Agenda packet, regular meeting, first session — Palm Springs City Council, July 25, 2024 (part 7 of 8)

July 2, 2024
Unlike the National Register criterion concerning construction, the Palm Springs evaluation of construction addresses the type (of construction), the period (of construction) and the method (of construction). It appears that the building was constructed using standard construction methods and materials and does not qualify for this criterion.
(Criterion v) The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age, or that possesses high artistic value;
The architect, Robert H. Ricciardi, is a notable figure that was active locally and recognized on the list of significant practitioners. His contributions expand beyond the city limits of Palm Springs and the report outlines his work in more detail.

Ricciardi moved to Palm Springs in 1959 and worked and trained with the local masters like William Cody and Donald Wexler. He later goes on and partners with architect Hugh Kaptur during the 1960s. His portfolio of work includes many civic and commercial buildings, and the report notes that Ricciardi received an AIA award for the design of the Gas Company Building. Ricciardi's 50+ years in the field has influenced the field and his peers, and the Gas Company Building possesses high artistic value, thus Criterion v is met. (Criterion vi) The resource represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, as used in evaluating applications for designation of historic districts, for parcels on which more than one entity exists; or
The resource is not within a historic district and does not qualify under Criterion vi. (Criterion vii) The resource has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to national, state or local history or prehistory.

No information is available on any pre-historic significance of the site.

SECTION 2: PART "B" ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC INTEGRITY.

Analysis of Integrity. (PSMC 8.05.070 (C, 1,b). The site, structure, building or object retains one or more of the following aspects of integrity, as established in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards: integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, or association.

The Gas Company Building is evaluated based on the following topics of integrity based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards:

Location.

The location of the structure is in its original place of construction; therefore, the integrity of location is met.

Item 2C - Page 56
Resolution No. HSPB #158 - The Gas Company Building

Page 4 ends

July 2, 2024
Design.

The building has a simple layout of geometric volumes and articulated forms create a unique spatial experience. The vertical concrete elements on the fa9ade contribute to the vibrancy of the design and the scale, while modest, maintains a presence. There is no frivolous ornamentation applied to the surfaces of the exterior walls and the voids between the volumes are used to insert openings for light and air. While the building has been altered in certain locations like the south fa9ade to incorporate accessibility upgrades, the overall mass, scale, and materials are uniform and intact. The overall integrity of the original design has been preserved.

Setting.

The building remains in its original location at the corner of Sunrise and Andreas but the report aptly points out the changes in development pattern surrounding the area since the 1960s. The infill projects now include a number of residential projects based on the underlying zoning and allowable uses. The continued changes surrounding the site have resulted in the loss of integrity of setting.

Materials.

The steel frame building and the cast-in-place concrete exterior with vertical grooves created by the formwork reveal an elegant design that is consistently viewed on the exterior. Windows and openings are minimal and elongated to match the vocabulary of the architectural style. Currently, the broken windows have been boarded up, but the openings remain intact. The integrity of materials is met.

Workmanship.

While conventional construction methods may have been used to build, the cast-in-place concrete walls use of formwork to create the individual vertical grooves exhibits a specialized level of workmanship and attention to detail. The property as it stands exhibits craft and high-quality workmanship. Staff finds the integrity of workmanship is met.

Feeling.

The bold yet small-scale Brutalist structure holds its allure at the corner of Andreas Road and Sunrise Way. The physical features of the building remain virtually unchanged and clearly demonstrate the feeling associated with civic architecture and how it was expressed during that period. The integrity of feeling is intact.

Association.

The property is associated with the architect Robert H. Ricciardi and this building is considered one of his more significant and well-received projects. The high level of design and material integrity affirms the building's strong association to the architect's vision and the period in which it was constructed. The integrity of association is met.

SECTION 3: DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS
In considering a recommendation for historic resource designation it is important to distinguish those physical elements that are original or from the period of significance that Item 2C - Page 57
Resolution No. HSPB #158 - The Gas Company Building

Page 5 ends

July 2, 2024
contribute to the resource's historic significance from alterations, additions or features that were added at a later time that may be sympathetic to the original character, but which may create a false sense of historicity. Distinguishing original character-defining features from non-original elements aids the HSPB when it is tasked with evaluating future alterations to the historic resource.

Character-defining features of the resource are as follows:
• Location at northwest corner of N. Sunrise Way and E. Andreas Road • Orientation of primary fayade east toward N. Sunrise Way • Low (one-story) scale • Irregular plan with courtyard space at the west fayade • Blocky geometric massing, with asymmetrical primary fayade • Flat roof with flat parapet • Cast-in-place concrete walls with textured broken edge detail along the vertical grooves
• Primary entry fronted by wide, open concrete patio with broad concrete entry steps • Recessed primary entry with floor to ceiling glazed entry assembly with fully glazed metal double doors
• Cantilevered steel entry canopy with wood slat underside and open steel frame extension to south
• Recessed and narrow floor-to-ceiling metal windows with solar-tinted glazing • Integrated concrete planters along the east and south facades • Integrated concrete box sign base at east fa9ade • Five free-standing original light fixtures located at one of the east fac;ade planters Non-contributing elements:
• Walkway and accessible curb ramp at the west fac;ade and accessibility ramp and railings on the south fayade
• Fall protection hand railings along the roof • Mechanical equipment penthouse with corrugated metal screening on the roof SECTION 4: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The proposed historic resource designation is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical changes to the environment, directly or indirectly.

SECTION 5: CONDITIONS THAT APPLY TO CLASS 1 HISTORIC SITES.

According to Section 8.05 of the Municipal Code, the following shall apply to a Class 1 Historic Resource:

Item 2C - Page 58
Resolution No. HSPB #158 - The Gas Company Building

Page 6 ends

July 2, 2024

1. It shall meet the definition of a Class 1 historic site as outlined in Municipal Code Section 8.05.020.

2. An archival file on the property shall be maintained by the City.

3. It may be qualified as 'historic' at the federal, state, and/or county level.

4. The structure/site may not be modified nor objects removed without following the procedures outlined in Municipal Code Section 8.05.110 "Demolition or Alteration of Class 1 and Class 2 Historic Resources - Certificate of Appropriateness".

5. A marker explaining the historic nature of the site may be installed at the site in a location viewable from the public way.

6. Compliance with all rules and regulations for Historic Sites and Historic Districts under Chapter 8.05 of the Municipal Code shall be required.

7. The site shall not be further subdivided.

8. The City Clerk shall submit the Council Resolution to the County recorder for recordation within 90 days of the effective date of the Council's resolution.

Based upon the foregoing, the Historic Site Preservation Board recommends that the City Council designate The Gas Company Building located at 211 North Sunrise Way, a Class 1 Historic Resource (HSPB #158).

ADOPTED THIS SECOND DAY OF JULY 2024. AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST:

Nelson, Rosenow, Hansen, Bachman, Moruzzi, Maschka Hitchcock. None.

Herr.

None.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Christopher Hadwin
Director of Planning Services

HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD

STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 2, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION OF “THE GAS COMPANY BUILDING” LOCATED AT 211 NORTH SUNRISE WAY, CASE HSPB #158 (APN 508-070-016) (SY).

FROM: Department of Planning Services

SUMMARY
The current owner of the property submitted an application to the Historic Site Preservation Board (HSPB) seeking approval for major alterations to the existing building, formerly the Gas Company Building, which is identified as a Class 3 site. The HSPB reviewed the item on March 5, 2024, stayed the request and initiated the designation proceedings pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.05.130 (Demolition or Alteration to Class 3 and 4 sites). The historic resources report was written by Architectural Resources Group (ARG), an on-call consultant for the city. The period of significance for this site is 1969.

If designated as a historic resource, the property would be subject to the regulations outlined in Section 8.05 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony.

2. Close the public hearing and adopt Resolution HSPB #158, “A RESOLUTION OF

THE HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF PALM

SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DESIGNATE “THE GAS COMPANY BUILDING” LOCATED AT 211 NORTH SUNRISE WAY, AS A CLASS 1 (LANDMARK) HISTORIC RESOURCE HSPB #158, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS (APN #508-070-016).”
BACKGROUND AND SETTING:

The property at 211 N. Sunrise Way is on Tribal Fee land in Section 14. The building is a concrete single-story civic structure that was completed in 1969 for the Southern California Gas Company. The Brutalist-style building was designed by architect Robert Ricciardi which went on to receive many design accolades from the architecture and design community upon its completion. The original site was approximately 1.92 acres in size, but the owner recently received approval to split the lot into two parcels. The Item 2C - Page 59
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report July 2, 2024 HSPB-158 – The Gas Company Building

Page 2 of 9 ends

approved Tentative Map (Case TPM 38635) created two separate parcels that are consistent with the development standards and the existing building is on Parcel 2 which is approximately 29,508 square feet in size. Following the lot split, the Class 3 status now resides with Pacel 2 which contains the resource.

AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL.

EAST ELEVATION FROM NORTH SUNRISE WAY, 2024.

Related Relevant City Actions by HSPB, Planning, Fire, Building, etc.

March, 2024 Site inspection by members of the HSPB and City Staff.

Ownership Status
May, 2019 Purchased by the current owner.

Item 2C - Page 60
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report July 2, 2024 HSPB-158 – The Gas Company Building

Page 3 of 9 ends

Historic Context Statement “Post-World War II (1945-1969)” The post-World War II context of Palm Springs concentrates on the demands of a former “village” transforming into a city. With that comes the development and expansion of utility services and the construction of civic and institutional facilities. The Southern California Gas Company announced their plan to build a new Palm Springs District headquarters office and selected the architect Robert H. Ricciardi to design the building.

Context: Post-World War II Palm Springs (1945-1969)
Theme: Post World War II Civic and Institutional Development (1945-1969) Registration Requirements: To be eligible under this theme, a property must:
 Date from the period of significance; and
 Reflect important civic or institutional development from the period; or  Represent an excellent example of an architectural style or property type; and
 Display most of the character-defining features of the property type or style; and
 Retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

Context: Architectural Styles & Local Practitioners
Theme: Modern Styles of the Post-World War II Era
Sub-theme: Brutalism
Registration Requirements: To be eligible under this theme as an excellent example of its architectural style, a property must:
 Retain most – though not necessarily all – of the character-defining features of the style, and continue to exhibit its historic appearance  If important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique, must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.

ANALYSIS:

A historic resources report (“the report”), site visit, and city documents and forms are the basis of this staff report. The existing building retains many character-defining features such as the exterior concrete finish, building mass and scale and the original site placement. As a rare example of Brutalist architecture within the city limits, the building appears to retain its design and material integrity.

The building is strategically located at the corner of East Andreas Road and North Sunrise Way giving it the visibility needed for a civic building. The simple rectilinear shape with deep overhangs is clad in cast-in-place concrete which gives it its unique design aesthetic. The concrete walls accentuate the aggregate texture along the vertical grooves. This modestly sized building is an exceptional example of a civic building designed in the Brutalist style. Since its completion in 1969, the building has undergone Item 2C - Page 61
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report July 2, 2024 HSPB-158 – The Gas Company Building

Page 4 of 9 ends

a few exterior alterations to accommodate for accessibility upgrades and other mechanical updates such as HVAC. Currently, the building remains vacant.

Historic Preservation activities in Palm Springs are regulated under Municipal Code Section 8.05 (“Historic Preservation”). The purpose of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is:
“…to stabilize and improve buildings, structures or areas which are considered to be of historical, architectural, archaeological or ecological value, to foster civic beauty, to strengthen the local economy and to promote the use of historic resources for the education and welfare of the citizens.” Conditions that apply to Class 1 historic sites or resources:

1. It shall meet the definition of a historic site as outlined in Municipal Code Section

8.05.020.

2. An archival file shall be maintained on the property by the City.

3. It may be qualified as ‘historic’ at the federal, state, and/or county level.

4. A marker explaining the historic nature of the site may be installed in a location viewable from the public way.

5. Compliance with all rules and regulations for Historic Resources and Historic Districts under Chapter 8.05 of the Municipal Code.

6. If designated, the findings in support of designation shall be stated in a resolution of the City Council that shall be recorded with the County Recorders’ office within 90 days of the effective date of the Council’s resolution.

Evaluation of the Application. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 8.05.070 (C,1,a), the HSPB shall evaluate the application and make findings in conformance with the following criteria:

Criteria for the Designation of Class 1 Historic Resources. A site, structure, building or object may be designated as a Class 1 historic resource, provided both of the following findings (“a” and “b”) are met:
a. The site, structure, building or object exhibits exceptional historic significance and meets one or more of the criteria listed below:

The property at 211 N. Sunrise Way is a significant and rare example of Brutalist architecture as a civic building in the period following World War II in Palm Springs. The building was recognized by the design community for its significance following its completion and has maintained its design and material integrity over the years. As one of Robert H. Ricciardi’s important works, the historic significance of the Gas Company Building is apparent. The following is a detailed analysis of the criterion and integrity findings.

Item 2C - Page 62
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report July 2, 2024 HSPB-158 – The Gas Company Building

Page 5 of 9 ends

(Criterion i) The resource is associated with events that have made a meaningful contribution to the nation, state or community; While the opening of this facility is an important indicator of the city’s transformation, no singular event of significance was directly associated with this site. The site does not qualify under Criterion i.
(Criterion ii) The resource is associated with the lives of persons who made a meaningful contribution to national, state or local history; The Gas Company Building was a quasi-public building that provided services to the community. The report did not uncover an individual of significance being associated to the site; therefore, Criterion ii is not met.
(Criterion iii) The resource reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state or local history;
The construction of the Southern California Gas Company Building signaled the demand for public services and the empirical evidence that the city was experiencing growth during this time. The building features bold forms, sculptural articulation, exposed castin-place concrete cladding, and the integration of raised plazas. Based on these characteristics, the building at 211 N. Sunrise Way is considered a Brutalist building.

Although this style of architecture is somewhat of an anomaly in Palm Springs since most of the new construction was considered Mid-century Modern, the rise of Brutalist design, especially for civic and institutional buildings, was on the rise in other cities. This means this structure is a reflection of the period at a national and state level and a rare example of this type of architecture at the local level. The property qualifies under Criterion iii. (Criterion iv) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction;
Unlike the National Register criterion concerning construction, the Palm Springs evaluation of construction addresses the type (of construction), the period (of construction) and the method (of construction). It appears that the building was constructed using standard construction methods and materials and does not qualify for this criterion.
(Criterion v) The resource presents the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age, or that possesses high artistic value;
The architect, Robert H. Ricciardi, is a notable figure that was active locally and recognized on the list of significant practitioners. His contributions expand beyond the city limits of Palm Springs and the report outlines his work in more detail. Ricciardi moved to Palm Springs in 1959 and worked and trained with the local masters like William Cody Item 2C - Page 63
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report July 2, 2024 HSPB-158 – The Gas Company Building

Page 6 of 9 ends

and Donald Wexler. He later goes on and partners with architect Hugh Kaptur during the 1960s. His portfolio of work includes many civic and commercial buildings, and the report notes that Ricciardi received an AIA award for the design of the Gas Company Building.

Ricciardi’s 50+ years in the field has influenced the field and his peers, and the Gas Company Building possesses high artistic value, thus Criterion v is met. (Criterion vi) The resource represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, as used in evaluating applications for designation of historic districts, for parcels on which more than one entity exists; or
The resource is not within a historic district and does not qualify under Criterion vi. (Criterion vii) The resource has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to national, state or local history or prehistory.

No information is available on any pre-historic significance of the site.

Analysis of Integrity. (PSMC 8.05.070 (C,1,b). The site, structure, building or object retains one or more of the following aspects of integrity, as established in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: integrity of design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, or association.

The Gas Company Building is evaluated based on the following topics of integrity based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:

Location.

The location of the structure is in its original place of construction; therefore, the integrity of location is met.

Design.

The building has a simple layout of geometric volumes and articulated forms create a unique spatial experience. The vertical concrete elements on the façade contribute to the vibrancy of the design and the scale, while modest, maintains a presence. There is no frivolous ornamentation applied to the surfaces of the exterior walls and the voids between the volumes are used to insert openings for light and air. While the building has been altered in certain locations like the south façade to incorporate accessibility upgrades, the overall mass, scale, and materials are uniform and intact. The overall integrity of the original design has been preserved.

Setting.

Page 7 of 9 ends

resulted in the loss of integrity of setting.

Materials.

Workmanship.

Feeling.

Association.

The property is associated with the architect Robert H. Ricciardi and this building is considered one of his more significant and well-received projects. The high level of design and material integrity affirms the building’s strong association to the architect’s vision and the period in which it was constructed. The integrity of association is met.

DEFINING HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS:

In considering a recommendation for historic resource designation it is important to distinguish those physical elements that are original or from the period of significance that contribute to the resource’s historic significance from alterations, additions or features that were added at a later time that may be sympathetic to the original character, but which may create a false sense of historicity. Distinguishing original character-defining features from non-original elements aids the HSPB when it is tasked with evaluating future alterations to the historic resource.

On page 26, the report identifies the physical character-defining historic features of this site as follows:
• Location at northwest corner of N. Sunrise Way and E. Andreas Road • Orientation of primary façade east toward N. Sunrise Way • Low (one-story) scale
• Irregular plan with courtyard space at the west façade • Blocky geometric massing, with asymmetrical primary façade Item 2C - Page 65
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report July 2, 2024 HSPB-158 – The Gas Company Building

Page 8 of 9 ends

• Flat roof with flat parapet
• Cast-in-place concrete walls with textured broken edge detail along the vertical grooves
• Primary entry fronted by wide, open concrete patio with broad concrete entry steps • Recessed primary entry with floor to ceiling glazed entry assembly with fully glazed metal double doors
• Cantilevered steel entry canopy with wood slat underside and open steel frame extension to south
• Recessed and narrow floor-to-ceiling metal windows with solar-tinted glazing • Integrated concrete planters along the east and south facades • Integrated concrete box sign base at east façade
• Five free-standing original light fixtures located at one of the east façade planters Non-contributing elements:
• Walkway and accessible curb ramp at the west façade and accessibility ramp and railings on the south façade
• Fall protection hand railings along the roof
• Mechanical equipment penthouse with corrugated metal screening on the roof ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The proposed historic resource designation is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical changes to the environment, directly or indirectly.

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to section 8.05.140 of the Municipal Code of Palm Springs, all residents within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property have been notified and notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation.

CONCLUSION:

The Gas Company Building meets the definition of a historic resource based on Criterion 3 and 5 of the Palm Springs Historic Preservation Ordinance and meets all of the integrity findings; therefore, staff recommends Class 1 Designation as a historic landmark property.

PREPARED BY: Sarah Yoon, Associate Planner/Historic Preservation Officer REVIEWED BY: David Newell, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning Item 2C - Page 66
Historic Site Preservation Board Staff Report July 2, 2024 HSPB-158 – The Gas Company Building

Page 9 of 9 ends

Attachments:

A. Vicinity Map
B. Draft Resolution
C. Application, related background materials, photos.

Item 2C - Page 67

EXCERPTS OF MINUTES
At the Historic Site Preservation Board meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held July 2, 2024, the Historic Site Preservation Board took the following action:

2.A. APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR HISTORIC SITE DESIGNATION OF “THE GAS COMPANY BUILDING” LOCATED AT 211 NORTH SUNRISE WAY, (APN 508-070-016) CASE HSPB #158 (SY).

Staff member Yoon, Historic Preservation Officer, presented the staff report and answered questions of the Board.

Mr. Mizrahi, owner, answered questions of the Board.

Jim Cioffi, local architect, provided comments and answered questions of the Board.

Motion by Vice Chair Rosenow, seconded by Member Moruzzi to adopt the findings and recommend that the City Council designate the “Gas Company Building” (HSPB 158) as a Class 1 historic landmark site, subject to conditions.

AYES: Nelson, Hansen, Bachman, Moruzzi, Rosenow, Maschka Hitchcock.

NOES: None.

ABSENT: Herr.

Item 2C - Page 68

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 25, 2024 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC VEHICULAR ACCESS

OVER A PORTION OF MUSEUM WAY BETWEEN BELARDO ROAD AND

MUSEUM DRIVE TO FACILITATE THE PERMANENT INSTALLATION OF THE “FOREVER MARILYN” STATUE AT THAT LOCATION, SHOWN AS LOT ‘A’ OF PARCEL MAP NO. 36446, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST (ENG. FILE R 23-15-0250); ADDENDUM #3 TO

THE MUSEUM MARKET PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN (AKA DOWNTOWN

SPECIFIC PLAN) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
BY: Engineering Services Department
SUMMARY:

The California Streets and Highways Code Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 3 allows the City to consider vacating public streets under certain conditions. In this case, the City Council may vacate a previously dedicated public street and service easement through the adoption of a Resolution after holding a Public Hearing. Museum Way, as shown as Lot A of Parcel Map 36446, Section 15, Township 4 South, Range 4 East.

Museum Way is not identified on the Circulation Element of the City’s 2007 General Plan as a public roadway. The Downtown Specific Plan, approved in 2016, does identify Museum Way as a public roadway called Main Street and was shown to extend from North Palm Canyon Drive west to Museum Drive. It was opened in 2018 and remained opened along its full length until approximately April 2021, when the City authorized the closure of a portion of Museum Way between Belardo Road and Museum Drive to accommodate installation of a statue named “Forever Marilyn” within the roadway approximately 100 feet west of Belardo Road. The applicant, PS Resorts, owner of the “Forever Marilyn” statue, is requesting vacation of public vehicular access over a portion of Museum Way between Belardo Rd. and Museum Dr. to facilitate permanent installation of the statue. Although this agenda item involves the right of way on which the statue is located, this agenda item is not a decision on whether or not to keep the statue in the current location.

