HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/3/2003 - STAFF REPORTS DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2003
TO: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
FIRSTAMENDED LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
INDIANS, CLARIFYING ALLOWED USES ON PRAIRIE SCHOONER PROPERTY
LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CALLE EL SEGUNDO AND ADREAS ROAD
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs approve the
First Amended License Agreement("Amended Agreement")with the Agua Caliente
Band of Cahuilla Indians ("Tribe") clarifying allowed uses on the Prairie Schooner
property located at the southeast corner of Calle El Segundo and Andreas Road.
SUMMARY:
The proposed Amended Agreement with the Tribe clarifies the allowed uses on the
Prairie Schooner property located at the southeast corner of Calle El Segundo and
Andreas Road. The Amended Agreement will allow the Tribe to improve the
property with a paved parking lot and landscaping to be used, on a non-exclusive
basis, by the Tribe in conjunction with the Tribe's adjacent casino. The Tribe shall
make an annual contribution of$700,000 to the Agency and City each year that this
Amended Agreement is in effect subject to annual payments by the Agency to the
Tribe of $200,000 for repayment of parking improvement costs. The Amended
Agreement will expire on July 31, 2005 provided that with an agreement in writing,
the Amended Agreement maybe further extended. It is intended that an agreement
would be reached whereby the Tribe would acquire a long-term interest in the
property and also acquire additional property for the City's benefit for construction
staging purposes in connection with the City's expansion of its Convention Center.
BACKGROUND:
The Agency and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians entered a Construction
License Agreement #A454C in November 2002 relating to 5.7 acres of Agency-
owned land, known as the Prairie Schooner property located at the southeast corner
of Calle El Segundo and Andreas Road, during the construction of the Spa Casino.
The original agreement exchanged the use of the property by the Tribe for grading
and other property improvements of the Agency's property. The intent of the
agreement was to create a construction trailer campus along Andreas, along with
construction and employee parking in the southern one-third of the licensed property.
Nevertheless,the construction project has created parking impacts to both the Hilton
Hotel employees,who have tended to park along Andreas Road,as well as the Spa
Resort Casino's valet parking. Not being able to use the parking area at the Prairie
Schooner property has caused the Tribe to close the section of Andreas Road(from
Encilia to Indian) on the weekends in order to accommodate the parking needs of
the casino and the Hilton employees.
A First Amendment to the original License Agreement was approved by the Agency
by Resolution No. 1225 on July 30, 2003. Compliance with CEQA provisions relative
to the number of allowable parking spaces requires that Resolution No. 1225 be
rescinded and an alternate resolution and Amended Agreement adopted.
The Amended Agreement will allow the Tribe to improve the property with a paved
parking lot and landscaping. Except for an area to be reserved for valet parking
which will be operated by the Tribe, this otherwise public parking lot may, at times,
be reserved for use by the Palm Springs Convention Center pursuant to a schedule
agreed upon by the parties. As consideration for this Amended Agreement, the
Tribe shall make an annual contribution of$700,000 to the Agency and City each
year that this Amended Agreement is in effect subject to annual payments by the
Agency to the Tribe of $200,000 annually for repayment of parking improvement
costs. The Amended Agreement will expire on July 31, 2005 provided that with an
agreement in writing, the Amended Agreement may be further extended. It is
intended that an agreement would be reached whereby the Tribe would acquire a
long-term interest in the property and also acquire additional property for the City's
benefit for construction staging purposes in connection with the City's expansion of
its Convention Center.
The Environmental Assessment for the Palm Springs City Council Expansion and
Associated General Plan Amendment ("Mitigated Negative Declaration") was
adopted by the City Council on May 7, 2003. The Mitigated Negative Declaration
analyzed the potential effects of the development of the Prairie Schooner propertyas
a parking lot with 475 parking spaces. As the Tribe is proposing to develop the
Prairie Schooner property as a parking lot with 475 parking spaces, adequate
environmental review of the proposed use of the Prairie Schooner property under the
California Environmental Quality Act has been achieved.
�t7I"JOHN S. RAYMOND
Director of Community& Economic Development
APPROVE6:
Executive Director
ATTACHMENTS:
1. First Amended License Agreement
2. Resolution
REVIEWED BY DEPT.OF FINANCE
• FIRST AMENDED LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDED LICENSE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered
into as of , 2003, by and between the COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a public body, corporate
and politic ("Owner" or "Agency") and the AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
INDIANS ("Tribe"), with reference to the following facts:
A. Owner is the owner in fee simple of the real property commonly known as the
Prairie Schooner Parcel ("Owner's Parcel") which is located in the City of Palm Springs, Comity
of Riverside, bearing APN Numbers 508-055-008, 508-055-009, and 508-055-007, and is legally
described in Exhibit "A" attached and made a part hereof.
B. On or about November 1, 2002, Owner and the Tribe entered into a Construction
License Agreement ("Prior Agreement"), whereby the parties agreed to the Tribe's initial use of
the Owner's Parcel for the purpose of facilitating the construction of the Tribe's adjacent parcel
for a proposed casino development.
C. The parties desire to amend the Prior Agreement to revise a number of the terms,
including, but not limited to, the permissible uses of the Owner's Parcel, the consideration and
the term of the Agreement, to expand the Tribe's use of the Owner's Parcel pursuant to the
conditions set forth herein for the purpose of constructing and operating a parking lot Which will
• be used, on a non-exclusive basis, by the Tribe in conjunction with the Tribe's adjacent casino.
D. The parties also desire to negotiate diligently and in good faith to prepare an
agreement ("DDA") whereby the Tribe would acquire a long-term interest in the Owner Parcel
and also acquire additional property for the City's benefit for construction staging purposes in
connection with the City's expansion of its Convention Center. However, for the Agency to
lease the Owner Parcel, certain procedural requirements are necessary, including approval of the
DDA. Nothing shall obligate Agency to approve the DDA pursuant to this Agreement. The
DDA will be subject to all rules, regulations, standards and criteria set forth in the Owner's
Redevelopment Plan, the City's General Plan, applicable specific plans and zoning regulations
and this Agreement. The DDA will generally be in the form negotiated by the Owner with other
development entities subject to the terms the Owner and the Tribe mutually agree upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree as follows:
1. Modification of Prior Agreement Section 2: The entire Section 2,
"Consideration for License," as contained in the Prior Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced
with the following:
•
1003/031125284 v6
"2. Consideration for License. In consideration of the granting
• of this license, the Tribe shall, at its sole cost and expense, undertake the
following tasks:
2.1 Design a "Parking Lot" which will provide up to
five hundred fifty (550) parking spaces in conformance with all City
standards which incorporates landscaping of the Owner's Parcel.
2.2 Obtain all approvals and entitlements to construct
the Parking Lot, including approval of the plans for the Parking Lot by the
City's Plarming Cormnission.
2.3 Construct all improvements on the Owner's Parcel
within ninety (90) days of the approval by the Planning Commission.
2.4 Make an annual contribution to the City in the
amount of seven himdred thousand dollars ($700,000), in equal monthly
installment payments which shall be due to the City on or before the tenth
(10th) day of each month, commencing July 10, 2003. This payment shall
be allocated as provided in Section 4 below.
2.5 Perform all procedures necessary to address any
Indian artifacts or other existing Indian historical resources located on the
Owner's Parcel pursuant to applicable federal, state, and tribal
• requirements so that Tribe will agree that no additional mitigation
measures are needed when the property is developed.
2. Modification of Prior Agreement Section 3: The entire Section 3, "Grant
of License," as contained in the Prior Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the
following:
"3. Grant of License.
