HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Agenda Packets - Regular Meeting 1/9/2012REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#: fi (0 SUBJECT: DATE: IN FAVOR: CI NEUTRAL: U IN OPPOSITION: 0 Name: Representing: Address: 11 to (e CC6AQA_(,Qt City:.73 Telephone No: N — — Lc. 23 Individual speakers wishing to address an agenda item are requested to complete this card. Although you are not required to complete this card, the information will assist the City in addressing the issue(s) you raise. Individual speakers are limited to three minutes for their presentation. Organized presentations with more than one speaker are limited to 15 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. When speaking, be brief, stay on the subject. The Mayor will call you to speak at the appropriate time. Please make your presentation from the microphone. HAND SPEAKER SLIPS TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING.
REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#: SUBJECT: Sbt:bL DATE: IN FAVOR: U Name: NEUTRAL: U IN OPPOSITION: Representing: S C_ Address: 16 (.0 Cei City: Telephone No: 61 -(9 - (1-a 3q Individual speakers wishing to address an agenda item are requested to complete this card. Although you are not required to complete this card, the information will assist the City in addressing the issue(s) you raise. Individual speakers are limited to three minutes for their presentation. Organized presentations with more than one speaker are limited to 15 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. When speaking, be brief, stay on the subject. The Mayor will call you to speak at the appropriate time. Please make your presentation from the microphone. HAND SPEAKER SLIPS TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING.
REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY COU7IL7ENDA ITEM#: SUBJECT: DATE: / NEUTRAL: U IN OPPOSITION: Name:. Reprefenting: Address: City: Telephone No: ? V7,1c Individual speak4Ø wishing to address an agenda item are requested to complete this card. Although you are not required to complete this card, the information will assist the City in addressing the issue(s) you raise. Individual speakers are limited to three minutes for their presentation. Organized presentations with more than one speaker are limited to 15 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. When speaking, be brief, stay on the subject. The Mayor will call you to speak at the appropriate time. Please make your presentation from the microphone. HAND SPEAKER SLIPS TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING.
NEUTRAL: 0 IN OPPOSITION: 0 Name: RepT Address: City; Telephone No: i7 L REQUEST TO SPEAK CITY COUNILtGENDA ITEM#:,7 DSUBJECT: ttr---vv14)-0-1-1 DATE: Individual spea rs wishing to address an agenda item are requested to complete this card. Although you are not required to complete this card, the information will assist the City in addressing the issue(s) you raise. Individual speakers are limited to three minutes for their presentation. Organized presentations with more than one speaker are limited to 15 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. When speaking, be brief, stay on the subject. The Mayor will call you to speak at the appropriate time. Please make your presentation from the microphone. HAND SPEAKER SLIPS TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING.
REQUEST TO SPEAK C110"0/1. (4/\ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM#::1\— IQ SUBJECT: DATE: IN FAVOR: LI NEUTRAL: CI Name: Representing: Address: U-+ CA; IN OPPOSITION: City: Telephone No: -9/ Individual speakers wishing to address an agenda item are requested to complete this card. Although you are not required to complete this card, the information will assist the City in addressing the issue(s) you raise. Individual speakers are limited to three minutes for their presentation. Organized presentations with more than one speaker are limited to 15 minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor and Council. When speaking, be brief, stay on the subject. The Mayor will call you to speak at the appropriate time. Please make your presentation from the microphone. HAND SPEAKER SLIPS TO THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC.
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
City of San Jacinto
Mayor and City Council
Tim HuIts, City Manager
Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.
Richard Harmon, Senior Associate
January 9, 2012
Legislative and Advocacy Update
Subject Status
• Currently in the second year of a 2-year Legislative Session.
• January deadline for bills to move to second House.
Legislative and State Budget • Governor's Budget released several days early.
• Trigger cuts contingent upon voter approval of taxes in
November.
• Significant government reorganization proposed.
• SB 659 proposed to extend dissolution deadline from Feb. 1. to
Redevelopment Update April 15.
• SB 654 and other "fix" legislation.
• Possible scenarios.
• HCD moving forward with workshops and reforms.
• New solicitations.
Enterprise Zone Reforms and Status • Legislative reform efforts.
• Impacts of RDA situation on Enterprise Zones.
• Water Resources Development Act.
• COPS Hiring Program. (May 2012)
• Statewide Parks Program.
• Sustainable Communities Planning Grant. (Feb. 2012)
Grant Advocacy • Community-Based Transportation Planning Grants. (April 2012)
• State Safe Routes to School. (March 2012)
• Integrated Regional Water Management Program. (Spring 2012)
• Firefighter safety and prevention grants. (Spring 2012)
• Urban Greening Grant Program. (June 2012).
• Potential restoration/conservation grants. (Spring 2012)
Washington, D.C. Itinerary e Draft itinerary attached.
• Briefing call to be scheduled prior to departure.
State Capitol Office • 1121 L Street, Suite 607 • Sacramento, California 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-2063
FederalOffice • 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 207 • Washington, DC • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555
Northern California Office • 436 14" Street, Suite 723 • Oakland, California 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030
Southern California Office • 2699 White Road, Suite 251 • Irvine, California 92614 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
n
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC.