Item 2D - Page 1
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open the public hearing and take testimony; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. _____ “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VACATION AND ABANDONING ALL OF ITS RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN PUBLIC RIGHTOF-WAY FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS OVER A PORTION OF MUSEUM WAY FROM BELARDO ROAD TO MUSEUM DRIVE, SHOWN AS LOT ‘A’ OF PARCEL MAP NO. 36446, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST (ENG.

FILE R 23-15-0250), DIRECTING STAFF TO RESERVE A PUBLIC UTILITY

EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND NON-MOTORIZED ACCESS AND FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES, ADOPTING ADDENDUM #3 TO THE MUSEUM MARKET

PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND

DETERMINING THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166 AND SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164 OF THE CEQA

GUIDELINES THE PROPOSED ACTION WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY NEW

OR MORE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAN THOSE IDENTIFIED IN THE

PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM.”
BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE:

The applicant, PS Resorts, is a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, whose purpose is to create, foster, and enhance events, attractions, and activities that will attract visitors to Palm Springs, and otherwise promote Palm Springs as a premier destination.

According to Counsel for PS Resorts, PS Resorts corporate officers are as follows: Peggy Trott, Chairman, Celeste Brackley, Vice-Chair, Robert Hunt, Treasurer, Shannon Anderson, Secretary.

BACKGROUND:

Museum Way was opened as a public road between North Palm Canyon Drive and Museum Drive in 2018 and remained open until April 2021, when the City authorized the closure of a portion of Museum Way between Belardo Road and Museum Drive.

Thereafter, previously installed bollards were raised at the east and west end of the closure, and in June 2021, a statue named “Forever Marilyn” was installed within the roadway, approximately 100 feet west of Belardo Road. Vehicular access through this portion of Museum Way has remained closed since that time, but legally remains a public roadway. It should also be noted that Museum Way between Belardo Road and North Palm Canyon Drive remains open and accessible for all traffic.

In 2023, a group of Palm Springs registered voters circulated a petition to place an Initiative on the ballot which would amend the Specific Plan to remove Museum Way between Belardo Road and Museum Drive from the circulation plan, and officially change Item 2D - Page 2
the name of the street from Main Street to Museum Way along its entirety. The Initiative petition was circulated for signature in conformance with California Election Code. In November of 2023, the Riverside County Registrar of Voters completed the verification process and certified that the petition contained a sufficient number of qualified signatures, and the matter was scheduled for hearing by the City Council on December 4, 2023. The City Council, consistent with Elections Code sections 1405 and 9215, had the option to adopt the petition without election (thereby adopting the amendments to the Specific Plan); or put the petition on the ballot of either a regular or a special municipal election. At its December 4, 2023 meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2092, adopting the amendments to the Specific Plan, removing Museum Way between Belardo Road and Museum Drive from the Specific Plan’s street grid.

On October 24, 2023, the City received an application from PS Resorts, owner of the “Forever Marilyn” statue to vacate the public right-of-way on Museum Way between Belardo Road and Museum Drive.

VICINITY MAP
Item 2D - Page 3
STAFF ANALYSIS:

According to the 2007 General Plan, there are no streets existing or proposed that would be impacted by the proposed vacation. The Circulation Plan, Figure 4-1 of the General Plan’s Circulation Element, does not identify this street because the street was added through the 2016 Specific Plan and did not exist at the time the General Plan was adopted (nor in the most recently approved General Plan update 2010). A limited General Plan update is currently in process and the draft Circulation Element does not identify Museum Way as a public street at the subject location. As described above, the Downtown Specific Plan was amended by the City Council in December of 2023 to remove this portion of Museum Way entirely from the Specific Plan.

California Government Code Section 65402 requires that “…no street shall be vacated or abandoned…until the location, purpose and extent of such…street vacation or abandonment…have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to conformity with (the) adopted general plan or part thereof.” Further, the California Streets Item 2D - Page 4
and Highways Code Section 8313(a) requires that “If the proposed vacation of a street, highway, or public service easement is within an area for which a general plan is adopted by a local agency, the legislative body of the public entity shall consider the general plan prior to vacating the street, highway, or public service easement.” Accordingly, on June 26, 2024, the City’s Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed right-of-way vacation and adopted Resolution No. 6960 finding that the applicant’s request for vacation of a portion of Museum Way between Belardo Rd. and Museum Dr., shown on Parcel Map No. 36446, Map Book 238, 31/34, is in conformance with the 2007 General Plan, in accordance with Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 2, Section 8313 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California and pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code; and that vacation and abandonment of the requested portion of right-of-way would not conflict with the City’s General Plan.

Section 8320 of the California Streets and Highways Code, (the “Code”), allows the City Clerk, at the direction of City Council, to administratively schedule a public hearing for the City Council’s consideration of the requested right-of-way vacation. Section 8322 of the Code requires that notice of the public hearing be published at least two successive weeks prior to the public hearing; public notice was published accordingly in the Desert Sun. Further, Section 8323 of the Code requires that at least two weeks prior to the public hearing, notices of the requested right-of-way vacation be posted conspicuously along the line of the street proposed to be vacated. The notices were posted at Museum Way on July 11, 2024, and were published in the Desert Sun on July 12, 2024 and July 19, 2024. Proofs of Publication and Posting of the required notices have been prepared and are on file with the City Clerk.

Local public utility companies were contacted with a legal description of the vacation area seeking a response regarding the vacation. The following public utilities were in agreement with the requested vacation with no conditions by citing no facilities in the area:
• Veolia, N. A.
• Frontier Communications
• Spectrum-Charter Communications
Desert Water Agency (DWA) requested that DWA’s existing water facilities in the affection portion of Museum Way be abandoned. DWA plans to abandon in place the 12-inch water line that lies beneath Museum Way. Landscaping irrigation connections for the Downtown Park and other parcels north and south of Museum Way would be relocated.

DWA would excavate a small section on Belardo Road to place a permanent cap on the subsurface water line and restore the surface of the road over a period of approximately 5 days. As set forth in the accompanying resolution, PS Resorts will be required to enter into a written agreement with the City, whereby PS Resorts would agree to pay the costs of this water system work.

Southern California Gas responded that there are gas services within the proposed vacation area and requested an easement for its facilities.

Item 2D - Page 5
Southern California Edison responded that there are electrical services within the proposed vacation area and requested an easement for its facilities.

Streets and Highways Code Section 8340(d) authorizes a public entity to except from the vacation an easement and right to maintain and operate vehicular and non-vehicular access for use by the public in, upon, over, and across from a street or highway proposed to be vacated. Staff has included a reservation of an easement and right for such access over the Vacated Area in the attached Resolution.

Under Streets and Highways Code Section 8324, the City is authorized to vacate a public right-of-way following a public hearing at which the legislative body considers evidence offered by persons interested. If the City Council finds, from all the evidence submitted, that the street, highway, or public service easement described in the notice of hearing or petition is unnecessary for either present or prospective public use, the legislative body may adopt a resolution vacating the street, highway, or public service easement. The resolution may further provide that vacation occurs only after satisfaction of certain conditions. Staff has concluded that the street in question—Museum Way—is unnecessary for present public use as to motorized vehicular travel. Staff makes this finding because multiple alternate routes of travel are available between Belardo Road and Museum Drive for motorized vehicles with minimal increase in travel times. Staff has included these findings as part of the proposed Resolution.

Staff is only recommending a finding that the street or highway is unnecessary for only present use, and not prospective public use. Staff makes this recommendation because Streets and Highways Code Section 8340(b) authorizes “a local agency to reserve and except from vacation an easement for a future street or highway, unless the local agency finds that the street or highway is unnecessary for prospective public use.” (emphasis and underline added) Staff believes it is advantageous to reserve the street or highway for future use, in the event that Museum Way becomes necessary for public use as to vehicular travel in the future. Accordingly, staff has included a reservation and exception to the vacation an easement for a future street or highway in the attached Resolution and only finds that the Vacated Area is unnecessary for present public use of motorized vehicles.

Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing, accept all verbal and written testimony, and adopt the Resolution (Attachment A), which will vacate a portion of Museum Way between Belardo Road and Museum Drive to vehicular access to facilitate the permanent installation of the “Forever Marilyn” statue at that location, shown as Lot A of Parcel Map No. 36466, Section 15, Township 4 South, Range 4 East and will reserve a 41-foot wide by 393-foot long Public Utility Easement (PUE) for pedestrian and non-motorized access and for public utilities in the vacated right-of-way area. The Right of Way Vacation and PUE are described and shown in Exhibits “A” and “B” (Attachment B).

Item 2D - Page 6
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City evaluated the street vacation and potential permanent placement of the Forever Marilyn statue and found that some changes or additions to the project are necessary, but the proposed project modifications do not require preparation of a subsequent EIR, because the proposed modifications will not result in new or substantially more significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).

The City has prepared a proposed Addendum (Addendum #3) to the FEIR that evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the vacation of Museum Way between Belardo Road and Museum Drive, as well as the potential permanent placement of the Forever Marilyn statue at a location within the project area, and found that no new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project; nor would there be any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified adverse environmental impacts; and there is no new substantial information,which was not known at the time that the FEIR was prepared, showing that there will be in any more significant new or previously analyzed impacts than those analyzed in the FEIR. As such, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred and no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. The Addendum to the previously certified FEIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

The City received comments from CReMa, the Committee to Relocate Marilyn, on the Addendum document on June 25, 2024. Addendum No. 3 to the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR Addendum) is attached to this staff report as Attachment C. The City prepared a Response to Comments which is attached to this staff report as Attachment D. The Response to Comments refutes the assertions by CReMa that the vacation of the subject segment of Museum Way and the permanent placement of the Forever Marilyn statue in its present location constitutes a substantial change in the Specific Plan project, or will have any new or more severe effects concerning views of the San Jacinto Mountains or the historic Palm Springs Art Museum, or concerning the historic and cultural significance of the Museum, or will have any new or more severe impacts relating to traffic and traffic/pedestrian safety. The Addendum and Response to Comments, including the supporting expert reports of CRM Tech and Urban Crossroads, and the detailed responses by the City’s consultant Terra Nova to the comments made on behalf of CReMa provide credible and substantial evidence in support of the findings. This evidence, which is hereby incorporated by this reference, includes photographs and expert opinions showing that the closure of this segment of Museum Way and the permanent placement of the Forever Marilyn statue in its present location:
(i) will not materially alter existing views of the Palm Springs Art Museum or the San Jacinto Mountains,
Item 2D - Page 7
(ii) will not materially affect the historical significance of the Museum or its historical context,
(iii) will not adversely affect traffic or traffic safety in the Specific Plan area and will improve pedestrian safety in the immediate vicinity of Museum Way, and (iv) will not have any new or more severe environmental effects of any kind.

The statement of overriding considerations previously adopted for the Specific Plan project remains valid and accurate with the proposed project change, as described in the Response to Comments.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:

The requested street vacation aligns with the City Council’s Quality of Life Goal, specifically, Economic Development. The Forever Marilyn statue has become a significant feature of downtown Palm Springs and provides an opportunity for visitors to share this distinctive attraction on social media, thereby enhancing the City’s status as a destination resort.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this City Council action. PS Resorts is required by the accompanying resolution to pay the cost of the water system work, as well as any legal challenge to the street vacation challenge.

REVIEWED BY:

City Engineer Joel Montalvo
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Scott Stiles
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Resolution
B. Exhibits “A” & “B”
C. EIR Addendum
D. Response to Comments
Item 2D - Page 8

ATTACHMENT A
Item 2D - Page 9
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VACATION

AND ABANDONING ALL OF ITS RIGHT, TITLE AND

INTEREST IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR VEHICULAR

ACCESS OVER A PORTION OF MUSEUM WAY FROM
BELARDO RD. TO MUSEUM DR., SHOWN ON PARCEL
MAP 36446 PARCEL MAP BOOK 238/31-34 (ENG. FILE R
23-15-0250), DIRECTING STAFF TO RESERVE A PUBLIC
UTILITY EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN AND NONMOTORIZED ACCESS AND FOR PUBLIC UTIILITIES, ADOPTING ADDENDUM #3 TO THE MUSEUM MARKET

PLAZA SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL EIR AND DETERMINING

THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC RESOURCES
CODE SECTION 21166,SECTIONS 15162 AND 15164 OF

THE CEQA GUIDELINES THE PROPOSED ACTION

WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY NEW OR MORE

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAN THOSE IDENTIFIED IN THE

PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the California Streets and Highways Code Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 3, Section 8320 allows the City to consider vacating public streets under certain conditions. In this case, the City Council may vacate a public street or service easement through the adoption of a Resolution with a Public Hearing and cause the publishing and posting of the hearing notices as required by this chapter.

WHEREAS, in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code Section 8313 and California Government Code Section 65402, the proposed and partial vacation and abandonment of public right-of-way for public vehicular access over a portion of Museum Way from Belardo Road to Museum Drive, (hereinafter the “Vacated Area”) requires review by the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission.

WHEREAS, Desert Water Agency has agreed to the subject right-of-way vacation on the condition that its underground facilities be abandoned and relocated.

WHEREAS, Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company have agreed to the subject right-of-way vacation on the condition that a Public Utility Easement be reserved for public utilities to protect Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas to protect their underground facilities within the proposed vacation area.

Item 2D - Page 10
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed vacation at its June 26, 2024, meeting, and determined that the vacation of the Vacated Area was consistent and in conformance with the 2007 General Plan.

WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing, considered all evidence submitted concerning the Vacated Area, as further described on Exhibit “A” and as shown on Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and determined that the Vacated Area is unnecessary for present public use as to motorized vehicle travel because alternate travel routes between Belardo Road and Museum Drive are available to motorized vehicles with minimum change in total time traveled when using a motorized vehicle.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Sections 15162 and 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City evaluated the street vacation and potential permanent placement of the Forever Marilyn statue and found that some changes or additions to the Museum MarkeT Plaza Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) are necessary, but the proposed project modifications do not require preparation of a subsequent EIR, because the proposed modifications will not result in new or substantially more significant environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the FEIR and none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 have occurred.

WHEREAS the City has prepared a proposed Addendum (Addendum #3) to the FEIR that evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the vacation of Museum Way between Belardo Road and Museum Drive, as well as the potential permanent placement of the Forever Marilyn statue at a location within the project area, and found that no new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project; nor would there be any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified adverse environmental impacts; and there is no new substantial information which was not known at the time that the FEIR was prepared showing that the proposed Project will result in any more significant new or previously analyzed impacts than those analyzed in the FEIR. The Addendum to the previously certified FEIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15164.

WHEREAS the City Council has reviewed all public comments received concerning Addendum #3, including but not limited to the June 25, 2024 letter submitted on behalf of CReMa, and has determined that such public comments fail to provide any substantial evidence showing any of the conditions identified in CEQA Section 15162 have occurred. Specifically: (1) there are no new or more severe significant impacts that would require substantial changes to the FEIR; (2) there are no new or more severe significant impacts that would result in substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the proposed project will be undertaken; (3) there is no new information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been known when the FEIR was certified that shows the project will have new significant Item 2D - Page 11
effects not previously identified; previously identified significant effects will be substantially more severe; there are new feasible mitigation measures that would substantially reduce previously identified significant effects but that the project applicant declines to adopt; there are feasible alternatives that would substantially reduce previously identified significant effects but that the project applicant declines to adopt. The City Council finds that the substantial evidence in the record, including Addendum #3, the Response to Comments and the staff report dated July 25, 2024, demonstrate that the findings of Addendum #3 are correct.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The findings and determinations reflected above are true and correct and are incorporated by this reference herein as the cause and foundation for the action taken by and through this Resolution.

Section 2. The City Council adopts Addendum #3 to the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, based on the findings in this Resolution and the record of proceedings, and directs City staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside and the Office and Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse.

The record of proceedings is maintained in the City Clerk’s office at City Hall.

Section 3. The California Streets and Highways Code Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 3, Section 8320 allows the City to consider vacating public streets under certain conditions.

Staff did cause the publishing and posting of the public hearing notices as required by law.

Section 4 In accordance with California Streets and Highway Code Section 8313 and California Government Code Section 65402, the proposed vacation and abandonment of the Vacated Area, as described in Exhibit “A” and depicted in Exhibits “B”, attached hereto and made a part hereof, was considered and reviewed for consistency with the General Plan by the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission on June 26, 2024, and found by the Planning Commission to be in conformity with the General Plan.

Section 5. The City Council does hereby find that the proposed vacation and abandonment of the Vacated Area is unnecessary for present public use as to motorized vehicle travel because alternate travel routes between Belardo Road and Museum Drive are available to motorized vehicles with minimum change in total time traveled when using a motorized vehicle.

Section 6. Subject to Sections 6, 7 and 8, the City Council does hereby vacate and abandon all the City’s right, title and interest in the Vacated Area as to vehicular or other motorized access, and that from and after the date this Resolution is recorded in the records of the Riverside County Recorder, the Vacated Area shall no longer constitute a public street for vehicular or other motorized transportation access.

Item 2D - Page 12
Section 7. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager or his designee to execute a grant of easement for the south side of the vacated half-street from the adjacent property owner or by recording a lot line adjustment transferring ownership of the south side of the vacated half-street to the City.

Section 8. Pursuant to its authority granted under Streets and Highways Code Section 8340, the City Council does hereby reserve:

A. A 393-foot long by 41-foot wide Public Utility Easement within the proposed vacation area to protect existing underground facilities owned by Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company and to provide pedestrian and other nonmotorized transportation access. The reserved Public Utility easement is depicted on Exhibit “C.” Access to public utility facilities shall be maintained as required by the owner thereof.

B. An easement and right for a trail for non-motorized vehicular access by the public, meaning pedestrian access or travel for non-motorized vehicles, over the Vacated Area.

C. An easement for a future street or highway over the Vacated Area, pursuant to the City’s finding that the Vacated Area is unnecessary for present public use only.

Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution, attested by him under the seal of the City, to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Riverside County, but only after the following condition has been met:

A. The Applicant, PS Resorts shall have entered into a written agreement with the City of Palm Springs, in a form and substance approved by the City Attorney and City Manager, whereby PS Resorts agrees to both of the following:
(i) to pay, at PS Resorts’ sole cost and expense, the cost of the abandonment of Desert Water Agency’s facilities in the subject portion of Museum Way, including the cost of relocating the landscaping irrigation connections for the Downtown Park and other parcels north and south of Museum Way; and
(ii) to indemnify, defend (with legal counsel of the City’s choosing) and hold harmless, the City of Palm Springs, its elected officials and employees from any action or proceeding involving the application to vacate vehicular access over the subject portion of Museum Way.

Item 2D - Page 13
ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF JULY 2024.

SCOTT C. STILES

CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:

BRENDA PREE

CITY CLERK
Item 2D - Page 14

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, BRENDA PREE, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. _________ is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on July 25, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this 5th day of July 2024.

BRENDA PREE

CITY CLERK
Item 2D - Page 15

ATTACHMENT B
Item 2D - Page 16
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

EXHIBIT "A"
R 23-15-0250

VACATION EASEMENT
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 'A' OF PARCEL MAP NO. 36446, IN THE CITY OF PALM

SPRINGS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 238, PAGES 31 THROUGH 34, INCLUSIVE OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 'A', THENCE NORTH 00°08'00"

WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 'A', ALSO BEING THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY OF MUSEUM DRIVE, A DISTANCE OF 41.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID

LOT'A',
THENCE NORTH 89°52'00" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 'A', A DISTANCE OF 393.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00°08'00" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 41.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 'A';
THENCE SOUTH 89°52'00" WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 'A', A DISTANCE OF 393.00 FEET TO THE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SUBJECT TO ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, EASEMENTS, OFFERS OF DEDICATION, RIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD.

CONTAINING 16,113 SQ.FT/0.37 AC. MORE OR LESS
ROW WO 23-11-4
Item 2D - Page 17

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ENGINEERING SERVICES
L£GAL 0£SCRIPTION:

SEE EXHIBIT ,. A"
Item 2D - Page 18
EXHIBIT "B"

VACATION EASEMENT

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ENGINEERING SERVICES
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

SEE EXHIBIT "A•
APPRO'ttD:
7648
"l'I:r
Item 2D - Page 19

ATTACHMENT C

EIR ADDENDUM

LINK TO LASERFICHE
Item 2D - Page 20

ATTACHMENT D
Item 2D - Page 21
Downtown Palm Springs
Museum Way Street Vacation
Addendum No. 3 to the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Response to Comments
The City received a single comment letter regarding the Project immediately preceding the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project’s consistency with the General Plan on June 27, 2024. The following provides individual verbatim comments and City responses. The complete letter is attached to this response in Appendix A.

Ms. Amy C. Minteer
Carstens, Black & Minteer LLP
Letter dated June 25, 2024
Please note that although the letter is identified as “Comments re. Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3,” the comments include a combination of CEQA-related matters and General Plan consistency or land use objections. This Response to Comments addresses both, but makes clear where the comment is not CEQA-related.

Comment 1:

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”).

Response 1:

The comment is noted. Specific CEQA issues identified by the commenter are addressed individually in the Responses below. As shown in these Responses, the City was correct in completing an Addendum to the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR, and a subsequent EIR is not required. Specifically, none of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred:

1. There are no substantial changes to the project which would require major revisions to the previously certified EIR because there are no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.

2. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and no major revisions to the previously certified EIR are required, because no new significant environmental effects and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects will occur.

3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known or could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, and the project will not have any more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. No significant effects previously examined will be substantially more Item 2D - Page 22
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 2 of 20 ends

severe than shown in the previous EIR. There are no mitigation measures or alternatives that were previously found not to be feasible or that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previously certified EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

Comment 2:

I. The Project Does Not Conform to the General Plan.

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 Item 2D - Page 23
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 3 of 20 ends

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.

Response 2:

Although this comment refers primarily to land use and General Plan consistency, this response is provided as it relates to the CEQA checklist’s Land Use and Planning section.