3.1 Grant of License by Owner. Owner hereby grants
to Tribe a license to enter upon the Owner's Parcel to perform the
consideration specified in Section 2 above and to utilize the property for
constructing and operating a parking lot which will be used by the Tribe
not only for construction staging, but also in conjunction with the Tribe's
adjacent casino and including a valet parking area of two hundred (200)
parking spaces. Said license shall be nonexclusive except as provided in
Section 5 below and Owner shall retain the right to enter the Owner's
Parcel at any time.
3.2 Term of License. The license granted to the Tribe
pursuant to Section 3.1 above shall commence as originally provided in
the Prior Agreement, but shall terminate on July 31, 2005,'provided that
with an agreement in writing, the Agreement may be further extended. It
• is intended that the DDA can be prepared and approved by said date.
1003/031/25284 v6
3.3 Early Termination. Owner may terminate this
Agreement at its sole discretion at any time upon providing prior written
• notice to Tribe one (1) year in advance of the actual termination date.
3.4 Condition of Owner's Parcel. Tribe shall return the
Owner's Parcel in good condition with all improvements specified herein
to the satisfaction of the Owner upon the expiration or termination of this
Agreement."
3. New Section 4: A new Section 4, "Repayment of Improvement Cost,"
shall read as follows:
"4. Repayment of Improvement Cost
4.1 Allocation of Payment. The seven htmdred
thousand dollar ($700,000) annual payment shall be allocated 38 percent
to the Agency as a payment of rent and 62 percent to the City to pay for
tourism promotion, to include advertising, financing and operation of the
Convention Center and visitor center, and for the provision of services
needed for tourism. The payments shall be made with separate checks,
each month.
4.2 Repayment of Parking Improvement Cost. The
parties agree that the cost to the Tribe to construct the Parking Lot will not
exceed two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000). It is
agreed that the Owner shall repay the Tribe's actual cost to construct the
Parking Lot, interest free, over ten (10) years, in annual payments of two
hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). Any increase in the cost to
construct the Parking Lot must be consented to by the Owner in writing
before commencement of construction and said increased amount shall be
repaid, interest free, over ten (10) years in annual payments. Each month
that Tribe makes the payments specified above, the Tribe shall deduct
$20,833.33 from the payment to the Agency as the Agency's repayment of
said improvement cost.
4.3 Maintenance and Utilities. Although City will
perform all maintenance of the Owner's Parcel and will pay for all utilities
necessary to operate the Parking Lot, the Tribe agrees that it shall be
responsible for the payment of one-half(1/2) of all of the costs relating to
the maintenance and utilities for the Owner's Parcel and Parking Lot. The
City shall submit an accounting of all such costs to the Tribe on a monthly
basis, in arrears. The Tribe's portion of such costs shall be deducted from
the repayment obligation specified above on a monthly basis, in arrears.
4.4 Failure to Approve DDA. In the event the Agency
does not approve the DDA and approve a long-term lease of the Owner
Parcel to the Tribe, then this License Amendment shall terminate at the
•
1003/031/25284 v6
conclusion of its term. In such event, the Tribe may discontinue payment
• of the consideration stated in Section 2 and Agency may discontinue
repayment of the parking improvement cost. Neither party shall have any
liability to the other hereunder, so long as they are not in default."
4. New Section 5: A new Section 5, "Use of the Parking Lot," shall read as
follows:
11
5. Use of Parking Lot.
5.1 Reserved Spaces. A portion of the Parking Lot
consisting of approximately two hundred (200) spaces, as shown in
Exhibit `B" attached and made a part hereof, is reserved for Tribe for valet
parking purposes.
5.2 Use By the Convention Center. The Tribe agrees to
meet with representatives of the Palm Springs Convention Center
("Convention Center") on a quarterly basis to prepare a calendar setting
forth those dates during which the Convention Center usage will be at a
maximum so that the entire Parking Lot will be needed, other than the
reserved spaces described in Section 5.1 and on Exhibit B. When the
Parking Lot is being used by the Convention Center, on the dates agreed
upon by the parties, the Convention Center may collect a fee in connection
with the use of the Parking Lot.
• 5.3 Public Use. At times when the Parking Lot is not
being used by the Convention Center, except for the reserved spaces
described in Section 5.1 and on Exhibit B, the approximately three
hundred (300) remaining spaces in the Parking Lot shall be open for the
use of the general public."
5.4 Convention Center Construction Staging. The City
had planned to use Owner's Parcel for construction staging in connection
with the planned expansion of the Convention Center. No later than
November 1, 2003, the Tribe will obtain possession of five (5) acres of
real property in the vicinity of the Convention Center which would be
available to the City without charge for up to three (3) years for such
purposes.
5. Modification of Prior Agreement Section 4: The entire Section 4,
"Indemnity and Insurance," as contained in the Prior Agreement is hereby renumbered Section 6.
6. Modification of Prior Agreement Section 5: The entire Section 5,
"Notices," as contained in the Prior Agreement is hereby renumbered Section 7. Moreover, the
address for copies of all documents to Owner shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
"With Copy to: Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
. 18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400
1 003/03 1/25 284 v6
7. New Section 8: A new Section 8, "Sovereign Immunity Waiver" states as
• follows:
"8. Sovereign Immunity Waiver. Except as stated herein, the
Tribe does not waive, limit, or alter its tribal sovereign immunity from
unconsented suit or other proceedings. The Tribe hereby does waive its tribal
sovereign immunity from unconsented suit by only the Owner, and by no other
party whatsoever, if the Owner seeks, in a court of competent jurisdiction located
in Riverside County, California, (1) injunctive relief to compel the Tribe to
comply with the specific duties of the Owner which the Tribe has expressly
undertaken in this Agreement, or (2) monetary damages for breach of the specific
payment obligations undertaken by the Tribe toward the Owner in this
Agreement, with such relief limited to the amounts which the Tribe has expressly
promised to pay to the Owner in this Agreement. As a pre-condition to any such
suit, the Owner must first attempt an informal resolution of any such dispute
regarding the Tribe's performance of its express obligations trader this Agreement
by (1) presenting to the Tribe, in the manner specified regarding notices herein, a
simple and concise written statement of the specific obligations of the Tribe under
this Agreement that the Owner believes that Tribe has not fulfilled, and (2)
meeting in person with authorized representatives of the Tribe within thirty days
of the Tribe's receipt of such notice to discuss the Owner's claim. This meeting
will be excused if the Tribe does not make its representatives reasonably available
during such 30-day period after receipt of such a notice of an in-person meeting.
8. Modification of Prior Agreement Section 6: The entire Section 6,
"General Provisions," as contained in the Prior Agreement is hereby renumbered Section 9.
9. New Section 10: A new Section 10, "Full Force and Effect" states as
follows:
"10. Full Force and Effect. Except as set forth herein, the
Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS:]
1003/031/25284 v6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this
Agreement as of the date first written above.
• "TRIBE"
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF
CAHUILLA INDIANS
600 East Tahquitz Canyon Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92262
By:
Name:
By:
Name:
"OWNER"
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a public
body, corporate and politic
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Attn: Executive Director
By:
Its:
ATTEST:
Assistant Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David J. Aleshire, Agency Counsel
•
1003/031/25284 v6
FIRST AMENDED LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDED LICENSE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered
into as of , 2003, by and between the COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a public body, corporate and politic ("Owner")
and the AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS ("Tribe"), with reference to the
following facts:
A. Owner is the owner in fee simple of the real property commonly known as the
Prairie Schooner Parcel ("Owner's Parcel") which is located in the City of Pahm Springs, County
of Riverside, bearing APN Numbers 508-055-008, 508-055-009, and 508-055-007, and is legally
described in Exhibit"A" attached and made a part hereof.
B. On or about November 1, 2002, Owner and the Tribe entered into a Construction
License Agreement ("Prior Agreement"), whereby the parties agreed to the Tribe's initial use of
the Owner's Parcel for the purpose of facilitating the construction of the Tribe's adjacent parcel
for a proposed casino development.
