HomeMy WebLinkAboutProvide_ Comment Letter _ OLT _ ARC Hearing _ Feb 18 _ PS Fulfillment _ Exhibit A - ITEM 3AFrom:Jarek Dallos
To:Planning; City Clerk
Subject:Provide: Comment Letter / OLT / ARC Hearing / Feb 18 / PS Fulfillment / Exhibit A
Date:Tuesday, February 18, 2025 11:22:07 AM
Attachments:Comment Letter_2025.02.18_Oswit Land Trust_ARC_PS Fulfillment (FINAL).pdf
EXHIBIT A_HEAT MAP_NASA Heat Maps within Warehousing Areas____.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 morning, Dear City of Palm Springs.
I am reaching out on behalf of Oswit Land Trust, to share with you a comment letter
regarding:
RE: Public Hearing before the Architectural Advisory Commission, February 18,
2025
A REQUEST BY PS CANYON DEVELOPMENT, LLC, OWNER FOR A MAJOR
ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A 739,360- SQUARE FOOT
WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH
INDIAN CANYON DRIVE AND AVENUE 19 (CASE # 3.4361 MAJ) (GM).
Kindly please confirm receipt and distribute the attached letter and exhibits to the Planning
Director, Assistant Planning Director, Architectural Review Committee, and any associated
personnel for tonight's hearing.
Thank you kindly,
- Jarek Dallos
ING. JAREK DALLOS (He/Him/His)
Executive Assistant
Website: www.OswitLandTrust.Org
Email: jarek@OswitLandTrust.Org
1
February 17, 2025
To the City of Palm Springs
Architectural Advisory Committee
Palm Springs, California
RE: Public Hearing before the Architectural Advisory Commission, February 18, 2025
A REQUEST BY PS CANYON DEVELOPMENT, LLC, OWNER FOR A MAJOR
ARCHITECURAL APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A 739,360- SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE
BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH INDIAN CANYON DRIVE
AND AVENUE 19 (CASE # 3.4361 MAJ) (GM).
To Whom It May Concern:
Oswit Land Trust is a 501C3 non-profit land conservancy dedicated to preserving critical habitat for wildlife
corridors and sensitive species. We achieve our goals through the acquisition of land and advocacy. We
are a proud member of the Land Trust Alliance and have over 3,000 active members who are residents
within the Coachella Valley and beyond.
Oswit Land Trust has expressed deep concern over excessive warehousing operations within the joint
counties of Riverside and San Bernardino (Inland Empire). The cities of Banning to Coachella along
Interstate 10 easily add up to over 70 million square feet of warehousing, approved and pending. Our
beautiful aesthetic vistas and tourism economy has not yet begun to absorb the dramatic negative impact.
Of vital concern to Oswit Land Trust is the impact of warehousing on sand transport, nutrient flow to
biological communities, and corridor linkage across Interstate 10 between Mount San Jacinto and San
Gorgonio. Although these biological concerns seem unrelated to architecture, viewshed protection,
which is the domain of good architectural practice, sustains biology. Donors will donate to perpetuate
beauty but will not support a degraded environmental area.
Our organization has gathered data published by the Robert Redford Conservancy and Claremont
McKenna College, School of Economics. Within the Inland Empire, warehousing has led to:
2
--Over 600,000 truck trips per day on highways and interstates
--Over 200 million truck trips annually
--Over 15 billion pounds of CO2 per year, from warehousing alone!
--Ontario, CA, warehousing headquarters, is at 98 percentiles for cancer risk
How does this impact the architectural committee for Palm Springs? Jurisdiction is elaborated in PSMO
Section 94.04.00 Architectural Review:
“B. Architectural Review Committee.
1. Architectural Review Committee – Established. There is hereby
established the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). The principal
roles of the ARC are to (i) issue decisions on Major Architectural Review
applications relative to the adopted criteria contained in this Section.