JAN
NTO
City of San Jacinto Meeting Itinerary for January 18-20, 2012
Wednesday, January 18
Briefing with TPA Staff
600 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Ste. 207
Meeting with Representative Mary Bono Mack
TBD
TENTATIVE Lunch with Representative Jerry Lewis
TBD
Meeting with White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
White House
USCM Opening Plenary Session
Capitol Hilton Hotel
USCM Opening Reception
Capitol Hilton Hotel
TENTATIVE Dinner with Representative Jerry Lewis
TBD
Meeting with Office of Senator Barbara Boxer
Hart Senate Building
Meeting with Office of Senator Dianne Feinstein
Hart Senate Building
Meeting with National Park Service (Save America's Treasures
1849 C Street, NW
Meeting with Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
USCM 80th Winter Meeting Gala
National Building Museum
9:30 a.m. — 10:00 a.m.
10:30 a.m. — 11:30 a.m.
12:00 p.m. — 1:00 p.m.
1:30 p.m. — 2:30p.m.
3:30p.m. — 5:00p.m.
6:00p.m. — 8:00p.m.
7:30 p.m. — 9:00 p.m.
Thursday. January 19
9:30 a.m. — 10:30 p.m.
10:30a.m. — 11:30a.m.
1:30 p.m. — 2:30 p.m.
3:00 p.m. — 4:00 p.m.
6:00 p.m. — 9:30 p.m.
Comment [Rill]: Issues:
to 771-1,-'311; Hity will be
her olisolio't noxt year.
Comment [ftli2]:
' orlior undaces.
Comment [Min Issues ;
to tl-Jst; ,tT,e2. City
Comment [RH4]: Issues:
to trust; preservation
funding; other updates.
Comment [FINS]: Issues Fee
to trust; preservation
f other update:;.
Comment [RH6]: Issues:
to trust; preservation
funding; other updates.
Comment [RH7]: Preservat±r,Y1
- ding.
Comment [RH8]: Follow up to
mneting last year; fee to
tru3t.
Southern California • 2699 White Road, Suite 251 • Irvine, California 92614 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
Northern California. 436 14th Street, Suite 723 • Oakland, California 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030
State Capitol • 1121 L Street, Suite 607 • Sacramento, California 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-2063
Federal. 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 207 • Washington, DC • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555
vise iiii
PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC.
Friday, January 20
8:00 a.m. — 9:30 a.m.
10:00 a.m. — 11:00 a.m.
12:00 p.m. — 1:30 p.m.
USCM Plenary Breakfast: Mayors and Business Leaders
Capitol Hilton Hotel
Meeting with USD0.1 COPS Office
USDOJ
USCM Closing Luncheon
Capitol Hilton Hotel
Comment [REM: Debriefing or
year's aD;:lication.
Southern California • 2699 White Road, Suite 251 • Irvine, California 92614 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215
Northern California* 436 14 th Street, Suite 723 • Oakland, California 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030
State Capitol • 1121 L Street, Suite 607 • Sacramento, California 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-2063
Federal. 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 207 • Washington, DC • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555
SOC
Save Our Communities
January 9, 2012
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members:
First, thank you for giving us your time. Below is a summary of our issues and requests.
BACKGROUND: The Soboba Band of Luisefio Indians, in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed fee-to-trust land transfer.
• SOC (Save Our Communities) consists of and represent a majority of the concerned citizens from the 5 residential
communities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed fee-to-trust land annexation by the Soboba Band of Luisefio
Indians.
• The subject property, known as the Horseshoe Grande Fee to Trust Transfer, consists of 34 parcels, totaling 534.91 +/-
acres of land, (almost 1 sq mile) located in the City of San Jacinto and Riverside County.
The five communities would become islands of U.S. territory within reservation (Sovereign nation) borders and U.S.
citizens would have little input in what happens on sovereign Indian land around them with regard to type of
construction, noise and visual pollution, traffic flow, crime issues, air quality, hazardous conditions, water and other
environmental issues.
The aquifer that provides water to the City of San Jacinto as well as the Tribe would be located within the
Reservation; the overuse of this resource by any party could result in serious consequences.
Proposed development on the subject property would include a casino/hotel, massive parking structure, Tribal fire
station, waste water treatment facility, and gas station/convenience store.
• The transfer would eliminate all tax revenues for the City and County from property taxes, TUMF, sales tax, etc., for
perpetuity. Currently significant tax revenues are generated by the subject property and future development
would generate significant additional revenues.
• SOC supports Tribal self-sufficiency, to have jobs and career opportunities, however, this proposed project, a high-rise
hotel/casino resort situated on light residential zoned land in the middle of a predominately senior citizen residential area
is not appropriate and not the answer to those goals.
• It is not appropriate, nor the intent of the law to harm U.S. citizens who may be caught in a Tribe's sovereign pursuit of
economic gain.
REQUESTED ACTION BY YOUR OFFICE:
1. SUPPORT OPPOSITION to the Horseshoe Grande Fee to Trust Transfer by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
2. Support a County of Riverside Resolution of Opposition to be sent to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs (WA), when appropriate.
3. Ensure the County of Riverside is on record with the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a "Cooperating Agency" scheduled to
receive any and all notices regarding this Transfer.
4. Ensure the County of Riverside reviews and responds to any and all actions by BIA.
5. Submit your determination in response to the FEIS by January 13, 2012; copy the Governor's office as well as Federal,
State, and County elected officials.
Mission Statement
Save Our Communities is opposed to the conversion of Horseshoe Grande land from fee-to-trust; and subsequent
annexation to the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indian Reservation.
We desire this land to remain with its current boundaries, jurisdictions and zoning.
P.O. Box 682, San Jacinto, CA 92581
SOC
Save Our Communities
January 9, 2012
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members:
First, thank you for giving us your time. Below is a summary of our issues and requests.
