HomeMy WebLinkAbout00126C - PA2B6-10 DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES TAHQUITZ ANDREAS LAND ASSIGNMENT LEASE Downtown Properties Inc.
acq of leasehold interests in
Tahq-Andreas project, PA2B6-10
UNITED STATES AGREEMENT #126
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Resolution 298, 12-31-84
Bureau of Indian Affairs -- -
Palm Springs Office
441 South Calle Encilia
Palm Springs, California 92262
LEASE NO. PSL-226
CONT. NO. J53C1420-3554
ALLOT. NO. 75 , 76 , 88 & 80
ASSIGNMENT OF BUSINESS LEASE
WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Interior approved a Business
Lease, No. PSL-226 Contract No . J53C1420-3554 on October 19 , 1977,
entered into by and between CLARICE BOW MATHEWS, Allottee #PS-75 ;
NANCY MARIE BOW SOZA, Allottee #PS-76; ELLEN RICE , Allottee #PS-88 ;
LUCILLE ANN BOW and DIANE BOW heirs of WILFORD BOW, Allottee #PS-80 ,
LESSORS, and DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES , INC. , A Delaware Corporation,
Lessee, covering the described lands in Riverside County, State
of California, containing twenty (20) acres , more or less.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of ONE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, ($100, 000) , the receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, and other good and valuable considerations ,
DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES, INC. , A Delaware Corporation, Lessee under
the above described lease, hereinafter referred to as Assignor,
hereby bargains, sells , transfers , assigns , and conveys all
assignor ' s right, title and interest in and to said lease ,
subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior to
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
Assignee, said assignment to be effective from date of approval
hereby by the Secretary of the Interior.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Assignor has hereunto set its
hand and seal this day of �L c. l�lII6� 19 �y
A Delaware Corporation
President
By �.. oit9�16��r�
Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
Ss.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appeared HAROLD ELKAN personally
known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person who executed the within instrument as the
DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES, INC. President, and JOYCE FENSOM personally
known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person who executed the within instrument as the
DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES, INC. Secretary of the Corporation that
executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such
corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws
or a resolution of its board of directors .
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA l
COUNTY OF— San Diego Jy SS.
On Dec. 28, 19A4 before me, FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP Seal
, a
m the undersicned, a Notary Public in and for s6id County and State,
Elk an
S. an
- personally appeared Harold _, �..�H�.�H�y��M.�H....•
known to me to be the _President, and-- "..:,` tie OFFICIAL SEAL
Joyce Fensom _ known to me to be It - Alma Patricia Rhea j- }} c
Secretary of the corporation that exeruled the f .e o Notary Public-California
within Instrument, known to me to be the persons who executed the **!! * Principal office In
< within Inshm uent on behalf of the rorporation therein named, and } c�� ,. San Diego County
acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within ♦ My Comm, Exp. Nov. 12, 1986•
instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of •�~•~�•••-••••••t••••••-••...�j
— directors.
_ o
Signature-0
Notay Public in and for said County and State
ACCEPTANCE BY ASSIGNEE
The Assignee in the above and foregoing Assignment, which is subject
to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, hereby accepts such
Assignment and agrees to fulfill all the obligations, conditions, and
stipulations in said described indenture of lease, when assigned, and
the rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior applicable
thereto, and to furnish proper bond if required to guarantee a faithful
compliance with said lease and this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Assignee has hereunto set his hand and
seal this 11 'T day of D64- c.rA15SA-- 19 $ Y .
Chairman
ell <i
CONSENT OF 'LESSOR
We, the undersigned Lessors of the Lease herein described,
hereby consent, to the foregoing Assignment and release the
Assignor from any further liability under said Lease, said
Assignment and release to be effective from the date of approval
of this Assignment by the Secretary.
CLARICE BOW MATHEWS
NANCY MARIE BOW SOZA
ELLEN RICE
LUCILLE ANN BOW
DIANE BOW
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
SS.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appeared DIANE BOW, personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the
same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (This area for official notary seal)
j
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appeared ELLEN RICE personally
known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (This area for official notary seal)
STATE OF CALIFORN.IA )
ss.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in
and for said State, personally appeared LUCILLE ANN BOW,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satis-
factory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed
the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (This area for official notary seal)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss .
