Town Hall Meeting 8-26-11
LAND INTO “TRUST”/FEE-TO-TRUST
Santa Ynez Valley, Ca.
1,400 acres,
North of highways 154/246
(This document and all supporting documents
available online at www.polosyv.org)
Santa Ynez Band of Mission
Indians(Chumash Casino), purchase
of land and development
• The Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians
has every right to purchase property, and
to develop that property through
established County and State processes.
• The issue is land into trust - the exponential
negative impacts created by taking land out
of County and State jurisdiction and the
Comprehensive and Community Plans, and
into federal “trust.”
Draft “Cooperative Agreement” presented
6/1/11 by the Santa Ynez Band of Mission
Indians (Chumash) to Santa Barbara
County CEO
• From the “Agreement:” “The County shall
support the fee-to-trust annexation of the
Property to the Reservation by federal
legislation, the administrative process by
federal agencies or any other possible
way in existence now or in the future.
Upon request of the Tribe, the County
shall confirm such support by letter or
resolution.”
Draft “Cooperative Agreement” presented
6/1/11 by the Santa Ynez Band of Mission
Indians (Chumash) to Santa Barbara
County CEO
• Included in “Agreement”:
• “Whereas, the Tribe desires to expand
Tribal housing opportunities and operate
Tribal economic development projects in a
manner that benefits the Tribe, its members,
and the community as a whole, and the
County recognizes the mutual benefit that
can be derived if those goals are achieved”
Santa Ynez Band of Mission
Indians
• Are ALLOWED TWO
CASINOS PER THEIR
GAMING COMPACT
“Fee-to-trust”, Land in
“Trust”
What does it mean if land goes into
federal “trust”?
What are the consequences when land is
in “trust”?
• Land into Trust is a real estate transaction
which converts land from private or individual
(fee) title to federal title. Once the process is
complete, the subject land will belong to the
United States of America. The land is then
placed under the control of an Indian tribal
government with the United States
Government acting as a fuduciary.
(http://www.citizensalliance.org/)
•
The fee to trust process provides tribes with some
very important benefits not available to other US
citizens. By converting the land to federal
ownership (title), the land becomes exempt from
state and local government taxes and local land
use regulations. In most states, trust lands are
removed from local law enforcement jurisdictions
as well. Avoiding the jurisdiction of local and
state governments is the primary reason Indian
tribes apply to the Bureau of Indians affairs to
convert fee land into federal trust title.
(http://www.citizensalliance.org/)
• Federal regulations require local communities to provide
fire protection, road maintenance and other municipal
services to these trust lands despite the fact the trust
land is immune from property taxes, building codes and
property regulations. Most communities will find federal
trust land will create additional expenses while reducing
their tax base. Trust lands will likely create jurisdictional
disputes in law enforcement, land use planning, social
service delivery and emergency services. Most
communities dealing with federal trust conversions
have had found the process disruptive and divisive.
(http://www.citizensalliance.org/)
Examples of disruption and
problems in other communities:
• Banning city: Morongo tribe erected a guard
house blocking a county road to the land
owner’s private property, delaying his passage
and ability to develop his property.
• Colorado River: Tribes claiming land along
river threatening owners and may be causing
property damage to private property.
• Riverside County: Tribe purchased property
around a community of homeowners with
threats to owners’ ingress and egress..
The beginning of the Santa Ynez Band
of Mission Indian (Chumash Casino)
expansion, Year: 2000, the “6.9”
• In 2000, the Santa Ynez Band of Mission
Indians (“Chumash”) applied to take 6.9 acres
across from their casino into federal trust.
• The County and community members were
very concerned that there would be substantial
negative impacts if this 6.9 acres was taken
into trust. In 2004, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
accepted the land into trust.
• The County attempted a “Historic Agreement”
and gave up its right to appeal.
“The 6.9, continued”
The “Historic Agreement” fell through and the
County missed its opportunity to appeal. Initially,
four citizen groups appealed the BIA decision.
