HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #1B - email from Amy MinterFrom:Sarah Bloss
To:Planning; Christopher Hadwin
Cc:Amy Minteer; Sunjana Supekar
Subject:Comments RE Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3; Agenda Item 1.B
Date:Tuesday, June 25, 2024 2:49:17 PM
Attachments:2024-06-25 EIR Addendum 3 Comment Letter Final.pdf
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments
unless you are sure the content is safe.
Good afternoon,
Please see the attached comment letter from Amy Minteer regarding the above-captioned
matter.
If you have any questions, please contact our office.
Thank you,
Sarah Bloss
Paralegal
CARSTENS, BLACK & MINTEER LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Ste. 318
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
T: 323-347-7228 Ext. 8 F: 310-798-2402
smb@cbcearthlaw.com
www.cbcearthlaw.com
Main Office Phone:
310-798-2400
Direct Dial:
310-798-2409
Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 www.cbcearthlaw.com
Amy C. Minteer
Email Address:
acm@cbcearthlaw.com
June 25, 2024
Via Email (planning@palmspringsca.gov)
City of Palm Springs Planning Commission
Chair Kathy Weremiuk
Vice Chair Lauri Aylaian
Commissioner Carl Baker
Commissioner Scott Miller
Commissioner David Murphy
Commissioner Robert Rotman
Palm Springs City Hall
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Comments re Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3; Agenda
Item 1.B
On behalf of the Committee to Relocate Marilyn (“CReMa”), we provide these
comments on Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan (“MMPSP”) EIR Addendum #3. We also
provide objections to the City proposed finding of conformity with the General Plan. CReMa
urges the City prepare a subsequent environmental impact report (“SEIR”) before considering
whether to approve the permanent closure and vacation of Museum Way between Museum Drive
and Belardo Road and the installation of the Forever Marilyn statue in this location (the
“Project”).
I. The Project Does Not Conform to the General Plan.
The City cannot make the required conformity findings as stated in Government Code
section 65402 and Streets and Highways Code section 8313 because the Project simply does not
conform to the General Plan and conflicts with fundamental, mandatory, and specific provisions
of the Community Design Element and Land Use Element that implement the General Plan.
(Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County Bd. of Sup'rs (1998)
62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1341.)
The Project is subject to the 2005 Downtown Urban Design Plan (“DUDP”), design
guidelines that were fast-tracked to guide development in Downtown Palm Springs prior to the
completion of the 2007 General Plan. The DUDP is included as Appendix A of the General Plan,
and compliance with the DUDP is incorporated as mandatory policies of the General Plan:
1
City of Palm Springs
June 25, 2024
Page 2 of 9
• Community Design Element Policy CD30.1 states “Require new development in
the Downtown area to conform to the Downtown Urban Design Plan for design
guidelines. New development applications in the Downtown area shall include an
analysis of a project’s compliance with the provisions of the Downtown Urban
Design Plan.” (Community Design Element, p. 9-65.)
• The Community Design Element makes clear that “Future development should
reflect the intentions of the Community Design Element and should consult the
Downtown Urban Design Plan . . . .” (Community Design Element, p. 9-4; see p.
9-13 [“See the Downtown section of this element and the Downtown Urban
Design Plan for goals, policies, action items, and design guidelines for the
downtown area].)
• Land Use Element Policy LU10.9 states “Require all new development in
Downtown to be consistent with the design principles found in the Downtown
Urban Design Plan that address streets and circulation, parking, public spaces and
gathering places, landscaping, signage, lighting, street furniture, and building
height, orientation, massing, and design.” (Land Use Element, p. 2-41.)
One of the primary goals of the DUDP and a designated Key Design Concept is to
strengthen pedestrian and vehicular east-west connections in the Downtown area. (DUDP, p.
12.) To that end, the DUDP requires “[o]pening new east-west vehicular and pedestrian
connections to improve circulation and access.” (DUDP, p. 12.) One of these east-west
connections is Museum Way, which opens a visual corridor for the Palm Springs Art Museum.