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appeared NANCY MARIE BOW SOZA,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satis-
factory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed
the same.
[FITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (This area for official notary seal)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
On before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for said State, personally appeared CLARICE BOW MATHEWS ,
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satis-
factory evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed
the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (This area for official notary seal)
N r NF 4 • IN REPLY REFER TO: Y'7
United States Department of the Interior «\„
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS
4015 wmsox aouLEveRD
ARLINGTON, vmormA 22205
DWITOWN PROPERTIES, INC.
V.
DEPUPY ASSISTANT SBCRETARY—INDIAN AFFAIRS (OPERATIONS)
IBIA 84-19-A Decided December 27, 1984
Appeal fran a decision canceling lease PSL-226, contract J53-C1420-3554,
between Downtown Properties, Inc. , and certain members of the Ague Caliente
Bard of Mission Indians.
Affirmed.
1. Indian Lards: Development--Indian Lands: Leases and
Permits: Long-term Business/Agriculture: Waiver
The tender of rent by the lessee of Indian trust prop-
erty and the acceptance of that terrier by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs on behalf of the Indian lessor does not
bird the lessor to a waiver of a breach of the lease.
2. Indian Lands: Leases and Permits: Long-term Business/
Agriculture: Rentals--Indian Lands: Leases and Permits:
Long-term Business/Agriculture: Waiver
Whether the acceptance of rent by an Indian lessor
after a default in specific provisions of a lease con-
stitutes a waiver of those defaults is a question of
the lessor's intent, which is determined on the basis
of the facts of the particular case.
3. Indian Lands: Leases and Permits: Long-term Business/
Agriculture: Cancellation
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is not required to give
the lessee of Indian trust land a reasonable tine in
which to cure a breach of the lease when it has deter-
mined in accordance with 25 CFR 162.14 that the breach
cannot be cured.
APPEARANCES: Bruce A. Ray, Esq. , San Diego, California, for appellant.
Counsel to the Board: Kathryn A. Lynn.
OPINION BY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDO PARP=E
On February 3, 1984, the Board of Indian Appeals (Board) received a
notice of appeal fran Downtown Properties, Inc. (appellant), seeking review
13 IBIA 62
IBIA 84-19-A
of a December 7, 1983, decision of the Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian
Affairs (Operations) (appellee). That decision canceled lease PSL-226, con-
tract J53-C1420-3554 (PSL-226), between appellant and Clarice Bow Mathews,
Allottee #PS-75; Nancy Marie Boa Soza, Allottee #PS-76; Ellen Rice, Allottee
#PS-88; and R. S. McDermott for and on behalf of Lucille Ann Bow 'and Diana
Bow, minors and heirs of Wilford Bow, Allottee #PS-80 (lessors) . Lessors are
all members of the Agua Caliente Band of Mission Indians. For the reasons
discussed below, the Board affirms that decision.
Background
Lease PSL-226, which has a term of 65 years, was approved for the Sec-
retary of the Interior on January 26, 1978. Under its terms, approximately
20 acres of undeveloped land on the Agua Caliente Reservation in Palm Springs,
California, was leased to appellant. Three provisions of PSL-226 are at issue
in this case. Article 7 required appellant to construct improvements on the
leased property in excess of $1,500,000 before January 25, 1982, and to con-
struct $2,000,000 in additional improvements before January 25, 1986. 1/ The
article further provides four options for dealing with appellant's possible
failure to complete the required construction. Article 12 required appellant
to "submit to the Secretary for approval a general plan and architect's design _
for the complete development of the entire leased premises." This plan was
to be submitted within 180 days after approval of the lease. Article 16
required appellant to post and maintain a 1-year's rental bond within 150 days
after the lease was approved.
The Director of the Palm Springs Field Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs
(Palm Springs BIA), sent repeated notices to appellant that it had failed to
comply with the provisions of articles 12 and 16 of the lease. The adminis-
trative record contains copies of letters regarding these defaults dated
August 24, 2/ August 31, and November 1, 1978; February 1, May 14, and
September 4, 1980; January 9, February 23, April 20, and November 3, 1981;
and January 27, 1982. In addition, the November 3, 1981, and January 27,
1982, letters noted, respectively, probable failure and actual failure to
complete the $1,500,000 worth of improvements required by January 25, 1982.