P.O.L.O. and POSY continued in the litigation
process and achieved precedent setting
“standing” for our community. Standing
enables our community to challenge the BIA’s
decisions.
Our last filing was over a year ago and the BIA will
not tell us when they will be answering our
challenges.
Why did the Citizen Groups file
litigation against the Federal
Government (BIA)?
• These community members knew that
the 6.9 was the beginning of a “blueprint
for expansion” that other casino tribes
were doing all across the United States.
Casino tribes, using their hundreds of
millions of dollars of gambling profits,
were buying up communities and
turning them into casino towns.
There will be serious harm to our
community if the 1,400 acres goes into
federal trust.
• This harm is well documented by the many
letters written by Santa Barbara County
outlining County concerns over applications
for 6.9 acres, and then 5.68 acres to go into
federal trust.
• Congressman Gallegly and the Office of
Governor Schwarzenegger also wrote letters
of concern and objections over the Santa
Ynez Band’s attempts to put 6.9 and 5.68
acres into trust.
If the Board of Supervisors, Governor and
Congressman Gallegly were concerned about 6.9
and 5.68 acres going into trust,
What about 1,400 acres going into trust?
• Fee to trust, or land into trust, is unacceptable
because the land is taken out of State and
county jurisdiction. Virtually anything can be
developed and built. The Santa Barbara
Comprehensive Plan, and the Santa Ynez
Valley Community Plan will be rendered
meaningless.
Government is responsible to uphold and
defend the Community Plan.
Years 2000- Present
• The following are excerpts from County,
Federal and State letters and local tribal
minutes regarding 6.9 and 5.68 acres,
documenting the negative impacts of fee-totrust.
• Given this concern on 6.9 and 5.68
acres, there is no way our government
can say that 1,400 acres into trust is a
benefit to Santa Barbara County.
Application, 6.9 acres, 2000
• “The Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians is
recognized as an American Indian Tribe by the
Secretary of the Interior. The Tribe is organized under
the Articles of Organization which were adopted by
the membership on November 17, 1963. The Articles
were approved by the Secretary of the Interior on
August 23, 1963.”
• Documents show the SY Band was recognized in
1979. Because of a Supreme Court Decision
(Carcieri), Congress has asked the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) for a list of tribes under federal
recognition in 1934 to determine tribes eligible for fee
to trust. The BIA refuses to give Congress the list.
•Why does a Tribe
want to put land
into trust?
Santa Ynez Band internal
minutes, April 16, 2000
• “If we don’t buy additional property and
get the application submitted to the
Bureau to get the property into trust,
then any future property we purchase
will have county regulations on it. That
is what we are trying to avoid. We do
not want the county telling us what
we can do specifically with our
property. That is the intent here.
Santa Ynez Band internal
minutes, April 16, 2000
• “The intent isn’t to buy every piece of
property that is available throughout
California. It is very specific-buy
property that is useful to our
reservation and submit applications
to the Bureau to get the land into
trust so that we are not strictly
regulated. That is the intent.”
Letter from Board of Supervisors
to BIA (6.9), June 13, 2001
• “If the land (6.9) is taken into trust the County
will lose tax revenue while at the same time
experiencing a heightened demand for its
services to the reservation and surrounding
area. Furthermore, while the Tribe is
obligated to conform to federal
environmental regulations, these
regulations are not necessarily as stringent
as those promulgated by the State of
California and the County.”(page 1)
Letter from Board of
Supervisors to BIA, June 13,
2001
• “ In addition, section 1508.25 of
NEPA requires consideration of the
cumulative impacts of past, present
and reasonably foreseeable effects in
the environmental review
process.”(page 8)
Letter from Congressman
Gallegly to BIA, May 19, 2004
• “Most importantly, the parcel under
review (6.9) is not a remote piece of
property. In fact, it lies at the heart of the
Santa Ynez Valley. If this land is taken
into trust, the local community will not
be able to address or prevent any
environmental impacts stemming from
the proposed development.”
