Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3.B 11/06/2017Agenda Item #3.B • i DATE: November 6, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager-, SUBJECT: Resolution and Letter Opposing HR 597 (Denham) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution, and execute a letter offering amended language, continuing to oppose HR 597 (Denham). BACKGROUND House Resolution (HR) 597, the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017, was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 20, 2017, by Representative Jeff Denham. HR 597 would take into trust and make part of its reservation, for the benefit of the Lytton Rancheria of California, a federally recognized Indian tribe, certain lands owned by the tribe and adjacent to the City of Windsor. The bill prohibits gaming on lands taken into trust north of the intersection of Highways 101 and 12. The Bill also provides gaining will be prohibited until March 16, 2037 on other lands taken into trust for the benefit of the tribe after enactment of HR 597, which is consistent with a memorandum of understanding executed between the tribe and the County of Sonoma in 2015. The Bill would preempt the authority of the State and local governments to tax land taken into trust for the Lytton Rancheria. HR 597 was passed by the House on July 11, 2017, received in the Senate on July 12, 2017, and referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. A copy of HR 597 is included as Attachment 2. At the City Council's September 18, 2017 meeting, a letter of opposition to HR 597 was approved (Attachment 3). DISCUSSION In response to receiving the City Council's September 18, 2017 letter, Senator Feinstein's office asked how HR 597 should be amended to address Petaluma's specific concerns. Councilmember Healy, who participated on that call, provided suggested amendments to HR 597 which are provided for the City Council's consideration, incorporated as Exhibit 1 to the attached resolution, and referenced in the attached letter of opposition. As with the September letter, the current letter has been prepared with a block of seven signatures. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The only cost associated with this item was the staff time required to prepare, review and process it. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with Exhibit 1 2. Draft Letter opposing HR 597 3. September 18, 2017 Letter of Opposition a ATTACHMENT I RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LETTER OFFERING AMENDED LANGUAGE, AND INDICATING CONTINUING OPPOSITION, TO HR 597 (DENHAM) WHEREAS, the City Council sent a letter of opposition to Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris on September 18, 2017 opposing HR 597; and WHEREAS, in subsequent conversations with Senator Feinstein's office, the City was asked for specifics on how to change Section 5 of HR 597; and WHEREAS, the City has received direction to present the proposed statutory language modifications shown in Exhibit 1 to the letter of opposition; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma remains opposed to HR 597. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council offers proposed amendments to Section 5 of HR 597 as detailed in Exhibit 1 to this Resolution and indicates its continuing opposition to the Bill. 3 HR 597, Section 5(b) 1. Language in current bill: Exhibit 1 to Resolution (b) OTHER LANDS TAKEN INTO TRUST. — (1) TIME - LIMITED PROHIBITION. -Lands taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe in Sonoma County after the date of the enactment of this Act shall not be eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 et seq.) until after March 15, 2037. (2) PERMANENT PROHIBITION.- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), lands located north of a line that runs in a cardinal east and west direction and is defined by California State Highway Route 12 as it crosses through Sonoma County at Highway 101 as they are physically on the ground and used for transportation on January 1, 2016, and extending to the furthest extent of Sonoma County shall not be eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 et seq.). 2. City of Petaluma's Preferred Modification: (b) OTHER LANDS TAKEN INTO TRUST. (1) PERMANENT PROHIBITION. —Lands taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe in Sonoma County after the date of the enactment of this Act shall not be eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 et seq.). 3. City of Petaluma's Second Choice Modification: (b) OTHER LANDS TAKEN INTO TRUST. (1) TIME - LIMITED PROHIBITION. -Lands taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe in Sonoma County after the date of the enactment of this Act shall not be eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 et seq.) until after March 15, 2037. After that date, lands taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe in Sonoma County would not automatically be eligible for gaming but would still need to qualify as eligible for gaining pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2519 or other statute. (2) PERMANENT PROHIBITION.— Notwithstanding paragraph (1), lands located north of a line that runs in a cardinal east and west direction and is defined by California State Highway Route 12 as it crosses through Sonoma County at Highway 101 as they are physically on the ground and used for transportation on January 1, 2016, and extending to the furthest extent of Sonoma County shall not be eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 et seq.). 