HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.C 8/5/2013 1 •
DATE: August 5, 2013 S
f _
TO: Honorable Mayor. and Members of the City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion and P ossible Action on Approval of Letter to Senator Feinstein and
Congressman Huffman.Opposing the Dry Creek Band of Porno Indians' Request
to Have 277 Acre Site Immediately South of Petaluma Taken Into Trust.
}
RECOMMENDATION •
It is recommended that the City Council provide direction as appropriate.
BACKGROUND '
Councilmember Mike Healy has provided a draft letter'to Petaluma's federal legislators
regarding the Dry Creek Band of Porno Indians' request to have their 277 acre site immediately
g g Y q
south of Petaluma taken into trust, and is requesting Council's consideration in signing the
attached letter.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft letter
•
•
Agenda Review:
• Finance Direct r Ci ty g Mana er ►�
City Attorney o
DRAFT ATTACHMENT 1
August 5, 2013
Hon. Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331. Hart Senate Office Building
Washington,D.C. 20510
Hon. Barbara Boxer
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington,D.C. 20510
Hon. Jared Huffman S
United States House of Representatives i.
1630 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: Dry Creek Band of Porno Indians Request to Have 277 Acre Site
Immediately South of Petaluma Taken-Into Trust,
Dear.Senator Feinstein, Senator.Boxer.and Representative Huffman:
We write to request your,opposition to the pending'req uest by the Dry Creek Band of Porno
Indians.(the "Tribe") to have a 277 acre parcel immediately south of the City of Petaluma (the
"Property")taken into trust by the United States. .
The Tribe has owned fee title to most of the Property since 2005.. Thus,the Tribe has long had
the ability to develop the Pro P e rt Y consistent with a pp licable state and local land use, zoning and
other laws. We are concerned that the only reason for the Tribe to transfer the Property in trust
to the federal government vwoulcl be an attempt to circumvent these laws..
Setting aside the question of whether or not accepting the Property into trust,by itself, would be
sufficient to deprive the State of California of its legislative jurisdiction over the Property, see
Coso Energy Developers v. County of In ..0 122 Cal.A. 4th 1512, 1520 (2004), the local
Energy p tYfY9 pp�
interests served by maintaining local zoning controls over the Property outweigh the interests of
the Tribe. The Property is located in a particularly sensitive.location. It'is both within a
Community Separator between Petaluma and Marin County, approved by Sonoma.County
voters, and outside the City of:Petaluma's Urban Growth Boundary, which was approved by
80% of local,voters in'1998 and extended in place by 65% of local voters in 2010.
Additionally, Petaluma voters approved an advisory ballot measure in 2006 by a vote of 79%o to
21% in which they specifically opposed any potential casino development by the Tribe on the
Property.
We understand that the current trust application does not include a casino proposal. However,
the Property could qualify for gamin.g in the future.. The Bureau,of Indian Affairs takes the
position that the applicable federal regulation, 25 CFR 151, does not authorize the federal
government to impose conditions on a tribe's future use of lands which have been taken into
trust. See City of Lincoln, Oregon v. Portland Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 33 BFIA
102, 106-07 (1999). Thus, there would,be nothing to prevent the tribe in the future from seeking
an exception from the IGRA prohibition on gaming on lands-acquired after 1988 —most likely
thus allowing gaming in the future, but only if the
pursuant to 25 U.S.C.�§ 2719(b)�(1)(A)— g g g y f
Property is taken into trust.
We note that that the current site plan containsi,ntwo very large parcels labeled "Agriculture
Future Development." We also note that the current site plan curiously proposes a two bay fire
station, even though the existing station for the,San Antonio Volunteer Fire Department, which.
serves the Property, is located approximately a quarter mile from the Property. Thus, it is not
alarmist to question the Tribe's long-term non=interest in developing a casino.
We are also mindful that the tribal promises not to pursue gaming are,not enforceable. In
Riverside County, the San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians promised not to pursue
gaming, but instead provide soccer fields for the neighboring community, as it was applying to
have land taken into trust After the land was taken into trust, the tribe changed course and built
a parking garage for pits casino. Similarly, the Chairman of the Graton Rancheria told Congress
in 1999 that his tribe had no interest in operating a casino; that casino is now under construction
ten miles to the north of us.
The six parcels comprising the Property all have existing County of Sonoma zoning of Land
Extensive Agriculture. We understand that the Property is water constrained. The City of
Petaluma is prepared to enter into.a long term agreement to provide tertiary recycled water to the
Property if the Tribe is interested to developing irrigated crops, such as a vineyard, consistent
with applicable County zoning.
The City is also prepared to explore with the Tribe possible exceptions to the City's Urban
Growth Boundary ordinance, which could allow the City to extend utility service to the Property,
but only if the Property is not taken into trust.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
David Glass, Mayor Chris Albertson,Vice-Mayor
Teresa Barrett, Councilmember Mike Harris,'Councilmember
Mike Healy, Councilmember Gabe Kearney, Councilmember
Kathy Miller, Councilmember