BACKGROUND: The Soboba Band of Luiseho Indians, in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed fee-to-trust land transfer.
• SOC (Save Our Communities) consists of and represent a majority of the concerned citizens from the 5 residential
communities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed fee-to-trust land annexation by the Soboba Band of Luiserio
Indians.
• The subject property, known as the Horseshoe Grande Fee to Trust Transfer, consists of 34 parcels, totaling 534.91 +/-
acres of land, (almost 1 sq mile) located in the City of San Jacinto and Riverside County.
The five communities would become islands of U.S. territory within reservation (Sovereign nation) borders and U.S.
citizens would have little input in what happens on sovereign Indian land around them with regard to type of
construction, noise and visual pollution, traffic flow, crime issues, air quality, hazardous conditions, water and other
environmental issues.
• The aquifer that provides water to the City of San Jacinto as well as the Tribe would be located within the
Reservation; the overuse of this resource by any party could result in serious consequences.
• Proposed development on the subject property would include a casino/hotel, massive parking structure, Tribal fire
station, waste water treatment facility, and gas station/convenience store.
• The transfer would eliminate all tax revenues for the City and County from property taxes, TUMF, sales tax, etc., for
perpetuity. Currently significant tax revenues are generated by the subject property and future development
would generate significant additional revenues.
• SOC supports Tribal self-sufficiency, to have jobs and career opportunities, however, this proposed project, a high-rise
hotel/casino resort situated on light residential zoned land in the middle of a predominately senior citizen residential area
is not appropriate and not the answer to those goals.
• It is not appropriate, nor the intent of the law to harm U.S. citizens who may be caught in a Tribe's sovereign pursuit of
economic gain.
REQUESTED ACTION BY YOUR OFFICE:
1. SUPPORT OPPOSITION to the Horseshoe Grande Fee to Trust Transfer by the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
2. Support a County of Riverside Resolution of Opposition to be sent to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), when appropriate.
3. Ensure the County of Riverside is on record with the Bureau of Indian Affairs as a "Cooperating Agency" scheduled to
receive any and all notices regarding this Transfer.
4. Ensure the County of Riverside reviews and responds to any and all actions by BIA.
5. Submit your determination in response to the FEIS by January 13, 2012; copy the Governor's office as well as Federal,
State, and County elected officials.
Mission Statement
Save Our Communities is opposed to the conversion of Horseshoe Grande land from fee-to-trust; and subsequent
annexation to the Soboba Band of Luiserio Indian Reservation.
We desire this land to remain with its current boundaries, jurisdictions and zoning.
P.O. Box 682, San Jacinto, CA 92581
San Jacinto City Council Meeting
1/9/2012
Dear City Council,
Re: Soboba Fee To Trust
Attached are issues we would like you to consider and act upon. The
documents can be inserted in the large three ring binder we gave you last
year.
1. Fee To Trust Concerns and Alternatives
2. Sheriff Sniff's MOU with the Soboba Tribe
3. Amicus Brief regarding citizens' "standing" with the BIA and
Department of Interior in Fee To Trust issues
Thank you,
Save Our Communities
SOC92583@gmail.com
San Jacinto City Council 1/9/12
595 S. San Jacinto Avenue
San Jacinto, Ca. 92583
Re: FEIS; Citizens/Tribal Subcommittee; Sheriff Sniffs MOU
Dear City Council,
An important document in the Soboba Fee-To-Trust process has been sent to
the cooperating agencies with a comment deadline of January 13, 2011. Save
Our Communities (SOC) is requesting the following in this regard:
1. To have our concerns attached to your FEIS reply as an addendum in order
to create "standing" for our citizens with the BIA and Department of Interior
and to have our comments read and considered. There are no rules requiring
citizens' comments must be read or considered by the BIA, however, if they
are attached to your document they must be considered.
2. To have a Citizens/Tribal Subcommittee scheduled before the 1/13
deadline and every month thereafter to have an open discussion of the issues
involved in the Fee-To-Trust and Horseshoe Grande project. The City Council
is our voice.
3. To read Sheriff Sniffs Soboba MOU and our response to that MOU and to
discuss this with us at a Subcommittee meeting. To also request an
amendment to this MOU be developed that would agree to services better
protecting our communities and judicially enforceable.
Thank you for your consideration,
Patri.cicv Movyyt,e/
Save Our Communities
<S0C92583@gmail.com >
San Jacinto City Council January 9, 2012
RE: Alternative Placement of Soboba expanded casino/hotel project
Dear City Council,
Save Our Communities (SOC) believes that the proposed 55 acres of the Horseshoe Grande
area is an inappropriate location for a mega commercial facility.
We are not opposed to expanded business opportunities for the Tribe's well being,
however, consideration of the County of Riverside General Plan and the San Jacinto General
Plan should be paramount to protecting the rights of citizens in the affected surrounding
neighborhoods. A location with more exposure and easier access would also benefit the
Tribe.
For these reasons, we have developed Alternatives to the placement of the project for your
consideration and the Tribes:
1. The Gateway: Better access and traffic flow; commercial zoning in place; no conflict of
land use designations with residential areas; no city or county general plan infractions;
fewer or no NEPA problems; a tram to the golf course and clubhouse would eliminate
excessive traffic; positive comments by the city and county may garner the Governor's
approval for off-reservation gaming.