4 November 6, 2017 Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 RE: HR 597 — Oppose Dear Senators Feinstein and Harris: ATTACHMENT 2 Honorable Kamala Harris United States Senate 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 At its regular meeting of November 6, 2017, the Petaluma City Council adopted the attached resolution, offering proposed amendments to HR 597, and indicating our continuing opposition to the Bill. We write to follow our September 18 letter opposing HR 597 (Denham), and a subsequent conference call with members of your staff. Thank you for the prompt response to our letter. In the conference call, John Watts of Senator Feinstein's office asked how the City would like to see section 5 of HR 597 changed to address the specific concerns pertaining to Petaluma that were raised in the September 18 letter. The Council has considered Mr. Watts' question, and proposes the statutory language modifications shown in Exhibit 1 of the attached resolution. From our perspective, HR 597 would pose less of a threat if the preferred modification was amended into the bill. However, even with the preferred amendment, the City of Petaluma will remain opposed to HR 597. Our reasoning follows: All nine cities in Sonoma County, including both Petaluma and Windsor, are surrounded by voter - approved Urban Growth Boundaries to prevent sprawl type development. Layered over that are voter - approved Urban Separators and county zoning that support the same policy goals. These policies are enormously popular with voters. In Windsor, the Lytton have teamed up with two prominent non - Native American businessmen — one of whom is well known for his assertion that "zoning is theft" — to develop their lands in a manner more dense than permitted by the UGB or the applicable county and city zoning. The County of Sonoma, believing that the lands being taken into trust was inevitable, approved its MOA with the Lytton to avoid even more irresponsible development than that to which the MOA agrees. If the County's support for HR 597 seems less than full- throated, that may be because it only agreed to the MOA to avoid a worse outcome. Similarly, the Town of Windsor was enticed to support the Lytton proposal by a combination of carrots and sticks, all in the context of the inevitability argument. Petaluma views the Lytton proposal and HR 597 as a pernicious test case that could serve as a model for frustrated landowners and anti - zoning developers to partner with a tribe and blow up carefully designed regulations limiting sprawl development on lands adjoining cities throughout the region. The City of Petaluma is surrounded by privately owned ranches and farms outside our Urban Growth Boundary in areas zoned for agriculture, many of which are also located in voter - approved community separators. Under existing policies, these lands are off limits to intense development. As you know, there are enormous financial incentives to find ways to develop such lands, especially in the Bay Area, and that financial pressure will only intensify in the future. The Lytton proposal and HR 597 provide a blueprint for wrecking these carefully crafted land use policies. For the above reasons, the City of Petaluma continues to respectfully request that HR 597 not be approved. Sincerely, David Glass Mayor Chris Albertson Councilmember Gabe Kearney Councilmember Kathy Miller Councilmember Teresa Barrett Vice Mayor Mike Healy Councilmember Dave King Councilmember September 18, 2017 Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 RE: HR 597 — Oppose Dear Senators Feinstein and Harris: ATTACHMENT 3 Honorable Kamala Harris United States Senate 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 We write in opposition to HR 597 (Denham), which would take into federal trust lands in Sonoma County adjacent to the Town of Windsor on behalf of the Lytton Rancheria of California. As you know, legislation is necessary because the Lytton Rancheria, which was not a federally recognized tribe in 1934, faces what appears to be an insurmountable Carcieri problem. HR 597 represents another unsavory step in the reservation - shopping saga in the North Bay. The North Bay counties in general, and Petaluma in particular, are highly sensitized to reservation shopping efforts by both newly recognized and long established tribes. The Graton Rancheria, established by Congress in 2000, after being pressured to abandon its original Highway 37 site, eyed Petaluma before settling on Rohnert Park. Every single Rohnert Park councilmember who supported bringing the Graton casino there was defeated in their next election. In Petaluma's case, the Dry Creek band, which operates River Rock casino in northern Sonoma County, purchased a ranch adjacent to Highway 101 on our southern boundary shortly after the Graton Rancheria announced plans for Rohnert Park. The Dry Creek band has agreed, in negotiations with the County of Sonoma centered on River Rock, not to seek for several more years to have the Petaluma parcel taken into federal trust. But that agreement will expire, and we are faced with the prospect of another potential casino or, at the least, intensive development on lands zoned for agriculture outside our Urban Growth Boundary in a highly visible community separator. The County of Sonoma has negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement with the Lytton Rancheria obligating it to support the Lytton's land -to -trust efforts. The County apparently felt it negotiated the best deal possible under the legal circumstances, although we note that it mistakenly contemplated that the land might be taken into trust by the Department of the Interior without congressional action. Because of this MOA, we understand that Sonoma County supervisors are being told by their legal counsel that they cannot oppose efforts to take the land into trust for the Lytton, even if that is their personal viewpoint. Similarly, our colleagues on the Windsor- Town Council are apparently still hopeful of obtaining finding from the Lytton to build a community pool. 7 A particularly troublesome aspect of HR 597 is Section 5. Section 5(b)(1) provides that additional lands taken into trust for the Lytton in Sonoma County will not be gaming eligible until after March 15, 2037. Section 5(b)(2) makes the prohibition on gaming permanent for future trust lands in Sonoma County located north of the intersection of Highways 12 and 101. The two largest cities in Sonoma County located south of the intersection of Highways 12 and 101 are Rohnert Park and Petaluma. No new casino would want to locate in Rohnert Park because the Graton casino is already there. Conversely, locating in or near Petaluma would be attractive — as the Dry Creels investment demonstrates — because it would leapfrog the Graton casino and be closer to the central Bay Area. Section 5 of HR 597 paints a big bull's eye on the City of Petaluma. Section 5 is even more problematic because it could be construed as overriding IGRA and making lands taken into trust for the Lytton in or near Petaluma gaming eligible, even though such lands would not otherwise be gaming eligible under IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a) &(b). For the above reasons, we respectfully request that HR 597 not be approved. David Glass Mayor Chris Albertson Councilmember Gabe Kearney Councilmember Kathy Miller Councilmember Teresa Barrett Vice Mayor Mike Healy Councilmember Dave King Councilmember 8