(DUDP, p. 17 [sketch identifying view corridor to Palm Springs Art Museum], 23 [east-west
street to the Art Museum would reduce the visual impact of surrounding development and “help
retain the village character of the area while adding much needed vitality to the downtown
streets.”].) The dedication of Museum Way is a fundamental part of the DUDP.
The EIR Addendum even admits the importance of Museum Way to implementing the
DUDP, noting that “The 2009 EIR also considered the Palm Springs Art Museum’s location, and
identified that the Specific Plan would open a significant view corridor to the Museum from
Palm Canyon Drive by installing Main Street (now Museum Way) as a vertically framed vista of
the building, thereby implementing a Key Design Concept of the City’s Downtown Urban
Design Plan (DUDP).” (EIR Addendum, p. 14.)
By eliminating Museum Way, the Project removes a vehicular east-west connection to the
Palm Springs Art Museum, and an important visual corridor. In doing so, the Project conflicts
with fundamental, mandatory and specific policies of the General Plan to conform to the DUDP,
Community Design Element Policy CD30.1 and Land Use Element Policy LU10.9.
Accordingly, the Project does not conform to the General Plan and the City cannot make the
required findings under Government Code section 65402 and Streets and Highways Code section
8313.
2
City of Palm Springs
June 25, 2024
Page 3 of 9
II. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) is Required.
A. The Vacation of Museum Way and the Installation of the Forever Marilyn
Statue are Substantial Changes to the Project that Require Major Revisions
to the Museum Market Specific Plan EIR.
When an EIR has been certified for a project, CEQA requires the preparation of a SEIR
for a future project relying on that EIR if: the project includes substantial changes that will
require major revisions of the previous EIR due to new significant impacts or an increase in the
severity of significant impacts; there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which
the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to new
significant impacts or an increase in the severity of significant impacts; or if there is new,
previously unknown, information regarding the project or the circumstances surrounding it that
show the project will have a new significant impact or a more severe previously identified
significant, or if new or previously rejected mitigation or alternatives become feasible.
Here, the Project requires preparation of a SEIR because it would have new significant
impacts and increase the severity of the previously identified significant and unavoidable
aesthetic and cultural resource impacts of the MMPSP. The Project would eliminate benefits
relied upon to override these impacts. The Project would also block scenic views and views of a
National Register designated historic resource, as well as adversely impact the setting of that
resource.
1. Benefits Relied Upon in 2009 Statement of Overriding
Considerations Will No Longer Be Provided with this Project.
When a project would have significant and unavoidable impacts, CEQA requires an
agency to adopt a statement of overriding considerations setting forth benefits of the project that
the agency finds will override the significant adverse impacts the project would have. (Pub.
Resources Code, §21081; CEQA Guidelines, §15093, subd. (b); Sierra Club v. Contra Costa
County (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212, 1223.) The agency adopting a statement of overriding
considerations must have substantial evidence to support that the project would actually have the
identified benefits and that those are actually public benefits. (Woodward Park Homeowners
Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 718.)
The 2009 EIR for the MMPSP, later renamed the Downtown Specific Plan, found the
redevelopment of Downtown Palm Springs would have significant and unavoidable impacts to:
scenic vistas and aesthetics due to the obstruction of mountain views; air quality due to
operational NOx and carbon monoxide emissions; and historic resources due to the potential
demolition of the historic Town & Country Center, which was later eliminated from the Plan. To
comply with Public Resources Code section 21081, the City adopted a statement of overriding
considerations to override these impacts. (Attachment 1, Statement of Overriding Considerations
(“SOC”).) This statement found that identified benefits from the project together overrode the
project’s significant impacts. A number of these identified benefits specifically relied upon the
vehicular and visual connection provided by the creation of the new unobstructed Museum Way,
3
City of Palm Springs
June 25, 2024
Page 4 of 9
originally named Main Street. The following were identified as benefits necessary to override the
Specific Plan’s significant adverse impacts:
• “The creation of a pedestrian and vehicular connection from Palm Springs Art Museum,
through Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives to the Resort/Convention Center
District.”