Letter from County Administrator to
Board of Supervisors re: letter to
BIA, 6/5/04
• (re: 6.9) “The County’s primary concern
is that the proposed development to be
facilitate by this fee-to-trust process will
result in a draw on groundwater
resources of the Santa Ynez Valley,
thus creating or exacerbating a
situation of overdraft.” (page 2 of
letter)
Board of Supervisors
Hearing, June 21, 2005
The following are excerpts from a hearing
to receive a report to the County
Counsel on the status of the Intergovernmental agreement between the
County and the Santa Ynez Band of
Mission Indians, concerning the use and
development of 6.9 acres.
6/21/05 BOS Hearing, re: 6.9 acres,
“Inter-governmental Agreement,”
cont.
From transcript, County Administrator Mike
Brown:
“The tribe believes that a regulation of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) would limit the
term of the agreement to six years 364 days
just short of seven years, because the BIA
has a rule apparently that a property
cannot be burdened for more than seven
years.”
6/21/05 BOS Hearing, re: 6.9 acres,
“Inter-governmental Agreement,” cont.
• County Counsel, Jennifer Klein: “Well, I think,
I mean from the beginning, at least the
attorneys have known that there was this BIA
approval element, and I remember discussing
it in Feb. And the discussion really led to, one
of us needs to contact the BIA and see where
they’re at. And that was left to the Tribe,
because they often have a fairly, you know,
frequent contact with the BIA. The result of
their communication was a letter given to us
earlier this month.”
6/21/05 BOS Hearing, re: 6.9 acres,
“Inter-governmental Agreement,”
cont.
• Supervisor Joni Gray: “So, it became
apparent on May 23rd (2005) that the
BIA at least at this point in time,
believes they have to approve the
agreement, that there is a debate going
on about that?”
Letter from The Office of the Regional
Solicitor, Department of the Interior to
Santa Ynez Tribal Attorney, 5/23/05
• “25 U.S.C. section 81 requires Secretarial
approval where an ‘agreement or contract
with an Indian tribe encumbers Indian lands
for a period of 7 or more years…’ ”
• “It is for this reason that I concluded that the
Agreement would fall within the scope of
Section 81and require approval by the
Secretary of the Interior.”
Santa Barbara News-Press
“Chumash, County fail to reach
agreement on land, ” August 17, 2005
• The county Board of Supervisors
announced Tuesday that it has failed
to reach an agreement with the
Chumash Indians over the
management of a controversial plot of
land that may be annexed into the
tribal reservation -- a decision the
tribe likened to declaring war.”
Santa Barbara News-Press
“Chumash, county fail to reach agreement
on land, ” August 17, 2005, cont.
• “The supervisors forfeited the chance in
February to appeal the annexation, in
the hope that the tribe would agree to
some regulations, including a ban on
gaming, adherence to local design
standards and an agreement to give up
its sovereign immunity -- for a limited
time -- in any dispute with the county.”
Santa Barbara News-Press
“Chumash, county fail to reach agreement
on land, ” August 17, 2005, cont.
“Neither the county nor the Chumash have
disclosed the specifics of the issues
blocking an agreement, but the letter sheds
some light.”
"The tribal government's role is to protect the
interests of the current membership as well
as the future generations of the tribe.”
Santa Barbara News-Press
“Chumash, county fail to reach agreement
on land, ” August 17, 2005, cont.
• “Asking the tribal government to
sign an agreement that essentially
waives the tribe's sovereign
immunity is tantamount to asking
them to give up their heritage."