2. A Land Swap with the City of San Jacinto and/or Hemet: A more appropriate and better
suited piece of property, commercially zoned and with more visibility and access, roads
conducive to the extra traffic, public services in close proximity to the hotel/casino to
take care of the extra 911 calls, adequate infrastructure to support this large project
and no nearby residential neighborhoods to be disrupted. There would have to be a
judicially enforced agreement that limits future acquisitions and limits gaming to just
that piece of property. (In 2004, Governor Schwrzenegger stated ..."a tribe with
gaming-eligible land in an environmentally sensitive area, may with the agreement and
support of local government, move a proposed casino to another location that does not
present the same environmental concerns".)
3. Realignment of Horseshoe Grande blueprint: A one story 300 room hotel on 30 of
the 55 acres, no parking structure, realignment of Lake Park Drive to allow for a 43 acre
executive golf course surrounding the Soboba Springs Mobile Home Park, a tram (under
Lake Park Drive through a tunnel to the existing casino (expansion if they desire), a
tram to the existing Soboba Clubhouse, access to the casino and hotel from Esplanade to
Soboba Road ending at the hotel.
This plan would require a city zoning change with the approval of the citizens of the
surrounding communities, no fee to trust process as the gaming facility would remain
at the present site on the reservation, the city would maintain control of the
commercial land with all city and county ordinances in place, and the citizens would not
be surrounded by tribal fee to trust land.
4. Extend the Levee: The City had spoken with the Tribe about extending the levee from
the edge of their reservation, to the south in front of the current casino. This would
enable building to occur and a permanent larger facility could be built on their existing
footprint with access from an expanded Esplanade or San Jacinto Street across the
riverbed which would alleviate the traffic problem. A tram could run from the
casino/hotel to the golf course and clubhouse.
5. Build on current Tribal property south of Clubhouse: There is land along Soboba
Road that has no buildings or residential communities around it. A bridge could be
built from Ramona Expressway over the riverbed to the facility. There would be less
environmental issues on that property and no General Plan violations.
Alternative placement propositions have been successful with other California tribes and
not all tribal applications have been successful when there is public opposition.
GREEN VALLEY - The tribe sought a different location in its local area after their casino
was rejected as an undesirable area for the city.
JAMUL - There was sustained opposition of the public and Governor Brown stepped in and
opposed an 100 acre fee to trust contiguous application.
TULE RIVER - sustained opposition of the County and citizens (city in support). Governor
Brown stepped in and opposed the fee to trust - currently before the Indian Bureau of
Indian Affairs (IBIA).
We urge the San Jacinto City Council and the Soboba Tribe to consider these alternatives
for the betterment of the surrounding citizens and tribal members.
Sincerely,
Save Our Communities
50C92583@gmail.com
PERCEPTIONS
The perception that the Fee To Trust is a "done deal" is difficult to overcome.
There are misconceptions and misinterpretations that require almost a legal
degree to understand.
FEE TO TRUST AND GAMBLING:
There is a difference between the Fee To Trust and the gambling processes.
FEE TO TRUST - This is a "contiguous lands exception" and the Governor
has the discretion to oppose the additional fee to trust acquisition if he feels it
is harmful to the welfare of the public as well as other reasons. There is a
precedent for this opposition with other California tribes.
CASINO - The Tribe's 1999 compact allows for a 2nd casino, but not if it is
on trust land. It must be on reservation land.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
The City should follow a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process
for the development of any local agreement. An intergovernmental agreement
with a domestic dependent sovereign is not an exception under CEQA (State
laws do not apply to tribes). CEQA will provide a fair and transparent process
in the development of an MOU.
SUBMITTAL DATE:
10106/11
2 - -1 ce
0 >-
LA- CO
8'
0 0
Q. 0_
lE1
CrzNAT) aT
D ec . n3
SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FROM: Stanley L. Sniff Jr., Sheriff-Coroner-PA
SUBJECT: Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding for the Provision of
Law Enforcement Services with the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move that the Board of Supervisor approve the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) for law enforcement services with the Soboba Band of
L
u
i
s
e
n
o
I
n
d
i
a
n
s
,
a
n
d
authorize the Chairperson of the Board to execute all copies of the MOU on
b
e
h
a
l
f
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
BACKGROUND: The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (the Tribe) proposes to relocate i
t
s
existing casino to a 55 acre site, bordered by Lake Park Drive and Sobob
a
R
o
a
d
i
n
S
a
n
J
a
c
i
n
t
o
,
and to develop a 300-room hotel, restaurants, retail establishments, a c
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
c
e
n
t
e
r
,
a
n
events arena and a spa and fitness center within a 729,500± square-foot co
m
p
l
e
x
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
a
f
i
r
e
station, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience sto
r
e
(
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
k
n
o
w
n
as the Horseshoe Grande Development).
(Continued on Page 2)
Stanley L. Sni Sheriff-Coroner-PA
Will Taylor, Director Of Administration
FINANCIAL
DATA
Current F.Y. Total Cost:
Current F.Y. Net County Cost:
Annual Net County Cost:
N/A
$ 0
$ 0
In Current Year Budget:
Budget Adjustment:
For Fiscal Year
N/A
No
FY 2011-12
Positions To Bel ri
Deleted Per A-30I
Requires 4/5 Vote El
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Contract City Law Enforcement Revenue
BR 12-038
C.E.O. RECOMMENDATION:
County Executive Office Signature Per Exec. Ofc.: 3.30 Prey. Agn. Ref.: 03/28/063.16 District: 3 'Agenda Number:
Horseshoe Grande Development Impact Mitigation MOU with Soboba
BR 12-038
Page 2
The Tribe, through its Attorney, approached the Sheriff's Department to request
that the Department propose a level of law enforcement service that would
mitigate the impacts of the Horseshoe Grande Development to surrounding
neighborhoods. With the assistance of County Counsel, the Department drafted
an MOU for a phased implementation of service, which would start with one
Deputy at development groundbreaking and gradually increase until it reached
the level of five Deputies (the equivalent of one Deputy Sheriff around-the-clock)
and one Community Services Officer II at the grand opening of the development.