• “The Project, including the construction of Museum Way, an east-west road that will
connect the Palm Springs Art Museum with Indian Canyon Drive, will make the reuse
and/or redevelopment of the substantially vacant and deteriorating Desert Fashion Plaza
regional shopping center feasible, marketable, and attractive to investors. Museum Way
will link the Casino and the Convention Center with downtown and Museum Market
Plaza, creating a dynamic pedestrian and vehicular flow that will be attractive to potential
retailers and customers alike.”
• The existing Desert Fashion Plaza failed and exists in a substantially vacant and
deteriorating condition in large measure due to the lack of the existence or an easily
accessible east-west road connector and the creation or such a connection along the
general alignment of the proposed Museum Way is necessary for the economic
success of the Project.”
(Attachment 1, SOC.) The “generous view corridors” provided by the Specific Plan’s design was
also identified as an overriding benefit. (Ibid.)
The current road closure and statue installation project would eliminate benefits relied
upon in the statement of overriding considerations. There would no longer be the necessary east-
west vehicular connection to the Palm Springs Art Museum if Museum Way between Belardo
Road and Museum Drive. The installation of the massive Forever Marilyn statue also blocks the
generous view corridor provided by Museum Way. Claims in the Addendum that this project
would not change the findings of the statement of overriding considerations are without the
necessary substantial evidentiary support. Substantial evidence does not include inaccurate
information or unsubstantiated opinions, which is what the Addendum attempts to rely upon.
A Subsequent EIR is required because the vacation of Museum Way and installation of
the 26 foot tall statue in this roadway will increase the severity of these effects as they will not be
overridden by the benefits of the visual and vehicular connection through Museum Way.
2. The Project Will Have New Significant Historic and Aesthetic
Impacts.
A Subsequent EIR is required because the Project introduces a new significant impact by
closing Museum Way and installing the Forever Marilyn statue in Museum Way, which obstructs
and impedes views of the Palm Springs Art Museum (“Museum”). The Museum is a Class 1
historic resource and federally designated on the National Register of Historic Places. In
obstructing the visual corridor of the Museum, the Project materially alters physical
4
City of Palm Springs
June 25, 2024
Page 5 of 9
characteristics of the Museum’s immediate surroundings, which results in a substantial adverse
change in the Museum’s significance. (CEQA Guidelines, §15064.5, subds. (b), (b)(1),
(b)(2)(A).)
The EIR Addendum’s conclusions regarding historic impacts are based on a highly
flawed report prepared by CRM Tech. The CRM Tech report concluded without support that the
Project, including the closure of Museum Way and the installation of the statue, would not
impact the Museum. (CRM Tech report, pp. 10-11.) According to the National Register
Nomination Form for the Palm Springs Art Museum, the character defining features of the
Museum include, among others, the natural materials used for the exterior including volcanic
cinder, the sunken garden fronting Museum Drive, and the building cantilevered over the sunken
garden. (National Register Nomination Form, Section 7 p. 5, Section 8 p. 8.) These mostly
relate to the exterior of the building and its appearance against the mountains, including its scale.
Under CEQA, the significance of an activity may vary with the setting (CEQA
Guidelines, §15064, subd. (b)). Here, the appearance of the Museum against the mountainous
setting is a key component of the aesthetic and historic quality of the Museum. Thus, the
viewshed of the building is very important. The closure of Museum Way and the installation of
the statue would materially alter the Museum by destroying the visual corridor leading to the
Museum under CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5, subdivision (b).