Our organization was surprised to find a referral of the Palm Springs Fulfillment Center Warehousing
Project to the Architectural Advisory Committee subsequent to final approval of the project by the
Planning Commission, subsequent to final appeal to the City Council by Peter Moruzzi, and subsequent to
(we believe) final certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by the City of Palm Springs. We
understand this post-review phenomenon occurred by ordinance change in 2022, at the same time the
height requirements for warehousing increased.
We are deeply concerned that the architectural elements of any project are left to deliberation after
approval of the project, but particularly warehousing operations, with structural height, bulk, and massing
that is now allowed to 95 feet and up to 60% lot coverage (PSMO 92.17.1.03).
All significant information, advice, and decisions should be on the record prior to final decision, subject
to public scrutiny and under both public and official consideration, not only to judge the total impact of
the project at one point in time, but to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) that review is not piecemeal. Data submission and review of criteria occur prior to approval,
not following. No important aspects of review prior to adopting a Draft EIR are neglected and delayed
because they are judged ‘ministerial.’
This includes the “Justification Letter” of the Applicant (Developer), which is now being submitted
subsequent to project approval. The “Justification Letter,” by definition, contains Findings of Fact.
3
Accordingly, those findings are essential to a final decision, they are a mandatory part of project approval
(concurrent permits), and they cannot be entered and deliberated post-approval.
Speaking to what has been omitted from both Architectural and Planning Commission review prior to
project decision are the findings for PS Fulfillment Center, inappropriately conclusionary in form, which is
not allowed by law. Note an example in the Developer’s Justification Letter:
Justification Letter: “Major Architectural Findings (94.04.00 F.) Question
#4 The proposed materials are consistent? Answer: Yes. Question #5 The
proposed color scheme is appropriate? Answer: Yes.”
Any ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ requires an explanation of the answer. What data or facts support that the materials are
consistent? What are the materials? Is there a materials list? Do they fit requirements? Detail is
required.
Certainly, “findings of fact” to support a decision are not a post-approval process. There is no review
authority remaining to judge the sufficiency of these findings, because the timing is now post-approval,
and ultimate sufficiency of the findings is no longer the point. It is clear that post-approval, the Planning
Commission has not triggered the comprehensive review mandated in 94.04.00, but needs information
on shade trees, food trucks, and beige colors, and only that. (See the ARC Staff Report at page 1 and 2).
Ordinance 94.04.00 (C) (5) requires the Director to identify whether the project requires a Major or Minor
Architectural Permit. Then the scope of review is set under PSMO 94.04.00 (D). This required ordinance
review is what the City has ignored.
Additionally, to take the “whole cloth” of architectural review in its entirety, and to judge it as so
insignificant that it is not even included in the development decision or in the “aesthetics” section of
environmental review is an injustice to the community and ignores and defeats the grant of jurisdiction
to the Architectural Review Committee. Architectural review is an integral and inseparable part of
development review and its concurrent permits. It cannot legally be separated.
When one inspects the definition of “Findings of Fact” in administrative law, its function becomes evident.
Please note the definition from the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. This process
would include the Architectural Review Findings:
4
“The Topanga court [California] defined findings as legally relevant
sub-conclusions which expose the agency’s mode of analysis of
facts, regulations, and policies, and which bridge the analytical gap
between raw data and ultimate decision. (Topanga, supra at pp.
515 and 516.) In other words, findings are the legal footprints local
administrators and officials leave to explain how they progressed
from the facts through established policies to the decision.”
[emphasis added]
The last major point Oswit Land Trust would like to address in its comments is a potential
opportunity in redrafting the Palm Springs Municipal Code Findings, under Major Architectural
Review (PSMO 94.04.00 Architectural Review, Subsection (F) Criteria and Findings).
Warehousing operations are deeply controversial where they impinge upon sensitive
communities, whether the impact is to tourism, nature, quality of life in residential communities,
or impacts to environmental justice communities. As such, the city of Palm Springs should take
special care to draft findings requirements in its ordinance that do justice to the sheer mass and
enormity of these buildings and the associated impacts.