County attempts to join Citizen Groups’
Appeal: Motion of the County of Santa
Barbara for leave to intervene or, in the
alternative, to file an amicus brief, 8/25/05
• “The Residents of the County, who have
asserted in their appeal both economic
and environmental harm, will lose the
protection of a public land use planning
process, such as now required under
County Planning laws and California’s
Environmental Quality Act.” (page 5)
2005: Santa Ynez Band of Mission
Indians file new application for 5.68
acres into federal “trust”
• Office of California
Governor Schwarzenegger
and County object
Letter from Office of the Governor
(Schwarzenegger) to BIA, 8/26/05, re:
new 5.68 fee-to-trust application
• “In its essence, the Tribe’s need for this
acquisition (5.68 acres) amounts to a desire to
fulfill what it concedes is a “top philosophical
priority” - “the re-acquisition of its aboriginal
lands.”
• “In support of its claim that the Trust Acquisition
would constitute re-acquisition of the Tribe’s
aboriginal lands, the Tribe appears to assert an
entitlement to any lands that were part of the
“Chumash cultural group’s territory prior to first
European contact.” (page 2)
Letter from Office of the Governor
(Schwarzenegger) to BIA, 8/26/05, re:
new 5.68 fee-to-trust application
• “Generally this (Chumash cultural
territory) would encompass seven
thousand square miles of land…More
specifically, the Tribe seems to contend
that the Trust Acquisition is part of lands
that were purportedly granted by the
Mexican Governor Micheltoreno to
certain “tribal Leaders” of the “Santa Ines
Indians.” (page 2)
Letter from Office of the Governor
(Schwarzenegger) to BIA, 8/26/05, re:
new 5.68 fee-to-trust application
• “While there are numerous discrepancies on
details, historical accounts of the Chumash
agree that prior to European contact the
Chumash did not constitute a single
political entity but rather were an amalgam
of peoples speaking roughly six to eight
different but related languages in contiguous
linguistic territories.” (page 4)
Letter from Office of the Governor
(Schwarzenegger) to BIA, 8/26/05, re:
new 5.68 fee-to-trust application
• “Thus, in the absence of a more detailed
explanation from the Tribe, there does not
appear to be any basis for a claim by the Tribe to
all Chumash linguistic group aboriginal territory.
Acceptance of such a claim by the United
States could justify the acquisition in trust of
seven thousand square miles of land now
occupied by an overwhelmingly non-Native
American population well beyond the needs
of a 157 member tribe that already exercises
sovereign authority over more land than it is
currently utilizing.” (page 4)
Letter from Office of the Governor
(Schwarzenegger) to BIA, 8/26/05, re:
new 5.68 fee-to-trust application
• “Simply put, in pre-contact times
there was no Santa Ynez Band of
Mission Indians or any single
independent political entity
constituting a collection of the
many different villages in the
Santa Ynez Valley.” (page 6)
Letter from County Executive Office to Board of
Supervisors, 7/7/05
re: New application to take 5.68 acres into
federal trust
• “The existing zone districts reflect the
County’s general plan…In recent years, the
Tribe has constructed massive development
on tribal land that is far out of scale with the
local community. Based on the Tribe’s past
practice of maximizing development on
use of its land, the County anticipates that
the Tribe will similarly develop any newly
acquired trust land, even if exact plans for
such development are not presently known.”
(page 6)
Letter from County Executive Office to
Board of Supervisors, 7/7/05 re: New
application to take 5.68 acres into federal
trust
• “To the extent the Tribe desires to
acquire jurisdiction over additional land,
that jurisdiction comes at the expense of
the jurisdiction of the state and local
governments. Loss of County
jurisdiction over these parcels will
impair the County’s ability to plan
and regulate community growth and
land use in the area.” (page 7)
Letter from Board of Supervisors
to Secretary of the Interior, 9/20/05
• “Specifically, the County is aware of the Tribe’s
desire to acquire in trust hundreds of acres of
land in the SY Valley for future development
including housing, retail, casino, golf course,
hotel and other unspecified development. Most
recently, in 2004, the Tribe attempted to partner
with a large land developer to acquire in trust
and develop 600 acres of restricted agriculture
land, thereby avoiding state and local
requirements governing and restricting use of
the land.” (page 2)
Letter from Board of Supervisors
to Secretary of the Interior,
2/16/06
• (re: 6.9) “The reason the County did not
appeal was because it had invited the Tribe to
engage in government to government
discussions in order to arrive at a negotiated
agreement that would govern the land use
issues by the Tribe’s acquisition of the land.