First, it is important to note that the use of “Downtown” in both the General Plan and the Downtown Urban Design Plan (DUDP) does not refer solely to the Museum Market Plaza (now Downtown) Specific Plan boundary. Rather, as shown in the “Concept Sketch” on page 17 of the DUDP, the Downtown area extends from Alejo Road on the north to Ramon Road on the south, and from west of Belardo Road on the west to Avenida Caballeros on the east.

The Concept Sketch (page 17) also identified Museum Way, from the Palm Springs Art Museum easterly to North Palm Canyon Drive as a “Mid-Block Pedestrian Connection.” Further, the DUDP does not prescribe the location of streets and view corridors, but rather suggests them, as in “This perspective shows one concept for the possible redevelopment of the Desert Fashion Plaza, which is located in the heart of the downtown core. A new east-west connector street opening up to the Desert Museum and numerous pedestrian friendly elements in the design of the proposed mixed-use residential project would reduce the visual impact of the taller buildings and help retain the village character of the area while adding much needed vitality to the downtown streets.” (page 23, emphasis added) Contrary to the commenter’s assertion, the graphic attached to this statement does not call out or focus on the building that is presumed to be the Museum, but rather on the design options possible for that “one concept” considered in the sketch. It should also be noted that in the Concept Sketch on page 17, Andreas Road is clearly the primary connection, both in scale and design importance, as an east-west connection to the Convention Center. Based on these facts, the Project’s permanent closure and vacation of Museum Way preserves and enhances pedestrian-friendly connectivity and vitality in this portion of the Downtown Specific Plan, and is thus consistent with both the DUDP and the General Plan.

Item 2D - Page 24
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 4 of 20 ends

As stated correctly in the Addendum, the EIR acknowledged and analyzed the presence of Main Street (now Museum Way) as a “significant view corridor” in the Specific Plan area. However, also as correctly stated in the Addendum, the closure of the roadway does not eliminate this feature at all. On the contrary, it leaves the area open to pedestrian access (particularly if the Forever Marilyn statue remains at or near its current location, precluding any other development that would block the pedestrian way created by the street vacation). In combination with the existing City park, the viewshed identified in the DUDP will be preserved, and Museum Way’s designation as a “Mid-Block Pedestrian Connection” will continue. As provided elsewhere in the Addendum, this change will not result in significant increases in traffic impacts or other environmental effects. Therefore, the Addendum correctly concluded that the vacation of Museum Way would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or agency regulation that has been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts will be consistent with those identified in the 2009 EIR.

Comment 3:

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.

Response 3:

The comment is noted, but is over-broad and lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions. Detailed responses are provided below to specific assertions by the commenter on these issues, which confirm the conclusions in the Addendum that the Project will not have any new or substantially more severe effects concerning aesthetics, cultural resources, or any other resources.

Item 2D - Page 25
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 5 of 20 ends

Comment 4:

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, 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 Item 2D - Page 26
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 6 of 20 ends

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.

Response 4:

The commenter asserts that the SOC is invalid in its entirety because the proposed Project would increase the significant impacts identified for scenic vistas and aesthetics; air quality; and historic resources, but provides no substantial evidence that the Project substantially increases these impacts. Further, the commenter asserts that the perceived inconsistency of 3 of 26 individual benefits listed in the SOC invalidates the SOC completely.

First, as it relates to significant impacts related to specific issue areas, please see the applicable Responses below, which respond to the more detailed assertions made by the commenter, not the blanket unsubstantiated comment above. Please note that the commenter does not make any further mention of potential air quality impacts, and that the Addendum did not identify any significant air quality impacts, only minor construction-related impacts caused by the capping of the water line in Belardo Road which result in emissions far below SCAQMD thresholds. Please also note that the SOC as it relates to impacts to historic buildings was associated entirely with the demolition of the Town and Country Center, and that there were no significant and unavoidable impacts to the Palm Springs Art Museum identified in the EIR.

Second, as it relates to the SOC’s validity, the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093, state, in part:
“If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination.

This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.” In this case, the Findings, attached as Exhibit A of Resolution 22625, provide detailed explanation of the level of impact associated with the Specific Plan, detail the changes made to the Specific Plan that reduced the overall impacts of the Specific Plan on the environment, provide specific objectives of the Specific Plan, and detail the level of impact associated with each CEQA Checklist question analyzed in the EIR. The City made comprehensive Findings for all of the issue areas, including those associated with aesthetics, air quality and historic resources that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. Those Findings, in combination with the SOC, provide the basis under which the City balanced the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the project against its impacts. The record as a whole shows that much more than Museum Way’s location within the Specific Plan area was considered in the City’s determination, including, first and foremost, the economic redevelopment of a blighted downtown. Although Museum Way was part of that consideration, it does not constitute the only, or even the most important Finding made by the City for the Specific Plan, nor does it make the availability of this segment of Museum Way to vehicular traffic a necessary condition to support the SOC. As described above, the City identified 26 Item 2D - Page 27
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 7 of 20 ends

individual benefits of the Specific Plan. In addition, the proposed Project does not eliminate Museum Way, or its visual corridor. As described throughout the Addendum, Museum Way will remain east of Belardo Road, and will be incorporated into the City’s park west of Belardo Road.

The visual corridor and the enhanced pedestrian connections will remain, and the SOC’s statements concerning that visual corridor and dynamic pedestrian flow are still applicable. The SOC is still, therefore, valid and germane to the approval of a master plan which has clearly been successfully implemented, and whose economic and other benefits are currently evident and being enjoyed in the center of Palm Springs.

Comment 5:

2. The Project Will Have New Significant Historic and Aesthetic Impacts.

The commenter asserts, without providing any evidence. that the closure of Museum Way will significantly impede the view of the Museum and thereby change its surroundings and reduce its historic significance. This assertion is inaccurate. As concluded by the expert historian and architectural historian at CRM Tech in the assessment of the Project’s potential effects on the Palm Springs Art Museum, “[t]he project would not alter or impair the qualities for which the museum was found eligible for the National Register, which are focused primarily on architect E. Stewart Williams and his design for the building.” (see CRM Tech Project Effect Assessment dated April 6, 2024, at p. 11). Moreover, when the Museum was constructed, Museum Way did not exist and had not been thought of as a future street. When the Museum’s listing on the National Register was considered, Museum Way did not exist. When the Museum was constructed, it faced the back of commercial businesses on Palm Canyon Drive, including a movie theatre. As Desert Fashion Plaza was constructed, the Museum faced the parking lots and structures that were part of that development. Therefore, it is not accurate to claim that the change in Museum Way “materially alters the physical characteristics” of the Museum’s setting from a historic perspective, because Museum Way was never part of its historic setting. To the contrary, the closure of this segment of Museum Way to vehicular traffic “would represent a minor diversion [of vehicular traffic] but would also enhance the visual presence for the Palm Springs Art Museum and the San Jacinto Mountains for those on foot.” (CRM Tech Project Effect Assessment, at pp. 10-11). Contrary to the unsupported assertion in this Comment No. 5, the CRM Tech expert assessment concluded that the closure of this segment of Museum Way and the permanent placement of Forever Marilyn in its present location would not constitute an adverse effect to an historic property under Section 106 of NHPA or a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource under CEQA (Id. at p. 11).

Item 2D - Page 28
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 8 of 20 ends

Comment 6:

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).

Response 6:

See Response 5. The design of the Museum was inspired by the setting of the San Jacinto mountains to its west and that is a key component of its historic quality and aesthetic. However, the commenter conflates aesthetics and historic significance inappropriately. The comment cites incorrect analysis of the historic significance of the building. When the Museum’s design was created, parking lots and “back of house” commercial buildings existed on the Museum’s east side. The viewshed from Museum Way that the comment focuses on did not exist and was not planned or proposed when the Museum was constructed. The commenter cannot attribute historic significance to a roadway viewshed that was never conceived of at the time that the historic building was constructed. On the contrary, the valuable setting of the Museum at the time that Mr. Williams designed it was entirely to the west, as evidenced by his choice of materials and the brutalist style that he chose for the massive structure, consistent with the massive form of the San Jacintos.

Furthermore, in 2016 when the Museum was nominated for the National Register, although Museum Way was planned but not constructed, no mention of viewshed from the east was made in the historic context statements in the nomination (see Appendix B.2. of Addendum document).

The Museum’s context is strictly tied to the mountains behind it, and from a historic significance perspective, is not related to Museum Way. Finally, as noted in Response No. 5, the CRM Tech expert report concluded that the closure of Museum Way to vehicular traffic and the permanent placement of Forever Marilyn in its present location would not constitute a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource under CEQA. The Addendum correctly concludes that the impact to the historic resource that is the Museum will be less than significant if the Project is implemented. Also see Response 10 as it relates to aesthetic impacts.

Item 2D - Page 29
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 9 of 20 ends

Comment 7:

The comment is misleading and takes a phrase out of context. The CRM Tech Report at page 10 in fact does explain how the obstruction caused by the statue is less than significant. :

1. “Spatially, at approximately 385 feet away, Forever Marilyn is clearly outside the museum’s boundaries as an eligible resource. This limit usually includes the immediate surroundings and encompass the appropriate setting, but additional, peripheral areas that do not directly contribute to the property’s significance as buffer or as open space to separate the property from surrounding areas are excluded.”

2. The statue adds to the visual environment of the area, including the Downtown Park, the Kimpton Rowan Hotel and the shops, which all contribute to the environment in this area, but is not detrimental to the Museum, especially when compared to the six-story hotel.

3. From Palm Canyon, the statue does not significantly reduce the obstruction or visual loss resulting from the view down the narrow Museum Way, and the distance of 800 feet to the Museum.

Finally, as relates to the use of the term “temporary” on page 1 of the expert report, the comment misrepresents what the CRM Tech report analyzed. The use of the word “temporary” on page 1 of the expert report was referring to the condition that would exist without the proposed project being analyzed. As noted multiple times in the “Project Effect Assessment” found on pages 9 – 11 of the report, CRM Tech analyzed changing “the current placement of Forever Marilyn from temporary to permanent, which would close traffic on Museum Way west of Belardo Road.” Contrary to the claim in Comment No. 7, the CRM Tech plainly analyzed the permanent closure of this segment of Museum Way.

Comment 8:

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 Item 2D - Page 30
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 10 of 20 ends

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.

Response 8:

The commenter has again misread the CRM Tech report. The statement in the report (at page 10) is: “The truncation of Museum Way to accommodate Forever Marilyn will eliminate automobile traffic west of Belardo Road; however, museum visitors arriving in vehicles in any case must access parking either to the north or south of Museum Way. As such the permanent closure of the approximately 400-foot segment of Museum Way would represent a minor diversion but would also enhance the visual presence for the Palm Springs Art Museum and the San Jacinto Mountains for those on foot.” Again, the comment is made in the context of the elimination of automobile traffic in the area, which would open pedestrian views of the Museum from the full width of Museum Way rather than only from the sidewalks. The quoted portion of the CRM Tech report also notes that vehicles traveling to the Museum would need to access the parking lots to the north and south of the Museum, which have access from N. Belardo Road and Tahquitz Canyon Way (the streets parallel to the subject segment of Museum Way), which the report concludes is a “minor diversion” of traffic. Finally, the expert CRM Tech report includes photographic evidence directly supporting its conclusion that the permanent closure of this segment of Museum way would enhance pedestrian views of the Museum (see Figure 3 photos on page 4).

As it relates to the comment made regarding the “1950’s vibe,” the City is known for its midcentury modern architecture. Mr. Williams was known for his mid-century style. Marilyn Monroe was a mid-century movie star. Mid-century architectural style continues to be promulgated in projects all over Palm Springs. It is, indeed, a character-defining style throughout the community, and it is an accurate description of Palm Springs. Please also see Response 7 as it relates to the basis for the determination that the Museum’s historic significance will not be affected by the closure of the roadway.

Comment 9:

The CRM Tech report claims that the statue lies outside of the Museum’s “boundary,” 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.

Item 2D - Page 31
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 11 of 20 ends

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].) Response 9:

The full context of the statement in the CRM Tech report is the “museum’s boundaries as an eligible resource.” That is a valid point of analysis of an historic property’s context. See Response 6 as it relates to the context of the Museum’s historic significance. As stated in that response, neither at its construction, nor at its nomination to the National Register was the viewshed from Museum Way considered. The CRM Tech report and the Addendum correctly describe that the distance between the statue and the Museum, its relatively small size when compared to the visual environment in the area, and pedestrians’ ability to move past it to the Museum all provide substantial evidence that the statue is outside the Museum’s area of influence from a historic building perspective.

In regards to the importance of viewsheds described in the National Register Bulletin, the commenter attempts to apply the same level of detail assigned historic districts to the Museum building. This is inappropriate and irrelevant to the Project. In the case of both the Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars Historic District and the Rocky Butte Scenic Drive Historic District, multiple locations are considered part of a District not a single structure. It therefore follows that for both of the cited Districts, which consist of an expansive area of land and a roadway corridor, the viewsheds within those Districts could potentially be considered significant. In the case of the Museum, the intent that the historic designation was to apply to the Museum property itself and not to a district is made clear in the Nomination application, where the Museum property boundaries are described (Appendix B, AR 1637 and 1638). The focus on the building is further defined in the determination in the Nomination application that the adjacent Marks Administration Building, constructed in 1981 north of the Museum itself, is a “noncontributing” resource. These factors all support the expert conclusion that the Museum’s area of significance is limited, and that the references to the importance of viewsheds in historic Districts cited by the commenter are inapplicable to the proposed Project.

Comment 10:

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 Item 2D - Page 32
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 12 of 20 ends

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.)
Response 10:

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but does not provide substantial evidence that the aesthetic impacts to the Museum will be significant. The Museum Way viewshed was created and exists as a roadway with sidewalks. By definition, the conditions in such a viewshed change with every turn of the wheel, or every step taken by a pedestrian. As correctly stated in the Addendum and Appendix B, the narrow viewshed from Palm Canyon limits the view of the Museum, particularly in the context of the large buildings which flank the roadway, and the distance of 800 feet between the viewer and the building. This is shown in the upper righthand photo in Figure 3 of the CRM Tech report, at the top of page 4. West of Belardo, the viewshed is affected by the statue for a distance of about 100 feet, insofar as someone walking westerly would have portions of the statue within their field of vision for that distance. However, once parallel or westerly of the statue, it is no longer visible, and has no impact on the Museum’s viewshed. Similarly, public views of the Museum from the adjacent City park are unaffected by the statue, which occurs off its southeastern boundary. The Addendum does not dispute that “aesthetic impacts to historic resources are cognizable under CEQA,” but rather, correctly determines that the statue will not have a significant visual impact on the Museum.

As it relates to the commenter’s assertion that the EIR’s Mitigation Measure #2 has not been adhered to, the mitigation measure is directed to buildings, not statues. However, if the Mitigation Measure were to be applied to the Forever Marilyn statue, the statue does incorporate the features listed in the measure: the statue is not a solid monolithic block, the space between the legs is visually permeable, and the angles of the figure provide step-backs between the feet and the skirt, and the waist and the smaller head, all of which serve to limit the project’s impacts to “surrounding mountain vistas.”
Comment 11:

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.

Response 11:

This comment is based on the false assertion that the Project results in an alteration of the exterior visual quality of the Museum. As explained in detail the preceding responses, the Project would not have a significant effect on the visual quality or any other historic aspect of the Museum. Moreover, as defined by the relevant section of the Municipal Code, “alteration” relates to any exterior change or modification to a building, structure or object on a designated parcel.

The placement of the statue does not constitute an alteration nor does it require a Certificate of Appropriateness. Furthermore, this is not a CEQA issue.

Item 2D - Page 33
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 13 of 20 ends

Comment 12:

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 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.) Response 12:

The commenter asserts their lay opinion that traffic safety will be impacted but fails to define what they consider traffic safety, or what increased hazard might occur. The Addendum and Appendix C correctly indicate that the permanent closure of Museum Way will result in the elimination of vehicles between Belardo Road and Museum Drive, and will provide an exclusive pedestrian and bike environment. The Addendum and Appendix correctly state that by eliminating vehicles, there will be no conflicts between cars and pedestrians along the closed segment of Museum Way, and the closure would eliminate multiple conflict points between pedestrians and turning vehicles. That is a true statement regarding traffic safety.

The commenter’s assertion that the traffic analysis relies on “the current illegal closure of Museum Way as the baseline” is incorrect. On the contrary, the traffic engineer developed estimates of the traffic that would occur on Museum Way if it were open (see Table 5-1 in Appendix C) in order to estimate what the impacts of closure would be on surrounding intersection. It should be noted that this estimate is consistent with, and slightly lower than the future volumes predicted in the 2009 EIR, supporting a baseline analysis of an open roadway condition.

The commenter also implies that an increase in volume at any given intersection, and at the three intersections they cite, automatically results in traffic hazards, without providing any support for that assertion. As correctly stated in the Addendum, the relocation of traffic from Museum Way will result in changes, and in some cases increases in the number of vehicle trips Item 2D - Page 34
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 14 of 20 ends

at surrounding intersections. Those intersections, however, will all continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, and generally with fewer trips than what was analyzed in the EIR.

All of these intersections are equipped with traffic signals or stop signs, crosswalks and clear, 90 degree lines of sight. The traffic analysis included traffic signal warrant analysis, which includes a collision component, and found that none of the unsignalized intersections would require signalization with permanent closure under current or with cumulative conditions. There is nothing in the record, and nothing provided by the commenter, supporting the claim that the Project would result in a reduction in traffic safety at any of the surrounding intersections.

Comment 13:

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.

Response 13:

The commenter is incorrect. The traffic analysis includes, explicitly, a Cumulative Traffic Conditions section for Museum Way open (Section 6) and Museum Way closed (Section 7).

Under both these conditions, levels of service, including current conditions, plus ambient growth, plus cumulative known and planned projects result in acceptable levels of service.

Development of Block B-1, as depicted in Exhibit 4 of the Addendum, will be unaffected by the closure. Belardo Road, Museum Way and Andreas Road will all remain open to vehicular and pedestrian traffic along that Block’s frontage, and no change will occur from that planned in the EIR or the Specific Plan. As stated in the Addendum, development of Block F will have access from Belardo Road, Museum Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way, which will provide sufficient design options to allow pedestrian and vehicular access for this block. In the overall, since the analysis in the Addendum included cumulative conditions, and since under cumulative conditions neither levels of service nor traffic warrant analyses identified negatively impacted conditions, there will be no significant impact related to traffic or traffic safety associated with implementation of the Project.

Comment 14:

A. 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.

Page 15 of 20 ends

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 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.)
Response 14:

The commenter is incorrect. The project description is contained in Section 2 (Addendum pages 11 and 12) and explicitly cites the location of the statue as an associated part of the Project:
“This Addendum assumes that the vacation of Museum Way will result in the land being returned, for ownership and use, to the adjacent property owners on its north and south. In this case, the north half of the right of way would become part of Block E (as defined in the Specific Plan), which is owned by the City (the adjacent Downtown Park), and the south half would become the property of the owners of Blocks F and H-2. Block F is privately owned, and is planned, in conjunction with Block D to its south, for multi-family development under the Specific Plan. The City owns Block H-2, and it is permanently dedicated for public purposes, including public art installations and events. The proposed Project would not change the uses of these Blocks, nor would it result in their development. Although the continuing and future placement of the “Forever Marilyn” statue depends on future City Council consideration and action, this Addendum also assumes that the vacation of Museum Way would result in the permanent location of the “Forever Marilyn” statue at its current location, 100 feet west of Belardo Road. The statue would remain on the shallow pedestal on which it is currently located, and no change would occur to its position or orientation.” (emphasis added) Item 2D - Page 36
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 16 of 20 ends

The project description, therefore, is complete and thorough, as well as “accurate, stable and finite.” Furthermore, the location of the statue is addressed in every issue area discussion of the Addendum where impacts are possible, including aesthetics, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazardous materials, hydrology, water resources, land use and planning, noise, population, employment and housing, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities and service systems.

In most sections, the statue is described as part of the Project. The project description is complete, and the analysis in the Addendum considers its location throughout the analysis.

Comment 15:

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- foottall 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.

Response 15:

The potential development of Block F is indeed addressed in both the project description (see the citation in Response 14), and in the text where applicable. Development of Block F, as described in the land use/planning section of the Addendum, will be subject to the development standards of the Specific Plan. These standards include setbacks and height limitations, which are described in the Addendum. The Addendum also explicitly states that any variation from Specific Plan standards would require further amendment of the Specific Plan. As it relates to specific development proposals for that Block, the City does not have, and is not aware of any plans for its design. Speculation about how the Block would be developed, what its setbacks or height would be, or how it would design pedestrian access along the vacated portion of Museum Way is not appropriate under CEQA, as described in Guidelines Section 15064(f)(5): “Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion support by facts.” The City did not engage in such speculation in determining Project impacts, as prescribed by CEQA.

Item 2D - Page 37
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 17 of 20 ends

The commenter asserts that public access to the “privately owned portion of Museum Way for pedestrian and bicycle access could have significant impacts that were not addressed,” but does not provide any evidence of what that impact might be. Nor is anything but speculation provided regarding “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.” As stated in the Addendum, access to Block F will remain available from Tahquitz Canyon Way, Museum Drive and Belardo Road. Beyond that statement of fact, the City cannot speculate on the design of the building(s) on that Block. Finally, it must be noted that if the Project is implemented, it will result in the addition of a narrow 20± foot strip of land for the entire length of the Block. The reversion is not wide enough to add a substantial amount of units or square footage to any building within Block F.

Comment 16:

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.

Response 16:

The commenter’s opinion is noted, but the past purchase of the right of way, or the renewal of Measure J, are not CEQA issues and require no further response.

Comment 17:

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).