The Department will seek Board approval to add position control numbers for this
service approximately 120 days prior to the scheduled groundbreaking.
As of this writing, the Department has not been notified of a groundbreaking date
for the development, so budget adjustments are not recommended this fiscal
year. Conservatively, a full year of service cost with the full complement of
personnel is currently estimated at $1,123,000. All costs for this service will be
fully recovered through Board-approved rates.
HORSESHOE GRANDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MITIGATION
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
BETWEEN THE SOBOBA BAND OF LUISERO INDIANS
AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (hereinafter "MOU") is made and entered
into by and between the SOBOBA BAND OF LUISERO INDIANS, a federally recognized
Indian tribe (hereinafter "the Tribe") and the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political subdivision
of the State of California, on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriffs Department (hereinafter
"the County").
WHEREAS, the Tribe has requested the Bureau of Indian Affairs to acquire in trust
approximately 535 acres of land in Riverside County currently held in fee by the Tribe, of
which the Tribe proposes to develop approximately 55 acres, bordered by Lake Park Drive
and Soboba Road, into a destination hotel/casino complex (as reflected in the May 2009
Executive Summary of the Horseshoe Grande Fee-to-Trust Project Draft Environmental
Impact Study proposed by the Soboba Band of Luisefto Indians, page ES-1); and,
WHEREAS, the Tribe proposes to relocate its existing casino to the project site and to
develop a 300-room hotel, restaurants, retail establishments, a convention center, an events
arena and a spa and fitness center within a 729,500* square-foot complex, as well as a fire
station, and a 12-pump gas station with a 6,000 square-foot convenience store
("Development"); and,
WHEREAS, as a matter of federal law, pursuant to Public Law 280 most state criminal laws
continue to apply in Indian country, including the Tribe's Development, and the State retains
jurisdiction over the enforcement of those laws; and,
WHEREAS, the County, through its Sheriff's Department, projects that law enforcement
needs generated by the Development will require an additional full-time deputy over a 24-hour
time period, which equates to five sworn deputy positions and one non-sworn Community
Service Officer ("New Positions"), the cost of which the Tribe will reimburse the County.
NOW THEREFORE, the Tribe and the County hereby agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE
The Tribe agrees that its proposed Development will have an impact on law
enforcement services provided by the County. To mitigate this impact, the Tribe and County
have set forth in this MOU the law enforcement services which shall be implemented by the
Sheriff upon initiation of construction and the opening of the Development facilities. The
parties agree that the undertakings set forth in this Agreement fully and completely address to
the satisfaction of the County the Development's projected impacts upon law enforcement
services.
2. TERM
2.1 Effective Dates. This MOU shall be effective from , 2011,
through the end of the fifth full year following the grand opening of the Development.
2,2 Termination. Notwithstanding Paragraph 2.1 above, either party may terminate this
MOU upon sixty (60) days notice in writing to the other party if the other party is in breach of
its obligations under this MOU.
2.3 Implementation. One officer shall begin no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the
groundbreaking; two additional officers no later than at the sixty percent (60%) completion
date; and the final two officers and the Community Service Officer upon the grand opening of
the Development.
3. SCOPE OF SERVICE
3.1 Sheriff agrees to utilize the New Positions to address additional law enforcement
needs generated by the Development at the service level detailed in Attachment A This
service shall be provided to the Development and surrounding area. As of the date of MOU
execution, this service level is the minimum level expected. Sheriff agrees to initiate this
service incrementally if the Development facilities are opened in phases. Sheriff also agrees
to provide all investigative support necessary to complete investigations conducted
hereunder.
3.2 Sheriff shall have authority to enforce only those state laws applicable under Pi.
280 on the trust land, in the same manner and to the same extent as the Sheriff has such
jurisdiction elsewhere in the County. Sheriff may enter the Development facilities in
accordance with state law procedures in performance of the services hereunder. The Tribe
shall allow Sheriff access to the Development without interference and unnecessary delay,
and without Tribal escort. The Tribe and Sheriff shall cooperate in good faith to develop
protocols for coordination with Tribal casino security and Tribal law enforcement of Sheriff's
officers entering the Development.
3.3 Ninety (90) days prior to each anniversary of the date when the first New Position
was filled, Sheriff or a designated representative shall meet and confer in good faith with the
Tribe or its designated representative regarding staffing levels and costs for the coming year,
and the amount payable by the Tribe to the County shall be adjusted accordingly as agreed
upon by the parties. The adjusted amount shall be based upon: (a) actual costs for the prior
year's calls for service; (b) a future workload analysis based on historic calls for service
related to the Development; (c) the impact of Tribal casino security and law enforcement on
the level of services required; and, (d) any proposed changes to or expansion of the
development contemplated for the upcoming year.
2
3.4 In performing the services required by this MOU, Sheriff agrees to use that degree
of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by law enforcement officers.
4. PROVISION OF SUPERVISION, LABOR, AND EQUIPMENT
4.1 Supervision. Supervision over the rendition of law enforcement services, the
standards of performance, the discipline of officers, and other matters incident to the
performance of such services and the control of personnel so employed shall remain with
Sheriff.