The CRM Tech Report states that “From Palm Canyon Drive, Forever Marilyn does
present an obstruction . . .” but does not explain how this obstruction does not rise to a level of
significant impact. (CRM Tech report, p. 10.) Instead, the CRM Tech report relies on
speculation and unsubstantiated opinion and argument to diminish the significance of the impacts
resulting from the statue installation by stating that “an alternate case could be made that people
whose interest is piqued by Forever Marilyn may make the short walk to move closer to it, which
would also allow for more exposure to the museum…” (CRM Tech report, p. 10.) This is not
substantial evidence within the meaning of CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a).)
The CRM Tech report also mischaracterizes the current closure of Museum Way as a
“temporary closure,” despite the fact that the Court of Appeal has already found that the City’s
closure of Museum Way was not “temporary.” (CRM Tech report, p. 1.)
The CRM Tech report makes the illogical assertion that closing Museum Way would
enhance the view of the Museum for pedestrians, because Museum Way already provided
pedestrian access. (CRM Tech report, p. 10.) As stated above, one of the purposes of Museum
Way was to provide a vehicular and pedestrian connection to the Museum. Moreover, the report
states that the statue keeps with the “eclectic nature, the 1950’s ‘vibe,’ and the Mid-Century
Modern architecture for which the City is renowned.” (CRM Tech report, p. 11.) The statue’s
consistency with an unspecified “1950’s vibe” is not substantial evidence within the meaning of
CEQA. The Museum was built in 1976, therefore consistency with a “1950’s vibe” is not just
meaningless, it is irrelevant. The CRM Tech report provides no factual or fact-based support for
its conclusion that closing Museum Way could enhance the view of the Museum.
The CRM Tech report claims that the statue lies outside of the Museum’s “boundary,”
5
City of Palm Springs
June 25, 2024
Page 6 of 9
citing a 1997 National Register Bulletin. (CRM Tech report, p. 10.) This argument is a red
herring. CReMa does not contend that the Museum itself is part of the Project. For purposes of
CEQA, a project may cause a significant impact to a historic resource when it “materially alters
in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its
historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the
California Register of Historical Resources (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, subd. (b)(2)(A).) As
discussed above, the Project would materially and adversely alter the immediate surroundings of
the Museum by destroying the view of the Museum.
Additionally, even if defining the boundaries of the Museum were relevant, the
conclusion that Museum Way is a peripheral area outside of the boundary is unsupported.
Peripheral areas “no longer retain integrity.” (1997 National Register Bulletin, p. 2.) The
viewshed is important to the significance of the Museum. The 1997 National Register Bulletin
includes examples where viewsheds are included within the boundary of a historic resource.
(1997 National Register Bulletin, pp. 19-20 [Dune Shacks Historic District]; p. 22 [Rocky Point
Scenic Drive], p. 27 [viewsheds important when property used for contemplative purposes].)
Moreover, aesthetic impacts to historic resources are cognizable under CEQA. (Protect
Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1145 [236 Cal.Rptr.3d 513, 525];
Georgetown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 358, 375–376.)
As admitted in the EIR Addendum, the statue occurs “in the direct line of sight of the Palm
Springs Art Museum.” (EIR Addendum, p. 17.) The EIR Addendum claims that the vertically
framed viewshed of art museum would not be changed with “implementation of project.” (EIR
Addendum, p. 16.) There is no support for this. The statue obstructs the view, which is
otherwise a clear vertical frame. (Attachment 2 – Photo Comparison of Museum Way With and
Without Statue.) The Project, in destroying the visual corridor along Museum Way to the
Museum, also interferes with MMPSP EIR Aesthetic Impacts Mitigation Measure #2, which
requires that “Design of structures shall be sensitive to surrounding mountain vistas, and shall
incorporate visually permeable materials, step-backs and setbacks, and stepped building
frontages to the greatest extent possible.” (EIR Addendum, p. 15.)