C. The parties desire to amend the Prior Agreement to revise a number of the terms,
including, but not limited to, the permissible uses of the Owner's Parcel, the consideration and
the term of the Agreement, to expand the Tribe's use of the Owner's Parcel pursuant to the
conditions set forth herein for the purpose of constructing and operating a parking lot which will
be used, on a non-exclusive basis,by the Tribe in conjunction with the Tribe's adjacent casino.
D. The parties also desire to negotiate diligently and in good faith to prepare an
agreement ("DDA") whereby the Tribe would acquire a long-term interest in the Owner Parcel
and also acquire additional property for the City's benefit for construction staging purposes in
connection with the City's expansion of its Convention Center. However, for the Agency to
lease the Owner Parcel, certain procedural requirements are necessary, including approval of the
DDA. Nothing shall obligate Agency to approve the DDA pursuant to this Agreement. The
DDA will be subject to all rules, regulations, standards and criteria set forth in the Owner's
Redevelopment Plan, the City's General Plan, applicable specific plans and zoning regulations
and this Agreement. The DDA will generally be in the form negotiated by the Owner with other
development entities subject to the terns the Owner and the Tribe mutually agree upon.
NOW, THEREFORE,in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree as follows:
1. Modification of Prior Agreement Section 2: The entire Section 2,
"Consideration for License," as contained in the Prior Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced
with the following:
1 003/03 1/2 52 84 v6 [1 Sy
"2. Consideration for License. In consideration of the granting
of this license, the Tribe shall, at its sole cost and expense, undertake the
following tasks:
2.1 Design a "Parking Lot" which will provide up to
five hundred fifty (550) parking spaces in conformance with all City
standards which incorporates landscaping of the Owner's Parcel.
2.2 Obtain all approvals and entitlements to construct
the Parking Lot, including approval of the plans for the Parking Lot by the
City's Planning Commission.
2.3 Construct all improvements on the Owner's Parcel
within ninety(90) days of the approval by the Planning Commission.
2.4 Make an annual contribution to the City in the
amount of seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000), in equal monthly
installment payments which shall be due to the City on or before the tenth
(I Oh) day of each month, commencing July 10, 2003. This payment shall
be allocated as provided in Section 4 below.
2.5 Perform all procedures necessary to address any
Indian artifacts or other existing Indian historical resources located on the
Owner's Parcel pursuant to applicable federal, state, and tribal
requirements so that Tribe will agree that no additional mitigation
measures are needed when the property is developed."
2. Modification of Prior Agreement Section 3: The entire Section 3, "Grant
of License," as contained in the Prior Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced with the
following:
11
3. Grant of License.
3.1 Grant of License by Owner. Owner hereby grants
to Tribe a license to enter upon the Owner's Parcel to perform the
consideration specified in Section 2 above and to utilize the property for
constructing and operating a parking lot which will be used by the Tribe
not only for construction staging, but also in conjunction with the Tribe's
adjacent casino and including a valet parking area of two hundred (200)
parking spaces. Said license shall be nonexclusive except as provided in
Section 5 below and Owner shall retain the right to enter the Owner's
Parcel at any time.
3.2 Term of License. The license granted to the Tribe
pursuant to Section 3.1 above shall commence as originally provided in
the Prior Agreement, but shall terminate on July 31, 2005, provided that
with an agreement in writing, the Agreement may be further extended. It
is intended that the DDA can be prepared and approved by said date.
1 0 03/03 1/2 52 8 4 v6 ' L/
3.3 Early Termination. Owner may tenninate this
Agreement at its sole discretion at any time upon providing prior written
notice to Tribe one (1)year in advance of the actual termination date.
3.4 Condition of Owner's Parcel. Tribe shall return the
Owner's Parcel in good condition with all improvements specified herein
to the satisfaction of the Owner upon the expiration or termination of this
Agreement."
3. New Section 4: A new Section 4, "Repayment of Improvement Cost,"
shall read as follows:
"4. Repavinent of Improvement Cost
4.1 Allocation of Payment. The seven hundred
thousand dollar ($700,000) annual payment shall be allocated 38 percent
to the Agency as a payment of rent and 62 percent to the City to pay for
tourism promotion, to include advertising, financing and operation of the
Convention Center and visitor center, and for the provision of services
needed for tourism. The payments shall be made with separate checks,
each month.
4.2 Repayment of Parking Improvement Cost. The cost
to the Tribe to construct the Parking Lot is agreed to be two million dollars
($2,000,000). It is agreed that the Agency shall repay this amount, interest
free, over ten (10) years, in annual payments of two hundred thousand
dollars ($200,000). Any increase in the cost to construct the Parking Lot
must be consented to by the Owner in writing before commencement of
construction and said increased amount shall be repaid, interest free, over
then (10) years in annual payments. Each month that Tribe makes the
payments specified above, the Tribe shall deduct $16,666.67 from the
payment to the Agency as the Agency's repayment of said improvement
cost.
4.3 Failure to Approve DDA. In the event the Agency
does not approve the DDA and approve a long-tern lease of the Owner
Parcel to the Tribe, then this License Amendment shall terminate at the
conclusion of its term. In such event, the Tribe may discontinue payment
of the consideration stated in Section 2 and Agency may discontinue
repayment of the parking improvement cost. Neither party shall have any
liability to the other hereunder, so long as they are not in default."
4. New Section 5: A new Section 5, "Use of the Parking Lot," shall read as
follows:
1003/031/25284 v6
"5. Use of Parking Lot.
5.1 Reserved Spaces. A portion of the Parking Lot
consisting of approximately two hundred (200) spaces, as shown in
Exhibit"B" attached and made a part hereof, is reserved for Tribe for valet
parking purposes.
5.2 Use By the Convention Center. The Tribe agrees to
meet with representatives of the Palm Springs Convention Center
("Convention Center") on a quarterly basis to prepare a calendar setting
forth those dates during which the Convention Center usage will be at a
maximum so that the entire Parking Lot will be needed, other than the
reserved spaces described in Section 5.1 and on Exhibit B. When the
Parking Lot is being used by the Convention Center, on the dates agreed
upon by the parties, the Convention Center may collect a fee in connection
with the use of the Parking Lot.
5.3 Public Use. At times when the Parking Lot is not
being used by the Convention Center, except for the reserved spaces
described in Section 5.1 and on Exhibit B, the approximately three
hundred (300) remaining spaces in the Parking Lot shall be open for the
use of the general public."
5.4 Convention Center Construction Staging. The City
had planned to use Owner's Parcel for construction staging in connection
with the planned expansion of the Convention Center. No later than
November 1, 2003, the Tribe will obtain possession of five (5) acres of
real property in the vicinity of the Convention Center which would be
available to the City without charge for up to three (3) years for such
purposes.
5. Modification of Prior Agreement Section 4: The entire Section 4,
"Indemnity and Insurance," as contained in the Prior Agreement is hereby renumbered Section 6.