4.2 Labor and Equipment. For the purpose of performing services, Sheriff shall furnish
and supply all labor, supervision, equipment, and supplies necessary to maintain the level of
service to be rendered hereunder. Location of the above will not necessarily be in the service
area.
5. COMPENSATION
5.1 Payment Basis. Upon commencement of services, the Tribe shall reimburse
Sheriff the cost of the New Positions at rates established periodically by the County Board of
Supervisors, which rates shall include all items of cost and expense to the Sheriff for
providing the services hereunder. Such cost of services shall be established in the form of
hourly rates for Sheriffs Department personnel and vehicle mileage rates. "Cost" as used
herein shall not include items of expense attributable to services or facilities normally provided
or available to all territory within the County as part of the County's obligation to enforce state
law.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 51350, County shall not charge the Tribe for
services it would provide to any jurisdiction in the County free of charge. These services,
which are provided at the discretion of County, could typically include the services of the
Sheriffs Special Investigations Bureau, Emergency Services Team, Canine Unit and Aviation
Unit.
5.2 Establishment of Costs. In FY 2011-12, the total service cost to the Tribe is
estimated to be $1,123,000. The rates to be charged the Tribe shall be adjusted periodically,
but not more than once each fiscal year, to reflect any changes in the cost to the County for
providing services hereunder. The Tribe shall be notified of any change in the rates to be
charged to the Tribe, and the Tribe shall be given the opportunity to review the proposed
change with County personnel, prior to submittal of the proposed change to the County Board
of Supervisors for adoption. The Tribe shall be notified of adoption by the County of the rates
to be charged, and said new rates shall take effect on the same date as the County incurs the
associated costs.
5.3 Payment of Costs. The Tribe shall provide initial funding for phasing in the New
Positions per the three development milestones specified in Section 2.3. No later than (a)
3
fourteen (14) days prior to the groundbreaking, (b) sixty percent (60%) completion, and (c)
grand opening of the Development, the Tribe shall deposit with an escrow agent acceptable
to the County an amount equal to the estimated cost for the provision of that level of service
for the remainder of the fiscal year ending June 30 1h • The escrow agent shall be instructed to
release the funds to the County per the Sheriffs contract billing schedule. Within 30 days of
the conclusion of each calendar month, the County will present a bill to the escrow agent for
services rendered. Further, per Section 5.2, the County shall submit an annual bill to the
escrow agent, reflecting the Board-approved rate adjustments. The escrow agent shall remit
payment to the County within 30 days after receipt of such statements.
6. LIMITED WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
6.1 The Tribe hereby grants a limited waiver of its sovereign immunity from
unconsented suits (hereinafter "limited waiver') as described herein solely for actions
brought by the County, but not brought by any other person or entity, requesting specific
performance against the Tribe to enforce the terms of this MOU. This limited waiver is to be
strictly construed in favor of the Tribe and may be enforced only under the conditions and
procedures set forth herein.
6.2 Meet and Confer. Prior to instituting an action hereunder, the County must first
raise the matter in dispute for which it is seeking specific performance with the Tribal Council
of the Tribe by requesting that a Meet and Confer be held. This notice shall be in writing and
shall set the Meet and Confer for a time at least twenty-one days after the notice is delivered,
and shall state the location for the meeting, which shall be held on the Development The
County and the Tribe may jointly decide to meet at another time and place. Attendees at the
Meet and Confer shall have sufficient authority to resolve the matter at issue. Meet and
Confer sessions shall be private. The parties agree to maintain the confidentiality of the Meet
and Confer and shall not rely on, or introduce as evidence in any judicial or other proceeding:
(a) views expressed or suggestions made by the other party with respect to a possible
settlement of the dispute; (b) admissions made by the other party during Meet and Confer, (c)
proposals made or views expressed; or (d) the fact that the other party had or had not
indicated a willingness to accept a proposal. This section shall apply to anything
communicated, exchanged, said, done or occurring in the course of the Meet and Confer. The
Meet and Confer is to be considered a settlement negotiation for the purpose of all state and
federal rules protecting disclosures made during such conference from later discovery or use
in evidence. All conduct, statements, promises, offers, views and opinions, oral or written,
made during a Meet and Confer by any party or a party's agent, representative, employee or
attorney are confidential and, where appropriate, are to be considered work product and
privileged. Such conduct, statements, promises, offers, views and opinions shall not be
subject to discovery or admissible for any purpose, including impeachment, in any litigation or
other proceeding involving the parties; provided, however, that evidence otherwise subject to
discovery or admissible is not excluded from discovery or admission in evidence simply as a
result of it having been used in connection with the Meet and Confer.
6.3 Claims for Specific Performance. An action for specific performance, if any, may
ATTACHMENT A
LEVEL OF MITIGATING LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED
FOR THE CASINO/HOTEL FACILITIES KNOWN COLLECTIVELY AS THE
HORSESHOE GRANDE PROJECT AND THE SURROUNDING AREA
Averaoe Patrol Services
24A supported hours per day (Approximate equivalent of five (5) Deputy Sheriff positions (
1,780 annual productive hours per position).
Dedicated Positions
One (1) Community Services Officer II position
7
7.3 Any modification to this MOU must be in the form of a written amendment.
7.4 Unless otherwise stated, this MOU shall be construed under the laws of the State
of California. In the event any action or proceeding is filed to interpret, enforce, challenge, or
invalidate any term of this MOU, venue shall lie only in the State or federal courts located in
Riverside County.