Finally, because the Project results in an alteration of a historic resource due to the
placement of the statue affecting the exterior visual quality of the Museum (Palm Springs
Municipal Code § 8.05.020), a Certificate of Appropriateness is required under Palm Springs
Municipal Code section 8.05.110.
3. The Project Will Have New Significant Impacts to Traffic Safety.
The EIR Addendum fails to adequately disclose impacts to traffic safety resulting from
the Project. CEQA Guidelines Appendix G requires evaluation of whether a project would
“Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections). . . .” The only part of the EIR Addendum that addresses traffic safety is
the VMT Screening Evaluation prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (“UCI report”) located in
Appendix C, p. 1.1-21. That section makes the unsupported conclusion that the closure of
Museum Way “would continue the protection of pedestrians, bicyclists, children, older
individuals, and individuals with disabilities from shared use of the roadway with automobile
6
City of Palm Springs
June 25, 2024
Page 7 of 9
traffic.” (UCI Report, EIR Addendum App. C, p. 1.1-21.) The UCI report does not provide
evidence to support this claim, and appears to rely on the current illegal closure of Museum Way
as the baseline for considering traffic safety. Moreover, shared use of the roadway with
automobile traffic is not the only traffic safety concern. The UCI report mentions the elimination
of vehicle turning points on Museum Way, but does not address the likelihood that other nearby
intersections may potentially become more dangerous for pedestrians as a result of vehicle traffic
displaced from Museum Way. The EIR Addendum indicates a worsening of congestion with
Museum Way closed at three nearby intersections (Belardo Road and Andreas Road, Belardo
Road and Tahquitz Canyon Way, and Museum Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way), but does not
analyze traffic safety at these intersections. (EIR Addendum, p. 77.)
The EIR Addendum also wholly fails to address the cumulative impacts of nearby
planned residential development on traffic safety. Residential developments planned or
contemplated for Block B and Block F will contribute both pedestrians and vehicle traffic to the
Project site. The closure of Museum Way will restrict vehicular access to the proposed housing
development on Block B. The EIR Addendum does not address how closure of Museum Way
along with these proposed developments will worsen traffic safety in the vicinity.
B. The EIR Addendum Relies on a Defective Project Description and Baseline.
1. The Addendum Relies on an Unstable Project Description That Fails to
Include the Whole of the Project.
CEQA requires that environmental review documents set forth a project description that
is sufficient to allow an adequate evaluation and review of the project’s environmental impacts.
(CEQA Guidelines, §15124.) “An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua
non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.” (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977)
71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192 93; accord San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Reserve Center v. County of
Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730.) “[O]nly through an accurate view of the project may
the public and interested parties and public agencies balance the proposed project's benefits
against its environmental cost, consider appropriate mitigation measures, assess the advantages
of terminating the proposal and properly weigh other alternatives.” (City of Santee v. County of
San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454.)
Additionally, the term project under CEQA “means ‘the whole of an action, which has a
potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment....’” (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center
v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 654, citation to CEQA Guidelines, §15378,
subd. (a).) The entirety of the project must be described, and not some smaller portion of it.
(Santiago County Water District v. County of Orange (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 818, 829–831.)
Here, the Addendum significantly changes the project described in the 2009 MMPSP
EIR. As identified in the Addendum, the project is the “vacation of Museum Way, between
Museum Drive and Belardo Road in the Downtown Palm Springs Specific Plan area.” (EIR
Addendum p. 1.) However, this fails to address the whole of the action. The sole purpose of the
street vacation is to allow for the occupation of this street by the 26-foot-tall Forever Marilyn
7
City of Palm Springs
June 25, 2024
Page 8 of 9
statue. The project description improperly fails include the statue installation as part of the
project. However, in some places, the Addendum makes a halfhearted effort to consider impacts
associated with this activity. This results in not only a failure to fully consider the whole of the
project, but also an improperly distorted and unstable project description. (County of Inyo, supra,
71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192.)