6. Modification of Prior Agreement Section 5: The entire Section 5,
"Notices," as contained in the Prior Agreement is hereby renumbered Section 7. Moreover, the
address for copies of all documents to Owner shall be deleted and replaced with the following:
"With Copy to: Aleshire&Wynder, LLP
18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400
Irvine, California 92612
Attn: David J. Aleshire"
I003/03 U25284 vG
7. New Section 8: A new Section 8, "Sovereign Immunity Waiver" states as
follows:
11
8. Sovereign Immunity Waiver. Except as stated herein, the
Tribe does not waive, limit, or alter its tribal sovereign immunity from
unconsented suit or other proceedings. The Tribe hereby does waive its tribal
sovereign immunity from unconsented suit by only the Owner, and by no other
party whatsoever, if the Owner seeks, in a court of competent jurisdiction located
in Riverside County, California, (1) injunctive relief to compel the Tribe to
comply with the specific duties of the Owner which the Tribe has expressly
undertaken in this Agreement, or (2) monetary damages for breach of the specific
payment obligations undertaken by the Tribe toward the Owner in this
Agreement, with such relief limited to the amounts which the Tribe has expressly
promised to pay to the Owner in this Agreement. As a pre-condition to any such
suit, the Owner must first attempt an informal resolution of any such dispute
regarding the Tribe's performance of its express obligations under this Agreement
by (1) presenting to the Tribe, in the manner specified regarding notices herein, a
simple and concise written statement of the specific obligations of the Tribe under
this Agreement that the Owner believes that Tribe has not fulfilled, and (2)
meeting in person with authorized representatives of the Tribe within thirty days
of the Tribe's receipt of such notice to discuss the Owner's claim. This meeting
will be excused if the Tribe does not make its representatives reasonably available
during such 30-day period after receipt of such a notice of an in-person meeting.
8. Modification of Prior Agreement Section 6: The entire Section 6,
"General Provisions," as contained in the Prior Agreement is hereby renumbered.Section 9.
9. New Section 10: A new Section 10, "Full Force and Effect" states as
follows:
"10. Full Force and Effect. Except as set forth herein, the
Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS:]
1003/031/25284 v6 / 1� /,� 9 - -7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and entered into this
Agreement as of the date first written above.
"TRIBE"
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF
CAHUILLA INDIANS
600 East Tahquitz Canyon Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92262
By:
Name:
By:
Name:
"OWNER"
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, a public
body, corporate and politic
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Attn: Executive Director
By:
Its:
ATTEST:
Assistant Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David J. Aleshire, Agency Counsel
1 0 0 3/03 1/2 52 84 v6 C /(, ! 1
EXHIBIT "A"
OWNER PARCEL
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
For the period of the Agreement, the Tribe shall have exclusive use of the parcel shown
below, with the exception of the easternmost 170 feet of parcel 508-055-007, which shall
be reserved for use by the Convention Center.
1003/001/25284 v4 A-1
EXHfBIT "A"
OWNER PARCEL-LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 508-055-007, 508-055-008, and 508-055-009 on Assessor's
Map Book 508 Page 05, Riverside County, California.as shown below:
,"� ,Ipi' ���'r •I
or
I M
6p CM
of
I I yp,gyp 2. d 6 AC
,�.
*40
-rl rse �.ssa
Rif
Aet
• � EX � EX \ „l ��
ew, a o.
o \
AC
y � C� • O � 4
14
• j4L
100
TAlU1Z
EXHIBIT "B"
RESERVED AREA
ELSEDUNDO
L p •�-.I�.-.�^� � llw--•nnr.L.Tf u � _ ram. R w+.r.'n I�,4 ' I rw�..�_
ig
$ Y 1 I
� I
- - 1
m
m - - -
fn
Y
Y�
b 3 _ _ thii•� I
o-
a
iIL •y Jr I
Z I 7 r�/MgY YA�IL 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1226
OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FIRST
AMENDED LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE AQUA CALIENTE
BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS PROVIDING FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF PARKING ON THE PRAIRIE SCHOONER
PROPERTY A454C
WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs, California
("Agency') is constituted under the Community Redevelopment Law(California Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et. seq.) to carry out the purpose as the redevelopment in the City of Palm
Springs ("City'); and
WHEREAS, the Original Construction License Agreement#A454C was approved by the
Agency Board on October 16, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the Original Agreement allowed for the exchange of the use of the property by
the Tribe for certain improvements to the property. The intent of the agreement was to facilitate the
creation of a construction trailer campus and employee parking; and
WHEREAS,the Agency wishes to rescind Resolution No. 1225 adopted on July 30,2003 by
which the Agency approved Amendment 1 to the Original Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Agency and Tribe now desire to enter into this First Amended License
Agreement for the purposes of allowing the construction of 475 parking spaces for casino and
Convention Center use, with 200 spaces reserved for Spa Hotel & Casino valet parking; and, fair
market value rent for the parcel, Agency repayment to the Tribe for the cost of the improvements,
and the Tribal contribution to the City for tourism-related uses; and
WHEREAS, both parties shall negotiate in good faith a Disposition and Development
Agreement that shall document the long-term responsibilities of both parties under Community
Redevelopment Law(California Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. sea.); and
WHEREAS, the potential effects of the use of the property as a parking lot with 475 spaces
were analyzed in the "Environmental Assessment for the Palm Springs Convention Center
Expansion and Associated General Plan Amendment'("Mitigated Negative Declaration")which was
adopted by the City Council on May 7, 2003 such that the proposed use contemplated by this
Agreement does not require additional analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA").
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Palm Springs as follows:
SECTION 1. Agency Resolution No. 1225 adopted on July 30, 2003 is hereby
rescinded.
SECTION 2. This First Amended License Agreement is hereby approved and
incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 3. The Executive Director is authorized to execute all necessary
documents, in a form approved by the Agency Counsel.
Resolution 1226
Page 2
SECTION 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration provides adequate analysis of
the potential impacts on the environment which could be caused by
the development of the property as a parking lot with 475 spaces
such that additional analysis is not necessary to comply with CEQA.
ADOPTED this 3rd day ofSeptember 2003.
AYES: Members Hodges, Mills, Oden, Reller-Spurgin and Chairman Kleindienst
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By
Assistant Secretary Chairman
REVIEWED &APPROVED
Pat Johansen, Chair
Coachella Valley Coalition for
Responsible Sovereignty
15 Stanford Dr
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Planning Commission
Redevelopment Agency
City of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
September 3, 2003
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency,
The attached summary report and appended documentation is submitted to the City of
Patin Springs by the Coachella Valley Coalition for Responsible Sovereignty.
It is our hope that the City will give serious consideration to the concerns and facts
expressed in these pages. The approval for the Prairie Schooner parking lot project
should not go forward. Instead, in light of the facts presented, the City should conduct a
fuller review of the proposal and give residents the time to review this proposal. The
project requires a complete Environmental Impact Report, which would give the public
the opportunity to be involved in the project decision.
Res ectfully,
Patricia A. Johatj�en, Chair
Coachella Valley Coalition for Responsible Sovereignty
Attachments:
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 1
Contents
Overview............................................................................................................................. 1
CA Health and Safety Code (§ 33426.5) prohibits Redevelopment Agencies from
entering into any agreement that supports, enhances or promotes gambling, casinos of
whateverkind......................................................................................................................3
The Redevelopment Agency's transfer of the parcel in this manner is unlawful...............4
What is the fair value of the land?...............................................................................4
The project is not consistent with the City's redevelopment plan and is not the highest
and best use for the parcel...............................................................................................5
Public contracting rules require the agency to solicit bids for the parking lot project....6
The City has failed to comply with environmental rules ....................................................6
An Additional Public Review Period is Required...........................................................6
It is reasonably foreseeable that the casino will increase the number of slot machines
and thereby traffic and environmental impacts beyond those identified in its previous
studies..............................................................................................................................6
This casino parking lot project is substantially different from what was studied in
previous environmental reports and will have significant environmental and social
consequences...................................................................................................................7
Noise ...........................................................................................................................7
Traffic..........................................................................................................................8
Inadequate Scope in Project Study Area.....................................................................8
Lighting and Aesthetics...............................................................................................9
Parking ........................................................................................................................9
Stephen Orosz, A Certified Traffic Engineer, Says the Proposed Project Changes are
Significant and City's Environmental Study is Inadequate ...................................... 10
This casino parking project interferes with the Redevelopment Agency's ability to
create adequate affordable housing............................................................................... 10
This casino parking project is a component the casino expansion project that will have
significant environmental and social consequences that also require study ................. 10
The Tribe's traffic study planned only 1,300 parking spaces, now the Tribe is
building3,000 ........................................................................................................... 11
Alternatives ................................................................................................................... 11
Other consequences of this casino will include ............................................................ 12
Impacts on public safety............................................................................................ 12
Impacts on affordable housing problems.................................................................. 12
Impactson schools.................................................................................................... 13
Impacts on Palm Springs Taxpayers......................................................................... 13
New language in the latest proposed agreement will reduce the opportunity for public
scrutiny of this deal and open the City to uncontrolled liabilities..................................... 14
Overview
The City Attorney reported in a July 30 City Council meeting that the Tribe has
determined that it needs more parking immediately to accommodate customers and
employees at its new casino when it opens on November 11 of this year.