Unfortunately, those discussions were not
successful, in part because the Tribe was not
interested in a long term agreement.”(page 2)
Letter from Board of Supervisors
to Secretary of the Interior, 2/16/06
• “On 8/25/2005, Ca. Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger’s Legal Affairs Secretary filed
comments with the BIA in opposition to the most
recent 5.68 acre trust application filed by this Tribe.
• The Governor’s office letter raised serious
policy questions about the Tribe’s
intentions…The Governor argued that a Tribe
must demonstrate an actual need to have land
placed in trust-and thus outside of state and local
land use and environmental laws-before the federal
government accepts the trust application.” (page 2)
Interviews
• Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians
Tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta
Interview, Chairman Vincent
Armenta, SB News-Press, 4/1/07
• Q: What exactly did you mean when you told
the board of supervisors that the "door is
closed?" Do you foresee any role at all for
Santa Barbara County in what goes on with
the tribe?A: Legally, I have to meet with
them once a year for the Special Distribution
Fund (required by the state gaming compact).
That's the only input the county has. They
were not here 10, 15, 20 years ago. We
offered them an opportunity. They blew it.
That's it.
Interview, Chairman Vincent
Armenta, SB News-Press, 4/1/07
• “We have our eyes open for investments, quite
honestly, across the United States.Q: Does that mean
joining someone else with another casino? Or buying
property?A: It means anything. Could it mean a casino
in Las Vegas? I don't know. It could. You need to look at
things like that. You need to look at hotels in larger
cities. You need to look at opportunities. A lot of tribes
are doing it. The Mohegan Sun (in Connecticut) is doing
a good job of it. Foxwoods (owned by the the
Mashantucket Pequot in Connecticut) is, too. It's
something we need to look at, too. And we are. We
have great examples out there to follow.” (Foxwoods
and Mohegan Sun are the largest casinos in the United
States.)
Testimony of Tribal Chairman Vincent
Armenta Before the House Committee
on Natural Resources, February 27,
2008
• “The Chumash historically occupied an
area from Morro Bay to the north,
Malibu to the south, Tejon Pass to the
east (what is now called the grapevine)
and the four Northern Channel Islands.”
• “The Chumash desire to regain the
lands of their ancestors even if it
means buying them a piece at a
time.”
1,400 acres, “Camp 4,”
highways 154/246
• In April, 2010 the Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians
purchased the 1,400 acres.
• In Dec., 2010, they approached Congressman Elton
Gallegly to write legislation to take the 1,400 acres into
trust.
• In repeated conversations with community members,
Congressman Gallegly’s staff, and Congressman
Gallegly, have assured the community that he will not
write legislation unless it is supported by the community,
Solvang City, and County government.
1,400 acres, “Camp 4,”
highways 154/246
• On June 1, 2011, the Santa Ynez Band
leaders presented Santa Barbara
County CEO with a draft “Cooperative
Agreement” to put this land into federal
trust so that they can develop it by their
own standards.
Draft “Cooperative Agreement” presented
to SB County CEO, re: 1,400 acres, 6/1/11
• “WHEREAS, proposed and future Tribal
development are not County projects and are not
subject to the discretionary approval of the County
and absent this Agreement the County has limited
opportunity to influence mitigation measures or
seek compensation for adverse environmental
impacts; and WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge
that given the scope of the proposed Tribal housing
and economic development projects, specific
impacts are not always subject to precise
measurement and that the mitigation measures
agreed upon below are intended as good faith
approximate mitigation of identified impacts; and”
Draft “Cooperative Agreement” presented
to SB County CEO, re: 1,400 acres, 6/1/11,
claim of entitlement
• “As part of such negotiation, the Indian Agent agreed on
behalf of the Tribe to waive the rights of the neophytes to
the entire 36,000 acre Canada de los Pinos Rancho
(College Rancho) which the Church claimed to own in
common with the neophytes in exchange for the
conveyance by the Church of all of its right title and
interest in Zanja de Cota Creek to the Tribe as the Santa
Ynez Reservation; The property (1400 acres) is within the
historic boundaries of the College Rancho and is
specifically within the boundaries of the quiet title action
filed against the Tribe by the Church; (NOTE: They
appear to be claiming entitlement to take into trust
almost all the land in the Santa Ynez Valley -precedent
for additional land expansion.)