The Addendum also fails to consider other aspects of the whole of the project. This
includes the post-vacation return of street ownership to the adjacent landowners along Museum
Way. While the City owns the parcels to the north of Museum Way, Block F is privately owned
and the street vacation would result in south half this block of Museum Way being transferred to
private ownership. The impacts of this transfer are not contemplated in the Addendum, despite
the fact that under CEQA “the lead agency is required to review all phases of the project before it
is undertaken.” (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 103
Cal.App.4th 268, 284.) Whether construction could occur in Museum Way on the privately
owned portion, who would maintain that portion of the street, and whether the public would still
be able to use the privately owned portion of Museum Way for pedestrian and bicycle access
could have significant impacts that were not addressed. The term “project” does not mean each
separate governmental approval. (CEQA Guidelines, §15378, subd. (c); see also Citizens for a
Green San Mateo v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1572,
1592.) The City must “construe the project broadly to capture the whole of the action and its
environmental impacts.” (Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods v. Regents of University of California
(2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 226, 239.) Additionally, Block F is intended for development of a 60-
foot-tall mixed-use development or hotel. The Addendum does not address how the street closure
and return of a portion of the street to the adjacent property owner would impact access and the
ability to construct development at this site.
Further, the land for Museum Way was purchased by the City from private owners with
public funds from the Measure J sales tax. Returning this land to private ownership would be a
waste of public funds. This is particularly relevant at a time when the City is seeking public
approval to extend the Measure J sales tax.
The Addendum also fails to include the relocation of the water line underlying Museum
Way and the installation of a new water line to service the Downtown Palm Springs Park any
new development in the Blocks F, H1 and H2 adjacent to the street as part of the project
description. The only reason this water line relocation is required is to facilitate the street
vacation and thus the relocation is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the project that must
be addressed now. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California
(1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 394.) The City must also disclose to the public who will be responsible for
the expense of the water line abandonment and installation of the new water line(s).
2. The Addendum’s Project Description Also Relies on an Improper
Baseline.
The Addendum omits any disclosure of the Court of Appeal’s determination that the 2021
closure of Museum Way violated the Vehicle Code and that litigation remains pending as to
whether the City violated CEQA by relying on a categorical exemption to environmental review
8
City of Palm Springs
June 25, 2024
Page 9 of 9
as the basis for “temporarily” closing Museum Way and installing a massive statue in the street.
(See Committee to Relocate Marilyn v. City of Palm Springs (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 607.)
Additionally, the License Agreement between the City and PS Resorts expired in February 2024,
meaning the statue is now illegally occupying an illegally closed street. With this litigation still
pending and the Court of Appeal conclusively determining the street closure was illegal more
than a year ago, CReMa has previously asserted that Museum Way should be reopened to
prevent the manipulation of the baseline for future environmental review of the impacts
associated with street closure under CEQA.
Instead of heeding this recommendation, the Addendum includes a manipulated baseline
condition of Museum Way already closed and the Forever Marilyn statue in place. The City has
indicated that it intends to use this Addendum to claim the environmental review sought by
CReMa’s litigation has now been completed. However, environmental review with this
manipulated baseline does not compare the environmental impacts with the project (street
closure and statue installed) to the environmental impacts of without-project conditions
(Museum Way open to vehicles with no statue). (Communities for a Better Environment v. South
Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 321.) The baseline must be the
unobstructed use of Museum Way by vehicles to allow for the analysis of “the most accurate
picture practically possible of the project's impacts” as required by CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines,
§15125, subd. (a)(1).)
III. Conclusion
For all of these reasons, we urge the Commission to find the Project is not consistent with
the General Plan and the Addendum is inadequate to support Project approval.