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 2
That same day, the three members of the City Council acting as the Palm Springs
Redevelopment Agency (Hodges, Reller-Spurgin, and Oden), voted unanimously to
"amend an existing construction license agreement" that was created to allow the Tribe to
use the City's `Prairie Schooner' parcel as a short term construction staging and parking
area for its casino across the street.
The amendment to the license agreement sets up a new deal for the Tribe to construct a
permanent parking lot on the City's parcel—including 200 spaces of casino valet
parking—and use it for 20 years. The September 3, 2003 version of the license
agreement places no restrictions on the Tribe's use of the parking lot, other than in those
occasions when the convention center might need extra parking.
The City attorney explained that normally, the transfer of public property rights and the
construction of a parking lot triggers a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
process and an EIR under state law, but he explained that the Tribe feels it couldn't have
the construction of the parking lot completed in time for the November opening if it
didn't have immediate indication of the City's willingness to transfer the parcel to the
Tribe for use as a casino parking lot.
The attorney said the amendment to the construction license creates a three-year
agreement that will give the City enough time to complete the requirements for the long-
term lease to the Tribe, and give the Tribe the immediate indication it needs so that the
Tribe can begin construction of the parking lot. The attorney said there was legally
nothing binding the City to create a DDA transferring the parcel to the Tribe and
authorizing reimbursement for construction expenses, but "the Tribe fully expects to be
repaid its $2 million by the City."t
This action by City Council circumvents state law about the construction of the parking
lot and its transfer to the Tribe. The attorney made it clear that the amendment to the
license agreement was being done in lieu of completing all the state's legal requirements
for the transfer, but he implied that the Tribe's situation constituted an emergency. He
said, "If you approve this, you need to approve the DDA.,,2 City Council and the public
will be severely limited by the license agreement when it comes time to negotiate the
final DDA.
A group of residents protested the agreement at the time the City Council voted on it:
they complained that the agreement itself had not been made public and residents had not
had a chance to review it prior to the vote. A few days later, when they obtained a copy
of the agreement from the City, they determined that it was improper and sent a letter to
the City. That letter identified a Brown Act violation, an Environmental Quality Act
violation, and Health and Safety Code violations. The letter promised legal action if
these deficiencies were not corrected.
In response, the City intends to rescind the agreement, amend it, and pass a substitute. In
its substitute agreement, the City is apparently seeking to use the Tribe's sovereign
immunity to shield the City's actions from public scrutiny and review of the agreement.
While the Tribe waived its sovereign immunity with all matters related to the land
See videotape of July 30,2003 Redevelopment Agency meeting.
2 Ibid.
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 3
transfer in the first agreement, the revised version contains a full-bodied assertion of
immunity. The effect of this could be that citizens have no remedy in court to challenge
the propriety of the agreement.
Despite the City's revisions, residents still believe the agreement to have the Tribe
construct a casino parking lot on the city's land is improper for the following reasons:
• State law prohibits the use of redevelopment agencies for the support or
promotion of gambling;
• The agreement violates the requirements for the transfer of public property;
and,
• The City has failed to comply with state environmental laws governing public
projects.
Another troubling aspect of the revised parking lot agreement is the City's attempt to
shield its actions from public scrutiny and legal through a new assertion of tribal
sovereign immunity. Given the evidence, we also don't believe the payments reflect the
market value, much less the highest and best use for the property—and the evidence from
the City supports this assertion.
CA Health and Safety Code (§ 33426.5) prohibits
Redevelopment Agencies from entering into any
agreement that supports, enhances or promotes
gambling, casinos of whatever kind
The relevant section reads:
"an agency shall not provide any form of direct assistance
to:
(c) A development or business, either directly or indirectly,
for the acquisition, construction, improvement,
rehabilitation, or replacement of property that is or would
be used for gambling or gaming of any kind whatsoever
including, but not limited to, casinos, gaming clubs, bingo
operations, or any facility wherein banked or percentage
games, any form of gambling device, or lotteries, other than
the California State Lottery, are or will be played....
(e) This section shall not be construed to apply to agency
assistance in the construction of public improvements that
serve all or a portion of a project area and that are not
required to be constructed as a condition of approval of a
development described in subdivision (a), (b), or (c), or to
prohibit assistance in the construction of public
improvements that are being constructed for a development
that is not described in subdivision (a), (b), or (c)."
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 4
The current license agreement for casino construction staging on the redevelopment
agency's parcel appears to be quite illegal, while the City is attempting to legitimate the
long-term agreement for the parking lot, based on its nearby convention center. The
State's redevelopment law clearly prohibits redevelopment agencies from assisting
casinos, and the Palm Springs license agreement allowing the use of city property for
casino construction staging appears to be in clear violation of that provision.
The code does make an exception for public improvements that are being constructed for
a different development (such as a convention center), and that is "the eye of the needle
through which the City wants to put this camel." The City is seeking to justify how the
parking lot on the Prairie Schooner parcel would serve the Convention Center. The
Prairie Schooner parcel would be the last rational choice for additional convention center
parking. The City Attorney implied that the Prairie Schooner parcel was to be used for
construction staging, should the convention center expansion be approved, which is
further indication that it was the casino and not the convention center that is the real
beneficiary of this deal.
In the meeting, City Councilmembers did argue that the City's new convention center
needed additional parking and that the "license agreement" contained provisions that
would enable sharing. The city attorney identified that 200 spaces in the lot would be
used for valet parking.
The Redevelopment Agency's transfer of the parcel in
this manner is unlawful
The City used the amendment to the construction license agreement instead of following
state law governing the transfer of city property.
This deal sets up a long-term transfer of the use of City property (a de facto lease) to
another entity, which should trigger a report under Section 33433 of the CA Health and
Safety Code that requires a financial analysis and its publication at least 10 days prior to a
decision. We have no evidence that the City has conducted analysis to show that the
proposed deal is the highest and best use for the property and the taxpayer expenditures.
Furthermore, the deal calls for the Redevelopment Agency to repay the Tribe for the
construction of the parking lot that will be used by the Tribe's casino. While the City
currently has a $4.7 million general fund deficit, the Tribe casino is notoriously highly
profitable and expanding rapidly—yet pays no local taxes. This begs the question: why
would the redevelopment agency spend $2 million for a casino parking lot?
What is the fair value of the land?
In September 2000, the City Redevelopment Agency received an offer from a hotel
developer to pay $1.8 million for the site, or roughly $1.96 million in today's dollars., If
built, the hotel would have contributed additional revenue in the form of payments of
"Transient Occupancy Tax" rumored to be in the neighborhood of$1 million per year.
The present value of$1 million over 20 years is $12 million.
'See September 20, 2000 memo to Redevelopment Agency from Redevelopment Director.
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 5
The City is willing to take much less from the Tribe—especially because the City is
agreeing to reimburse the Tribe for the $2 million parking lot to be built on the parcel.