Summary
• Land into “trust” and consequences
Land into “trust”, 1,400 acres
and beyond, issues of concern:
• Claim of entitlement to “Chumash”
territory, Santa Ynez Valley and up to
7,000 square miles, necessary for
territory and development expansion
plans
• If this is not stopped, our community
will forever be fighting expansion
efforts by the Santa Ynez Band.
Land into “trust”, 1,400 acres
and beyond, issues of concern:
• Recent Supreme Court Decisions
(Carcieri, Hawaii) acknowledge
Constitutional problems with fee-totrust.
• Elected representatives and
Government officials cannot be allowed
to ignore the United States Supreme
Court.
Land into “trust”, 1,400 acres
and beyond, issues of
concern:
• “Agreements” that include “encumbrance” on
the land for more than 7 years require
permission by the Secretary of the Interior.
• Even if restrictions were approved by the
Secretary, there is little to no oversight on
land in trust so enforcement of restrictions is
virtually impossible.
Land into “trust”, 1,400 acres
and beyond, issues of concern:
• Santa Barbara County is State mandated to have a
“Comprehensive Plan” that is the framework for
development decision making.
• The Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan was
recently completed after 10 years. It provides even
greater detail for development and decision making in
the Santa Ynez Valley.
• Land in trust is outside the Santa Barbara County
Comprehensive Plan, and the Santa Ynez Valley
Community Plan, and renders those plans
meaningless.
Santa Barbara County
Comprehensive Plan and Santa Ynez
Valley Community Plan
•Our government at the
County, State and
Federal levels must be
held accountable to
upholding and defending
the Comprehensive Plan
and the Community Plan.
Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians,
purchase of land and development
• The Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians
has every right to purchase property, and
to develop that property through
established County and State processes.
• The issue is land into trust - the exponential
negative impacts created by taking land out
of County and State jurisdiction and the
Comprehensive and Community Plans, and
into “trust.”
What you can do:
• Elected officials MUST hear from you.
• Write letters and call.
•
•
•
•
•
Congressman Elton Gallegly
485 Alisal Road, Unit 144
Solvang, Ca. 93563
805-686-2525, fax: 686-2566
Board of Supervisors, (Supervisors Farr, Wolf, Gray,
Lavagnino, Carbajal)
• 105 East Anapamu St.
• Santa Barbara, Ca. 93101
• 568-2190 (Tell the receptionist to give your message to
ALL SUPERVISORS)
Tell your friends!
• We are holding our government
accountable to make decisions based
on FACTS and not POLITICS or
FICTION.
• Spread the word. It is up to We the
People to hold our government
accountable.
DONATE!
• We have been forced to file litigation to
protect our community and our quality of
lives.
This comes at a huge cost!
• P.O.L.O., www.polosyv.org (credit card)
• PO Box 722, Los Olivos, Ca. 93441
•
P.O.L.O. is a 501 c 4 corporation. Check with your tax advisor for
deductibility.
• Santa Ynez Valley Concerned Citizens
• P.O. Box 244, Santa Ynez, Ca. 93460
•
Concerned Citizens is a 501 c 4 corporation. Check with your tax
advisor for deductibility.
Visit the websites for
information
P.O.L.O., Preservation of Los Olivos
www.polosyv.org
Santa Ynez Valley Concerned
Citizens
www.syvconcernedcitizens.com