HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/21/2012 - STAFF REPORTS - 4B RESOLUTION NO. 22837
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS OPPOSING THE PROPOSED
WHITEWATER LOCATION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
REGIONAL DETENTION CENTER.
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs is world-renown as a tourist destination and
place for relaxation and escape; and
WHEREAS, the economy of the area has grown to both nurture and rely on the
area's reputation as the "ultimate desert playground" where visitors can enjoy natural
beauty, a relaxed urban scene, unique cultural events, and a connection to the ancient
past and recent modern history; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that the continued success of the local economy
is greatly dependent on the preservation the area's recreation and tourism appeal; and
WHEREAS, the County of Riverside has determined that there is a need for
additional jail facilities; and
WHEREAS, the County has selected a site for a new regional detention center
located in the Whitewater area, north of the Interstate 10 freeway, west of Highway 62;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed site is located at the entry to the Coachella Valley and
the City of Palm Springs and will be one of the first desert landmarks encountered by
commuters, tourists, vacationers and others who travel to or through the Coachella
Valley; and
WHEREAS, the impact of such a facility on the perceptions of visitors and
tourists could significantly and detrimentally affect their desire to visit Palm Springs and
surrounding areas, such that the City and local businesses could experience losses in
convention bookings, hotel and lodging reservations, and retail sales; and
WHEREAS, the County has identified other sites which could serve as a location
for the proposed detention center, yet which would not pose a threat to any local
economy; and
WHEREAS, the County has prepared a draft Environmental Impact Report,
which insufficiently and inaccurately analyzes the adverse economic impact that the
proposed detention center would have on the Palm Springs and the Coachella Valley;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs has offered separate comment on the draft
EIR, identifying how the proposed detention center would create significant and
manifest economic losses to local businesses and the City.
ITEM NO. �,/
Resolution No. 22837
Page 2
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council calls upon the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors to recognize that the Riverside County Regional Detention Center at the
proposed Whitewater location would have a detrimental affect on the economy and
residents of the City of Palm Springs and the Coachella Valley.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby opposes the development of the Riverside
County Regional Detention Center at the proposed Whitewater location.
SECTION 3. The City Council further recommends that the County Board of
Supervisors immediately halt the CEQA review of the Whitewater site and identify one
of the alternative locations as the preferred site for the Riverside County Regional
Detention Center.
ADOPTED THIS 13T DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010.
:a?I
David H. Ready, anager
ATTEST:
ames Thompson, City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. 22837 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 the 15' day of December,
2010.
AYES: Councilmember Weigel, Mayor Pro Tem Hutcheson, and Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Foat and Councilmember Mills.
ABSTAIN: None.
ames Thompson, City Clerk t�/t S/2o10
City of Palm Springs, California
02
City of Palm Springs
;A Steve Pougnet, Mayor
3200 E.Tahyda Canyon Way•Palm SprinV,California 92-962
C A 4Fp Tel:C760)323.6200.17=C760)323-8282•Web:www.palm'Prings ca.gov
-0RN�
February 5, 2009
County of Riverside E-mailed to:Saferstreets&o.riveride.ca.us
Department of Facilities Management Via On-trac -overnight delivery, and
Attn: Ms_ Claudia Steiding Via Facsimile 9511955-4826
P. O. Box 1468
Riverside, CA 92502-1468
RE. Comments on the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the
"Riverside County Regional Detention Center Project"
Dear Ms, Steiding:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide early input to the EIR for the proposed detention
center. The City of Palm Springs recognizes the need for additional facilities to accommodate
the Countys growing inmate population, and acknowledges that any locational and design
decisions regarding a new incarceration center will be a Challenge.
After reviewing the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and related materials, the City Council voted
unanimously to offer the following comments.
1. The EIR must evaluate the project as defined at full build-out. The Countys information
indicates a clear understanding of the ultimate size and scale of the project, including
site plans and staffing needs. Consequently, the EIR must address more than just the
first phase", but provide a complete impact analysis of the detention center with 7,200
beds. While the NOP indicates that a Program EIR will be prepared, it is imperative to
the City of Palm Springs that a full disclosure of the impacts of the entire scrape of the
pmject be provided in this EIR.
2. Alternative sites most be fully explored in the EIR:
a. The City of Palm Springs acknowledges recent reports indicating that the County
continues to explore alternative sites, including locations on federal lands and in
other parts of the mid-county area. The EIR must take account of these efforts and
provide a discussion of alternative sites that consider locations significantly distant
from the proposed site to provide a meaningful consideration of reduced-impact
options for the project.
b. The EIR's discussion should include an alternative that provides the needed capacity
through a smaller new jail combined with an expansion of existing facilities
throughout the County.
3. In addition to the impact issue areas identified in the NOP, the City believes that
following areas must be examined and evaluated in the EiR.