The lease includes a 75% rent discount to the Tribe for the first ten years. After the Tribe
gets reimbursed for the parking lot, the required annual payments will be $268,000 for
the final ten years of the lease term.4
• The net present value of these lease payments is $1.89 million. Using an 8%
cap rate, and a market rent of$268,000, the market value of the parcel would
be $3.3 million, significantly less than a $2 million parcel with $2 million in
improvements, and much less than the revenue that would come from the
sale of the land to a hotel and the consequent TOT payments.
The deal calls for the Tribe immediately to spend $2 million up front for the construction
of a parking lot on City owned land adjacent to its new casino, and the City will repay the
Tribe for its costs. In his briefing to Council, the attorney said the only limit to the
Tribe's use of the City's parking lot would be that on those occasions where there was a
big show at the Convention Center.
According to the description provided by the attorney, the Redevelopment Agency will
net$68,000 for the first ten years (Tribal rent of$268,000 per year less $200,000
reimbursement for construction costs). For the balance of the term, the Redevelopment
Agency will receive payments of$268,000. (If the City intended to follow state law, it
would be required to release an appraisal for the property that would help determine
whether the price is fair.)
In his July 30 briefing to Council, the City Attorney said the City will begin the required
procedures—including public hearings and appraisals—for the EIR and the DDA as soon
as possible, but the amendment to the license agreement would allow the Tribe to move
ahead with construction as it desires. The attorney said it would take six months to do the
DDA; The opening of the Tribe's new casino is roughly 70 days away from September 3,
2003, the date of approval of the license agreement amendment.
The project is not consistent with the City's redevelopment plan
and is not the highest and best use for the parcel
The City's most recent redevelopment plan identifies hotel development as the highest
and best use for the Prairie Schooner property.5 In 2000, the City received an offer of
$1.8 million ($1.96 million in 2003 dollars) to build a hotel on the subject property.6
Annual Transient Occupancy Tax payments associated with a hotel on the property
would have gone to the City's general fund, Assuming these TOT payments to be $1
million per year, the City's total net revenue from that sale of the property would have
been $14.5 million.
Under the proposed agreement, the City nets only $68,000 per year for the first ten years
and $268,000 for the next ten years. These payments total less than the minimum
acceptable return for this property worth $4 million ($1.96 million land value plus $2
million worth of improvements).
4 First Amendment to the License Agreement,September 3,2003.
s 2001 Redevelopment Plan of the City of Palm Springs
6 September 20,2000 Memo from John Raymond to City Council
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 6
Public contracting rules require the agency to solicit bids for the
parking lot project
Prior to the agreement, the City failed to solicit bids for the construction of its parking lot,
which is an additional violation of the state code. Prevailing wage laws will also apply
to this public project.
The City has failed to comply with environmental rules
According to the City Attorney, the Tribe wants to complete the parking lot for the
opening of its new casino—approximately 90 days. In its July 30, 2003 vote to approve
the project, the City erroneously made no environmental analysis of the project (at that
time, the project called for the construction of 600 spaces). The City received a letter
objecting to its approval and apparently intends to rescind its July 30 approval and adopt
an alternate resolution on September 3. In this alternate resolution, the City intends to
rely on a "Mitigated Negative Declaration" filed for a 475 space parking lot as part of its
convention center expansion in May 2003. However, that environmental filing made no
mention of the project's use as a casino-related activity.
An Additional Public Review Period is Required
If the City intends to adopt a negative declaration for approval of the project, it must
publish notice of that intent and provide a public review period of not less than 20 days.
(Public Resources Code section 21092 (a) and (b) and CEQA Guidelines section 15072.)
It is reasonably foreseeable that the casino will increase the
number of slot machines and thereby traffic and environmental
impacts beyond those identified in its previous studies
The casino has filed plans with the City of Palm Springs to increase by approximately
131 percent the number of parking spaces that it reported in its previous Traffic Impact
Study Update.7 According to plans submitted to the City thus far, the number is
projected to increase from 1,313 to approximately 3,036. This increase provides
evidence of the casino's intention to increase the number of its customers. A November
2002 story in the LA Times reported, "the Spa Casino could eventually contain 50 table
games and 1,400 slot machines."8 According to the story, "The band plans to expand the
new Spa Casino within five years into a$400 million complex stretching across several
blocks of downtown Palm Springs."9
The casino's 2002 Traffic Impact Study ties some of the project's environmental impacts
to the number of customers, which is in turn linked by the casino's report to the number
of slot machines.10 Without commenting on the validity of this claim, it is reasonably
foreseeable that the casino will increase the number of its slot machines as soon as
See Parking Lot Plans submitted on August 8,2003 by Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.
s Scott Gold, "Indian Casinos on a Roll:The number and quality of California Establishments are up
markedly, and they're poised to give Nevada a run for its money." Los Angeles Times, November 22,
2002.
9 Ibid.
1°New Spa Casino Traffic Impact Study Update, October 23,2002,page 1-1.
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 7
possible and consequently will increase the number of its customers. These increases
will further increase the environmental and social impacts of both the Prairie Schooner
project and the casino project.
This casino parking lot project is substantially different from
what was studied in previous environmental reports and will
have significant environmental and social consequences
The City Redevelopment Agency is claiming that the environmental effects of this
parking lot project were analyzed in a previous environmental document adopted on May
7, 2003, entitled "Environmental Assessment for the Palm Springs Convention Center
Expansion and Associated General Plan Amendment".
That claim is incorrect on several points. First, the proposed use for the Prairie Schooner
parcel as a casino parking lot is a major and significant change in the previous project
description that will have significant additional impacts including noise, traffic, parking,
air quality, etc., and these additional impacts have not been analyzed. That document did
not discuss the use of the Prairie Schooner parking lot for casino patrons and employees.
Third, these are substantial changes to the project, and the City cannot rely on its old,
outdated project description.
Additionally, the previously adopted agreement for the casino to use the Prairie Schooner
lot included employee parking. The new version of the proposed agreement does not
contain that provision. This leads us to believe that the employee parking lot at the
corner of El Segundo and Ramon may in fact be a permanent facility. Neither the Tribe
nor the City have provided an alternative explanation.
In sum, the new proposed use of the Prairie Schooner parking lot for casino patrons is a
substantial change of substantial importance that will have significant effects, including
noise, traffic, parking, lighting and aesthetic impacts not discussed in the previous
document. Therefore, it is improper for the City to adopt this project proposal.
Noise
The City's environmental study of the noise and traffic impacts from the Convention
Center expansion project is based upon the projected demand profile for the Convention
Center, and does not include or discuss the impacts of the casino. "Traffic volumes in the
year 2004 (the opening year of the proposed expansion) with and without the project
were analyzed to determine the project-related impact on motor vehicle noise levels in
the vicinity." The City's existing plan states:
"During the evening peak hour, a total of 29 project-related vehicles are expected to
enter and/or leave the west parking lot via the driveway on Andreas Road. The noise
generated by project-related vehicles will be very similar to the noise currently
generated by the on-street parking activity that occurs along both sides of Andreas
Road in the vicinity and most likely lower than the noise generated by the use of this
lot by the City of Palm Springs as a construction vehicle staging area. Consequently,
project-related noise increases expected in the vicinity of the proposed west parking
lot, while not always inaudible to the residents of the adjacent residential
development, are considered insignificant."