Response 17:

The commenter is incorrect. The water line is not being relocated. It is, at Desert Water Agency’s request, being capped and abandoned. The capping of the line, and the availability of water to both the existing park and to Block F from other locations is also clearly described in the Addendum. Specifically, the project description, at page 12, states: “Finally, as part of the intraand inter-agency distribution conducted by the City for the street vacation, it was determined that Desert Water Agency (DWA) currently has a 12-inch water line in Museum Way, which extends from the existing line in Belardo Road westerly approximately 260 feet, where it terminates. DWA has indicated that they intend to abandon the line, which would require that it be capped at Belardo Road. The irrigation connections from this line to the City Park and the Item 2D - Page 38
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 18 of 20 ends

private landscaping on the north and south, respectively, would be relocated to existing connections within both those parcels.” The water line’s capping is also analyzed in air quality, under construction emissions, and throughout the document where relevant.

The commenter’s concerns regarding the costs related to the water line abandonment are not a CEQA issue because CEQA does not apply to economic issues. The commenter’s concerns about costs related to relocation are factually inaccurate because there will be no relocation and thus no related costs.

Comment 18:

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 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).)
Response 18:

The commenter’s opinion regarding the reopening of Museum Way is noted, but does not accurately describe the baseline and analysis used in the Addendum. In the project description and analysis of all issue areas, Museum Way is described as a fully developed City street, with bollards on both ends. In the traffic discussion, the analysis assumes traffic on Museum Way, in order to analyze what the effect of closure would be. It must be noted that the traffic analysis and the Addendum disclose that traffic volumes on Museum Way, were it currently open, would be about 3,000 trips per day. Under all current professionally used analysis criteria, for a two lane local street, this represents a low volume, and an acceptable level of service at Item 2D - Page 39
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 19 of 20 ends

intersections. In addition, the traffic analysis included a complete analysis of Cumulative Traffic Conditions with Museum Way Open (see Appendix C, Section 6), and found that the intersections of Belardo/Museum Way and Museum Drive/Museum Way would operate at level of service A in the morning peak, and level of service B in the evening peak (see Table 6-1, Addendum Appendix C), well below the City’s standard for acceptable levels of service as described in the General Plan and the previous EIR. The Addendum not only considered Museum Way open under existing conditions, but also under future cumulative conditions. The record thus rebuts the commenter’s arguments about a “manipulated baseline.” For other issue areas in the Addendum, the closure is described as a future action, and is assumed to eliminate traffic on this roadway. Thus, the discussion of aesthetics describes the opportunities for pedestrian viewsheds, the discussion of cultural resources analyzes the elimination of vehicles in the viewshed when approaching the Museum, and the land use analysis assesses the potential for future development of the south side as part of Block F.

The City has not “manipulated” the baseline. From a CEQA perspective, the City has analyzed the impacts of the permanent closure of the roadway as thoroughly as possible, including the technical calculation of likely trips that would occur on Museum Way if it were open.

Comment 19:

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.

Response 19:

As demonstrated in Responses 1 through 18, the Addendum has thoroughly analyzed the proposed Project, and provided the correct and complete project description for the public’s and elected officials’ consideration of the matter. The impacts associated with the proposed Project will be equivalent to or less than those analyzed in the Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR and its previous Addenda, and no further environmental analysis is required under CEQA.

Item 2D - Page 40
Museum Market Plaza Specific Plan EIR Addendum #3
Response to Comments

Page 20 of 20 ends

APPENDIX A

COMMENT LETTERS
Item 2D - Page 41
June 25, 2024
Via Email ([email protected])
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 G:BM
Item 2D - Page 42
• 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.

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 Item 2D - Page 43
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.

1. Benefits Relied Upon in 2009 Statement of Overriding Considerations Will No Longer Be Provided with this Project.

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 Item 2D - Page 44
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 eastwest 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.

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 Item 2D - Page 45
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.

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 Item 2D - Page 46
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 Item 2D - Page 47
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 Item 2D - Page 48
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.

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 Item 2D - Page 49
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.

Sincerely,
Amy Minteer
cc Christopher Hadwin, Director of Planning Services
([email protected])
Attachments:

1. 2009 MMPSP Statement of Overriding Considerations

2. Photo Comparison of Museum Way With and Without Statue 9 Item 2D - Page 50
ATTACHMENT 1
10 Item 2D - Page 51
11 EXHIBIT "B"
ST ATRMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIO~S
CEQA requires the Cit,-· Council, as the decision-making agenC)\ to balance) a'. applicab]e, the economic. legal. social, technological, or other benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks \vhen determining \vhether to approve the project If the specific economic, Jegal, social~ Le.chnological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effect~, those effocts may be considered t'acceptable.'t [CF.QA Guidelines 15093(a).] CEQA requires the City Council to state~ in writin& the specific rea..:;ons frn- crin-.id.ering a project acceptable when signifi.cm1l impacts are not avoided or substantially l~txl 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 of CEQA 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 signi ficanl effects identified in the EIR for the Museum :Market Plaza Sped.fie Plan.

Nevertheless, certain significant impacts of the project are unavoidable even after inc01poration of an feasible mitigation measures. The project would resull in significant and unavoidable impa(..is to a) scenic vistas and aesthel.ics.~ b) air qualily, andc) historic resources. The EIR and Exhibit ~~A'' provides deLailed information re,garding these impacts. "Ihe City Council finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified 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. teclmologic.al, or other benefits based upon the facts set forth above, the EIR and the record, including without limitation the draft Specific Plan and relaled documents, as follm,vs:

I. The Project is designed to allow flexibility of design within specific 67lrid:ing principles. induding:
a. The highe:;t 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.
c. The development of retail commercial development which success folly mixes national and regional chain stores with locaJ bu.~inesses~ fi.lCu.'led on 1he major roadways which bound 1he site~ inc1uding North Palm Canyon~ Indian Canyon, T ahquitz Canyon, and Belardo.
d. A balance of commercial and residential development which assure..; the success of the area by increasing the number of homes in the downtovm, thereby increasing B-1 58
Item 2D - Page 52
12 the customer base of the commercial uses
e. The development of residential units which relate synergi.stically to the commercial development around them, and encourage a pede~irian lifusty le with ]ittle use for the automobile,
t: The development of additional resort hotels which provide luxury accommodations and increase the visitors to the City's downtovm protects the quality of life for existing and future residents through goals and policies designed to achieve a desired vision for the City that incorporates smart growth principles, concepts of sustainab]e development and resource trumagement, and environmental protection.

2. The Project addresses and is intended to affirmative]y implement the fo11owing spccia] 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.

Fundamenta] principles of the theme will be consistent throughout, with interesting variation in rooflines, elcvational articulation, detailing~ and materials creating a richly textured built environment. b. Stepping back of the upper floors of buildings to create graduated frontages that a11ow 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 corner cut backs to buildings. Sidewalks will include projections with spccia] landscaping and surface finishes and street paving will be distinctive. d. Active building frontages and lively "multi-purpose" sidewalks, contributing to a vibrant townscape experience.
c. Distinctive design treatments of the Plaza and the associated hierarchy or interlinked. versatile public open spaces, creating a well-defined sense of place.
f. Connectivity between internal components of the 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. recogniz.es and ~ncomages technological innovations, and generates sufficient revenue to support various local programs and services.

4. Toe Project promotes development which ac.commodates anticipated population growth B-2 5.9
Item 2D - Page 53
13 and guides physical deve]opment towards a desired image that is consistent \\1th 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 Cify~s Community Redevelopment Agency, including with limitation the .. Design for Development" area~ which will allow individuaJ other areas within ihe do"Wnto"Wn and greater downtITT\'n area to provide direction for their future growth and successful economic development whiie maintaining their unique characters.

6. The Project supports the policies and goals of the 2007 General Plan and the Community Redevelopment Agency Merged Area I and 2 redeve]opment plans~ and a%ists lhe CiLy to meet :fi.rturc housing needs for the growth in population, including affordable housing. 7_ The Project jmproves mobility through development of a more balanced, multi-modal trdraportation network. encouraging residential and workplace development near transit corridors, and supports the goals and policies of adopted regional transportation plans.

8. The Pr(~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. Tb.e Project aHows the City to become a model of sustrunable development and provide for 1he long-tenn 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 chailenged area of1he City and help promote revitali ?.ation 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-Vvest road that ""ill 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. M1.Lo;;eum Way '-"lll link the Casino and the Convention Center with downtown and Museum I\1arket Plaza, creating a dynamic pedestrian and vehicular flow tlrnt will be attractive to potential retailers and customers alike.

12. The exisl.ing 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 ew..ily accessible east-west road connector and the creation or such a CoTine(..iion along the general alignment of the proposed Museum Way is necessary for the economic success of the Project.

13. The Projec-t creates and will promote viab]e economic investment in an economically c haUenged area of the City.
14 The Project incaporates environmentally sowICI, sustainable planning and design concepts ·including: providing housing and retail development with enhanced walkability and D-3 60
Item 2D - Page 54
14 transit accessibility for residents and v1~utors; ~izing the use of alternative transportation; designing future bui]dings at greaLer density than existing in order to more efficiently milizc land resources and preserve open space.

15. The Project will constitute a significant economic benefit to downtown and to the City of Pahn Springs .. 1he Project has a significant beneficial economic impact on the area's economy. Each dollar spent locally in do\.Wtown Palm Springs cycles through the area economy, generating additional income and emp]oyment.

16. 1hc Project, when compared to the other alternatives analyzed in the EIR (inc]uding the No Project Alternative} provides the best available balance between maximizing attainment of the prqiect objectives and minimizing significant enviTI)Tlmental impacts.

Considering all factors, the City Council fmds that there are specific economic, legal, sociaJ~ technological and other considerations associated \\1th the project that outv.·eigh the projcct1s. significant unavoidable effects, and the adverse effects are therefore considered acceptable. 61 Item 2D - Page 55
ATTACHMENT 2
15 Item 2D - Page 56
Screen Capture from Google Maps at Belardo Road and Museum Way, June 2021 16 Item 2D - Page 57
17 Item 2D - Page 58
55575.18110\42456370.1

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 25, 2024 BUSINESS & LEGISLATIVE
SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DELETING SECTION 10.20.060 “OWNER’S RIGHT TO REDEEM ANIMAL FROM PURCHASER” AND SECTION 10.20.070
“OWNER’S LIABILITY TO CITY WHEN REDEEMING ANIMAL FROM
PURCHASER”, AND AMENDING SECTION 10.20.030 REGARDING
“DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED ANIMALS”
FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
BY: Jeffrey Ballinger, City Attorney
SUMMARY:

This is a request for the City Council to consider changes to Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 10.20 to eliminate the pet owner’s right to reclaim the animal after the animal has been impounded for the legally required time period and lawfully adopted out to a new pet owner. The draft ordinance also increases the time within which a pet owner may claim an impounded animal from five (5) to seven (7) days.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Waive the reading of the ordinance text in its entirety and read by title only; and

2. Introduce on first reading Ordinance No. _____, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DELETING SECTION 10.20.060 “OWNER’S RIGHT TO REDEEM ANIMAL FROM PURCHASER” AND SECTION 10.20.070 “OWNER’S LIABILITY TO CITY WHEN REDEEMING ANIMAL FROM
PURCHASER”, AND AMENDING SECTION 10.20.030 REGARDING
“DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED ANIMALS.”
STAFF ANALYSIS:

Staff has been working with Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter (Friends) to implement changes to the PSMC that the Friends believe will help reduce animals in the shelter. On February 27, 2020, this matter was brought before the City Council along with a proposed ordinance regulating the breeding of domesticated animals. That aspect of the ordinance was ultimately adopted. However, the Friends’ proposal regarding redemption rights was never adopted.

Item 3A - Page 1
55575.18110\42456370.1
City Council Staff Report
July 25, 2024 -- Page 2
Animal Redemption Ordinance
The proposed changes include the following:

• Removal of the pet owner’s right to reclaim an animal after it has been lawfully adopted.
• Extend the time within which a pet owner whose animal has been impounded to claim that animal, from five (5) to seven (7) days. This suggestion was made at the time of the proposed introduction of the ordinance on February 27, 2020.

The following sections of this staff report provide additional detail regarding the proposed changes that are summarized above.

Modifications to the pet owner’s right to reclaim animal from lawful adopter:

State law (Food & Agr. Code § 31108) sets forth the requirement that the shelter scan the dog for a microchip and make reasonable efforts to contact the pet owner to notify the pet owner that the dog is impounded and available for redemption. Additionally, when a stray dog is impounded, State law requires that the dog be held for four (4) business days, not including the day of impoundment. These State laws are designed to ensure that a pet owner is afforded an adequate opportunity to recover his or her pet.

Currently, the City’s animal control ordinance provides that a pet owner may reclaim his or her animal, which has been impounded and adopted out, within thirty (30) days after such adoption. The Friends believe that this thirty-day time period should be removed, since after a pet has been adopted out, emotional bonds are established between the pet and the new pet owner. And, the prior pet owner would have been provided an adequate opportunity to claim his or her animal. Therefore, the proposed modification would eliminate the ability of the prior pet owner to reclaim the animal for up to thirty (30) days after adoption of the animal and rather would default to the State law redemption period, four (4) business days, not including the day of impoundment for the holding period.

Extension of Time to Claim Impounded Animals
The City’s Municipal Code currently provides that a pet owner of an animal that has been impounded has five (5) days from the date of impoundment to claim the animal. The proposed ordinance revision would extend this time period to seven (7) days.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The proposed ordinance and resolution are exempt from environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, as there is no possibility that the adoption of the ordinance or the resolution will have a significant effect on the environment.

Item 3A - Page 2
55575.18110\42456370.1
City Council Staff Report
July 25, 2024 -- Page 3
Animal Redemption Ordinance
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:

This ordinance aligns with the City Council’s Strategic Planning Goal of Optimizing basic services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed ordinance is not expected to have any significant financial impact to the City.

REVIEWED BY:

City Attorney: Jeffrey S. Ballinger
City Manager: Scott Stiles
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Draft Ordinance
Item 3A - Page 3
55575.18110\42456370.1

ATTACHMENT A
Item 3A - Page 4
55575.18100\42456293.1
ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, DELETING SECTION 10.20.060 “OWNER’S
RIGHT TO REDEEM ANIMAL FROM PURCHASER” AND
SECTION 10.20.070 “OWNER’S LIABILITY TO CITY WHEN
REDEEMING ANIMAL FROM PURCHASER”, AND
AMENDING SECTION 10.20.030 REGARDING
“DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED ANIMALS”
City Attorney’s Summary
This Ordinance will allow impounded animals to be claimed within seven days, rather than five, after being impounded and will remove the ability of prior pet owners to reclaim their animals after they have been impounded, not retrieved within seven days, and then adopted out.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 10.20.060 entitled “Owner’s right to redeem animal from purchaser” is hereby deleted in its entirety and is reserved, as follows. “Section 10.20.060 Owner’ s right to redeem animal from purchaser. Reserved.

The owner of any impounded animal may, at any time, within thirty days after sale by the animal control officer, redeem such animal from the purchaser by paying him the sum of money computed by adding the following amounts: the purchase price paid to the animal control officer, any license fee paid and rabies vaccination costs incurred, and in addition thereto a sum equal to rates established pursuant to Section 10.20.080 for daily care and feeding per day for the number of days from the date of sale to and including the date of redemption by the owner.”
SECTION 2. Section 10.20.070 entitled “Owner’s liability to city when redeeming animal from purchaser” is hereby deleted in its entirety and is reserved, as follows:
“10.20.070 Owner’s liability to city when redeeming animal from purchaser.

Reserved.

In each case where the owner of an impounded animal redeems the same from the purchaser, irrespective of whether payment was made as prescribed in Section 10.20.060, such owner shall be liable for payment to the animal control officer of all fees prescribed pursuant to Section

10.20.080 for impounding and for daily care and feeding of the animal incurred during the impoundment, deducting therefrom the sale price paid to the animal control officer by the purchaser. The amount of the owner’s Item 3A - Page 5
55575.18100\42456293.1
Ordinance No.

Page 2 ends

liability under this section shall be deemed a debt to the city, and an action may be commenced in the name of the city in any court of competent jurisdiction for the amount of any such debt.”
SECTION 3. Section 10.20.030 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code entitled “Disposition of unclaimed animals” is amended to read as follows:
“10.20.030 Disposition of unclaimed animals.

All animals impounded at the city animal shelter shall be provided with proper and sufficient food and water. Unless unlicensed animals have been claimed within five seven days after being impounded, or licensed dogs seven days and after the notification provided for in Section 10.20.020, they may be sold by the animal control officer to the person offering to pay a cash amount set by the animal control officer unless, in the sole discretion of the animal control officer any such animal shall be deemed unsuitable for adoption; provided that the purchaser adopter shall not be given possession of any dog until he the adopter shall have paid to the animal control officer the license fee for such dog and until he the adopter shall have made appropriate arrangements for any necessary rabies vaccination. If any dog or other animal impounded by the animal control officer shall not have been claimed within said period and cannot be sold within a reasonable time thereafter, it may be destroyed by the animal control officer in a humane manner. In lieu of destruction, animals, except those deemed unsuitable for adoption, may be released without charge to any humane organization that provides for an animal adoption service. The animal control officer shall maintain a file describing each animal impounded in the city animal shelter, beginning on the day any such animal is taken or delivered into the possession of the animal shelter.”
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE PALM SPRINGS CITY
COUNCIL THIS ____ DAY OF ___________________, 2024.

Item 3A - Page 6
55575.18100\42456293.1
Ordinance No.

Page 3 ends

JEFFREY BERNSTEIN
MAYOR
ATTEST:

BRENDA PREE

CITY CLERK
Item 3A - Page 7
55575.18100\42456293.1
Ordinance No.

Page 4 ends

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, BRENDA PREE, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. ___ is a full, true, and correct copy, and was introduced by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the __ day of _______, 2024, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the __ day of _______, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this ______ day of ______________, 2024.

BRENDA PREE

CITY CLERK
Item 3A - Page 8

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 25, 2024 BUSINESS & LEGISLATIVE
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PICKLEBALL COURT COMPLEX PROJECT AND FUNDING FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
BY: Parks & Recreation Department
Engineering Services Department
Department of Finance and Treasury
SUMMARY:

Staff is proposing a comprehensive pickleball court complex project, City Project No. 22- 24, Demuth Park Pickleball Expansion, supported by stakeholder groups and community input, funded with Quimby and Measure J Funds. Approval of this item will approve the conceptual design and project funding sources.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Approve City Project 22-24, Demuth Park Pickleball Expansion project conceptual design;

2. Appropriate $2.5 million from Quimby fund balance and $2 million from Measure J fund;

3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all necessary documents.

BACKGROUND:

On May 18, 2023, the Measure J Commission approved $725,000 in Measure J funding to match the City contribution of $725,000 ($575K Quimby/$150K General Fund approved on June 30, 2022) towards a pickleball court project. City Council awarded a professional design services contract to Kimley-Horn and Associates on July 24, 2023, and for the past year the City has worked with Kimley-Horn and Associates, the Parks & Recreation Commission and its Pickleball Ad Hoc Committee, and the community to assess the needs of the community and design a new pickleball court complex for Demuth Park.

Item 3B - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
July 25, 2024 -- Page 2
Pickleball Court Project
On April 22, 2024, the Parks & Recreation Commission approved the attached concept (Attachment A) which includes:
• 24 new USA Pickleball Association compliant courts replacing 12 existing noncompliant courts; one of the 12 new courts is ADA compliant • New lighting
• New sidewalks
• New shade structures
• New shade trees
The architect’s rough order of magnitude estimate for the project is $5.3 million and staff recommends a contingency for construction bids bringing the estimate to $6 million leaving a funding gap of $4,500,000.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

The City has analyzed funding options for the project. Capacity exists for the City to fund the budget gap of approximately $4.5 million using $2.5 million of the estimated $3.6 million available in Quimby funds and $2 million of the estimated ending fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2023-24 of $7.2 million in Measure J funds.

On July 17, 2024, staff and Kimley-Horn and Associates presented a funding request for an additional $2 million to the Measure J Commission. After a thorough discussion reviewing the input provided at multiple community workshops and how these new facilities would interact with existing amenities and parkgoers, the Measure J Commission voted unanimously to approve the $2 million funding request and recommended the conceptual design be presented to City Council for approval.

Quimby funds are assessed on new residential construction and under the State Quimby Act, fees collected are to be used for developing new or rehabilitating existing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision where the fees were collected. In accordance with Government Code Section 66477(a), City Project 22-24 Pickleball Courts would utilize an estimated $3 million of Quimby funds to complete the project ($575,000 allocated on June 30, 2022, by City Council and an additional $2.5 million requested in this staff report). The pickleball court project is the only public pickleball court complex in the City of Palm Springs serving all residents and visitors.

The Quimby funds proposed for use would be fees contributed by the following development projects, located within a reasonable distance of Demuth Park thereby ensuring that the new pickleball courts will serve all residents of the following developments.
- Elan – 2.4 miles
- Cody Place – 2.25 miles
- Living Out – 2.5 miles
Item 3B - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
July 25, 2024 -- Page 3
Pickleball Court Project
- The Lumen 1.9 miles
- Vibe 1.3 miles
- Vue 2.4 miles
Staff believes the proposed pickleball courts at Demuth Park are in sufficient proximity to each subdivision above to serve the general recreational needs of the residents of each subdivision as further detailed below, using GIS databases to identify travel paths utilizing CV Link, City bike paths, and parkways available to the public.

Elan and Cody Place development residents are located just over 2 miles away from the proposed courts. The residents are able to access Demuth Park by utilizing South Palm Canyon Drive to N. Riverside Drive parkway which provides both a biking and walking path along the Tahquitz Creek Channel connected by Sunrise Way onto Mesquite Avenue along the Citywide Bike Loop, and CV Link or Mesquite Avenue, thereby ensuring easy recreational access.

