Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Comments . ,. i , ~""" L.~", :'~"-, . mm:rI County supervisors have approved two-thirds of the closely watched Riverside County Inte- grated Progrl'lm (RCIP). In June, supervisors approved a ne:wgeneral plan anda multi-spe- cies conservation plan for the western third of the county. The 1inal sticking pojnt in the general plan concerned limits on development of farmland. In an at1empt to slow urban sprawl, the plan prohibits major amendments tor five years. Owners of agriculluralland protested, so super- visors agreed to allow landowners to develop up to 7% 01 their farmland over 21/2 years. The habitat plan proposes to add 153,000 acres to an inventoryot 350,000 acres already owned by the public, The halt million acres is planned as permanent habitat tor 146 species of plants and animals. The plan appears to have angered both landowners and environmentalists, and a court challenge ~~~::;\~~~::~~:s likl:IY, 11 b rllef plan Will cost an estimated $1.5 bil. lion over the next 25 years. In addition to state and federal funding, impact 1ees in the neighborhood of $1,000 per housing unit and $5,000 per acre oi_commercial development will pay tor implementation. Full implementation will also require the 14 cities within the habitat plan area to adopt the plan, State Resources Secretary Mary Nichols and Department of Fish and Game Director Robert Hight both endorsed the conservation plan. "You are absolutely on the 10re1ront in dealing with species and development," Hight told the Board of Supervisors. The RCIP is perhaps the most ambitious - and, at $32 million, definitely 1he most expensive - local planning ettort in Cahtornia history (see CP&DR, January 2002, February 2000). Starting in 1999, county otticials wenl to work on a new general plan, the habitat plan and a transportation plan all at the same time. The lransportalion plan will not be com. pleted lor about another year, according to county spokesman Ray Smith A lederal judge has thrown out the U.S. Fish and Wildllle Service's critical habitat determinalion lor the Alameda whlpsnak€ - CON1INUED ON PAGE 2 . CAlIFPRNIA P~NNING i. DEVELOPMENI REPORI ~.,-,.',;". "->":"-"'<~-C" . vgl, 1t./lil,.j~j~LY 2003 Concerns Grow With Indian Casinos Vegas-Style Resorts Moving Into State's Urban Areas BY PAUL SHIGLEY In the course of only a few years, Indian casinos have grown inlO a major land use concern for counties across California. But now a mailer that has been a land use issue mostly in rural areas is coming to urban areas, as tribes look for casino sites near population centers and as some public offi- cials start to view the casinos as economic opportunities. What mi,ght be the largest Indian casino in California - the United Auburn Indian Community's Thunder Valley Casino - opened in June in unincorporated Placer County, on the northeast edge of metro- politan Sacramento. Two tribes are seek. ing 10 open casinos along the ]nterstate 80 corridor in Contra Costa County. A newly recognized tribe' that was looking at a site between Vallejo and Novate in the Bay Area might be headed to Rohnert Park. Casinos or expansions are at least in the discussion stages within the city limits of San Bernardino, Palm Springs and Barstow. And some small cities in more rural areas, including Cloverdale, Yreka and Blythe, are wrestling with casino proposals just inside, or barely outside, the city limits. Urban projects come despite Governor Gray Davis's stated opposition to ]ndian casinos in urban areas and despite the fact that the tribes might have little or no histori. cal claim to the sites. While the impacts - CONTINUED ON PAGE 14 - Zoning, Liability And Even Planners Inhibit Buildout Of Plans r111sight WilLIAM FULTON "Buildout" is a funny lerm. 11 is the word that most planners use to describe what their town would look like once e\'erything thai is called for in the general plan has been built. In today's world, bujldout is easily quantified. Most cities and counties can poinl to their general plans and identify precisely how many houses and how many square feet of commercial and industrial space buiJdout involves. ]n California, where the Depanment of Hous- ing and Community Development (HCD) is always bird. dogging local governments about their housing elements. bui]dout can mean a very precise calculation of the juri~- diction's capacity to absorb both single- and muhi-f<1mily residence~ - CONTINUED ON PAm 15 CP&OR LEGAL OIGESI W(.jler agt:!lCJ E1Rfaih cWnl~lq~ live impan TeSl. ,..........Pafl' ; OEAL~ EllvironmemaL-deaJproves ',,";"~'_ '-:!:';';'i'C~,~'-"""",_-r-!,':"'~" '~~ 'c < ,-.,' """~:'_ ).,t-%';i-d' most;:fiifficult..:;,......"....PO,l!(,.J2 " SOllMAR Rl~EARCH (' (IP'/(~;r.\',s'riulini fill ~/i !Jjfk~~,,~~~i~j!