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 8
The study predicts its growth in noise impacts to correlate directly to the rate of
expansion in conference attendees, and makes no mention of casino operations and
attendance." The study's `peak use scenario' is derived from Convention Center
activity, not casino activity (for example, see page 2-6). We also point out that that study
does not appear to incorporate the impacts of the new casino on its noise level analysis,
which is an important deficiency. For example, the study states, "The convention center
does not host a significant number of late night parties so the parking lots are typically
clear by 10 p.m. or midnight." The casino operates round the clock and will clearly
generate significantly different noise impacts at this project site.12
The City's report contains no management control plan for noise impacts that will ensue
from the use of the Prairie Schooner lot by casino patrons and valet. Additionally, the
mitigation measures adopted in the City's convention center document are not reflected
in the Tribe's parking lot design. Specifically, the City's plan reads, "The location of the
primary west parking lot access point at the southwest corner of the lot (on Calle El
Segundo, as far as possible from existing residential land uses located north of Andreas
Road and east of Calle El Segundo) will reduce the potential for intrusive noise events on
residents." 13 The location is different in the Tribe's proposed plan. Additionally, the
parking lot set-back presented in figure 2-3 of the City's environmental declaration
appears to be reduced in the Agua Caliente's design for the Prairie Schooner submitted to
the Planning Commission. Since these two items were a component of the City's
mitigation strategy, these elements of the new project are inconsistent with that plan.
Traffic
Inadequate Scope in Project Study Area
The City of Palm Springs requires traffic studies to address all intersections with a
minimum project traffic impact of 50 trips in the peak hour. The use of the Prairie
Schooner site by the casino necessarily expands the number of affected intersection
beyond the scope identified in the City's existing traffic study.
Just as in the noise study, the City's environmental study uses "Historical convention
activity levels and current convention center traffic peaking characteristics [to] provide a
means of identifying a current `design day' that reflects a weekday peak use scenario.s14
The City's study makes no mention of a casino-related use or a scenario involving the use
of the Prairie Schooner parking lot by casino patrons. While the existing traffic analysis
simulated and studied future traffic conditions that would ensue from the Convention
Center expansion, it did not examine the traffic conditions that will ensue from the use of
the parking lot by casino patrons.15
Palm Springs Convention Center Expansion Noise Impact Study, Endo Engineering,March 2003.p.2-2
—2-3.
12 Testimony of gaming industry expert,Maya Holmes,Research Director, Culinary Union,Local 226,Las
Vegas,Nevada.
s Page 440.
"Page 1-2.
"The Tribe also hired Endo Engineering to prepare its"New Spa Casino Traffic Impact Study Update"
dated October 2002. In that document,the project description stated, "a total of 1,313 parking spaces will
be available for the new proposed gaming facility." However, the Tribe's current parking lot development
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 9
The City's study reports:
"The proposed expansion of the Palm Springs Convention
Center will generate an increase of 1,380 daily trip-ends.
During the mid-day peak hour, 138 trip-ends would be
generated (83 inbound and 55 outbound). During the
evening peak hour, 184 trip-ends would be generated (9
inbound and 175 outbound)."16
By contrast, a recent casino traffic study based on just 1,313 projected parking spaces
(roughly 3,000 are actually being constructed) anticipated 533 trip-ends would be
generated by that project during the evening peak hour (or as many as 1,200 assuming the
number of trip-ends is directly correlated to the number of parking spaces).
Lighting and Aesthetics
The Tribe reported in an August 13, 2003 Planning Commission meeting that it intends to
use parking lot lighting for its casino that exceeds to maximum candle-power allowed
under the City Code. (put that citation in the record)
The use of such lighting will have an adverse impact on surrounding businesses,
homeowners, and users. Because the City adopted its lighting guidelines to protect the
existing character of the City, the cumulative effect of the casino's parking lot lighting
that exceeds the standard will necessarily have a harmful effect on the character of the
entire downtown area of Palm Springs.
Parking
The license agreement adopted by the City and the Tribe on July 30, 200317 called for
roughly 600 parking spaces to be used by casino customers, employees, and convention
center patrons. The revised agreement reduces the number by 125 spaces and removes
any mention of employee parking. The revised document's failure to discuss provisions
for employee parking highlights the lack of any public study on the parking impacts of
the apparent decision to eliminate employee parking from the Prairie Schooner site. If
the proposed new agreement contemplates that employees will park in the street, then the
impacts of this decision need to be studied.
projects will result in approximately 3,000 parking spaces,calling into question the assumptions and
findings of its previous traffic study that projected 1,313 spaces. There is a 236%difference between the
number of parking spaces studied in the Tribe's traffic analysis and the actual number being built.
The casino's actual parking plan also includes a number of off-site parking lots in locations not studied in
its 2002 traffic analysis. For example,that study did not include in its project description the Tribe's
proposed 440 space parking lot at the corner of Calle El Segundo and Ramon. It did not analyze any
impacts of that lot on adjacent intersections,despite the City's requirement that projects with a minimum of
50 trips must do so.
6 Environmental assessment for the Convention Center,page 5-1.
""First Amended License Agreement"adopted by Resolution 1225 of the Community Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Palm Springs,July 30,2003.
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 10
Stephen Orosz, A Certified Traffic Engineer, Says the Proposed
Project Changes are Significant and City's Environmental Study
is Inadequate
We are submitting a letter from Steve Orosz, a Certified Traffic Engineer that provides
expert testimony that the proposed change in the project is significant and will generate
significant environmental effects, including traffic and parking effects. The significant
environmental effects from the change in the project include:
The effects of combined convention center and casino use of the parking lot has not been
studied and is likely to have significant environmental effects. Orosz writes that based on
the discussion in the most recent report for the convention center, there would be no
available parking in the Prairie Schooner lot during peak demands at the casino and the
convention center. He writes, "As such, the contemplated use of the Prairie Schooner lot
by the Casino is misleading and would lead to additional periods of insufficient parking
in the Convention Center/ Spa Casino area.
Furthermore, Orosz reports that the City's study provides no information on how the
proposed casino valet system will operate.
"A comprehensive parking analysis showing the peak parking demands of the
convention center and spa casino is needed to document the potential environmental
effects that the combined use of the Prairie Schooner and surrounding parking lots would
have."18
This casino parking project interferes with the Redevelopment
Agency's ability to create adequate affordable housing
The proposed$2 million expenditure by the Redevelopment Authority for a casino
parking lot will reduce the Agency's ability to create adequate affordable housing. Prior
to its acquisition by the Redevelopment Authority, the Prairie Schooner lot provided
affordable housing and low-cost homeownership in the form of a park for manufactured
homes.19 The City's termination of that use contributed to the City's existing deficit in
affordable housing. The decision to replace that use with a casino parking lot for a tribal
casino built at taxpayer expense contributes to the City's failure to provide adequate
affordable housing.
This casino parking project is a component the casino
expansion project that will have significant environmental
and social consequences that also require study
Based on information that has been made public, the Tribe intends to build six or seven
parking lots containing approximately 3,000 parking spaces in downtown Palm Springs
within the next 90 days.
8 Steve Orosz,Certified traffic Engineer,Letter September 3,2003.
9 Public testimony of Palm Springs Planning Director,August 13,2003 Planning Commission hearing.
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page I I
The Tribe's traffic study planned only 1,300 parking spaces, now the
Tribe is building 3,000
In the last meeting, the Planning Commission approved an employee parking lot of over
440 spaces in the middle of a residential area.20 Residents provided detailed and specific
testimony of their personal knowledge of the significant adverse effects of this lot:
Unsafe traffic conditions at the corner of Ramon and El Segundo
Residents reported a high number of traffic accidents—which in some cases included
collisions between motorists and neighborhood homes and buildings—as a result of
unsafe conditions at the corner of El ,Segundo and Ramon.
The effects of the increased traffic on neighborhood streets
Residents expressed concerns about the effects of increased traffic on neighborhood
streets.
Public safety concerns
Residents reported concerns about the public safety issues that would arise by the
juxtaposition of increased casino traffic with residential areas.21
The adverse effects of lighting on the night sky
Tribal officials reported that casino parking lots will operate outside of existing City
standards with regard to lighting. The presence of large brightly light casino parking lots
operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is incompatible with existing municipal
standards and existing residential uses in the neighborhoods.
