[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 30892-30893]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  RESOLUTIONS IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 2656

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 20, 2003

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting for the Record 
resolutions in support of H.R. 2656 from cities in the California Bay 
Area. The resolutions are regarding the planned casino in my 
congressional district. The communities surrounding the proposed site 
are doing all they can to ensure that their voices are heard on this 
controversial issue and it is extremely important that all sides of the 
issue are given a platform to do so. I hope that H.R. 2656 is brought 
before the House for a vote in the near future.

                     Resolution No. 2003-220 N.C.S.

       Whereas, the Petaluma City Council respects the rights of 
     Native Americans to establish and have recognized tribal 
     sovereignty, and to secure lands under their jurisdiction; 
     and,
       Whereas, under the existing federal legislative 
     requirements, there is no provision for coordination of 
     gaming proposals or associated major tribal enterprises with 
     established and approved off-reservation local or regional 
     planning law and General Plans in any timely and meaningful 
     way; and,
       Whereas, developments of great magnitude are being proposed 
     which are dependent upon local and regional public 
     infrastructure, including highways, streets, transit systems, 
     water, wastewater and energy systems and resources, 
     affordable housing, and emergency services, both built and 
     yet to be built; and,
       Whereas, without appropriate mitigation, the developments 
     proposed are very likely to have substantial negative impacts 
     and place substantial burdens on the public infrastructure 
     with a substantial burden falling upon existing and future 
     taxpayers, residents, visitors and businesses; and,
       Whereas, with the rapid construction of tribal gaming 
     facilities, local governments are experiencing serious, 
     adverse impacts related to off-reservation economic, 
     environmental, health and safety issues; and,
       Whereas, the current conditions placed on Indian gaming to 
     achieve and preserve the environmental, public safety, and 
     public health objectives of both state and local government 
     have been insufficient to prevent such adverse impacts; and,
       Whereas, when California voters approved Proposition 1A 
     (Indian Gaming) in March of 2004 as a means of supporting the 
     laudable goal of Indian economic development and self-
     sufficiency, they were not aware that such approval would 
     allow Nevada developers to seize prized off-reservation 
     environmental resources for intense development without 
     regard to locally approved general plans or any meaningful 
     environmental review or protection; and,
       Whereas, under the provisions of Proposition 1A and the 
     Tribal-State Compact, local communities have not been granted 
     effective input into the development of proposed tribal 
     casinos that threaten their rights and the State appears to 
     have no effective redress for significant environmental 
     impacts these gambling casinos impose on local communities; 
     and,
       Whereas, on February 6, 2003, the California State 
     Association of Counties has

[[Page 30893]]

     adopted a policy document that includes seven principles of 
     critical concern to counties, including a principle that 
     tribes and local governments enter into binding and 
     enforceable local agreements for the mitigation of off-
     reservation impacts that arise from a local gaming project; 
     and,
       Whereas, approximately 360 acres of prime agricultural 
     lands west of Rohnert Park are presently in imminent danger 
     of being withdrawn from County land use control and placed 
     into trust for the purposes of casino development--including 
     an extensive gaming complex, with a 300 room hotel, spas, 
     restaurants, a 2000 seat entertainment venue, parking and 
     other support services, by Station Casinos, a Las Vegas-based 
     developer and the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria 
     (Graton Tribe); and,
       Whereas, Station Casino and the Graton Tribe's gaming 
     proposal will have substantial negative impacts upon the 
     federal highway system (US Highway 101), upon which it is 
     dependent for bringing its customers into and out of the 
     region; on local and regional roads; to the Santa Rosa Plain 
     groundwater aquifer, to water quality, along with unknown 
     local and regional fiscal impacts; and,
       Whereas, the proposed Graton Tribe casino site is proposed 
     on property whose zoning is inconsistent with the Sonoma 
     County General Plan (on prime agricultural land, in the 
     community separators and outside Rohnert Park's Urban Growth 
     Boundary), within the Laguna de Santa Rosa's flood plain and 
     within critical wetland habitat for several federally 
     endangered species; and,
       Whereas, the proposed Graton Tribe casino proposal is not 
     subject to a thorough CEQA-like process that identifies 
     fiscal and environmental impacts then to be mitigated by the 
     Graton Tribe, nor is administrative consideration by the 
     Department of the Interior required to determine if the use 
     of this land, sought for gaming, will have significant 
     detrimental impacts on the neighboring communities which 
     outweigh the benefits to the tribe; and,
       Whereas, the Graton Tribe was restored in 2000 based, in 
     part, on its promise not to engage its Indian casino gaming: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council strongly supports 
     the revisions in federal legislation [HR 2656/S1342] 
     introduced by Representative Woolsey and Senator Feinstein. 
     The Petaluma City Council also urges all members of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives to support these 
     important statutory changes and immediately move for their 
     passage; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council supports the 
     California State Association of Counties policy document 
     regarding compact negotiations for Indian Gaming; and 
     requests that the Graton Tribe follow the principles 
     contained therein; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council, based on the 
     information currently available, strongly opposes the 
     creation of a gambling casino resort on any site that is 
     inconsistent with the local land use planning and zoning 
     policies; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council calls on the Board 
     of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, in all negotiations 
     with the Tribe concerning creation of a gambling casino 
     resort, to safeguard the vital and legitimate interests of 
     all Sonoma County citizens by requiring that the following 
     minimum standards be included in a binding, legally-
     enforceable Memorandum of Understanding with the Tribe:
       1. The proposed casino/resort project must be subject, at a 
     minimum, to the same level of environmental review as would 
     be required by the pending Federal legislation; and
       2. The proposed casino/resort project must be subject to 
     the principles of the California State Association of 
     Counties policy document regarding compact negotiations for 
     Indian Gaming; and
       3. Even though the pending federal legislation does not 
     require environmental mitigation, in order to ensure that the 
     citizens of Sonoma County do not bear the costs associated 
     with the impacts of the casino/resort, the Tribe must agree 
     to mitigate, and must in fact mitigate, all environmental 
     impacts caused by its project; and
       4. In order to prevent Sonoma County cities from having 
     land within their jurisdiction exempted from local land use 
     control by reason of future acquisition by the Graton Tribe, 
     the Tribe must agree that it will take NO OTHER LAND anywhere 
     in Sonoma County or in any adjacent county into tribal trust 
     NOW OR IN THE FUTURE.
       5. The proposed casino/resort project must be subject, at a 
     minimum, to the same level of public safety review and 
     enforcement as would a private developer.

                          ____________________