The undersigned hereby agree to each of the provisions of the foregoing Memorandum of
Understanding:
SOBOBA BAND OF LUISERIO INDIANS
Dated: lb I
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
By:
Stanley L. Sniff Jr., Sheriff-Coroner-PA
Dated:
ATTEST:
Kecia Harper-them
Clerk of the Board
By:
Deputy
By:
Bob Buster, Chairman
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
6
Sheriff Sniff December 30, 2011
Riverside County Sheriffs Department
Post Office Box 512
Riverside, California 92502
Re: MOU between the Sheriffs Office and the Soboba Tribe
Dear Sheriff Sniff,
After reading the MOU you submitted to the Riverside County Commissioners, I have some
comments and questions.
1. How does the addition of a 24 hour sheriff service "fully and completely address the
Development's impacts on law enforcement"?
We contend that it does not, especially since neither the sheriff, nor the
equipment will always remain in the area surrounding the project.
2. What is a "minimum level of service" to the development and surrounding area?
Crime statistics show a huge increase in all types of crimes in the area since
the original casino opened.
3. With the inadequacy of #1 and #2 above, you may be investigating more crimes, but
not deterring them. How do you plan to deter crime, gun shots, speeding traffic,
excessive noise complaints, vehicle break-ins, etc. any more than you do now?
4. Where are the written protocols for coordination between the Sheriffs department
and the Tribal council and law enforcement?
We contend these should have been developed prior to any MOU approval.
We asked you to produce the agreement/protocols that were supposed to be
developed last year after the gun battles on the reservation and you stated there
there was no written agreement.
5. On page 2 there is mention of possible "expansion of the development". What does
this mean in terms of services and has this been discussed and agreed upon PRIOR
to any expansion?
6. On page 3, you have agreed that you will "furnish and supply all labor, supervision,
equipment, and supplies necessary to maintain the level of service to be rendered
hereunder. Location of the above will not necessarily be in the service area". Isn't the
purpose of this MOU to ensure the "full and complete impacts of the Development
on law enforcement"? How will this be any different from the status quo?
We contend that this extra sheriff service, including all equipment paid for by
the Tribe for this project, should remain in this area for the protection of the
surrounding communities and should be housed in a substation to be built and
and maintained by the Tribe. Otherwise, the communities will be in the same
situation they are in now, i.e. no traffic speed control trailers supposedly paid for by
for by TASIN money for this area and not located here and other services now used
now used for other general city enforcement.
7. Also on page 3, "the County will not charge the Tribe for services it would provide to
any jurisdiction in the County free of charge". Since this Project will increase the
911 calls, DA services, parole and incarceration, helicopter and SWAT services, how
is this to be paid for if not by the Tribe, who will not be paying property taxes on this
Project?
We contend nothing is "free of charge". Our taxes pay for these services for
the County and City citizens. We would like an accounting of the cost of these "free
services" to the present casino and what they would be projected to be for the larger
project. We would also like a spreadsheet of all crimes in this surrounding area
(Soboba Springs around the Horseshoe Grande project) since the original casino
was built to present. Crime has risen post casino in this area and many others in the
state (see our comments and statistics in the DEIS)
8. On page 4, it appears that this "limited waiver of sovereign immunity from
'unconsented' (shouldn't this be 'uncontested') suits" favors the Tribe and not the
citizens you work for. How will the surrounding communities be able to get
satisfaction for crimes committed against them if the only suits can be filed by the
County, not the City or the Citizens and be "strictly construed in favor of the Tribe"?
We contend that high speed chases (one which happened this year and killed
a grandfather whose family cannot sue), crimes against persons, and all other
crimes that the United States allows to go to trial should be included in this MOU for
MOU for the good of the citizens of the County.
9. The Meet and Confer section is fraught with an excuse to exclude the very citizens
you are supposed to be protecting. Isn't this MOU a County service provided in part
by taxpayer money, therefore shouldn't it be a public document accessible by the
public? Isn't the fact that anything said in these private meetings can't be used
against the Tribe in judicial proceedings a stonewall against our justice system?
We contend that there should be a public representative(s) at
these meetings to keep the public informed about the progress of this
MOU. There should be no "hidden agendas". The fact that the meetings
will be held on Reservation land allows the tribe to exclude anyone
it desires from what should be a public hearing.
10. On page 5, it states that the County can't receive damages from the Tribe or anyone
in or acting for the Tribe and if there is a performance award, only general revenues
can be used. This excludes all gambling and business proceeds, leaving not much to
be sought after. What else is there in the general revenues and do you know how
much the tribe has in that fund?
11. Number 7 General states "this MOU is a binding and enforceable obligation of each
party". Does this mean that the MOU is "judicially" binding and enforceable?
We contend if it is not, it is not worth the paper it is written on for the
surrounding communities and citizens it is supposed to protect.
Some of the things that should have been included in any consideration of increased law
enforcement in our surrounding area are:
A fire station equipped with paramedics
A sheriff's substation and a direct number to call for immediate service
A consultation with the District Attorney on his extra workload and the cost and
compensation of that increase
A security gate in all three communities funded and maintained by the Tribe
A consideration of traffic patterns to reduce excessive 24 hour traffic on two roads
not equipped to handle over 22,000 cars per day (SJ General Plan)
A high fence around the Mobile Home Park
No guard shacks on Lake Park Drive and Soboba Road
An entrance to the Project that does not include Lake Park or Soboba Road (these
rural roads not sufficient to handle extraordinary traffic)
No guns on the reservation
Proper security lights (low lighting)
Consistent speed monitoring and ticketing
No night time operation (10pm zoning noise control)
Maintain city noise ordinances and ticket stringently
Maintain city, county, state and federal laws and right to sue
Publish crime statistics in the area surrounding the project and make them public
Compensation for decreased home values due to the environmental and crime
impacts of the project
Public notices of how the residents can report crimes, as well as policies for their
protection
Increased allotment of emergency services
Consistent and regularly held meetings with the Tribe and the affected
communities to discuss issues/problems/solutions
This is a partial list which may be added to once the FEIS is released.