The adverse impact on the neighborhood and architectural character by
the parking lot
The casino parking lot is surrounded on all sides by residential uses. During the Planning
Commission public hearing, residents identified a series of aesthetic impacts that the
casino parking lot would have on their neighborhood, from excessive lighting to the lack
of adequate shielding and buffering around the parking lot.
The Tribe refused to discuss whether it had searched for any
alternatives to this site (which is a quarter mile from the casino)
When queried by Planning Commissioners, a Tribal official declined to discuss
alternatives to the employee parking lot at Ramon and El Segundo.
Alternatives
The cumulative traffic, noise, lighting, and aesthetic impacts of the City's convention
center expansion project and the related casino expansion project demand the search for
20 Case 5.0667,Palm Springs Planning Commission,August 13,2003.
21 Public Testimony from August 13,2003 Planning Commission meeting,incorporated herein by
reference.
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 12
alternatives. One possible alternative to reduce the wide variety of adverse impacts on
residential areas would be to construct a parking garage or a series of garages to isolate
the impacts of the casino parking lots from residents and residential neighborhoods.
Another alternative not studied by the Tribe is the use of satellite parking lots outside the
residential and historic district of downtown Palm Springs.
Other consequences of this casino will include
Impacts on public safety
Public safety costs associated with casino expansion will have a significant impact on the
city and its residents. The Palm Springs Police Department estimates "that the new
[119,000 square foot] casino will result in a 15% increase in the number of daily calls for
service at the casino and in the downtown."22 Yet Police Chief Gary Jeandron is quoted
in a Desert Sun article that the police department is in a hiring freeze and vacant positions
in the police department will not be filled 23 Increased demand resulting from the casino
in the context of the Police Department's hiring freeze will result in slower response
times.
According to the Police Department, the financial impact of the new casino will cost the
city $435,433 in the first year of operation alone.24 In addition to the direct cost of casino
expansion on public safety spending, residents of Palm Springs have experienced
increases in crime since the introduction of casino operations in the downtown area.
Between 1996 and 2001 property crirne rates across the state fell 27%, while the property
crime rate in Palm Springs increased 18%.
Impacts on affordable housing problems
The City of Palm Springs has publicly acknowledged that the expansion of the Spa
Casino will have an impact on the availability of housing in the city. The City,
responding to the Tribe's projection that their new Spa Casino would employ 975 people,
made the following observations: "The City has identified a considerable need for family
rental housing in the City, which is the most expensive and most difficult to develop. The
largest source of funds available to the City is the low and moderate income housing set-
aside from redevelopment tax increment. Since the Tribe will probably not pay property
taxes on the casino, it will not generate tax increment or housing funds to the Agency or
City.s25 As a consequence the City recommended to the Agua Caliente Tribe that "the
City and Tribe should develop a cooperative program...to develop new affordable
housing.s26 The Tribe rejected the recommendation and has provided no analysis on the
impact on affordable housing as a result of casino expansion.
22 Conformity report, submitted by the Palm Springs City Manager to the Palm Springs City Council,
December 5,2002,page 7.
23 Darrell Smith, `Palm Springs DARE,police league may fall victim to budget crunch."The Desert Sian.
September 3,2003,page 113.
"Conformity report(December,2002),p.7.
221 Conformity Report(December,2002),page 7. Rather than using$2 million in tax increment revenues to
build a casino parking lot,the redevelopment agency could be building affordable housing.
26 Conformity Report(December,2002),page 7.
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 13
Impacts on schools
Schools in the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) are negatively impacted by
the Spa Resort Casino and its expansion.
A recent survey of Agua Caliente Casino in Rancho Mirage, also owned by the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, indicates that about 45% of non management workers
have children.27 The estimated total number of children for the Agua Caliente Casino in
Rancho Mirage is 435.28 That one casino thus contributes over 400 children to area
schools, with the vast majority (approximately 70%) attending a Palm Springs Unified
School District school. There is no reason to expect that the Spa workforce will be
markedly different from that of the Agua Caliente Casino. The Spa will be contributing at
least 400 more students to area schools. Moreover these children will have extra needs:
we estimate that anywhere from 40-75% of the children of Agua Caliente Casino workers
are poor enough to qualify for subsidized meals. Again, it is reasonable to assume that the
same will hold true for children of the Spa workforce.
The casino does not pay property tax, nor does it pay corporate taxes, (a major source of
revenue for the state general fund).29 Public schools receive the greatest part of their
revenue from a mix of property tax and the state's general fiord. If the Spa Casino were
taxed, once the first phase of expansion is completed, it would be contributing about$2.5
million annually to public schools. While it will not pay taxes, the Spa Casino will
contribute students and student needs.
Property taxes and aid from the state's general fund are the sources of revenue for the
general budget of state public schools. The Spa Casino, when its first phase of
redevelopment is completed, would pay approximately $2 million in property taxes (50%
of which would go to schools) if the casino were taxed. The state corporate tax rate of
8.84%, if levied on the Spa Casino's estimated profits (assuming only 1000 slot
machines, generating an estimated $42.5 million in annual profit) would mean over$3
million to the general fund. Approximately 40% of the general fund is used for public
schools. Thus, the Spa Casino will not be paying schools over$2.5 million dollars per
year.
Impacts on Palm Springs Taxpayers
A recent article in the Los Angeles Times detailed some of the impacts of the casino on
Palm Springs taxpayers. According to the article, city officials reported the Tribe did not
have to pay the city $47,000 for a building permit. Nor was it obliged to pay the $47,000
city construction tax or the $3,000 state fee used to map earthquake faults. The tribe
saves $45,000 a year by not paying the city's 5% utility users tax. Property taxes,
imposed at I% of fair market value, would exceed $2 million a year.30
"Dr.Eric Nilsson,Angela Jamison, and Dr.David Fairris, Wages and Healthcare Benefits of Workers at
Agua Caliente Casino. UCLA Institute of Industrial Relations.March 2003
"Capell&Associates,Shifting the Cost: Who Pays the Health Coverage of Workers at the Agua Caliente
Casino?March 2003.
29 See Dan Morain, "State Tax Breaks Help Indian Casinos Rise,"Los Angeles Times, August 10, 2003.
"Dan Morain, "Many Indians Exempt from State Taxes,"The Los Angeles Times, July 25,2003.
v.2
September 3, 2003 CVCRS Letter Page 14
New language in the latest proposed agreement will
reduce the opportunity for public scrutiny of this deal
and open the City to uncontrolled liabilities
New language in the proposed agreement appears intended to immunize the City from
court review of this transfer of publicly owned property to an Indian tribe. While the
City obtained from the Tribe a waiver of sovereignty on issues related to the parking lot
deal in the July 30 agreement, the City now proposes to limit the remedies of its
residents, other jurisdictions, and the State of California with respect to this agreement.
As a direct result of the City's newly proposed language, if a resident files a complaint
related to this deal, the Tribe will file a motion to quash service of summons on the
ground that the Tribe will assert a sovereign immunity from uncontested suit—
specifically enabled by the City's newly proposed language. The City actually has
sought to have previous suits against the City dismissed on the same grounds.
The City's new proposed language could have the effect of making no remedies available
to residents and the state who seek to review this agreement. To borrow from the
decision in Lundgren v. City of Palm Springs, "The City has no power to surrender,
impair, or embarrass the State's exclusive, sovereign civil or criminal jurisdiction over
land, including the State's jurisdiction to prohibit or regulate gambling on such land."
An additional result of this newly proposed language is that Palm Springs taxpayers will
not receive the indemnification and assistance in defense against lawsuits and claims that
developers usually provide against any claims arising from the government approvals and
arising from operation of the proposed facility. Kahn writes, "One can also safely predict
that at some point in the near future, casino patrons will be injured on or near this parking
lot (auto accidents, pedestrian slip-and-falls) and sue the City agency."31
31 September 3,2003 Memo to Planning Commission and City Council from Andrew Kahn
V.2