HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3A - PresentationSOUTH PALM CANYON
BRIDGE PROJECT
Community Engagement Summar y
April-July 2025
BACKGROUND
April 9, 2025: Council postponed
vote, ordered 60‑day community
outreach period
Goal: Gather feedback before
making a recommendation
May 29, 2025: In‑person meeting,
Indian Canyons Golf Resort
June 2, 2025: Virtual meeting
June-July: Public comment
accepted via e-mail
COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
Social media posts (Facebook,
Instagram, Nextdoor, etc.)
Event flyer and Zoom recording shared
via Engage Palm Springs
E‑blast to 23,000 subscribers
Community meetings covered by local
media outlets (i.e., the Palm Springs
Post, radio stations)
United States Postal Service (USPS)
mailers sent to PS residents
COMMUNITY MEETING OVERVIEW
Session Attendees Comments Recorded
In‑person (5/29)70 29
Virtual (6/2)80 30
TOTAL:150 59
WHAT WE HEARD - PUBLIC COMMENT ANALYSIS
Support
45.8%
Opposed
30.5%
Neutral /Clarifying
23.7 %
Key Topics:
Public safety & emergency access (21
mentions)
Environmental impacts & alternative
solutions (16 mentions)
Cost , funding, & fiscal risk (14
mentions)
Hydrologic model & downstream
flood impact (14 mentions)
Timeline & project readiness (9
mentions)
WHAT WE HEARD - EMAILS & LETTERS
Support
44.4%
Neutral /Clarifying
33.3%
Opposed
22.2 %Total items: 9 (6 emails, 3 written
letters/note‑cards)
Top themes raised (number of mentions):
1.Safety & emergency access (5)
2.Environmental / habitat protection (5)
3.Hydrology & downstream flood risk (4)
4.Bridge scale, aesthetics & cost (3)
5.Oswit’s alternative (2)
KEY THEMES: SUPPORT
Public Safety:
Critical access for emergency responders during floods
Protecting elderly and vulnerable populations (700 homes isolated, 590 EMS calls last year)
Preventing incidents similar to past emergencies (Valentine’s Day Flood, Tropical Storm Hilary)
Funding Allocated:
Significant federal funding committed to the project ($4.5M)
Risk of losing funding if the project is delayed beyond December 2026
Project Readiness:
CEQA and NEPA approvals secured
Engineering design complete and ready for bidding
Bridge designed to handle extreme flows (~3,000 cubic feet per second)
Long-term Benefits:
Investment in future community resilience
Proactive approach to climate risk mitigation
KEY THEMES: NEUTRAL/CLARIFYING
Questions about project
funding, timeline, cost , & design
Questions about the project ’s
hydrologic model and
downstream impacts in severe
storm and flood scenarios
Desire for clear construction
phasing & access plan
Input on bridge aesthetics
Interest in alternative solutions
KEY THEMES: OPPOSE
Environmental Concerns:
Habitat loss in Oswit Canyon – concern for bighorn sheep & native plants
Request for updated environmental reviews; CEQA completed in 2012
Cost and Prioritization:
Skepticism about the project ’s necessity given infrequent , manageable flooding
Concern about cost overruns and reliance on federal funding
Belief funds could be better utilized for other city priorities
Construction Disruption:
Anticipated disruption to residents during the construction period
Concern about neighborhood and trail access
Doubts about the Project ’s Ef fectiveness:
Questions about downstream impacts on golf course and homes in the floodway
Concern that flood risks aren’t being adequately addressed in adjacent areas
Alternative Solutions:
Desire for further exploration of less invasive or lower-impact alternatives
PUBLIC SAFETY REMAINS A TOP CONCERN
“...severe weather events put
citizens and firefighters in
harrowing rescue situations... I’m
here tonight as your fire chief to
tell you I support [this] bridge. I
need to make sure that my
rescuers can get to calls where
they need to go.”