Living Out development residents, located just about 2 and a half miles away, are encouraged to utilize both parkways and CV Link improvements along Mesquite Avenue to access Demuth Park, starting along Tahquitz Canyon parkway which provides both a biking and walking path connected by Sunrise Way, and E Mesquite Avenue and the CV Link path, thereby ensuring easy recreational access.

The Lumen development residents are less than 2 miles way. They are able to easily access Demuth Park through the 34th Avenue parkway which continues onto Lawrence Crossley Road to Dinah Shore into Demuth Park or by utilizing the bike path access through the Tahquitz Creek Golf Course.

Vibe development residents are just over a mile away and can access Demuth Park from either the bike path or paved sidewalk paths along Baristo Road onto the parkway along El Cielo Road to Mesquite Avenue.

Vue development residents are located just over 2 and a half miles away from the proposed courts. The residents are able to access Demuth Park by utilizing the Tahquitz Canyon parkway which provides both a biking and walking path connected by Sunrise Way, and Mesquite Avenue utilizing CV Link, thereby ensuring easy recreational access.

Demuth Park is one of three community parks within the City of Palm Springs, and the largest park at 61 acres, constructed to provide large recreational amenities, athletic fields, open spaces, a community garden, and nature areas for citywide and even regional use. The proposed pickleball improvements will serve the general recreational needs of the residents in each of the subdivisions above.

Item 3B - Page 3
City Council Staff Report
July 25, 2024 -- Page 4
Pickleball Court Project
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines the requested City Council action is not a “Project” pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5).

Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment are not considered a “Project”. However, future phases of this project may require CEQA actions.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:

This action aligns with the Strategic Plan 2A – Improve City Facilities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The architect’s rough order of magnitude estimate for the project is $5.3 million and staff recommends a contingency for construction bids bringing the estimated project cost to $6 million. The City Council approved $1.5 million in funding on June 30, 2022 ($725,000 from Measure J funds, $575,000 from Quimby funds, and $150,000 from the General fund).

Staff has analyzed funding options for the project. Capacity exists for the City to fund the budget gap of approximately $4.5 million using $2.5 million of the estimated $3.6 million available in Quimby funds and $2 million of the estimated ending fund balance at the end of fiscal year 2023-24 of $6.5 million in Measure J funds. No additional General Funds would be used.

REVIEWED BY:

Department Director Joel Montalvo
Department Director: Kristopher J. Mooney
Assistant City Manager: Teresa Gallavan
City Manager: Scott Stiles
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Pickleball Court Complex Conceptual Layout
Item 3B - Page 4

ATTACHMENT A
Item 3B - Page 5

DEMUTH PICKLEBALL COURT EXPANSION CONCEPT
MARCH 2024

15.0'

64.0'

34.0'

20.0' 34.0'

8.0'

20.0'

44.0'

8.0'
NORTH
0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
10 20
5' HEIGHT FENCING 10' HEIGHT FENCING

SHADE STRUCTURE WITH

BLEACHER SEATING
12 NEW PICKLEBALL COURTS
34' X 64'

EXISTING PARKING LOT

EXISTING

RESTROOM

EXISTING

PLAYGROUND

DETENTION BASIN

EXISTING MANHOLE
11 NEW PICKLEBALL COURTS
34' X 64'

NEW SHADE
TREES

EXISTING SHADE

TREES TO REMAIN

PUBLIC ART
WALL
40' TALL LIGHT POLE

SHADE STRUCTURES

WITH BLEACHER

SEATING

TOURNAMENT COURT
44' X 74'

CENTER AISLE

WITH SHADE AND

SEATING

BIKE RACKS
· (23) PICKLEBALL COURTS
-34' x 64' FIELD OF PLAY

ENCLOSED STADIUM SEATING

SHADE STRUCTURES WITH

BLEACHERS
TOURNAMENT ENTRY PLAZAPOTENTIAL SPACE FOR

TEMPORARY TENTS AND

CONCESSIONS

DESERT LANDSCAPING

AND POTENTIAL SIGNAGE

EXISTING TURF TO
REMAIN

EXISTING TREE TO BE

PROTECTED IN PLACE

POTENTIAL SIGNAGE/KIOSK LOCATION

EXISTING PALMS TO BE

PROTECTED IN PLACE

EXISTING MANHOLE
· (1) TOURNAMENT COURT
-44' x 74' FIELD OF PLAY
· (1) PRACTICE WALL · LARGE PLAZA SPACES FOR:
-GATHERING
-CONCESSIONS
· EXPANDED AMENITIES:
-SHADE
-SEATING
-BIKE RACKS
-LIGHTING

PRACTICE WALL
10' HEIGHT FENCING
5' HEIGHT FENCING

CONCRETE SEATWALLS

6.0' 8.0' 64.0'

34.0'

SHADE STRUCTURE WITH

BLEACHER SEATING

SHADE SAILS

WITH GROUP

SEATING
12 NEW PICKLEBALL COURTS
34' X 64'
8 NEW PICKLEBALL COURTS
34' X 64'

EXISTING PARKING LOT

EXISTING

RESTROOM

EXISTING

PLAYGROUND

12.0' 6.0'

DETENTION BASIN

EXISTING MANHOLE ENCLOSED

TOURNAMENT SEATING

BLEACHERS

EXISTING TENNIS COURT

26.5'

CENTER AISLE WITH

SHADE AND SEATING
1 NEW FLEX COURT
50' X 80'

FUTURE PHASE PARKING LOT CONCEPT
34 POTENTIAL SPOTS

SHADE STRUCTURES

WITH BLEACHER

SEATING
40' TALL LIGHT POLE

PRACTICE WALL

WITH COURT

MARKINGS

EXISTING PALM

TREES TO REMAIN

EXISTING SHADE

TREES TO REMAIN

NEW SHADE
TREES

9.0' 11.0'
NORTH
0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
10 20 40

MAIN POINTS
· (20) PICKLEBALL COURTS
-34' x 64' FIELD OF PLAY
-CENTER GATHERING SPACES WITH

SHADE AND SEATING
· (1) FLEX COURT
-50' x 80' FIELD OF PLAY
-ADA COURT
-TOURNAMENT COURT
· (1) PRACTICE WALL
Item 3B - Page 6
1----;:--;,.===;.--
I ..
• • •
• • • •
• • q
" •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ~ ~ - •
~ •
" {g]~ •
• [8J[:8J
·- ·- ·- · v.L-- ·- · __ __ __ .,!!Q.. _ __ __ _ J ,_ ,_ ,___J:L, _ __ __ ~ [g][g]~ [g][g]~ ~ [g]
"'"D-,-""''----•----"> ·- ·- \Jir·- ·- ·- · - ·- -- -~ i·, ..... --- ·- ·- · q·- ·- ·- ·TJ- ·- ·- · r(7·- ·- ·- ·~,- ·- ·- ·- ~· L,/ '•-~ _,, ,// •
• •
I
• •
J ~
. ,, ~?. ' ' - - -_,_ -- ~ -_'
__ ·_1_ -~-~'
/ . ·' '
I --, -- ·,- . -- . ( . '
\ -,-,,_____ - ,, '
--- - ---'-.....-- • • .. I

DEMUTH PICKLEBALL COURT EXPANSION
MARCH 2024
Little Valley Pickleball Complex, Utah
Practice Wall
Festival Ranch Pickleball Complex, Arizona
Bottle Filler with Sensor
Community Art
Bleacher Seating Electronic Bike Parking and Solar Charging Shade Sails

CONCEPTUAL INSPIRATION BOARD
Inspiration Amenities
Spanish Fork Pickleball Complex, Utah
Furnishings
Concrete Seat Walls Court Benches
Shade Structure Shade Trees
Item 3B - Page 7

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JULY 25, 2024 CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP 38416 AND A SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH 12@ LAS PALMAS, LLC, A

CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
BY: Engineering Services Department
SUMMARY:

Amir Engineering, Inc., representing 12@ Las Palmas, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, (the “Developer”), has requested approval of a final map for Tentative Tract Map 38416 to create 12 residential condominium units at 1424 Camino Norte. Approval of a final map for Tentative Tract Map 38416 is a ministerial action, as required by the Municipal Code and the Subdivision Map Act. All prior discretionary actions have occurred allowing for the City’s ministerial approval of the final map.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. _____, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP 38416 AND AN ASSOCIATED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH 12@ LAS

PALMAS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1424 CAMINO NORTE, IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST.”
BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE:

The Public Integrity Disclosure Form from the Developer is included as Attachment A.

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting on December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of Tentative Tract Map 38416 (TTM 38416) for the construction of a residential development consisting of twelve for-sale condominiums on a 0.95-acre site located between Camino Norte and North Palm Canyon Drive, west of the intersection of North Palm Canyon Drive and Camino Monte Vista, addressed as 1424 Camino Norte.

Item 1AA - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
July 25, 2024 -- Page 2
TM 38416
On December 21, 2022, the Developer filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, seeking the removal of a condition of approval that was added as part of the conditional approval. The appeal was denied by the City Council on January 26, 2023, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission and subsequently approving the project application with the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission.

The expiration date of TTM 38416 is January 26, 2025. However, Amir Engineering, Inc., representing the Developer, timely filed a final map for TTM 38416 on March 18, 2024.

Pursuant to state law (California Government Code Section 66452.6 [the “Subdivision Map Act”]), once the filing of a final map has been made to the City Engineer, all subsequent actions associated with the final map may occur after the expiration of the associated Tentative Tract Map.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

The Developer has completed all required studies, improvement plans, Community Facility District (CFD) requirements, bonding requirements and has been issued applicable grading and encroachment permits at this time. The project has been identified as “12@ Las Palmas”. A site map is provided below, a vicinity map is included as Attachment B, and a copy of the final map for TM 38416 is included as Attachment C.

Construction of required public improvements associated with Tract Map 38416 has not been completed; the total cost of the public improvements to be completed is Item 1AA - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
July 25, 2024 -- Page 3
TM 38416
$103,300.00. In accordance with Section 66462 of the California Government Code, the Developer has requested that the City enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement securing the cost of those improvements to be completed to the City’s satisfaction. A copy of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement with associated securities is included in Attachment D.

The City Engineer has determined that required conditions of approval associated with TTM 38416 have been satisfied, that Tract Map 38416 is in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Tract Map, and that Tract Map 38416 is ready for City Council approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The proposed development is considered a “project” pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and has been determined to be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 32, Infill Development Project).

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:

This item aligns with City Council Priority 1D regarding Economic Development.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Approval of Tract Map 38416 for the currently vacant 0.95-acre parcel will allow for the development of twelve for-sale condominiums. Ultimately, upon completion of the units, the City will receive yet to be determined additional property tax revenue. Additional incremental costs for public service will be incurred over time.

REVIEWED BY:

City Engineer: Joel Montalvo
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Scott Stiles
ATTACHMENTS:

A. Business Principal Disclosure
B. Vicinity Map
C. Tract Map 38416
D. Subdivision Improvement Agreement
E. Resolution
Item 1AA - Page 3
Attachment A
Item 1AA - Page 4
Item 1AA - Page 5

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

11. Name of Entity
12@ LAS PALMAS, LLC

2. Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)
50 SEA PINE LANE, # 61 , NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660

3. Local or California Address (if different than #2)
~ State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State CA
If other than California. 1s the Entity also registered in California? n Yes n No

5. Type of Entity
I O Corporation ~ Limited Liability Company O Partnership D Trust D Other (please specify)

6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) I
Note: If any response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager. trust or other entity CAMINO NORTE PALM SPRINGS, LLC D Officer D Director D Member ~ Manager [name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
~ Other 45% Member of 12 @ Las Palmas LLC
Dennis A. Cunningham D Officer D Director ~ Member D Manager (name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
~ Other Authorized Representative
See # 7 below for List of other Members D Officer D Director D Member D Manager [name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
• Other

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 1 of 2 ends

(Revised 05/ 16/ 19)
Item 1AA - Page 6

7. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial interest in the Applicant Entity or a related entity

EXAMPLE
JANEOOE 50%, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
A.

N.W. PINNACLE INVESTMENTS, LLC 8.05% of 12 @ Las Palmas, LLC [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
B.

GEORGIA B. FOGELSON 201 2 TRUST 10.19% of 12 @ Las Pal mas, LLC [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
C.

FOGELSON FAMILY 2001 GST TRUST 10.20% of 12@ Las Palmas LLC [name of owner/investor] (percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
0 .

BEATRICE KEATS 8.05% OF 12 @ Las Palmas, LLC
I
[name of owner/investor] I [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
E. I
DAVID L. BARON TRUST 6/6/2013 18.51 % of 12 @ Las Palmas, LLC [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]

I DECLARE UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

I Signature of Disclosing Party, Printed Name. Title
1 ~N'
I Ernest 0 . Vincent, Attorney

PENALTIES
Falsification of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subject you to administrative action by the City.
(Revised 05/16/19)

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 1AA - Page 7

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
1 . Name of Entity

CAMINO NORTE PALM SPRINGS, LLC
2 Address of Entity (Principle Place of Bustness)
50 SEA PINE LANE,# 61, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
3 I
Local or California Address (if different than #2)
1 4. State where Entity 1s Registered with Secretary of State CA
If other than California ts the Ent,tx also registered ,n Cat,tornia? C Yes ::::; No

5. Type of Entity I
D Corporation '.K Limited Liability Company O Partnership = Trust D Other (please specify) I

6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managers. Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) I Note. If any response ,s not a natural person, please idenltfy all officers, directors. members. managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity Palm Springs Modem Construction
[name]
[name]
Dennis A. Cunningham
[name]
- Officer I Director 'x' Member [E Manager
:_. General Partner :J Limited Partner
Other
f=: Officer C Director ~ Member ~ Manager
[J General Partner O Limited Partner
=Other _ .~--
~ Officer u Director Member O Manager
General Partner Limited Partner
x 0th r Authorized Representative

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 1 of 2 ends

(Revised 05/16/19)
Item 1AA - Page 8
: 7. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial interest in t.b_e A_p£!icant Entit or a related enti

EXAMPLE
l

JANE DOE
[name of owner/investor]
A.

Palm Springs Modern Construction
[name of owner/investor]
8 . t
50Q,,, ABC COMPANY. Inc.
[percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
100% of Camino Norte Palm Springs, LLC
[percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity C. ~-~--+-_____ a_nd name of ent~_ --------j
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity i-- D - - ------- and name of entLty].._ _____ --l
[name of owner/Investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity 1--------------------.------a_n_d_n_a_m_ e_o_f en_ _t_it.._y].__ _____ _ E.
[name of owner/investor] (percentage of beneficial interest in entity ~~dnameof_e_n_u_·cy~]...__ _____ _

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

I Date
Sep 13, 2022
Ernest 0 . Vincent, Attom~-------____ _

PENALTIES
Falsification of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subJect you to administrative action by the City
( Revised 05/16/19)

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 2 ends

Item 1AA - Page 9

1. Name of Entity

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

PALM SPRINGS MODERN CONSTRUCTION
2 Address of Entity (Prine pie Place of Business)
50 SEA PINE LANE, # 61 , NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
3 Local or California
I
Address (1~ differen tha, 2 --;
1 •. State where ------ Entity is Registered with Secretary of State CA
I If other than Califom,a ,s the Entit also re 1stered m Cal,fomia? Yes n No ~-5-. __ T_y_p_e_o_f_E_n_t-ity _____ _ x Corporation ._. Limited Liability Company CJ Partnership O I Trust ::J Other (please specify) l
r6. - Officers,
Note·
Directors, Members, Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) members,
If any
managers
response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, and other fiduciaries for the member. manager, trust or other entity Dennis A. Cunningham
[name)
Andrea C. Cunningham
[n 'le]
[name]
x Officer x Director O Member D Manager
_ General Partner :J Limited Partner
= Other __ _
x Officer x Director LJ Member D Manager
.__ General Partner C Limited Partner
O Other ____________ _
~ Officer ~ Director "' Member C Manager
General P::irtner ~ Limited Partner
x Other Authorized Representative

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 1 of 2 ends

(Revised 05/16/19)
Item 1AA - Page 10
-----------------~ 7. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial interest in the A licant Entit or a related entit

EXAMPLE

JANE DOE
(name of owner/investor]
A.

Dennis A. Cunningham
[name of owner/investor]
B.

Andrea C . Cunningham
50°0, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
[percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
50% of Palm Springs Modern Construction
I [percentage of beneficial interest in entity
r- and name of en_!!!yJ
50% of Palm Springs Modern Construction
---1
[name of owner/investor)
C.
[percentage of beneficial interest in entity J
and name of e_n_t_ity..._]._______
1 [name of owner/investor]
D.
[name of owner/investor]
E.
[name of owner/investor)
[percentage of beneficial interest in entity
----and name of enti
-~~------
[percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of enti ----
[percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]

I DECLARE UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE ST ATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Signature
~
of Disclosing Party, Printed Name, Title Date
Sep 13, 2022
Ernest 0 . Vincent, Attom~ _____ _ .__~ -- ----

PENALTIES
Falsification of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subject you to admin1strat1ve action by the City
( Revised 05/ 16/ 19)

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 1AA - Page 11

1. Name of Entity

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
The David L. Baron Trust dated June 6, 2013

2. Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)
Attn: Dave Baron, 7827 Buffalo Trail, Castle Pines, CO 80108

3. Local or California Address (if different than #2)
1800 E Tahquitz Cyn Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262

4. State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State N/A
If other than California, is the Entity also registered in California? n Yes n No

5. Type of Entity
D Corporation D Limited Liability Company D Partnership [El Trust D Other (please specify)

6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) Note: If any response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity David L. Baron D Officer D Director D Member D Manager
(Revised 05/16/19)
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
[El Other Trustee
D Officer D Director D Member D Manager
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
• Other
D Officer D Director D Member D Manager
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
• Other

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 1AA - Page 12

7. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial interest in the Applicant Entity or a related entity

EXAMPLE
JANE DOE 50%, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
A.

David Baron _ 100_% Beneficiary of DL Baron Trust
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
B.
_ % Beneficiary of DL Baron Trust
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
C.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]
D.
[name of owner/investor] (percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entitvl
E.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Signature of Disclosing Party, Printed Name, Title
v cw-d e~~, r~
Date
Mar 24, 2024
David L. Baron, Trustee

PENALTIES
Falsification of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subject you to administrative action by the City.
(Revised 05/ 16/19)

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 1AA - Page 13

1. Name of Entity

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
The Georgia B. Fogelson 2012 Irrevocable Trust dated December 13, 2012

2. Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)
Attn : Marie Czapinski, Perry St. , #301 , Des Plaines, IL, 60016

3. Local or California Address (if different than #2)

4. State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State N/A
If other than California, is the Entity also registered in California? n Yes n No

5. Type of Entity
D Corporation D Limited Liability Company D Partnership [El Trust D Other (please specify)

6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) Note: If any response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity Gerald W. Fogelson D Officer D Director D Member D Manager (Revised 05/16/19)
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
[El Other Trustee
D Officer D Director D Member D Manager
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
• Other
D Officer D Director D Member D Manager
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
• Other

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 1AA - Page 14

7. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial

EXAMPLE
interest in the Aoolicant Entitv or a related entitv
JANE DOE 50%, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity A
and name of entitvl
. /
G r-o&c£5<-'>// ,/!.!.L a c
; 3% Beneficiary of GBF Trust
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity B.
and name of entitvl
h ti Cl G L/r.::, ~ ;-0Gct5LJ1U
,;;;: % Beneficiary of GBF Trust
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity C
and name of entitvl
.
/1/ltJLL (/ If£ IL ./11,-1((/';J /7 -;;z ~? ~ Jr:Alf'"FtU4/<( iL>r G-5; --;/-£-l5 [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity D.
and name of entitvl
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity E
and name of entitvl
.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entitvl

CALIFORNIA

I DECLARE UNDER
THAT

PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF
THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
/}('/--IL
Gerald W. Fo elson, Trustee

PENALTIES
Falsification of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subject you to administrative action by the City.
(Revised 05/16/19)

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 2 of 2 ends

Item 1AA - Page 15
DocuSlgn Envelope ID· C20COOFD-2871• 268-9087-927608C2952B 1 . Name of Entity

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
The Fogelson Family 2001 GST Trust

2. Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)
Attn: Marie Czapinski, Perry St., #301 , Des Plaines, IL, 60016

3. Local or Callfomla Address (if different than #2) \

4. State where Entity Is Registered with Secretary of State N/A
If other than California. 1s the Entftv also reoistered In Califomla? n Yes n No

5. Type of Entity
0 Corporation D limited Liability Company O Partnership [El Trust O Other (please specify)

6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managen1, Trustees, Other Flduclartes (please specify) Nots: If any response Is not a natural person, please Identify sf/ officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other enllty Gregory Dowell 0 Officer O Director O Member O Manager
(Revised 05/16/19)
(name)
O General Partner O Limited Partner
[El Other Trustee
O Officer O Director O Member O Manager
[name)
O General Partner O Limited Partner
• Other
O Officer O Director O Member O Manager
[name]
0 General Partner O Limited Partner
• Other

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 1AA - Page 16
0ucus111n Enlll'l<>Pe 10 c10cooro-,a11• 268-9007•92TtlllflC79'i2A

7. Ownerl/lnv .. tors with a 5•; .. beneflcial intOfeatln the-A II cant Entl!}' or ! reti-ted _enu

EXAMPLE -- I- --- ----

JANEOOE
(name of owner/Investor)
A.

Bruce Fogelson
[nome of owner/Investor]
B.