Several of the notices also alleged failure to provide a certificate of pub -
lic liability and property damage insurance. The January 27, 1982, letter
also alleges failure to pay the annual rental that was due on January 26,
1982. Appellee states that no response was received to any of these notices.
Appellant does not dispute that contention.
On March 22, 1982, Palm Springs BIA wrote appellant and stated that
PSL-226 was in default. It recam ended that an amendment to the lease be
negotiated in order to provide appellant with sufficient time to complete the
required improvements. The letter noted, however, that even if construction
were begun immediately, appellant would still be in default. On June 23,
1982, Palm Springs BIA again wrote appellant and stated that it had received
l/ By the terms of the lease, the leased premises were to be used for
"real estate development: cacmercial, apartments, condominiums, hotel,
rentals, and related facilities."
This letter is headed "Second Notice."
13 IBIA 63
(1 7 I
.IBIA 84-19-A
no reply to its March 22, 1982, letter. There is no indication in the record
that appellant ever responded to these letters or attempted to negotiate an
amendment.
Although in January 1983 the required improvements had still not been
constructed, appellant tendered rent in the amount of $44,800 for lease year
1983-84. Appellant states that this amount included penalty rents as provided
for in article 7(a) of its lease. The collection officer for the Palm Springs
Field Office accepted payment on behalf of the lessors on January 31, 1983.
On March 1, 1983, Palm Springs BIA recommended that the Sacramento Area
Director (Area Director) initiate cancellation of PSL-226 for breach of arti-
cles 7, 12, and 16. The Area Director accepted this recommendation and, on
March 9, 1983, mailed to appellant a notice giving it 10 days from receipt of
the notice to show cause why the lease should not be canceled for violation
of articles 7, 12, and 16.
Appellant responded to the show-cause notice on March 24, 1983. In
addition to setting forth its factual and legal arguments, appellant requested
an adequate time to cure the alleged default.
On April 11, 1983, the Area Director acknowledged receipt of appellant's
response. The Area Director informed appellant that further action would be
withheld pending receipt of certain additional information from Palm Springs
BLA. After receiving that information, the Area Director notified appellant
by letter dated May 4, 1983, that PSL-226 was canceled. The letter noted
that appellant had been notified 14 times by Palm Springs BIA that the rental
bond and general development plans for the leased premises were due, but that
appellant had failed to respond. The basis for the cancellation was that the
lessors had the sole right to choose which option under article 7 they wished
to invoke. Consequently, the Area Director asserted that appellant's choice
to pay the rental penalty amount was not binding upon the lessors.
Appellant sought review by appellee of this decision. On December 7,
1983, appellee affirmed the Area Director's decision. Appellant then brought
the present appeal to the Board. Only appellant has filed a brief on appeal.
Discussion and Conclusions
This Board has previously been called upon to review several BIA deci-
sions canceling Palm Springs leases. 3/ In addition to these Board prece-
dents, review in this matter is also guided by Sessions, Inc. v. Morton,
348 F. Supp. 694 (C.D. Cal. 1972), aff'd, 491 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1974) , a
3/ See Linden Construction Corp. v. Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian
Affairs (Operations) , 12 IBIA 145 (1984) ; Racquet Drive Estates, Inc. v.
Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (Operations) , 11 IBIA 184, 90 I.D.
243 (1983) ; Downtown Properties, Inc. v. Sacramento Area Director, 8 IBIA 248
(1981); Sessions, Inc. v. Miguel, 4 IBIA 84, 82 I.D. 331 (1975) ; Sessions,
Inc. v. Ortner, 3 IBIA 145, 81 I.D. 651 (1974) ; Sunny Cove Development Corp.
v. Cruz, 3 IBIA 33, 81 I.D. 465 (1974) ; Villa Vallerto v. Patencio, 2 IBIA
140, 81 I.D. 9 (1974) .
13 IBIA 64
IBIA 84-19 A
case involving judicial review of a Secretarial decision to cancel another
Palm Springs lease.
Appellant first argues that by accepting the increased rental payment
of $44,800 for lease year 1983-84, which it says included the penalty speci-
fied in article 7(a), 1 the lessors have elected that remedy to the exclu-
sion of cancellation, the remedy provided in article 7(d). Appellee does not
dispute that the lease provides four options, any one of which could have
been invoked upon appellant's failure to complete the required construction.