– Fire Chief Paul Alvarado
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH: OSWIT LAND TRUST (OLT)
Local 501(c)(3) conservation organization,
founded by Jane Garrison to protect desert
habitat near Palm Springs
Acquired Oswit Canyon (~114 acres) in 2020
for permanent preservation
Mission: safeguard bighorn‑sheep range,
native plants, public hiking access
Filed CEQA lawsuit over early bridge design;
case settled with City in 2019
Spoke at both community meetings and
supplied design alternative
2019 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OVERVIEW
OLT & PALM SPRINGS
City Council retains final
say on design and
construction; Oswit may
submit alternative concepts
but decision authority stays
with the City.
No‑litigation pledge:
Oswit agrees it will not
file, fund, or support
lawsuits or administrative
challenges against the
bridge or its permits.
OLT ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL & TIMELINE
May 29, 2025: OLT proposed an
alternative design to address
environmental concerns
June 6-25: The City made
repeated attempts to obtain
Oswit ’s alternative
June 25, 2025: OLT
submitted a preliminary
report to the City
July 2, 2025: Oswit ’s final
design package submitted
to the City
Early July: City staff and
Dokken Engineering
reviewed OLT ’s design
July 14, 2025: City and Dokken
engineers met with OLT to
discuss their alternative
OSWIT LAND TRUST (OLT) - ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL
May 29, 2025: OLT proposed an alternative design at in-person community
meeting to address environmental concerns
June 6-25: The City made repeated attempts to obtain Oswit ’s alternative
June 25, 2025: OLT submitted a preliminary report to the City
July 2, 2025: Oswit ’s final design package (prepared by Sustura engineers)
submitted to the City
Early July: City staff and Dokken Engineering reviewed OLT ’s design
July 14, 2025: City and Dokken engineers met with OLT to discuss their
alternative
OLT ALTERNATIVE #5 (JULY 2025)
Flood wall with box culvert
to minimize habitat loss;
road remains at grade
FLOOD/RETAINING WALL RENDERING
KEY CONCERNS WITH ALT #5
Performance and reliability: City and Dokken engineers have questions about how reliably the
wall handles flooding, including faster-moving water, potential erosion, and sediment buildup.
Land ownership & permitting: The wall crosses onto tribal land and outside existing
environmental clearance zones, requiring new studies and approvals.
Timeline & funding: Changing designs now risks years-long delays, the potential loss of critical
federal dollars, and increased costs for the City.
Uncertain costs: The wall’s final cost and construction details remain unclear; staff anticipate
higher costs compared to the current project design.
Maintenance access: The wall would block existing maintenance roads, requiring rerouting to
preserve access to the area .
Project footprint: Analysis suggests the flood wall could affect more land area overall than the
original channel design, despite intentions to minimize impact .
This analysis was conducted by Dokken Engineering.
Issue Finding Consequence
Flow velocity Higher at culvert inlet → energy
dissipation needed
Errosion/scour concerns;
Extra cost/maintenance
Berm width Potentially larger area disturbed
than City design More land impacted
Right of Way (ROW) &
Environmental Clearences
Outside City ROW → new
CEQA /NEPA + tribal coordination 18‑24 month delay
Cost certainty Concept only; no estimates yet Funding risk
SUMMARY - ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT
This analysis was conducted by Dokken Engineering.
RECOMMENDED DESIGN: CHANNEL/CULVERT SYSTEM
In January 2012, the City Council adopted a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In April 2025, the City asked Dokken Engineering
to prepare a Supplemental Biological Study and
CEQA Addendum, which are expected to be
complete by August 2025.
In June 2025, the City received a letter from State
and U.S. wildlife agencies asking for extra details
on bighorn sheep and Casey ’s June beetle.
The City is evaluating the letter and preparing a
response.
NEXT STEPS: CEQA ADDENDUM & NEPA REVALIDATION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1 .Reject the Fifth Alternative Design proposed by Oswit Group and adopt the
staff ’s recommended Alternative Design for the South Palm Canyon Drive Low
Water Crossing Bridge Replacement at Arenas Canyon South, City project No.
06-18, Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL(502) (the “Project ”); and
2.Authorize City Staff to finalize environmental review for the Project; and
3.Authorize City Engineer to finalize the plans, specifications for the Project and
proceed to bid the Project , following completion of environmental review for
the Project