Sincerely,
Amy Minteer
cc Christopher Hadwin, Director of Planning Services
(Christopher.Hadwin@palmspringsca.gov)
Attachments:
1. 2009 MMPSP Statement of Overriding Considerations
2. Photo Comparison of Museum Way With and Without Statue
9
ATTACHMENT 1
10
EXHIBIT "B"
ST ATF.MF.NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA Tlff\/S
CEQA requires the City Council, as the decision-making agency, to balance, a, applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project against its unavoidable
environmental risks v;hen determining whether to approve the project If the specific economic,
legal, social, Lechnological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effect,, those effects may be considen,d "acceptable." [CF.QA Guiddines
15093(a).] CEQA requires the City Council to state, in writing, the specific reasons for considering
a project acceptable when signiHCillll impacts are not avoided or substantially lessentxl Those
reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative
record ]CEQA Guidelines 15093(b)].
In accordance with the requirements ofCEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. the City Council finds
that the mitigation measures identified in the Final ElR and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program, when implemented, will avoid or substantially lessen virtually all of the
signilicant effects identified in the EIR for the Museum :Market Plaza Specific Plan.
Nevertheless, certain significant impacts of the project are unavoidable even after inc01poration of
all feasible mitigation measures. The project would result in significant and unavoidable impa<.is
to a) scenic vistas and aesthetics, b) air qualily, andc) historic resources. The EIR and Exhibit "A"
provides detailed infomurtion regarding these impacts.
"Jhc City Council finds that all lba;ible mitigation measures iderrtified in the EIR within the
purview of the City will be implemented with the project, and that the remaining significant
unavoidable effects are outweighed and are found to be acceptable due to the following specific
overriding economic, legal, social, teclmological, or other benefits based upon the facts set forth
above. the EIR and the record, including without limitation the draft Specific Plan and related
documents, as follov.'S:
L The Project is designed to allow flexibility of design within specific b'lriding principles,
including:
a. The highest quality development which provides an exciting and safe living,
working, and shopping experience for all.
b. The creation of a pedestrian and vehicular connection from Palm Springs Art
Museum, through Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon Drives to the
Resort/Convention Center District.
The development of retail commercial development which success folly
mixes national and regional chain stores with local businesses, focused on the
major roadways which bound the site, including North l'a!m Canyon, Indian
Canyon, Tahqnitz Canyon, and Belardo.
d. A balance of commercial and residential development which assures the success of
the area by increasing the number of homes in the downtown, thereby increasing
,_' 58
11
the customcr base of the commercial uses
e. The development of residential units which relate synergistically to the
commercial development around them, and encourage a pede;irian lifestyle
with little use for the automobile,
t: The development of additional resort hotels which provide luxury
accommodations and increase the visitors to the City's downtmvn protccrs the
quality of life for existing and future residen!S through goals and policies
designed to achieve a desired vision for the City that incorporates smart
growth principles, concepts of sustainable development and resource
management, and environmental protection.
2. The Project addresses and is intended to affirmatively implement the following
special design statements and goals:
a. A distinctive and adaptable architectural theme, that incorporates a new
sustainability esthetic that ·will defme future development. References to
prevailing Modernist Spanish, and Mediterranean styles may occur.
Fundamental principles of the theme will be consistent throughout, with
interesting variation in rooflines, clcvational articulation, detailing, and
materials creating a richly textured built environment.
b. Stepping back of the upper floors of buildings to create graduated frontages
that allow generous view corridors and reduce the visual dominance of
building mass.
c. Definitive comer treatments at primary intersections, achieved by
introducing distinctive architectural features and comer cut backs to
buildiugs. Sidewalks will include projections with special landscaping and
surface finishes and street paving will be distinctive.
d. Active building frontages and lively "multi-purpose" sidewalks,
contributing to a i,,ibrant townscape experience.
Distinctive design treatments of the Plaza and the associated hierarchy of
interlinked, versatile public open spaces, creating a well-defmed sense of
place.
f. Connectivity between internal components ofthe Specific Plan and the
surrounding development, including the Section 14 Master Plan area,
hotels, and Convention Center to the east.