50.._, ABC COMPANY. Inc
[por~entage of beneficlaJ tnteresl In enUty
and name of Of\tJ~J _ _ __ _
33% Beneficiary of FF 2001 GST
1 {percentage of beneficial Interest In entity _ ~ _ _ ood name o__f !_nUtyj_ _ '
_o_o_u_g_1a_s_F_o_g_e_1s_o_n _________ j 33% Beneficiary of FF 2001 GST (name of owner/Investor] [percentage of beneflclal Interest In entity C.

Molly Heilmann
[name of owner/investor]
D.
{name of owner/Investor)
E.
[name of owner/Investor]
_ _ aod name of ant.I
33% Beneficiary of FF 2001 GST
(percentage of benefictal interest In entJty
an~ n.!me of enti~-
{p rcentage of benefictal lntervt fn entity
_ ond name of e~tJ!tl_
[percentage of beneftclal Interest In entity
a~ namo of_en.:c,;_;ti;..;.. 't._ ____ _
t DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOtNG IS TRUE ANO CORRECT.

Signature of DIIClostng Party, Pnnted Name Title roaie
°"'4 a e ., .,.

PENALTIES
Fals1ficatlon of information or failure to repor1 information required to be reported m ay subJect you to admm1strat1ve action by the C ity
(Rttv,sed 05/16/19)
CI TY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC INHGRITV Ol~CLOSURE
APPLICANT 01\CLOSURE FORM
P.tgt> l of 2
Item 1AA - Page 17

1. Name of Entity

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
Northwest Pinnade Investments, LLC

2. Addre11 of Entity (Principle Place of Bualne11)
cJo Andrew Mertz, 2900 NW Clearwater Or. Suite 100-9, Bend, Oregon 97703

3. Local or Calif om la Address (if different than #2)
.. State whon, Entity Is Registered with Secretary of State OR
If other then California is the Entitv also reolstered In California? D Yes lx1 No

5. Type of Entity
D Corporation ~ Umited Llablllty Company D Partnership D Trust O Other (please specify)

6. Offtcers, Directors, Members, Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) Nots: If sny response Is not s natural person, please Identify all officer.,, director.,, 11Utmbers, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity Andrew Mertz
Dickey CP Trust
(Revised 05/16/19)
O Officer O Director O Member IE] Manager
(name]
O General Partner D Limited Partner
• Other
O Officer O Director IE] Member O Manager
(name]
O General Partner O Limited Partner
• Other
D Officer O Director O Member O Manager
(name)
O General Partner O Limited Partner
• Other

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
Paac 1 of 2
Item 1AA - Page 18

7. Owners/Investors wtlh a 5% beneflclal lnte,..,t In the Aoollc1nt Enutv or I related enUlv

EXAMPLE
JANEDOE 6tm, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
(name of ownernnvestor} (percentage of beneflclal Interest In entity A. and name of 8!:!Utvl
Andrew Mertz _ 49 _ o/o of NW Pinnacle Investments, LLC (name of ownerflnve•tor) (percentage of beneficial lntere1t In entJty B. and name of enUtvl
Dickey CP Trust _51_ % of NW Pinnacle Investments, LLC
(name of owner/investor) [percentage of beneficial Interest In entity and name of entJtv1
C.
[name of owner/investor) [percentage of beneficial Interest In entity and name of entJtvl
0 .
[name of owner/investor) [percentage of beneficial Interest In entity and name of entltvl
E.
(name of owner/investor] (percentage of beneficial Interest In entity and name of entitvl

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

SM-•dOSlngP
Andrew Mertz, Mana er
, Printed Name, Title Date
Apr1 , 2024

PENALTIES
Falsification of Information or failure to report Information required to be reported may subject you to administrative action by the City.
(Rtvf~d OS/16/19)

OTY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
Paae 2 of 2
Item 1AA - Page 19

1. Name of Entity

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
Dickey CP Trust

2. Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)
c/o Andrew Mertz, 2900 NW Clearwater Dr. Suite 100-9, Bend, Oregon 97703

3. Local or California Address (if different than #2)

4. State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State Not Applicable
If other than California, is the Entity also reqistered in California? n Yes n No

5. Type of Entity
D Corporation D Limited Liability Company D Partnership [8] Trust D Other (please specify)

6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) Note: If any response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity Robert Dickey D Officer D Director D Member D Manager
(Revised 05/16/19)
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
[8] Other Trustee
D Officer D Director D Member D Manager
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
• Other
D Officer D Director D Member D Manager
[name]
D General Partner D Limited Partner
• Other

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 1 of 2 ends

Item 1AA - Page 20

7. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial interest in the Applicant Entitv or a related entity

EXAMPLE
JANE DOE 50%, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
(name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entitvl
A.

Name:
[!~ ~,~:1~,:-~ Sb_% of Dickey CP Trust
(percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entitvl
B.

Name: Ll:)i. \ ::::u \ (. k,-e.. '"I ..ID% of Dickey CP Trust [name of owner/investorj [percentage of beneficial interest in entity I and name of entitvl
C.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity ' and name of entitvl
D.

I
I [name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entitvl
I E.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entitvl

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Sign~~g Party, P~d Name, Title
Rob:rt £i~~ , Trustee
Date
Apr29,2024

PENALTIES
Falsification of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subject you to administrative action by the City.
(Revised 05/16/19)

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

Page 2 of 2 ends

Attachment B
Item 1AA - Page 21
Department of Planning Services
Vicinity Map

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
Item 1AA - Page 22
C
a::

VIA DEL SOL c{ - - - - - z
~ 0
::c: i
c{ s:
w
! ~ ~
I
--sTEVENS·RD'
/!
I ( i
:2 '-

CAMINO NORT E
::x>'v ---- -......._______ xY~
VER EDA DEL N O~TE
----------- \ ,-
T
~ ' ........__
0 \. l.-- a::
~ c-- !z
w
u
ul
C
0 z - ~ ,.:sip;:t"'fl,.? "'
Legend
~ Site - ~\,
D 500 -ft Site Radiu s
~ ~
j I
a::

C
z
0 ~ c{
u
~
~ z
~;v~
~ "
•
.
. W E .
.
.
s
r
- cH re KWA LLARD1
I\
\ STEVENS RD )-
a:: ' C
z
0 >-
z
c{
u CAMINO MONTE VISTA- z
~
C
~
J
,
/
1/~ MELAV.E
- r=

PAS EO-E L- MIRA DOR-
Attachment C
Item 1AA - Page 23

ASHLEY
NO. 9701
C
IA
FO ALI
NR
L
RUS D
V
ROYE
AN
RP
TS
O E F
T A
NA
IO S
L
OF
SE

FAYAZRAD
ERIK T.

NO. 7648
C
IA
FO ALI
NR
L
RUS D
V
ROYE
AN
RP
TS
O E F
T A
NA
IO S
L
OF
SE
HOWARD
Item 1AA - Page 24

THIS MAP CONSISTS OF ONE LOT
AREA 41,287 SQ FT (0.948 AC.)

OWNER'S STATEMENT

I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN HEREON; AND THAT I AM THE ONLY PERSONS WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY TO PASS A CLEAR TITLE TO SAID LAND; AND THAT I HEREBY CONSENT TO THE MAKING

AND RECORDING OF THIS SUBDIVISION MAP AS SHOWN WITHIN THE DISTINCTIVE BORDER LINE.

WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS EASEMENTS 1 AND 2 FOR

SIDEWALK PURPOSES AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP
12 @ LAS PALMAS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY BY: CAMINO NORTE PALM SPRINGS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ITS: MANAGER
BY: PALM SPRINGS MODERN CONSTRUCTION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ITS: MANGER
BY: DATE:

DENNIS A. CUNNINGHAM, PRESIDENT

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE

IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
s

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
ON ________ BEFORE ME, ________________ _
(Insert name and title of the officer)
PERSONALLY APPEARED: DENNIS A. CUNNINGHAM , WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE

BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO

THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME IN

HIS AUTHORIZED CAPACITY, AND THAT BY HIS SIGNATURE ON THE INSTRUMENT THE

PERSON, OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY, UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.

SIGNATURE: ____________ (SEAL)

1. ------------------------------ (NAME PRINTED OF NOTARY OFFICER)

2. MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN ___________ _ COUNTY

3. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________ _

4. MY COMMISSION NO. _____________________ _
SIGNATURE OMISSIONS:

PURSUANT TO SECTION 664436 OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE SIGNATURES OF THE FOLLOWING OWNERS OF EASEMENTS AND/OR OTHER INTERESTS HAVE BEEN OMITTED.

1. NELLIE N. COFFMAN, PIPELINE EASEMENT, DEED BOOK 636 PAGE 133, RECORDED APRIL 29, 1925, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY.

2. PALM VALLEY WATER COMPANY AND PRESCOTT T. STEVENS, INDETERMINATE PIPELINE EASEMENT, DEED BOOK 683 PAGE 302, RECORDED JULY 10, 1926, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY.

3. SOUTHERN SIERRAS POWER COMPANY, EASEMENTS FOR POLE LINE, CONDUITS, AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, DEED BOOK 720 PAGE 296, RECORDED JULY 05, 1927. AND DEED BOOK 119 PAGE 541, RECORDED JUNE 01, 1934, DEED BOOK 270 PAGE 237, RECORDED MARCH 09, 0936, ALL OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY.

4. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, AN EASEMENT FOR POLE LINES AND CONDUITS, AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES DEED BOOK 234 PAGE 458, RECORDED JUNE 14, 1935 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY.

TRACT MAP NO. 38416

IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 7, LOT 11, AND A PORTION OF LOT 10, BLOCK "A" OF LAS PALMAS ESTATES, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15 PAGES 15-16 INCLUSIVE,

RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, AND

THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN.

AMIR ENGINEERING, INC.

CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT
APRIL 2024
I, ____________ ,CITY CLERK AND EX-OFFICIO ASSESSOR OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY STATE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AT ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON THE ____ _ DAY OF _________________ • DULY APPROVED THE WITHIN MAP
OF TRACT MAP NUMBER 38416, AND DID ACCEPT THE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF TWO (2) SIDEWALK EASEMENTS AS SHOWN WITH THIS MAP.

THE TENTATIVE MAP WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON THE __ DAY OF _____ 20 _ ___,

CITY CLERK AND EX-OFFICO CLERK

OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

TAX BOND CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A BOND IN THE SUM OF $ _________ HAS BEEN

EXECUTED AND FILED WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONED UPON THE PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES, STATE, COUNTY,

MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL, AND ALL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES, WHICH AT

THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THIS MAP WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER ARE A LIEN AGAINST

SAID PROPERTY, BUT NOT YET PAYABLE, AND SAID BOND HAS BEEN DULY APPROVED BY SAID BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. THIS CERTIFICATION EXCLUDES ANY SUPPLEMENTAL TAX ASSESSMENTS NOT YET EXTENDED.

DATED:

BY:

MATTHEW JENNINGS

COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
DEPUTY

TAX COLLECTOR'S CERTIFICATE

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE, AS OF THIS DATE,

THERE ARE NO LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE WITHIN MAP FOR UNPAID

STATE, COUNTY, MUNICIPAL OR LOCAL TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS

TAXES , EXCEPT TAXES OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS COLLECTED AS TAXES NOW A LIEN

BUT NOT YET PAYABLE WHICH ARE ESTIMATED TO BE, THIS CERTIFICATION EXCLUDES ANY SUPPLEMENTAL TAX ASSESSMENTS NOT YET EXTENDED.
$

MATTHEW JENNINGS

COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
DATED: BY:

DEPUTY
BENEFICIARY'S STATEMENT:

DATED:

TRUSTOR:

TRUSTEE:

BENEFICIARY:

JUNE 13, 2023
12@ LAS PALMAS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY
YUNG Y. YANG AND CHOONGJA JANE YANG, HUSBAND AND WIFE AS JOINT TENANTS, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 83.333% INTEREST AND BETTY DEWITT, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 16.667% INTEREST.

THE ABOVE DEED OF TRUST STATES THAT IT IS A CONSTRUCTION DEED OF TRUST BY: DATE:

YUNG Y. YANG
BY: DATE:

CHOONGJA JANE YANG
BY: DATE:

BETTY DEWITT
SEE SHEET 2 OF 3 FOR NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
SHEET 1 OF 3

RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE
FILED THIS THE __ _ DAY OF _________ , 2024 AT __ _ M
IN BOOK ____ OF MAPS, AT PAGE(S) ____ AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS.

NO. ______________ , FEE ___________ _
BY: DEPUTY
SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE BY: FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY

SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT

THIS MAP WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, AND IS BASED

UPON A FIELD SURVEY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION

MAP ACT, AND LOCAL ORDINANCE AT THE REQUEST OF YOKANG ZHO, MANAGER FOR

WINPORT PALM SPRINGS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ON FEBRUARY, 2024. I HEREBY STATE THAT ALL MONUMENTS ARE OF THE CHARACTER AND OCCUPY THE

POSITIONS INDICATED OR THAT THEY WILL BE SET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF

THE MONUMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE MAP AND THAT THE MONUMENTS ARE, OR WILL BE,

SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED, AND THAT THIS FINAL MAP

SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED TENTATIVE MAP, AND THAT THIS SURVEY IS TRUE AND COMPLETE AS SHOWN.

ASHLEY FAYAZRAD LS 9701 DATE

CITY ENGINEERS'S STATEMENT
I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE WITHIN MAP OF TRACT MAP NUMBER 38416 CONSISTING OF THREE ( 3 ) SHEETS; THAT THE SUBDIVISION SHOWN HEREON IS

SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS IT APPEARED ON THE TENTATIVE MAP OR ANY APPROVED ALTERCATIONS THEREOF; THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF THE STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND

LOCAL ORDINANCES APPLICABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH.

DATE:

JOEL MONTALVO RCE 62624

CITY ENGINEER

CITY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
I HEREBY STATE THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE WITHIN MAP OF TRACT MAP NUMBER 38416 CONSISTING OF THREE ( 3 ) SHEETS; AND THAT IT IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT.

DATE:

ERIK T. HOWARD, ENGINEERING RESOURCES, INC. P.L.S. 7648 Item 1AA - Page 25

THIS MAP CONSISTS OF ONE LOT
AREA 41,287 SQ FT (0.948 AC.)

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FOR BENEFICIARY STATEMENT)

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE

IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
s

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
ON _______ BEFORE ME, ________________ _
(insert name and title of the officer)
PERSONALLY APPEARED: __________ , WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE

BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO

THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME IN

HIS AUTHORIZED CAPACITY, AND THAT BY HIS SIGNATURE ON THE INSTRUMENT THE

PERSON, OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.

SIGNATURE: ___________ (SEAL)

1. ------------------------------- (NAME PRINTED OF NOTARY OFFICER)

2. MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN ___________ _ COUNTY

3. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________ _

4. MY COMMISSION NO. ______________________ _
TRACT MAP NO. 38416

IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 7, LOT 11, AND A PORTION OF LOT 10, BLOCK "A" OF LAS PALMAS ESTATES, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15 PAGES 15-16 INCLUSIVE,

RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, AND

THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN.

AMIR ENGINEERING, INC.

APRIL 2024

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FOR BENEFICIARY STATEMENT)

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE

IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
s

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
ON _______ BEFORE ME, ________________ _
(insert name and title of the officer)
PERSONALLY APPEARED: __________ , WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE

BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO

THE WITHIN INSTIRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME IN

HIS AUTHORIZED CAPACITY, AND THAT BY HIS SIGNATURE ON THE INSTRUMENT THE

PERSON, OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY, UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.

SIGNATURE: ___________ (SEAL)

1. (NAME PRINTED OF NOTARY OFFICER)

2. MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN ___________ _ COUNTY

3. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________ _

4. MY COMMISSION NO.

I SHEET 2 OF 3

NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FOR BENEFICIARY STATEMENT)

A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER COMPLETING THIS CERTIFICATE VERIFIES ONLY THE

IDENTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED THE DOCUMENT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE IS ATTACHED, AND NOT THE TRUTHFULNESS, ACCURACY, OR VALIDITY OF THAT DOCUMENT.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
s

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
ON _ _______ BEFORE ME, ________________ _
(insert name and title of the officer)
PERSONALLY APPEARED: __________ , WHO PROVED TO ME ON THE

BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSON WHOSE NAME IS SUBSCRIBED TO

THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT HE EXECUTED THE SAME IN

HIS AUTHORIZED CAPACITY, AND THAT BY HIS SIGNATURE ON THE INSTRUMENT THE

PERSON, OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSON ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTIRUMENT.

I CERTIFY UNDER PENAL TY OF PERJURY, UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TIRUE AND CORRECT.

WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.

SIGNATURE: ___________ (SEAL)

1. (NAME PRINTED OF NOTARY OFFICER)

2. MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IS IN ___________ _ COUNTY

3. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ____________________ _

4. MY COMMISSION NO. ______________________ _
Item 1AA - Page 26

THIS MAP CONSISTS OF ONE LOT
AREA 41,298 SF (0.948 AC.)

EASEMENTS Q PLOTTED EASEMENTS
Q) NEW SIDEWALK EASEMENT NORTH, A 61 SQUARE FEET

EASEMENT, DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, AS
SHOWN HEREON.

NEW SIDEWALK EASEMENT SOUTH, A 232 SQUARE FEET

EASEMENT DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, AS
SHOWN HEREON.

BASIS OF BEARINGS
IS THE WEST LINE OF LOT 7, BLOCK "A" MAP
BOOK 15 PAGES 15-16, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, TAKEN AS N oo· 10' 00" W
TRACT MAP NO. 38416

IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 7, LOT 11, AND A PORTION OF LOT 10, BLOCK "A" OF LAS PALMAS ESTATES, AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15 PAGES 15-16 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE

COUNTY, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, AND THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER, OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN.

AMIR ENGINEERING, INC.

APRIL 2024 LOT 12
MB 15/15-16
N89' 49' 44"E 202.31' (N89' so· OO"E 202.05')
........
io N
N89' 49' 44"E 152.31' {N89' so· OO"E 152.05')
\
\
\
\ \ 0 a,
c:i oi 'V I"') FND 3/4" IRON PIPE, NO TAG
ACCEPTED AS NWL Y CORNER LOT 11
BLOCK "A" MB 15 PGS 15-16
5' MIN SETBACK LINE
LINE
L1
L2
L3
L4
LS
L6
L7
\
\
\
\
\
FND 1" IRON PIPE, NO TAG

ACCEPTED AS C/L BC

CAMINO DEL NORTE
SET TAG LS 9701
I

POINT ESTABLISHED BY INTERSECTION OF

THE ESTABLISHED BEARING OF THE
SOUTH LINE OF LOT 7 WITH THE

ESTABLISHED C/L OF CAMINO DEL NORTE

LINE TABLE

BEARING DISTANCE
N0"10'00"W 3.57'
S24'05'07"E 4.93'
so·1 o·oo"E 26.10'
s23·so'34"w 4.92'
N90'00'00"E 7.25'
\
{25.00')
25'
25'
so·oo·oo"E 32.15' SCALE 1" = 20'
0 5 10 15 20 30 40
\
\
\ LOT 6
MB 15/15-16 ob
.........

FND 1'' IRON PIPE, NO TAG

ACCEPTED AS NWLY CORNER LOT
7 BLOCK "A" MB 15 PGS 15-16
SET TAG LS 9701
N84' 56' 17"E
<;:, L1 [--{NB•· 57" oo"E
Ob
zz
......,
130.47'
13o.47')15• MIN SETBACK LINE
I-IE 2
·
0 ·<D SIDEWALK EASEMENT #1
100 61 SQ. FT.

I~:~ I
~I"') I
w
z
_J
::.::
0 <(
([J
Iw
(/)
z
~
I
I in
1~ N
I '
LOT 7
MB 15/15-16
A.P.N.: 505-182-005
1 (2) SIDEWALK EASEMENT #2
r232 SQ. FT.

I I
NI· l"1 LO . a, N .

I"') .... I"'" r--
~I
~t ....
~1
0 :' I L7 J8I 0 L WEST LINE OF LOT 7 MB 15 PGS. ~ I~
15-16 ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND~~
-- LOT CORNERS NORTH AND SOUTH ......, I
--
1 o· M!Nsfr~f-- I
( Nao·
Nao·
54 53
•
,
53"w
--
FND 1" IRON PIPE, NO TAG ((NB , Oo"w
ACCEPTED AS SWL Y CORNER O 57' 26"W
LOT 7 BLOCK "A" MB 15
137.68'
131. 72')
131.74'))
I SET TAG LS 9701
BEARING OF NORTH LINE OF LOT 11

ESTABLISHED BY RECORD ANGLE AS
MEASURES FROM N. PALM CANYON
!'5' MIN SETBACK LINE

FND IRON PIPE, NO TAG
ACCEPTED AS NELY CORNER LOT 7
BLOCK "A" MB 15 PGS 15-16
SET TAG LS 9701
LOT 1
LOT 11
MB 15/15-16
A.P.N.: 505-182-007
LOT 11 AND NORTH 1 /2 LOT 10
AND LOT 7, MB 15/15-16
AREA 41,298 SQ. FT (0.948 AC.)
ZONE R2 (LIMITED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
NORTH LINE OF LOT 10 BLOCK "A" MB 15, PGS
_f 15-16, PER DEED RECORDED MAY 26, 2017, AS
DOCUMENT #2017-0211339
---------
SEE DETAIL "A"
N 1/2 OF LOT 10
MB 15/15-16
5' MIN SETBACK LINE
- - - - -
PGS 15-16
SET TAG LS 9701 LOT 1
S89' 46' 21 "W
(sag· so· oo"w
{(S89' so· OO"W
151.85'
151.53')
151.64'))
60 TRACT MAP NO 17943

SURVEYOR'S NOTES
•
0 )8(
~
N.T.S.
( )
(( ))

FOUND MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED ON MAP

SET MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED

COMPUTED POINT NOTHING FOUND, NOTHING SET

CENTERLINE

NOT TO SCALE
RECORD DATA PER MAP BOOK 15 PAGES 15-16

INCLUSIVE, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
RECORD DATA PER MAP BOOK 127 PAGES 96-97

INCLUSIVE, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY

BOUNDARY LINE (AS SURVEYED)

BOUNDARY LINE (BY DEED OR PLAT)
-----------
SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1 /2 OF LOT 10 BLOCK "A" MB 15, PGS 15-16, PER DEED RECORDED MAY 26, 2017, AS DOCUMENT
#2017-0211339, AND ALSO THE NL Y LINE OF TRACT NO. 17943 MB 127 PAGE 96-97
WEST LINE OF LOT 7 MB 15 PGS.
15-16 ESTABLISHED FROM FOUND

LOT CORNERS NORTH AND SOUTH
LOT 7
MB 15/15-16
Nao· 53• 53"w
737.68'
SET NAIL AND TAG LS 9701

ON TOP OF WALL

POSITION ESTABLISHED BY

PROLONGATION OF EAST LINE
LOT 7, MB 15 PG 15-16 AT
A REC. DISTANCE AS SHOWN
IN MB 127 PG 96-97
FND NAIL/TAG LS 6500 ON TOP OF
WALL IN LIEU OF 1" IRON PIPE
TAGGED LS 4146 PER MB 127 PG
/
96-97, ACCEPTED AS THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7 MB
15 PG 15-16
so· 09' 1 O"E 0.07' REC DIST.