~~~"fH~r.ll,4~h IN BRIEF Local eleC-lion-Tesull.1 :ir~m' June.....................Paf!c 2 lNVIRONMENI WAlCH S()r(:,i;~glllalnrs ail building resrriclio1lS....Fage 3 LOCAL WAlCH Soma Barham COU11l)"J iru~coll- ('ilable dijjernwi'J. ......PaRe 4 ECONOMIC QEVElOPMENI City. ('OUllly coopenlll' )1)1 Cemral VaUt!yjobJ. .....Pllgeo__ CP&OR LEGAL OIGESI Ciryj appeal hearing proct'{jUff' ';\'"lfuckdoWIl.,.,... ,... ....,. Pagt: 1) r 14 - lACIIl Planning , . _ -- JULY 2DD3 Indians Stand On Dealer's Side of Table . - of most Indian casinos often are similar - trafflc. crime, nOIse. ;Jnd the potential for inducing growth - tribes themselves ,lfe proving very different in the ways they interact with local government. Some tribes have done as much as the next developer to milipale impacts, and, in a few cases, tribes have <lgreed to pay lens of mil- lions of dollars to ]ocal a~encies and even neighbors. Other tribes have ignored local govemmem officials and their neighbor::;, A major factor, however, is the way the county government ami other public agencies treat the tribe and its development. "The relationship between you and lhe tribe is critical." said Yolo County Supervisor Michael McGowan, who helped his county rench an agreement with the Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians regnrding plans to expand the Cache Creek Casino. "You have to get 3way from us versus them or you're going to have a long, hard time." Relalionships are imponant because tribes are sovereign govern. ments with no legal obligalions 10 Califor- nia's counties, cities and special districts. Plus, McGowan and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) complain that the state and federal governments, which have greater legal leverage with the tribes, have shown little willingness to back up local concerns regarding Indian casinos. Still, it is nearly impossible 10 determine why some counlies have good relation. ships with tribes and other counties do not, said DeAnn Baker, a legislative analyst for CSAC. "It really depends on the tribe and what they need," she said. - CONTINUED FROM PAGE' Counties believe the compacts need to be reworked. Earlier this year, CSAC passed a resolution that, among other things, urges that tribes be required 10: . Gel local government approval to construct off-reservation Improvements. . Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), with the tribe serving as the lead agency. . Allow local law enforcement, fire officials, and health and safety inspectors 10 gain jurisdiction over casinos and relnted businesses. . Pay fees and taxes equal to what a typical commercial operation would pay. . Sign judicially enforceable agreements with local jurisdictions. "The rules must change," Yolo County Supervisor McGowan said. ;'Counties and cities need to have a requirement that they and tribes be required 10 sit down and address impacts and reach an agreement that is enforceable in court." The counties' concerns grow as tribes develop Vegas-style "destinalions" that include casinos, hotels, reSlaurants, retail cen- ters, golf courses and concert venues. The tribes, however, say they have no obligation to renegotiate 20.year compacts. Each compact is an individual agreement between the state and the tribe, said Sandy Jensen. spokeswoman for the California Nations Indian Gaming Association. The two sides can mutually agree to reopen a compact, or the state can demand to reopen a compact if the state can prove Ihat a Iribe has not made a good faith effort to mitigate the environmental impacts of its development, she said. Tribes can seek 10 reopen compacts to increase the number of slot machines, which now are -lim- ited to 2,000 per lribe. Some tribes are willing to lalk because they want more slot machines. Other tribes are satisfied with the current limit and, because they have no environmental issues, they are not coming 10 the table, Jensen said. The governor announced his intenlion in January, but Pasricha said talks are still in the early stages. "lI's been a slow process," she said in June. 108 . -Tribesrn Caiiitifnia that have fed- eral recognition 62' .Trib~i.st~teQ~ming compacts in California pl C..ompacted Jr.ibe.s th. at .have ':,''-'- .:'..:.'- ,- ";,.,-'-, ".' :'~ --.:' >-,-(';;:';;'<, . ':-, .' ". active gaming facilities 14 -.:<,yC::' ".,........ . .,,- ,..-.-:..'._...-c.... ....... ,," ,," ''-:''---..:..'''''''-:-:--'''::':'':'':'. ".....