaca.gov>;John Pena <jpena@laquintaca.gov>;Robert Radi <Rradi@laquintaca.gov>;Steve Sanchez <ssanchez@laquintaca.gov>;Danny Castro <dcastro@laquintaca.gov>;Cheri Flores <clflores@laquintaca.gov> ** EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information. ** Dear Ms Rebryna, You should be commended for the amazing job you have undertaken in deciphering the weighty tome. My heart stops when I read 17 - 80foot towers - from 7:00-10:00. What a loss of stargazing with this airportlike lighting filling the sky. Is a lawyer also going over this? I think you and whoever else is reading this needs assistance. Thank you for taking the burden from us lesser mortals. Ilona Sals On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 5:20 PM Diane Rebryna <drebryna@telusplanet.net> wrote: Dear Ms. Sauviat Criste, Please see my response to your email of this morning. I have also included a PDF of my response in the event that the contents of this email are jumbled in transmission. Thank you, Diane Rebryna Diane Rebryna, B.Sc.,D.D.S. 60149 Honeysuckle Street, La Quinta, CA 92253 Attention: Ms. Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner BY EMAIL: ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov Good day Ms. Sauviat Criste, Thank you for your email of this morning, July 13, 2021 with your explanation as to why the current DEIR (also "the Document") will not be retracted and reissued, and advising us that accordingly there would be NO extension beyond the August 6, 2021 date for comments. 1 of 4 5/29/22, 2:00 PM Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?Print Perhaps the City has "carefully and thoroughly reviewed the proposed Project", but I believe that you are missing the point of my request. Please understand that while a complex Project such as this requires analysis from the City's perspective it must also be presented in such a manner to allow for a detailed analysis by the public and also allow for "rapid understanding". I would again like to state that the document in its present format does not provide for this, mostly due to its length, repetitiveness and redundancy. I will not repeat again the reasoning behind our initial request of July 2, 2021. I gather from your email that you feel that the document is "not unduly scientific or complex". For reasons that I will not go into, I respectfully disagree; however the purpose of my response herein is not to argue. I do propose a compromise please, particularly with respect to the Sections in Chapter 4. Environmental Impact Analysis. I would like to see the 5 following items considered : 1. An expanded Table of Contents for Chapter 4. ***These 15 Sections are essentially the "meat and potatoes" of the DRAFT EIR As the document stands, the Table of Contents for a 700 plus page Document is not at all helpful. By way of example, in the Section regarding Aesthetics (4.1) which comprises 73 pages (4.1.1- 4.1.72), I note 6 Subsections. These are: 4.1.1 Introduction, 4.1.2 Existing Conditions, 4.1.3 Regulatory Setting, 4.1.4 Project Impact Analysis 4.1.5 Cumulative Impacts, and 4.1.6 Mitigation Measures However, when I go to the Table of Contents, I see ONLY "4.1 Aesthetics" referencing the entire 73 pages. I ask please - why would the Sections relevant to each Chapter not be included ? - please see 2. below 2. Inclusion of the Subsections and Tables in the Table of Contents - with numbers, letters and bullets as appropriate and appropriately cross referenced to pages in the Document. It is the subsections that pose an issue for the average reader such as myself. For instance, when I proceed to go through Section 4.1.4 Project Impact Analysis, I note the following "Subsections" Thresholds of Significance Methodology Proposed Project Character and Development Standards PAI PA 11 PA 111 PA IV Circulation Design Guidelines Planning Area I - Neighborhood Commercial Materials Planning Area II - Low Density Residential Materials Massing and Scale Architecture Planning Area 111- Tourist Commercial Materials Massing and Scale Architecture Planning Area 111- Tourist Commercial Offsite Infrastructure Project Impacts a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ? Location "A" Location "B" ... all in different fonts, different sizes, some italics, some not, non indented, etc. ; and these are in only the first 25 pages of the 73 for this Section ! I believe that you can see where I am going with this "illustration" above. This is not an easily readable document, but in particular it is not an easy document to reference and therefore understand. My example refers to just Section 4.1.4 - the layout therein is the same throughout the entire Document. From my particular perspective as I conduct my review, I found that I am required create my own "table of contents" for my ability to cross reference to allow for my understanding. Additionally, an expanded Table of Contents might allow me to gather data on a particular item - for instance, the lighting. In one 2 of 4 5/29/22, 2:00 PM Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?Print sub - section, its says that towers are 80 feet high, in another it says that they will be lit from 7 AM - 10 PM, in another it says that there will be 17 - 80 foot towers. etc. If this data is NOT provided in one sub -section, then at least a Table of Contents as requested might be of help going forward. I can assure you that this is no easy task to begin to gather and assimilate this data - as I attempt to provide an intelligent response to the Draft EIR. An expanded table of Contents with corresponding "lists" within the document itself would go a long way to helping me do this. 3. If it is possible, I would like to see this Document re -issued as a "searchable" PDF, with hyperlinks as required to the Appendices. Modem technology easily allows for this. 4. I would like to see the entire Document proof read with respect to page numbers please. For instance, I see that Section 4.1 has pages marked 4.1 ... whereas 4.2 has pages also marked 4.1, ... - instead of 4.2.X.... Simple proof reading would have caught this error - I'm asking please that you have someone do this. That way, when I make my own notes to refer to, I am not going back through the document and unable able to find what I am looking for because I am dealing with errors in the page numbering system. 5. I would like to see sub -sections entitled CONCLUSIONS limited to ONE per Section, please. Too many of these have lead to my confusion on the topics therein. In closing, I wish to say that this Project is very complex and potentially impactful to the residents around it on so many levels. There are many aging residents who reside in retirement communities near this proposed Project. Many have invested their life savings in their forever homes and feel very afraid because they cannot fully understand what this Project entails. Many can no longer concentrate to the extent that they once could and are easily overwhelmed. Many are not computer savvy. Some have told me that they feel inadequate and even "stupid" when they admit that they cannot "understand" the DEIR when they try to read it. My reply to them as been that "I feel inadequate as well " when faced with such a lengthy and redundant document. You have indicated in your email today that redundancy "is required" for the completeness of the document. Thank you for this explanation as I now understand and accept that. However, and to that I would say ... there should be extra attention on the City's part then to ensure that as much detail is provided for the benefit of all readers in such a manner as to allow for complete understanding. The acknowledgement and implementation of my 5 comments above would go a long way to providing for this. Thank you for your kind consideration of my request. I look forward to hearing back from you. Regards, Dr. Diane Rebryna On Jul 13, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Consulting Planner <ConsultingPlanner@laquintaca.gov> wrote: Good Morning, In response to your similar comments regarding the format of the EIR, the City has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the proposed project to address the requirements of CEQA. Although the CEQA Guidelines suggest page limits, the complexity of this project requires that it be analyzed thoroughly, resulting in a longer document. The language in the document, although technical, is not unduly scientific or complex. CEQA documents usually are highly detailed and cover many variables. Likewise, the various environmental impact areas may have some redundancy of analysis, all in an effort to make the 3 of 4 5/29/22, 2:00 PM Firefox https://outlook.office.com/mail/deeplink?Print document as complete as possible. The City has completed the EIR to address all currently known aspects of the project, and to provide decisionmakers and the public with a comprehensive analysis of the potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with its implementation. The City will not be retracting the document or reissuing it. Please provide your comments by the close of the public comment period on August 6, 2021. Nicole Sauviat Criste Consulting Planner City of La Quinta Ilona 4 of 4 5/29/22, 2:00 PM