PER MB 127 PG 96-97
sag· 46' 21 "w 1 s1.a5•
LOT 1
DETAIL "A"
N.T.S.

N90'00'00"W TRACT MAP NO 17943 7.16' - - - ------ RIGHT OF WAY LINE

ROAD CENTERLINE LINE

EASEMENT LINE
- - - MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK LINE
l
0 0
iri
....
.....
wr--
• r-- o-.i0 ....
.... 0
0 b
(/)
l
w
z
_J
::.::
0 <(
([J
Iw
(/)
z
~
J
0 LO
r...:

LO
w a, • I"') 0 .
0 r--
LO
0 0
SHEET 3 OF 3
W. STEVENS ROAD
FOUND NAIL ACCEPTED~-
AS C/L NORTH PALM ,......

CANYON AS SHOWN Cl
IN MB 127 PG 96-97 ,......,,~
-;_::::,i:,,I
r-- a.. 0 . ~ . CX) 0 a,
LO O LO I"') I"') ......, (/)
<(
......,
N89' 49' 44"E 50.00'
SET 1" IRON PIPE TAGGED LS 9701
AT NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 11

ON ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF
LOT 11, AND THE WEST LINE OF
PALM CANYON DRIVE AT 50.00

FEET FROM ESTABLISHED C/L AS
SHOWN IN MAP BOOK 15 PAGE
15-16
50'
........ (00
.- LO
NN
r-- r-- ..... ....

WW
"to'o
.-a
a·
08 oo
(/) (/)
......,
50'
N89' 46' 21 "E 50.00'
FND 1" OUTSIDE DIAMETER IRON
PIPE, TAGGED LS 4146
PER MB 127 PGS 96-97