-.......... Tribes that have requested - a state compact Slate negotiations California is home to far more Indian tribes (l08) and Indian casinos (52) than any o(her state. State voters approved of gam. bling on Indian reservations in 1998. When the state Supreme Court Threw out the 1998 iniliative, the tribes relUrned with Proposi~ tion 1 A, which vOlers approved nearly 2.10-1 in March 2000. And every indicator poinls toward casino growth. Dozens of new casi. nos are being planned, and scores of tribes are seeking federal recognition - the first step toward opening a casino. In January, Gov. DaVIS announced he wanted to reopen the 58 compacts he signed wilh tribes in September 1999 and the three compacts signed since then. The f!overnor ha~ stated two major goals for the renegotiations: Getting 1he 1ribes to share their revenues with the state. and ensuring Ihat trihes comply with environmental repulallons. in part by giving COUn!It'S <Ind cilln a greater role in the development of tribal facilities. The stale's negotlator~ ~ lormer state Supreme Coun Justice Cruz Reynoso, retired San Die?o County Superior Court Judf'c Alllhon~ Joseph and San h<:lllCiSCO lawyer Frederick Wyle - hBve sOllpht ,met received extensive lOpu! from county supervisors. sheriffs. dlSlrlC1 allOI- neys and other local offJCials. said Davis spokeswoman Amber PJSnctl.1 50 Tribes petitioning for federal - --'.- recognition >-~""<-;~(~~~~~i~~~?}5-ri_'i-~.".:. 44'('1qt,9~1 ~ounties with recognized tribes, tribes seeking recognition or sites of proposed casinos Counties with active casinos Source:Calilomia StltE AssociatioflO! Counlies . The county experience San Diego County probably has more experience dealing with Indian lribes than any county in the United States. The county has a full.time tribal liaJ,soll and has undertaken an extensive slUdy of the countY'5 17 Iribes, 18 reservations and 8 casinos. San Diego Counly's flTSI study, produced in November 2000, was presemed solely from a CEQA point of view. The repoll was poorly received because CEQA does not apply to the tribes and because the lribes had no input. said Chantal Saipe, the county's tribal liaison She updated that report in 200 L but the tribes did not accept il any bener. So she changed ller approach. The latest version of the lcpon. OBsJ2JRI . r .I1ILY 2003 fACtIl Planning 15 . rele;l~ed in April. bef'lns wilh oj hrief hislory of each lTibe and expla- mllion of each tribe's needs. resources and. where applicable, reasons for pursuing ~i.lmlll~. The TepOrl lhen disctlsses Ihe benefits and negntive consequences of each casino. Each tribe had ample oppor. {Unity to panicipate in the report's prepanl1ion. This round, the tribes accepled the report much beller, Saipe said. "One of the purposes W<lS (0 establish a respectful dialogue with the tribes. I think the report wcnt a long way toward that," Saipe said. In her slaff report that accompanied lhe report. Saipe wrote, "The two most signifIcant and easily quantifinble Impacts [of casinos] ... relate to traffic and law enforcement. However. the report places these impacts in context by showing that until ~;mling, tribes had been unable to establish an economic base to fulfill their governmental responsibilities; the tribes have no other options but to develop gam- ing and other facilities on their existing tribal lands: and tribal devel- opment is occurring at a time when the county, aiter over a century of development, is trying 10 control development in the backcounlry." The report idenlified $1 SO million in road improvements needed in the vicinity of reservalions with casinos. But the report found that only $24 million worth of those needed upgr<ldes were the result of casinos. Three of the eight tribes with casinos have signed agreements with the county 10 mitig.ne all casino~related traffic impacts, and two tribes have agreed to offset some of their traffic impacts. Saipe said the county needs 10 work out additional agreements. However, she nOled, making improvemenls 10 these backcountry roads is counter to the county's proposed general plan, which discourages growth in most rural areas. Law enforcement issues have proven even stickier, and only two tribes have signed agreements with the San Diego County Sheriff's Department for reservation. related public safety. San Diego CounlY learned that an authoritarian approach got the county nowhere, Saipe said. Tribes deal with the Bureau of lndian Affairs and the state before pursuing a casino. The tribes do not want resistance from local officials at the end of the process, said Saipe, who has found that most tribes are willing to work with the county. She also pointed out that the tribes are as new \0 casino development as the count)'. In Yolo County. officials initially were upset by the Rumsey Band's proposal to triple the size of its casino in the remote Capay Valley. County officials sought help from state officials regarding environ menial issues, but the county learned it was on its own - and that it had no legal recourse with the tribe, McGowan said. Still, the tribe and the county were able to work out an apreement. The tribe can build a smaller-than-proposed casino expansion and the county at some point in the fUlUre will process an application for a golf course on nun-tribal land. ]n exchange, the Iribe agreed to pay about $80 million over 18 years 10 