03
Riverside County Department of Facilities Management Page 2 of 2
Attn:Ms. Claudia Steiding February 5, 2009
a. The potential impact on tourist facilities in the region. Several major centers of
visitor-serving activities have a marketing"reach"that includes the proposed project
site, including the Cabazon Outlet Malls, the Palm Springs Convention Center,
downtown Palm Springs, the Ague Caliente Spa Casino, the hot springs hotels of
Desert Hot Springs and the like. These centers generate jobs and tax dollars, as
well as contribute to the urban fabric of the region. The EiR should evaluate the
potential environmental effects of the proposed detention center on these facilities,
particularly the adverse physical impacts that would occur should the detention
center reduce the attractiveness of the area for tourism.
b. The potential impacts of increased mortality/morbidity rates. The establishment of a
detention center may introduce persons into the region who carry with them
infectious diseases. The EiR should evaluate the potential environmental effects of
an increase in mortality and morbidity rates of the surrounding population,
particularly the direct and indirect loss of population and how such losses impact the
local physical environment.
c. A complete project description. The EIR's description of the project should include a
discussion of how many inmates at the proposed facility will be from the local area,
including Beaumont, Banning and the northern Coachella Valley(Palm Springs and
Desert Hot Springs), as compared with the number of inmates expected from other
parts of the County. The City believes that one goal of the project should be to
incarcerate criminals as near to their home communities as possible.
in addition to these comments on the proposed EIR, the City of Palm Springs maintains that the
proposed site Is not a remote rural location, but is in the midst of a growing suburban and
urban community. A detention center of this size and scale is best located far from population
centers, where its impacts are not imposed on the local built environment This site will soon be
surrounded by urban development and the recent experience in the City of Riverside is
instructive: An urban jail should be of limited size.
The City of Palm Springs recognizes that the County of Riverside is seeking to add capacity to
its jail system. However, the County must also consider that in the decades to come, the
Cabazon/Whitewater/western Coachella Valley will be a growth center made up of homes,
shopping centers, hotels, schools, churches and all the other uses that make up a healthy
community. It would not serve any of these uses'long-term viability to have amidst them and
their residents a jail of the size and scope envisioned here. We urge you to identify an
alternative and more remote location as the County's first choice for this facility.
Feel free to contact Mr. David Ready, City Manager, at 760-322-8362 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Steve Pougnet Mayor
City of Palm Springs
P.O.Box 2743 •Palm Springs,California 92263-2743 04
City of Palm Springs
� N I
• • Department of Planning Services
'p r8p• 32W E.Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs,California 92262
g41FO TEL:(760)323-8245 • FAX:(760)32 2-8360 • TDD:(760)864-9527
December 9, 2010
Ms. Claudia Steiding, Senior Environmental Planner j
County of Riverside Economic Development Agency
P. 0. Box 1468
Riverside, CA 92502-1468
I
RE: Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) for the Riverside County
Regional Detention Center(RDC), State Clearinghouse No. 2008121012
Dear Ms. Steiding:
The City of Palm Springs thanks the County of Riverside for providing us with an
opportunity to provide comment on the Revised Draft EIR. The City understands that a
Revised DEIR has been prepared and redirculated in response to previous comments
regarding the Regional Detention Centers potential to inhibit the ability of wildlife in the
area to cross Tamarack Road,
i
We wish to take this opportunity to supplement our comment letter of January 7, 2010
with additional information regarding the economic impact of the proposed RDC and
resulting.adverse physical impacts on the City of Palm Springs. In July of this year, the
City received a report from Dr. Philip G. King, Associate Professor of Economics, San
Francisco State University titled, "The Economic Impact of the Proposed Riverside
County Regional detention Center." That report is attached to this letter.
A summary of Dr. King's findings are provided below as comments for the RDEIR:
1. The economic impact analysis in the DEIR has a number of serious flaws. In
particular the DEIR assumes:
a. A jail facility near Palm Springs will have no impact on traditional Palm
Springs vacationers. The recent literature cited in the DEIR contradicts
this conclusion.
b. Jail visitors. can be represented by.a sample of California travelers who
had a median household income of$79,478, far above Riverside County's
median income or that of prisoners'families.
c. Jail visitors will spend 0.97 nights on trips to the Palm Springs area even
though the RDC is a county facility easily visited on a day trip.
d. Jail visitors will reside outside the Palm Springs area.
e. 50% of RDC employees will be new residents to the Palm Springs area,
an assumption contradicted elsewhere in the DEIR.
05
County of Riverside Economic Development Agency December 9,2010
Comment on RDEIR; Riverside County Regional Detention Center Page 2 of 2
State Clearinghouse No. 2008121012
2. The above assumptions are inconsistent with empirical facts, studies cited in the
DEIR or assumptions made elsewhere in the DEIR. Dr. King's study corrects
these flaws. Otherwise, Dr. Kings study accepted the DEIR's assumptions and
methodology.
3. Correcting these flaws leads to a different conclusion than the one presented in
the DEIR. Overall, the tourism industry in the Palm Springs area (as defined in
the DEIR) will lose $90.0 million per year in lost revenue even accounting for
some increase in sales generated by the RDC.
k. The olss in sales will also lead to a reduction in the local share of sales taxes and
transient occupancy taxes of $2.2 million per year. Other losses (e.g., potential
loss in property taxes) were not estimated but some loss in these revenues
should also be expected.
5. These impacts to the tourism industry can also be expected to negatively impact
other industries. in the Palm Springs area. These impacts have not been
estimated in Dr. King's report, but they could be significant.
6. The Palm Springs area has pockets of urban decay and blight as well as a high
vacancy rate in commercial property due to the current economic downturn which
may last for some time. The negative impacts from the RDC could seriously
exacerbate existing urban decay in the area.
7. There is also the possibility of a negative event at the RDC that would generate
media attention and could lead to even greater losses. This outcome may be
unlikely, but is far from impossible.
These comments are derived from the study identified above and which is attached to
this letter.
Conclusion
As described above, the City remains concerned about the adequacy of the .RDEIR.
Without further analysis and the correction of errors in the document, the RDEIR is
inadequate and does not provide the public or decision makers with accurate or
sufficient information on which to base a decision. Given the significant of this project to
the Coachella Valley, we strongly urge the County to again re-write and recirculated the
RDEIR.
Sinc iq,
CP
4rving,
r of Pla g Services
Attachment
cc City Manager
City Attorney
06