ACCEPTED AS SOUTHEAST
lo
0 CORNER
OF 0OCUMEJH #2017-0211339 lii' i
c:i
r--. I
~~~/) '~ l)e,
N~
......... z Iv.
'~i-,~ I

ACCEPTED
FOUND
AS

NAIL/TAG

C/L INTERSECTION
RCE 9503 .... ~ PER MB 127 PG 96-97
I
Attachment D
Item 1AA - Page 27
Item 1AA - Page 28
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Palm Springs
P. 0. Box 2743
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Attn: Office of the City Clerk

SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER ONLY
FIiing fee EXEMPT per Government Code 6103

SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
12@ Las Palmas, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company
and
The City of Palm Springs, California

THIS AREA FOR

RECORDER'S

USE ONLY

THIS PAGE ADDED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR RECORDING INFORMATION ($3.00 Additional Recording Fee Applies)
Item 1AA - Page 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Construction Obligations ...................................................................................... 1

1.1 Works of Improvement.. ............................................................................. 1

1.2 Other Obligations Referenced in Conditions of
Tentative Map Approval ............................................................................. 2

1.3 Intent of Plans ............................... ............................................................. 2

1.4 Survey Monuments ............................................................ ........................ 2 1 . 5 Performance of Work ................................................................................. 2

1.6 Changes in the Work ................................................................................. 2 1 . 7 Defective Work .......................................................................................... 3

1.8 No Warranty by City ................................................................................... 3

1.9 Authority of the City Engineer .. .................................................................. 3

1.10 Documents Available at the Site ................................................................ 3

1.11 Inspection .................................................................................................. 3

1. 12 Compliance with Law ................................................................................. 4

1.13 Suspension of Work ................................................................................... 4

1.14 Final Acceptance of Works of Improvement .............................................. 4

2. Time for Performance ........................................................................................... 4

2.1 Commencement and Completion Dates .................................................... 4

2.2 Phasing Requirements ............................................................................... 5

2.3 Force Majeure ............................................................................................ 5

2.4 Continuous Work ....................................................................................... 5

2.5 Reversion to Acreage ................................................................................ 5

2.6 Time of the Essence .................................................................................. 6

3. Labor .................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Labor Standards ........................................................................................ 6

3.2 Nondiscrimination ...................................................................................... 6

3.3 Licensed Contractors ....................................................... .......................... 6

3.4 Workers' Compensation ............................................................................. 6

4. Security ................................................................................................................ 6

4.1 Required Security ...................................................................................... 6

4.2 Form of Security Instruments ..................................................................... 7

4.3 Subdivider's Liability .................. ................................................................ 8

4.4 Letters of Credit ......................... ................................................................ 8

4.5 Release of Security Instruments ................................................................ 9 Item 1AA - Page 30

5. Cost of Construction and Provision of Inspection
Service ................................................................................................................. 9

5.1 Subdivider Responsible for All Related Costs of
Construction ............................................................................................... 9

5.2 Payment to City for Cost of Related Inspection
and Engineering Services ........................................................................ 10

6. Acceptance of Offers of Dedication .................................................................... 10

7. Warranty of Work ................................................................................................ 10

8. Default ................................................................................................................ 1 O

8.1 Remedies Not Exclusive .......................................................................... 10

8.2 City Right to Perform Work ...................................................................... 10

8.3 Attorney's Fees and Costs ....................................................................... 11

9. Indemnity ............................................................................................................ 11 10 General Provisions ............................................................................................. 11

10.1 Successors and Assigns .......................................................................... 11

10.2 No Third Party Beneficiaries .................................................................... 11 10.3 Entire Agreement; Waivers and Amendments ......................................... 11 11 . Corporate Authority ............................................................................................ 11 2 Item 1AA - Page 31

SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into this _____ day of _______ , 2024, by and between the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a California charter city ("CITY"), and 12@ Las Palmas, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company (Subdivider").

RECITALS
A. Subdivider is the owner of, and has obtained approval of a subdivision map for Tract Map No. 38416 located in the City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California (the "Property"), as described on Exhibit "A". The map contains conditions of approval for the development of the Property (the "Conditions") as described on Exhibit "B".

B. Pursuant to the Conditions, Subdivider, by the Map, has offered dedication to the City of Palm Springs easements 1 and 2 for sidewalk purposes.

C. Subdivider has delivered to City and City has approved plans and specifications and related documents for certain "Works of Improvement" (as hereinafter defined) which are required to be constructed and installed in order to accommodate the development of the Property.

D. Subdivider's agreement to construct and install the Works of Improvement pursuant to this Agreement and its offer of dedication of the streets, easements and other improvements and facilities, as shown on the Map, are a material consideration to City in approving the final map for the Property and permitting development of the Property to proceed.

COVENANTS
Based upon the foregoing Recitals which are incorporated herein by reference and in consideration of City's approving the Map for the Property and permitting development of the Property to proceed, Subdivider agrees to timely perform all of its obligations as set forth herein.

1. Construction Obligations.

1.1 Works of Improvement. Subdivider agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to construct or install or cause to be constructed or installed the street, drainage, domestic water, sanitary sewer and other improvements (herein sometimes collectively referred to as the "Works of Improvement"), as the same may be supplemented and revised from time to time as set forth herein (said plans and specifications, together with all related documents, are referred to herein as the "Plans"). The estimated construction cost for the Works of Improvement is $103,300.00.
1 Item 1AA - Page 32

1.2 Other Obligations Referenced in Conditions of Tentative Map Approval. In addition to the foregoing, Subdivider shall satisfy all of the conditions of approval on the Tentative Map for the Property. The conditions of approval associated with the Tentative Map are included as Exhibit "B" attached hereto.

1.3 Intent of Plans. The intent of the Plans referenced in Section 1.1 is to prescribe a complete work of improvement which Subdivider shall perform or cause to be performed in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer (or his/her designee) and in full compliance with all codes and the terms of this Agreement. Subdivider shall complete a functional or operable improvement or facility, even though the Plans may not specifically call out all items of work required for the contractor to complete its tasks, incidental appurtenances, materials, and the like. If any omissions are made or information necessary to carry out the full intent and meaning of the Plans, Subdivider or its contractor shall immediately notify its design engineer who will seek approval of the City Engineer for furnishing of detailed instructions. In the event of any doubt or question arising regarding the true meaning of any of the Plans, reference shall be made to the City Engineer whose decision thereon shall be final.

Subdivider recognizes that the Plans consist of general drawings. All authorized alterations affecting the requirements and information given on the Plans shall be in writing and approved by the City Engineer. The Plans shall be supplemented by such working or shop drawings as are necessary to adequately control the work. Without the City Engineer's prior written approval, no change shall be made by Subdivider or Subdivider's contractor to any plan, specification, or working or shop drawing after it has been stamped as approved.

1.4 Survey Monuments. Before final approval of street improvements, Subdivider will place survey monument(s) as shown on the Map in accordance with the provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Palm Springs. Subdivider shall provide security for such obligation as provided in Section 4.1 (a)(iii) and, after setting the monument(s), Subdivider shall furnish the City Engineer of the City of Palm Springs written notice of the setting of said monument(s) and written proof of having paid the engineer or surveyor for the setting of said monument(s).

1.5 Performance of Work. Subdivider shall furnish or cause to be furnished all materials, labor, tools, equipment, utilities, transportation, and incidentals required to perform Subdivider's obligations under this Agreement.

1.6 Changes in the Work. The City Engineer, without invalidating this Agreement and without notification to any of the sureties or financial institutions referenced in Paragraph 4, may order extra work or may make changes by altering or deleting any portion of the Works of Improvement as specified herein or as deemed necessary or desirable by the City Engineer as determined necessary to accomplish the 2 Item 1AA - Page 33
purposes of this Agreement and to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. The City Engineer shall notify Subdivider or Subdivider's contractor in writing (by Correction Notice) at the time a determination has been made to require changes in the work. No field changes performed or proposed by Subdivider or its contractor shall be binding on City unless approved in writing by the City Engineer.

1. 7 Defective Work. Subdivider shall cause its contractor to repair, reconstruct, replace, or otherwise make acceptable any work found by the City Engineer to be defective.

1.8 No Warranty by City. The Plans for the Works of Improvement have been prepared by or on behalf of Subdivider or its consultants or contractors, and City makes no representation or warranty, express or implied, to Subdivider or to any other person regarding the adequacy of the Plans or related documents.

1.9 Authority of the City Engineer. In addition to the authority granted to the City Engineer elsewhere in this Agreement, the City Engineer shall have the authority to decide all questions which may arise as to the quality and acceptability of materials furnished and work performed, and all questions as to the satisfactory and acceptable fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement by Subdivider and Subdivider's contractor.

1.10 Documents Available at the Site. Subdivider shall cause its contractor to keep a copy of all approved Plans at the job site and shall give access thereto to the City's inspectors and engineers at all times.

1.11 Inspection. Subdivider shall have an authorized representative on the job site at all times during which work is being done who has full authority to act for Subdivider, or its design engineer, and Subdivider's contractor(s) regarding the Works of Improvement. Subdivider shall cause its contractor to furnish the City with every reasonable facility for ascertaining whether or not the Works of Improvement as performed are in accordance with the requirements and intent of this Agreement, including the Plans. If the City inspector requests it, the contractor at any time before acceptance of the Works of Improvement shall remove or uncover such portions of the finished work as may be directed which have not previously been inspected. After examination, the contractor shall restore said portions of the work to the standards required hereunder. Inspection or supervision by the City shall not be considered as direct control of the individual workmen on the job site. City's inspector shall have the authority to stop any and all work not in accordance with the requirements contained or referenced in this Agreement.

The inspection of the work by City shall not relieve Subdivider or the contractor of any obligations to fulfill this Agreement as herein provided, and unsuitable materials or work may be rejected notwithstanding that such materials or work may have been previously overlooked or accepted.
3 Item 1AA - Page 34

1.12 Compliance With Law. In addition to the express prov1s1ons of this Agreement and the Plans, Subdivider shall cause construction of the Works of Improvement to be completed in accordance with all other applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.

1.13 Suspension of Work. City Engineer shall have authority to order suspension of the work for failure of the contractor to comply with law pursuant to Section 1.11. In case of suspension of work for any cause whatever, Subdivider and its contractor shall be responsible for all materials and shall store them properly if necessary and shall provide suitable drainage and erect temporary structures where necessary.

1.14 Final Acceptance of Works of Improvement. After Subdivider's contractor has completed all of the Works of Improvement, Subdivider shall then request a final inspection of the work. If items are found by the inspector to be incomplete or not in compliance with this Agreement or any of the requirements contained or referenced herein, City will inform the contractor of such items. After the contractor has completed these items, the procedure shall then be the same as specified above for the contractor's initial request for final inspection. If items are found by City's inspector to be incomplete or not in compliance after two (2) "final" inspections, City may require the contractor, as a condition to performing further field inspections, to submit in writing a detailed statement of the work performed subsequent to the date of the previous inspection which was found to be incomplete or not in compliance at that time.

No inspection or acceptance pertaining to specific parts of the Works of Improvement shall be construed as final acceptance of any part until the overall final acceptance by City is made. Final acceptance shall not constitute a waiver by City of defective work subsequently discovered.

The date on which the Works of Improvement will be considered as complete shall be the date of the Notice of Acceptance.

2. Time for Performance.

2.1 Commencement and Completion Dates. Subject to Section 2.2 and 2.3 below, Subdivider shall (i) commence with construction and installation of the Works of Improvement thirty (30) days following City's approval of the Plans ("Commencement Date"); and (ii) complete or cause to be completed all of the Works of Improvement two (2) years after the Commencement Date. Extensions of time for completion of the Works of Improvement may be granted upon demonstration of good cause, subject to review and approval by the City Council.

2.2 Phasing Requirements. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.1, City reserves the right to control and regulate the phasing of completion of specific Works of Improvement as required to comply with applicable City ordinances, regulations, and 4 Item 1AA - Page 35
rules relating to the timely prov1s1on of public services and facilities. In addition to whatever other remedies City may have for Subdivider's failure to satisfy such phasing requirements, as the same now exist or may be amended from time to time, Subdivider acknowledges City's right to withhold the issuance of further building permits on the Property until such phasing requirements are satisfied. Prior to issuance of building permits, Subdivider shall provide satisfactory evidence that all applicable requirements that are a condition to issuance of building permits have been satisfied. Such requirements may include the payment of fees, construction of improvements, or both.

Final inspections or issuance of Certificates of Occupancy may be withheld from the Subdivider by the City, if, upon a determination by the City Engineer or his designee, completion of specific Works of Improvements or other requirements associated with the development of the Property have not been completed to his satisfaction.

2.3 Force Majeure. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.1, Subdivider's time for commencement and completion of the Works of Improvement shall be extended for the period of any enforced delay caused due to circumstances beyond the control and without the fault of Subdivider, including to the extent applicable adverse weather conditions, flood, earthquakes, strikers, lockouts, acts or failures to act of a public agency (including City), required changes to the scope of work required by City, and similar causes; provided, however, that the period of any enforced delay hereunder shall not include any period longer than five (5) days prior to City's receipt of a written notice from Subdivider or its Contractor detailing the grounds for Subdivider's claim to a right to extend its time for performance hereunder. City Engineer shall evaluate all claims to Force Majeure and his decision shall be final.

2.4 Continuous Work. After commencement of construction of the Works of Improvement (or separate portion thereof), Subdivider shall cause such work to be diligently pursued to completion, and shall not abandon the work for a consecutive period or more than thirty (30) days, events of Force Majeure excepted.

2.5 Reversion to Acreage. In addition to whatever other rights City may have due to Subdivider's failure to timely perform its obligations hereunder, Subdivider recognizes that City reserves the right to revert the Property to acreage subject to the limitations and requirements set forth in California Government Code Sections 66499.11-66499.20-3/4. In this regard, Subdivider agrees that if the Works of Improvement have not been completed on or before the later of two (2) years from the date of this Agreement or within the time allowed herein, whichever is the later, and if City thereafter initiates proceedings to revert the Property to acreage, pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.16 Subdivider hereby consents to reversion and . agrees that any improvements made by or on behalf of Subdivider shall not be considered in determining City's authority to revert the Property to acreage.

2.6 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of Subdivider's performance of all of its obligations under this Agreement,
5 Item 1AA - Page 36

3. Labor. 3. 1 Labor Standards. Subdivider shall be responsible for causing all contractors and subcontractors performing any of the Works of Improvement to comply with all applicable federal and state labor standards, including to the extent applicable the prevailing wage requirements promulgated by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California Department of Labor.

3.2 Nondiscrimination. In connection with its performance under this Agreement, Subdivider shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of actual or perceived race, religion, color, sex, age, marital status, ancestry, national origin (i.e., place of origin, immigration status, cultural or linguistic characteristics, or ethnicity), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, physical or mental disability, or medical condition (each a "prohibited basis"). Subdivider shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during their employment, without regard to any prohibited basis. As a condition precedent to City's lawful capacity to enter this Agreement, and in executing this Agreement, Subdivider certifies that its actions and omissions hereunder shall not incorporate any discrimination arising from or related to any prohibited basis in any Subdivider activity, including but not limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship; and further, that Subdivider is in full compliance with the provisions of Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 7.09.040, including without limitation the provision of benefits, relating to non-discrimination in city contracting. This provision shall also apply to any contractors or subcontractors engaged in construction of the Works of Improvement.

3.3 Licensed Contractors. Subdivider shall cause all of the Works of Improvement to be constructed by contractors and subcontractors with valid California Contractors' licenses for the type of work being performed.

3.4 Worker's Compensation. Subdivider shall cause every contractor and subcontractor performing any of the Works of Improvement to carry Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and shall cause each such contractor and subcontractor to submit to City a Certificate of Insurance verifying such coverage prior to such contractor or subcontractor entering onto the job site.

4. Security. 4.1 Required Security.
(a) At the time Subdivider executes this Agreement, Subdivider shall furnish to City the following bonds, letters of credit, instruments of credit (assignment of deposit 6 Item 1AA - Page 37
account) or other security acceptable to City in its sole and absolute discretion and satisfying the requirements of the applicable provisions of this Section 4 below (hereinafter "Security Instruments"):
(i) A Security Instrument securing Subdivider's faithful performance of all of the Works of Improvement ("Faithful Performance Security Instrument"), in the amount of $103,300.00 equal to 100% of the estimated construction cost referenced in Section

1.1. (ii) A Security Instrument guaranteeing the payment to contractors, subcontractors, and other persons furnishing labor, materials, and/or equipment ("Labor and Materials Security Instrument") with respect to the Works of Improvement in an amount equal to $51,600.00 equal to 50% of the estimated construction cost referenced in Section 1 .1 .
(iii) A Security Instrument guaranteeing the payment of the cost of setting monuments as required in Section 1.4 in the amount of $12,000.00 equal to 100% of the cost thereof.

This Agreement shall not be effective for any purpose until such Security Instruments are supplied to and approved by City in accordance herewith. (b) Required Security Instrument for Maintenance and Warranty. Prior to the City Council's acceptance of the Works of Improvement and recordation of a Notice of Completion, Subdivider shall deliver a Security Instrument warranting the work accepted for a period of one (1) year following said acceptance ("Maintenance and Warranty Security Instrument"), in the amount of $48,400.00 equal to 15% of the estimated construction cost set forth in Section 1.1 or a suitable amount determined by the City Engineer.

4.2 Form of Security Instruments. All Security Instruments shall be in the amounts required under Section 4.1 (a) or 4.1 (b), as applicable, shall meet the following minimum requirements and otherwise shall be in a form provided by City or otherwise approved by the City Attorney:
(a) Bonds. For Security Instruments provided in the form of bonds, any such bond must be issued and executed by an insurance company or bank authorized to transact surety business in the State of California. Any insurance company acting as surety shall have a minimum rating of A-IX, as rated by the current edition of Best's Key Rating Guide published by A.M. Best's Company, Oldwick, New Jersey, 08858. Any bank acting as surety shall have a minimum rating of AA, as rated by Moody's or Standard & Poor's.
(b) Letters of Credit. For Security Instruments which are letters of credit, any letter of credit shall be an original separate unconditional, irrevocable, negotiable and 7 Item 1AA - Page 38
transferable commercial letter of credit issued by a financial institution with offices in the State of California acceptable to City. Any such letter of credit shall specifically permit City to draw on same by unilateral certification of the City Engineer of the City that Subdivider is in default under its payment or performance obligations hereunder or in the event Subdivider fails to deliver a replacement letter of credit not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration of any such letter of credit and shall further be subject to the provisions of Section 4.4.
(c) Instrument of Credit. For Security Instruments which are Instruments of Credit, any Instrument of Credit shall be an assignment of deposit account assigning as security to City all of Subdivider's interest in funds on deposit in one or more bank accounts with financial institutions acceptable to City. (d) General Requirements for all Security Instruments.
(i) Payments under any Security Instruments shall be required to be made (and, with respect to bonds, litigation shall be required to be instituted and maintained) in the City of Palm Springs, State of California (and the Security Instrument shall so provide). (ii) Each Security Instrument shall have a minimum term of one (1) year after the deadline for Subdivider's completing the Works of Improvement, in accordance with Section 2.1 (other than Instruments of Credit, which shall have no defined term or expiration date).
(iii) Each Security Instrument shall provide that changes may be made in the Works of Improvement pursuant to the terms of this Agreement without notice to any issuer or surety and without affecting the obligations under such Security Instrument.

4.3 Subdivider's Liability. While no action of Subdivider shall be required in order for City to realize on its security under any Security Instrument, Subdivider agrees to cooperate with City to facilitate City's realization under any Security Instrument, and to take no action to prevent City from such realization of any Security Instrument.

Notwithstanding the giving of any Security Instrument or the subsequent expiration of any Security Instrument or any failure by any surety or financial institution to perform its obligations with respect thereto, Subdivider shall be personally liable for performance under this Agreement and for payment of the cost of the labor and materials for the improvements required to be constructed or installed hereby and shall, within ten (10) days after written demand therefor, deliver to City such substitute security as City shall require satisfying the requirements in this Section 4.

4.4 Letters of Credit.
(a) In the event a letter of credit is given pursuant to Section 4.2(b), City shall be entitled to draw on any such letter of credit if a replacement letter of credit (expiring in not less than one (1) year, unless City agrees to a lesser term in City's sole and 8 Item 1AA - Page 39
absolute discretion) is not delivered not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the original letter of credit, such substitute letter of credit being in the same amount and having the terms and conditions as the initial letter of credit delivered hereunder, issued by a financial institution acceptable to City as of the date of delivery of the replacement letter of credit.
(b) In the event of draw by the City on a letter of credit, the City may elect, in its sole and absolute discretion, to apply any such funds drawn to the obligations secured by such letter of credit or to hold such funds in an account under the control of the City, with no interest accruing thereon for the benefit of the Subdivider. If the City elects to hold the funds in an account pursuant to the foregoing, City may thereafter at any time elect instead to apply such funds as provided in the foregoing. Subdivider agrees and hereby grants City a security interest in such account to the extent required for City to realize on its interests therein and agrees to execute and deliver to City any other documents requested by City in order to evidence the creation and perfection of City's security interest in such account.

4.5 Release of Security Instruments.
(a) City shall release the Faithful Performance Security Instrument and Labor and Materials Security Instrument when all of the following have occurred:
(i) Subdivider has made written request for release and provided evidence of satisfaction of all other requirements in this Section 4.5; (ii) the Works of Improvement have been accepted;
(iii) Subdivider has delivered the Maintenance and Warranty Security Instrument; and
(iv) subject to the following sentences after passage of the time within which lien claims are required to be made pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 3114) of Chapter 2 of Title 15 of Part IV of Division 3 of the California Civil Code. If lien claims have been timely filed, City shall hold the Labor and Materials Security Instrument until such claims have been resolved, Subdivider has provided a statutory bond, or otherwise as required by applicable law.
(b) City shall release the Maintenance and Warranty Security Instrument upon Subdivider's written request upon the expiration of the warranty period, provided no claims are outstanding at that time regarding defective work.

5. Cost of Construction and Provision of Inspection Service.

5.1 Subdivider Responsible for All Costs of Construction. Subdivider shall be responsible for payment of all costs incurred for construction and installation of the 9 Item 1AA - Page 40
Works of Improvement. In the event Subdivider is entitled to reimbursement from City for any of the Works of Improvement, such reimbursement shall be subject to a separate Reimbursement Agreement to be entered into between Subdivider and City prior to construction of the works.

5.2 Payment to City for Cost of Related Inspection and Engineering Services.

Subdivider shall compensate City for all of City's costs reasonably incurred in having its authorized representative make the usual and customary inspections of the Works of Improvement. In addition, Subdivider shall compensate City for all design, plan check, evaluating any proposed or agreed-upon changes in the work. The procedures for deposit and payment of such fees shall be as established by the City Council. In no event shall Subdivider be entitled to additional inspections or a final inspection and acceptance of any of the Works of Improvement until all City fees and charges have been fully paid, including without limitation, charges for applicable penalties and additional required inspections.

6. Acceptance of Offers of Dedication. The City Council shall pass as appropriate resolution or resolutions accepting all offers of dedication shown on the Map for the Property, with acceptance to become effective upon completion and acceptance by City of the Works of Improvement. Such resolution(s) shall authorize the City Clerk to execute the Certificate made a part of the Map regarding said acceptance of the offer of dedication.

7. Warranty of Work. Subdivider shall guarantee all Works of Improvement against defective materials and workmanship for a period of one (1) year from the date of final acceptance. If any of the Works of Improvement should fail or prove defective within said one (1) year period due to any reason other than improper maintenance, or if any settlement of fill or backfill occurs, or should any portion of the Works of Improvement fail to fulfill any requirements of the Plans, Subdivider, within fifteen (15) days after written notice of such defects, or within such shorter time as may reasonably be determined by the City in the event of emergency, shall commence to repair or replace the same together with any other work which may be damaged or displaced in so doing. Should Subdivider fail to remedy defective material and/or workmanship or make replacements or repairs within the period of time set forth above, City may make such repairs and replacements and the actual cost of the required labor and materials shall be chargeable to and payable by Subdivider. The warranty provided herein shall not be in lieu of, but shall be in addition to, any warranties or other obligations otherwise imposed by law.

8. Default.

8.1 Remedies Not Exclusive. In any case where this Agreement provides a specific remedy to City for a default by Subdivider hereunder, such remedy shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, City's right to pursue any other administrative, legal, or equitable remedy to which it may by entitled.
10 Item 1AA - Page 41

8.2 City Right to Perform Work. In addition to whatever other rights or remedies it may have for Subdivider's default hereunder, in the event Subdivider shall fail to timely perform any work required to be performed under this Agreement and such failure shall continue for a period of twenty (20) days after receipt of written notice of default from City, or thereafter Subdivider shall fail to diligently and continuously pursue the cure of any such default to completion, City shall have the right to enter into the Property and perform any of the uncompleted work by force account or contract or both and thereupon recover from Subdivider or any Security Instrument, or both, the full cost and expense thereby incurred by City.

8.3 Attorney's Fees and Costs. In the event that Subdivider fails to perform any obligation under this Agreement, Subdivider agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by City in securing performance of such obligations, including costs of suit and reasonable attorney's fees. In the event of any dispute arising out of Subdivider's performance of its obligations under this Agreement or under any of the Security Instruments referenced herein, the prevailing party in such action, in addition to any other relief which may be granted, shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Such attorney's fees and cost shall include fees and costs on any appeal, and in addition a party entitled to attorney's fees and costs shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs incurred in investigating such action, taking depositions and discovery, retaining expert witnesses, and all other necessary and related costs with respect to the litigation. All such fees and costs shall be deemed to have accrued on commencement of the action and shall be enforceable whether or not the action is prosecuted to judgment.

9. Indemnity. Subdivider agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, causes of action, and obligations arising out of Subdivider's failure to perform the construction and installation of the Works of Improvement in accordance with the requirements contained or referenced in this Agreement. Said indemnity obligation shall apply to personal injury, death, property damage, economic loss, and any other monetary damage or penalty to which City may be subjected, including without limitation, attorney's fees and costs and the costs of realizing on any Security Instrument provided by Subdivider pursuant to the terms hereof. Such indemnity obligation shall not extend to any loss resulting from City's sole negligence or willful misconduct.

10. General Provisions.

10.1 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon all successors and assigns to Subdivider's right, title, and interest in and to the Property and any portion thereof.
11 Item 1AA - Page 42

10.2 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is intended to benefit only the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. Neither City nor Subdivider intend to create any third party beneficiary rights in this Agreement in any contractor, subcontractor, member of the general public, or other person or entity.

10.3 Entire Agreement: Waivers and Amendments. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein, or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations and previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or part of the subject matter hereof, except as may be expressly provided herein. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party to be charged, and all amendments hereto must be in writing and signed by the appropriate representatives of both parties.

11. Corporate Authority.The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the parties hereto warrant the (I) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into of this Agreement does not violate any provisions of any other Agreement to which said party is bound.
* * * * *
(Signatures on Next Page)
12 Item 1AA - Page 43
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Subdivision Improvement Agreement as of the date first above written.

ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,

CALIFORNIA
By ____________ _
Brenda Pree, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Jeff Ballinger, City Attorney
City of Palm Springs
SUBDIVIDER:

Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
City of Palm Springs
12@ Las Palmas. LLC. a California Limited Liability Company Check one: _Individual _Partnership _Corporation*_Company *Note, for Corporations, two corporate officers must sign this Agreement, as indicated below; for al others, authorized agents must sign this Agreement. d·~
(For Corporations, this document must
be signed in the above space by one of
the following: Chairman of the Board,
President or any Vice President)
For Corporatio , this ocument must be
signed in the bove sp ce by one of the
following: ecretary, hief Financial
Officer or y Assistant Tre urer)
13 Item 1AA - Page 44
Mailing Address:
12 @Allf..fP.,,/,n,, s, ~~~ ~/ o PeOA,i c~tt~u,ybttm ~ re- ,<?,a,L~--.?"' NP~,.-,1.a,.--~ C4 9:J.«t:?
~_fzf-ES./
(_) _-__:_ (fflX)
e -,.,d,~: "'5',., o~ ~ /'>?ho~~Jl!je:::u:, /. l'"fJ ""1 14 Item 1AA - Page 45

ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of Cr,. l;forni~
County of Ora l'l~e..

On .JLl'le. 2/>t, 2oJ8 before me, Lore~ .51D7'tl Wohry Pv.bl;e, , Date Name, Title o(Officer
personally appeared QeoMS A- Lt\nn1'i15h ... ""'

NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S)
G personally known to me - OR -
G proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the persons(s) acted, executed the instrument.

Witness my hand and official seal.

Signature of Notary LOREN. STONE . • '
COMM. #2485508 z
N•tary Public • California
Orange C•unty ....
'l:'!1!11!~•¥ M Comm. Ex ires Mar. 26, 2028

CAPACITY CLAIMED BY
SIGNER
,/i'NDIVIDUAL(S)

GCORPORATE
-----
OFFICER(S) ____ _

TITLE(S)

GPARTNER(S) GATTORNEY-IN-FACT G TRUSTEE(S) GSUBSCRIBING WITNESS

GGUARDIAN/CONSERVA TOR
GOTHER
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:

ATTENTION NOTARY: Although the information requested below is OPTIONAL, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this certificate to unauthorized document.

THIS CERTIFICATE

MUST BE ATTACHED

TO THE DOCUMENT
DESCRIBED AT RIGHT:

Title or Type of Document ______________ _
Number of Pages __ DATE OF DOCUMENT ______ _
Si ner s Other Than Named Above
15 Item 1AA - Page 46
EXHIBIT "A"
TRACT MAP 38416 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Tract Map No. 38416, as recorded in Map Book __ , Pages __ through __ inclusive, records of Riverside County, California.
16 Item 1AA - Page 47
EXHIBIT"B"
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38416 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
17 Item 1AA - Page 48
City Council Resolution No. 25084

Page 12 ends

EXHIBIT A
Case Nos. 5.1554 CUP, 3.4289 MAJ/DP & TTM 38416
12 @ Las Palmas
January 26, 2023

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Director of Building and Safety, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition.

Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
ADM 1. Project Description. This approval is for the project described per Case Nos.

5.1554 CUP, 3.4289 MAJ/DP & TTM 38416; except as modified with the conditions below.

I
ADM 2. Reference Documents. The site shall be developed and maintained in I accordance with the approved plans, date stamped July 11 , 2022 (Architectural and Civil) and May 2, 2022 (Tentative Map), including site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, and grading on file in the Planning Division except as modified by the conditions below.

ADM 3. Conform to all Codes and Regulations. The project shall conform to the conditions contained herein, all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, and any other City County, State and Federal Codes, ordinances, resolutions and laws that may apply.

ADM 4. Minor Deviations. The Director of Planning or designee may approve minor deviations to the project description and approved plans in accordance with the provisions of the Palm Springs Zoning Code.

ADM 5. Tentative Map. This approval is for Tentative Tract Map 38416. This approval is subject to all applicable regulations of the Subdivision Map Act, the Palm Springs Municipal Code, and any other applicable City Codes, ordinances and resolutions.

ADM 6. Indemnification. The owner/applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold I harmless the City of Palm Springs, its elected officials, agents, officers, and employees ("lndemnitees") from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Item 1AA - Page 49
I
I
I
City Council Resolution No. 25084

Page 13 ends

City of Palm Springs or any lndemnitee(s), ansIng, in any way, out of the activities authorized by Case Nos. 5.1554 CUP, 3.4289 MAJ/DP & TTM 38416. The City will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the lndemnitees. Notwithstanding the foregoing , the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.

ADM 7. Maintenance and Repair. The property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation all structures, sidewalks, bikeways, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, walls, and fences that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City.

ADM 8. Time Limit on Approval. Approval of the Major Development Permit (MAJ/DP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the effective date of the approval. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause.

ADM 9. Right to Appeal. Decisions of an administrative officer or agency of the City of Palm Springs may be appealed in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 2.05.00. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has concluded.

ADM 10. Time Extensions. Extensions of time for the Tentative Tract Map may be approved pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.63.110. Extensions of time for the Major Development Permit (MAJ/DP) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) may be granted by the Planning Commission pursuant to Zoning Code Section 94.12.00. Such extensions shall be required in writing and submitted to Planning Services prior to the expiration of the approval.

ADM 11 . Park Development Fees. The developer shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of a dedication, at the option of the City. The in-lieu fee shall be computed pursuant to Ordinance No. 1632, Section IV, by multiplying the area of park to be dedicated by the fair market value of the land being developed plus the cost to acquire and improve the property plus the fair Item 1AA - Page 50
City Council Resolution No. 25084

Page 14 ends

share contribution, less any credit given by the City, as may be reasonably determined by the City based upon the formula contained in Ordinance No. 1632. In accordance with the Ordinance, the following areas or features shall not be eligible for private park credit: golf courses, yards, court areas, setbacks, development edges, slopes in hillside areas (unless the area includes a public trail) landscaped development entries, meandering streams, land held as open space for wildlife habitat, flood retention facilities and circulation improvements such as bicycle, hiking and equestrian trails (unless such systems are directly linked to the City's community-wide system and shown on the City's master plan).

ADM 12. Public Art Fees. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the case of the in-lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the fee being 1/2% for commercial projects or 1 /4 % for residential projects with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing.

ADM 13. Comply with City Noise Ordinance. This use shall comply with the provisions of Section 11 .74 Noise Ordinance of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.

Violations may result in revocation of this Conditional Use Permit.

ADM 14. CC&R's. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning for approval in a format to be approved by the City Attorney. These CC&R's may be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City approval, and shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances.

ADM 15. CC&R's. Prior to recordation of a final Tract Map or issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning for approval in a format to be approved by the City Attorney. The draft CC&R package shall include:
a. The document to convey title
b. Deed restrictions, easements, of Covenant Conditions and Restrictions to be recorded.
c. Provisions for joint access to the proposed parcels, and any open space restrictions.

I
I
I
Item 1AA - Page 51
I
I
I
City Council Resolution No. 25084

Page 15 ends

d. A provision, which provides that the CC&R's may not be terminated or substantially amended without the consent of the City and the developer's successor-in-interest.

Approved CC&R's are to be recorded following approval of the final map.

The CC&R's may be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City approval, and shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances,
ADM 16. CC&R's Deposits & Fees. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of specified in the current fee schedule, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. A filing fee as outlined in the fee schedule shall also be paid to the City Planning Department for administrative review purposes.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS
ENV 1. Coachella Valley Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) required. All projects within the City of Palm Springs, not within the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians reservation are subject to payment of the CVMSHCP LDMF prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy.

ENV 2. Notice of Exemption. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); therefore, an administrative fee of $64 shall be submitted by the applicant in the form of a money order or a cashier's check payable to the Riverside County Clerk within two business days of the Commission's final action on the project. This fee shall be submitted by the City to the County Clerk with the Notice of Exemption. Action on this application shall not be considered final until such fee is paid (projects that are Categorically Exempt from CEQA).

PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
PLN 1. Outdoor Lighting Conformance. Exterior lighting plans, including a photometric site plan showing the project's conformance with Section

93.21 .00 Outdoor Lighting Standards of the Palm Springs Zoning ordinance, shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning prior to issuance of a building permit. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting on the building and in the landscaping shall be included. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down-lights shall be utilized. No lighting of hillsides is permitted.

PLN 2. Water Efficient Landscaping Conformance. The project is subject to the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 8.60.00) of the Palm Springs Item 1AA - Page 52
City Council Resolution No. 25084

Page 16 ends

Municipal Code and all other water efficient landscape ordinances. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Landscape plans shall be wet stamped and approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. Prior to submittal to the City, landscape plans shall also be certified by the local water agency that they are in conformance with the water agency's and the State's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinances.

PLN 3. Flat Roof Requirements. Roof materials on flat roofs (less than 2: 12) must conform to California Title 24 thermal standards for "Cool Roofs". Such roofs must have a minimum initial thermal emittance of 0.75 or a minimum SRI of 64 and a three-year aged solar reflectance of 0.55 or greater. Only matte (non-specular) roofing is allowed in colors such as beige or tan.

PLN 4. Maintenance of Awnings & Projections. All awnings shall be maintained and periodically cleaned.

PLN 5. Screen Roof-mounted Equipment. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened per the requirements of Section 93.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance.

I
PLN 6. Surface Mounted Downspouts Prohibited. No exterior downspouts shall be I permitted on any facade on the proposed building(s) that are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial areas.

PLN 7. Pool Enclosure Approval Required. Details of fencing or walls around pools (material and color) and pool equipment areas shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of Building Permits.

PLN 8. Exterior Alarms & Audio Systems. No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except approved alarm systems.

PLN 9. Outside Storage Prohibited. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan.

PLN 10. No off-site Parking. Vehicles associated with the operation of the proposed development including company vehicles or employees vehicles shall not be permitted to park off the proposed building site unless a parking management plan has been approved.

PLN 11 . Pad Elevations. Final building pad elevations shall not vary more than 12 inches above or below the pad elevation established by the approved preliminary grading plan and / or tentative map. Any deviations from this 1 provision shall require approval by the Planning Commission.

Item 1AA - Page 53
I
I
I
City Council Resolution No. 25084

Page 17 ends

PLN 12. ARC Review. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit plans for Architectural Review Committee (ARC) review as required by Section 94.04.00 of the Zoning Code and include any changes imposed by the Planning Commission. On December 14, 2022, the Planning Commission directed that the following be reviewed by the ARC:
a. Applicant to provide clear detail of block design on single-story units facing Palm Canyon and ARC to verify consistency with the renderings. b. Landscape plan and tree selection for planters along Palm Canyon, noting concern of limited vertical space with proposed building.

PLN 13. Entry Gate. The entry gate shall be removed the plans and the development shall remain ungated.

PLN 14. Onsite Improvements on Westerly Frontage. The proposed wall on the westerly edge of the site shall be setback five feet and desert landscape shall be installed between said wall and the sidewalk.

PLN 15. EV Charging Station. Pursuant to Section 93.06.00 of the PSZC (Off-Street Parking) establishes the number of EV charging stations for new or renovated commercial development, and for new multi-family residential development.

PLN 16. 12/14/22 Planning Commission Meeting. In accordance with the Planning Commission's decision on December 14, 2022, the applicant shall complete the following:
a. Stop Sign at Project Exit. Install a stop sign at the vehicular egress to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b. Household Waste Generated by Accessory Dwelling Units. The CC&Rs prepared for this subdivision shall require that condominium owners with detached accessory dwelling units be responsible for receiving and proper disposal of any household waste generated from any occupant(s) or tenant(s) of their corresponding detached accessory dwelling unit. The CC&RS shall also require that, in the event of the condominium owner leases the primary condominium unit, the lessee of the primary unit shall be responsible for receiving and proper disposal of any household waste generated from any occupant(s) or sub-tenant(s) of the corresponding detached accessory dwelling unit, if permitted. Household waste includes trash, green waste, recycling and organic refuse

POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
POL 1. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 "Building Security Codes" of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.

Item 1AA - Page 54
City Council Resolution No. 25084

Page 18 ends

BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
BLD 1. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
The Engineering Services Department recommends that if this application is approved, such approval is subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City standards and ordinances.

Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

All Grading Plans, Improvement Plans, Required Studies and Documents listed below, must be submitted to Engineering Services Department for review and approval.

GENERAL
ENG 1.

ENG 2.

Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. All improvements are subject to inspection and a 24 to 48 hour inspection notification is required.

Submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered California civil Engineer to the Engineering Services Department. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits.

NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE
ENG 3.

ENG4.

ENG 5.

ENG 6.

ENG 7.

Construct sidewalk from back of curb to property line along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210.

Remove the existing driveway approaches and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk to match existing improvements in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200 and 210.

Contact the Director of Facilities to determine if the existing palm trees, irrigation, and street lights along the North Palm Canyon Drive frontage will have to be replaced and/or upgraded in conjunction with this project.

Remove and replace existing asphalt concrete pavement where required, in accordance with applicable City standards.

All broken or off grade street improvements along the project frontage shall be repaired or replaced.

I
I
I
Item 1AA - Page 55
City Council Resolution No. 25084

Page 19 ends

Palm Springs City CouncilJuly 25, 2024

Palm Springs City Council
July 25, 2024