3. The Project guides the City in expanding the local economy, which provides jobs, attracts
and retains businesses, supports diverse and vibrant commercial areas, recoguiz.es and
encomages technological innovations, and generates sufficient revenue to support
various local programs and services.
4. The Project promotes development which accommodates anticipated population growth
,_, 59
12
and guides physical development towards a desired image that is consistent with the
social, economic, and aesthetic values of the City.
5. The Project provides a guiding framework for the completion of related planning
efforts associated with the City's Community Redevelopment Agency, including
with limitation the "Design for Development" area, which will allow individual other
areas within lhe dov,ntov,n and greater domrtov,n area to provide direction for their
future growth and successful economic development while maintaining their unique
characters.
6. The P~ject supports the policies and goals of the 2007 General Plan and the Community
Redevelopment Agency Merged Area I and 2 redevelopment plans, and a'lSists lhe City to
meet future housing needs for the growth in population, including affordable housing.
7. The Project improves mobility through development of a more balanced, multi-modal
tr.m.sportation netwmk, encouraging residerrtial and workplace development near transit
corridors, and supports the goals and policies of adopted regional transportation plans.
8. The Prl~ect provides for public fucilities and services needed to serve the existing and
future population and establishes goals and policies to enhance public safety.
9. Tbe Project allows the City to become a model of sustainable development and provide
for the long-term conservation and management of the rich natural resources that help to
define the City's identity, contribute to its economy, and improve its quality of life.
10. The Project will bring private investment to an economically challenged area of the City
and help promote revitaliwtion of the area, in keeping with the broad, general goals of the
City's General Plan, the redevelopment plans, and the Project.
11. The Project, including the construction of Museum Way, an east-west road that ·will
connect the Palm Springs Art Museum with Indian Canyon Drive, will make the reuse
and1or redevelopment of the substantially vacant and deteriorating Desert Fashion Plaza
regional shopping center feasible, marketable, and attractive to investors. MIL>eum
Way will link the Casino and the Convention Center with dov,ntown and Museum
l\.farket Plaza, creating a dynamic pedestrian and vehicular flow that will be attractive to
potential retailers and customers alike.
12. The existing Desert Fashion Plaza failed and exists in a substantially vacant and
deteriorating condition in large measure due to the lack of the existence or an easily
accessible east-west road connector and the creation or such a conne<.1:iou along the
general alignment of the proposed Museum Way is necessary for Ute economic succes~
of the Project.
13. The Project creates and will promote viable economic investment in an economicallv
challenged area of the City.
14 The Project iru:Olporates environmentally sowul, sustainable planning and design concepts
including: providing housing and retail development with enhanced walkability and
n, 60
13
transit accessibility for residents and visitors; emphasizing the use of alternative
transportation; designing future buildings at greater density than existing in order to more
efficiently milizc land resources and preserve open spa.cc.
15. The Project will constitute a significant economic benefit to downtown and to the City of
Palm Springs .. 1hc Project has a significant beneficial economic impact on the area's
economy. Each dollar spent locally in downtown Palm Springs cycles through the area
economy, generating additional income and employment.
16. 1hc Project, when compared to the other alternatives analyzed in the EIR (including the No
Project Alternative} provides the best available balance between maxim iring anainrnen(
of the prqject objectives and minimizing significant environmental impacts.
Considering all factors, the City Council fmds that there are specific economic, legal, social,
technological and other considerations associated with the project that outweigh the project's
significant unavoidable effects, and the adverse effects are therefore considered acceptable.
,.,
61
14
ATTACHMENT 2
15
Screen Capture from Google Maps at Belardo Road and Museum Way, June 2021
16
Photograph taken on November 17, 2023 of the Forever Marilyn installa�on in Museum Way, while
standing at the intersec�on of Museum Way and Belardo Road facing west towards the Palm Springs Art
Museum and San Jacinto Mountains.
17