Sheriff Sniff, we realize you were in no way obligated to include our citizen's group in your
deliberations of this MOU and the Tribe was not obligated either by virtue of the fact they
have al999 compact which does not require them to consult with the citizens they may
affect by their Project. However, since we have been in contact with you for several years,
you have attended our meetings and you know what our concerns are, it would have been
fair and prudent to ask our opinion about this MOU prior to submitting it to the County for
approval. We have done our research and have always asked for the right to be involved in
our own future with regards to this Fee to Trust.
Since this did not happen and we only found out about it through a newspaper article
submitted by the Tribal public relations person, we find this to be a "behind closed doors"
agreement which excludes the citizens of San Jacinto and Riverside County who pay taxes
for some of these services and will now be paying without representation. Taxation
without representation is not how we expect our Country and County to conduct business.
This MOU will not protect our three communities that will become jurisdictional islands
surrounded by reservation land not protected by City or County codes and laws. Crimes
will be committed in greater numbers (as documented by crime statistics from the San
Jacinto police department) to our elderly in the Soboba Springs Mobile Home Park, to our
retirees in the golf course community and to our County residents on the hill. Our private
ranch and land owners will be negatively impacted. How will we protect ourselves from
the documented increased crime that comes with these casino projects? This MOU does
not adequately address our issues and we believe it was approved because of the money
the tribe would provide to the Sheriffs Department and not for our communities' well-
being.
Since writing these comments, we have spoken to Lt. Cleary of the Riverside County
Sheriffs Department. He helped develop this MOU and stated that it applies only to
"unincorporated" areas around the Horseshoe Grande. This would be the "hill community"
of homes above the proposed project that are "unincorporated" and the vacant land along
Soboba Road. Contrary to what this document says, that "it will ensure the full and
complete impacts of the Development on law enforcement", the fact that the two San
Jacinto residential communities will not be included in this MOU make it even more
ineffective in solving the crime problems which will arise.
We will urge the County and the Governor to oppose this Fee To Trust because of the
negative impact it will have on our area and we will use this MOU as an example of why
increased crime will continue to be a major problem if this Horseshoe Grande Fee To Trust
is approved.
We thank you for your consideration of our requests and look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
Pmerf,ci.a" / Mayne.
Patricia Mayne
Representative for Save Our Communities (SOC)
<SOC92583@gmail.com >
Cc: Governor Jerry Brown
Riverside County Commissioners
San Jacinto City Council & Police
Hemet City Council & Police
AMICUS BRIEF
We are asking for a donation from the City of San Jacinto to help in a court
filing (amicus brief) that provides evidence to the Supreme Court in response
to questions being asked in the case Salazar vs. Patchak.
Mr. Patchak is suing the Department of Interior for a right to have citizens'
"standing" in fee to trust issues. Right now citizens and citizens' groups do not
have standing to ask for a judicial review of a decision made by the DO!.
There is also the question of whether or not the Indian Reorganization Act
provides for the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land in trust for "gaming".
These are extremely important issues for our communities.
The Amicus Brief will be written by Attorney Don Mitchell who is quite
knowledgeable and who has testified before Congress regarding Indian law
and citizens' rights. It will cost $12,000 to $15,000.
Cheryl Schmit, Stand Up California, is gathering money from various citizens'
groups in California to pay for this Brief. She estimates a cost of $1500 to
$2500 from each group.
We understand that the City is considering grants to citizens' groups for issues
they are working on and we would appreciate your consideration with a
donation to this very important issue. Any amount would be appreciated.
To have the City support its citizens in this way would be precedent
setting and a great sign of support for their constituents.
January 9, 2012
Mayor and Council Members:
After reviewing the agenda item 3A.10 it appears that there
is an effort to skirt the Brown Act open meeting law and
conduct closed meeting for the forensic audit and Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) Fee to trust.
Regarding the Forensic Audit a majority of the City Council
(3) members voted to approve $30,000.00 dollars for the
audit. Then staff recommended hiring independent legal
counsel due to possible litigation connected to the
forensic audit. That cost was not to exceed $25,000.00
dollars. The City Council approved this expenditure
however; the full City Council has not seen the full
forensic audit report. The city council and each individual
council member are responsible and answerable to this
expenditure.
The City Council should direct staff, the forensic auditor
and independent legal counsel to bring the forensic audit
before the full Council immediately in open session. I
can't imagine that this new Council would want to alter,
cover-up, redact, filter, and select, the factual findings
of the audit.
The San Jacinto community deserves the facts regarding the
audit in our continuing efforts to show transparency and
accountability of city business.
Additionally, there seems to be no logical reason for an
Ad-Hoc committee when you have a standing committee
regarding Tribal issues. The existing standing committee
gives recommendations to the council. Again, there seems to
be no reason why we, as a council, should prohibit
transparency and accountability with regard to the BIA Fee
to trust as well.
Therefore, I do not support the creation of these Ad-Hoc
committees by the Mayor, as it does not show transparency
and accountability to our community.
tfUlly,/
eve Di- emmo, Council Member /