Building height and mass is often evaluated and mitigated under the ‘aesthetics section’ of a Draft
EIR, but this is not the end of the issue. A community can decide to ‘override’ the obligation to
mitigate environmental effects under CEQA and file a Statement of Overriding Consideration
that prioritize economic considerations over significant environmental impacts. In fact, the City of
Palm Springs just made this choice when it approved PS Fulfillment Center. It chose jobs and
tax receipts over greenhouse gas impacts and transportation impacts, even in the face of
devastating regional data (cumulative impacts).
Returning to the ‘aesthetics’ discussion, nothing currently binds Palm Springs to avoid the
consequences of building mass and height. Considering the City has chosen to view
warehousing as ‘permitted by right,’ it is important that the building mass criteria be in the
ordinance itself. This is an issue that our organization recommends for General Plan Updates.
These are decisions where the public should be deeply involved.
Note: Permitted ‘by right’ does not in any manner suggest developer entitlement to the permit
once all standards are met in the ordinance. Warehouse projects are highly discretionary
because a Statement of Overriding Consideration is required to bypass significant environmental
effects that cannot be mitigated, given the scale and mass and size of the project chosen by the
developer. The burden of justifying the decision is on the decisionmaker in this instance.
5
Exercising the discretion to approve is controversial because of regional public health and safety
concerns.
Development Permit Findings 94.04.01(D)(4) only require that the “proposed height and
massing of the project be consistent with applicable standards and compatible with adjacent
development.” This is typical of a zoning ordinance permit standard. It ensures that development
standards remain consistent throughout an industrial zone, but it does nothing to protect scenic
vistas or surrounding communities.
However, there is opportunity within the Major Architectural Permit, Subsection (F) for greater
sensitivity to how these mega-buildings are impacting (1) viewsheds of the Coachella Valley at
its entrance and along a potential future scenic highway; (2) viewsheds of the surrounding
mountains, even if it is from Interstate 10; (3) conformity with surrounding business sector
buildings; and (4) viewsheds into surrounding residential communities, including nearby
environmental justice communities. Palm Springs is a community of scale and has a reputation
as a village community with a tourist economy, surrounded by nature.
One option is to adopt standards in the Palm Springs Municipal Code 94.04.00 (F) for architectural
review that are closer to those required for the mitigation standards of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as reflected in the CEQA Checklist for “Aesthetics:”
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:
1. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
2. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
3. c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
4. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?”
6
Our recommendation is to broaden architectural review of scale, massing, and height beyond the
current ministerial function of reviewing only color, texture, and materials. (94.04.00 (F)).
Please remain sensitive to these options through the decade where it is quite probable the
Coachella Valley will become the next industrial sector to a spreading Los Angeles Metropolitan
Area – and its associated ‘heat island.’ What happens will be a choice, not an inevitable outcome.
Our extraordinary and world-renowned biological resources are in peril, if nothing else because
NASA has now documented Los Angeles area warehousing is a heat island that has raised
median temperatures at least 5 degrees above the norm. (See Attached Exhibit A). This led to
unprecedented urban fires that devastated whole communities and its surrounding mountainous
paradise.
Last summer in the Coachella Valley, for several weeks, the temperatures were frequently over
115 degrees. Pacific Palisades demonstrated what happens when mountain foliage, surrounding
communities, and heat islands combine with high winds. If our communities ignore this growing
threat, it may result in an unthinkable future for our beautiful Valley.
Thank you for your kind attention to our concerns.
With regard,
Jane Garrison, Executive Director
ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A – NASA Heat Map of Los Angeles Area Warehousing
EXHIBIT B - PS FULFILLMENT CENTER
NASA HEAT MAPS / WAREHOUSING
GLOBAL WARMING AND POLLUTION IMPACTS
DA