the county and neighbonng propeny owners. "We were fonunate in that the tribe we are deailng with are eons- long residents of that panicular area. That's their home. They have great feeling for it," McGowan said. He sees the agreement as a start. ing point. Both the counlY's and the tribe's needs will evolve. and McGowan said he is confident both sides will do whal IS necessary The fact lhat Yolo and other counties deahnp with Indian cosinos have failed to get assistance from Sacmmenlo IS not surprislllf'. "The tribes. collectively. have become the bipt'esl c<lmpai~n con- tributors in the stale," said Jim Knox. exeCull\'t' (Ilrcclor nf Common Cause in Call1ornia. "They emerged Oul oj 1111\\'11('1'(' r(';ill~' in the 1998 eleCllon to become major contributors. ~llld lhey 11;1\'( nwjnr support at the Capito1" Exactly how much the tribes give 10 pnillll':11 cIIHII(i:lles ilnd C<luse~ . . is unknown because some tribes do not disclose their election activ- ity. \\Thelher the tribes are subject to state election law is an issue the Fair Political Practices Commission is litigating. Welcoming casinos While many local governments are hostile to lndian casinos - EI Dorado County, for example, has allocated $300,000 for its legal fight against a casino proposed near Shingle Springs - some local governments look favorably on the jobs and revenues casinos pro- vide. Early this year, the CilY of Richmond commissioned a consul. tant to examine a waterfront casino and hotel proposed by the Scotts Valley Band of Porno Indians. Richmond officials have talked about the jobs and revenue the project could bring to their working-class community. Yuba CounlY officials took less than six months last year to work out an agTeement with the Enterprise Rancheria, which pro~ poses building a hotel and casino next to an existing concert amphi- theater just south of Marysville. A race Irack proposed for the site has stalled, and county officials see the casino and hotel as possibly an even beller economic engine th~n the track. In June, Rohnert Park officials began seriously considering asking the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria to build a casino in the city, rather than on a sensi- tive site between Vallejo and Novato, The experience of West Sacramento, however, points to just how tricky the issues are. In November 2002, the West Sacramento City Council approved an agreement with the Upper Lake Tribe of Porno Indians regarding a proposed hotel and casino just off Interstate 80. Backers of the agreement suggested that the casino was coming any. way, so the city should ensure the city benefited. But a divided City Council reversed itself after a referendum on the agreement quickly gained enough signatures 10 qualify for the ballot. And in February, a federal judge blocked the Upper Lake Tribe's effon to have the fed. eral government take the land into trust for the lndians. The casino proposals in more urban areas amount to "a land grab," contended Cheryl Schmit, director of the Indian gambling watchdog group Stand Up for California. The tribes typically have no historical links to the urban areas, and the tribes often ask the federal govem- menno accept the land so that the tribe can build things like health centers and tribal officers, she said. And while health facilities might get built, it is a casino the tribe is after. Local officials who suppon these effons "are being misinformed and they are being duped by the investors," Schmit charged. Not all urban area officials have open arms for the casinos, though. Placer County officials reached an agreement addressing roads and public safety with the United Auburn Indian Community only after realizing the county could not stop the Thunder Valley Casino. The neighbonng cities of Rosevi]Je and Rocklin joined a lawsuit to halt the casino, which the tribe successfully defended in federal district coun. However, even the huge Thunder Valley facility - which fealures 7S,OOO.square-feet of gambling, two bars, eight restaurants and even a Starbuck's - would be smaller than a proposal in San Bernardino. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians proposes a 300,000-square- foot addilion to a small casino that staned OUl during the 1980s as a bm~o hall in a San Bernardino residential neighborhood. · . Contact~ Michael McGowan, Yolo County supervisor, (916) 375.644i DeAnn baker, Colitornia Slate Association 01 Counhes.191Gl 327-7500. Chantal Saipe, San Diego County, (619) 685-2542 ~usan Jensen, CalilO!nia Nations Indian Gaming ASSOCiation, (916) 448.870E Ambel Pasricha, governor's office, (916) 445-4571 Cheryl Schmit. Sland Up 10! Calilornia, (916) 663.320~ Jim ~nox, Common Cause. (916) 443-935[ O~Ri _...~.._--...... Entered into Record It . COIIIII:IIICmvOevCms Mtg: 7/l./ a.3 :Ag,,,.b/~/:~ ~~/- ~~ ~jtv Clerk/COC Seer eltr of San Bernlrdino f'