In addition, the Area Director noted in his decision that article 7 specifi-
cally provides that " [ilf the Lessee [appellant] fails to canplete improve-
ment, development and construction within each such period, the Lessor may at
Lessor's sole option" choose which of the four alternative penalties to
impose. (Emphasis added.) See also Villa Vallerto, supra.
[1] Appellant's argunent can be sustained only through a finding that
acceptance of appellant's check by BIA on behalf of the lessors constituted
acceptance by the lessors of appellant's choice to proceed under article 7(a) .
In Small v. Cormissioner of Indian Affairs, 8 IBIA 16, 25 (1980), the Board
held that the tender of rent and acceptance of that tender by BIA on behalf
4f At pages 8-9 of its brief, appellant states that the lessors clearly knew
as early as Nov. 3, 1981, that the required construction would not be com-
pleted by Jan. 25, 1982. Appellant notes that after that time " [1]essors
accepted almost $84,800 in rent and penalties." Appellant states, and exhi-
bit 1 to its brief confirms, that $44,800 was paid for lease year 1983-84.
Therefore, according to appellant's figures, $40,000 was paid as rent for
lease year 1982-83.
The first year of this lease was 1978-79. Therefore, 1982-83 was the
fifth year and 1983-84 was the sixth year. According to schedule B of the
lease, $40,000 was owed each year as rent for the fifth and sixth years of
the lease.
In the event of default in construction, the option presented in article
7(a) provides that the minimum annual rentals will
"increase ten percent * * * at the beginning of the next lease year of
this lease, and for each lease year thereafter that the Lessee [appellant]
fails to canplete such full improvement, development, and construction, the
guaranteed minimum annual rentals payable under this lease shall be increased
additionally two percent * * * of the previous year's rent."
Appellant was in default of the lease for failure to complete required
corstruction as of Jan. 26, 1982. If the formula of article 7(a) were
applied to this default, the minimum rental for lease year 19B2-83, "the next
lease year of this lease," would have increased to $44,000, or an increase of
10 percent over the stated rent of $40,000. The rent for lease year 1983-84
would have been $44,880, or an increase of 10 percent over the stated rent of
$40,000 plus 2 percent of the prior year's increased rent of $44,000. Thus,
it appears that, for lease years 1982-83 and 1983-84, the 2 years appellant
was in default of construction before cancellation, a total of $88,880 should
have been paid.
On the basis of appellant's own figures, it would seen that no penalty
was paid for its default in failure to canplete required construction for
lease year 1982-83.
13 IBIA 65
IBIA 84-19-A
of an Indian lessor did not bind the lessor to a waiver of a breach of the
lease. See also Downtown Properties, Inc. v. Sacramento Area Director, supra
at 248497.2. The same logic applies to the present situation, where the
only distinction is purely semantic: Here appellant has argued that the les-
sors have "elected" one remedy to the exclusion of others; in Small and Down-
town Properties the appellants argued that the lessor had "waived" other
remedies. This difference is not sufficient to remove appellant from the
rule stated in Small. Therefore, BIA's acceptance of appellant's tendered
rent and penalty does not constitute an election by the lessors to proceed
under article 7(a) of the lease.
[2] Next, the facts of this case must be examined to see if the les-
sors personally took any action that would constitute their acceptance of
appellant's determination to pay the penalty amount specified in article 7(a) .
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Sessions, Inc. , supra, 491 F.2d at
858, that " [w]hile it is a generally stated rule that the lessor's acceptance
of rent after the lessee's breach implies a waiver of that breach, this con-
cept, involving the knowing relinquishment of a right, is a matter of intent
which necessarily depends on the factual circumstances of each case." In
Sessions, negotiations continued for 3 years after the breach. The lessor
was found not to have waived the breach by accepting rent during those
3 years. See also Sessions, Inc. v. Miguel, supra; Sessions, Inc. v. Ortner,
supra; sunny Cove Development Corp. , supra.
In this case, appellant's failure to complete construction by
January 25, 1982, constituted default. Rent was accepted for lease year
1982-83. At this point, the lessors apparently intended to allow appellant
additional time in which to complete its contractual obligations. Appel-
lant's check for lease year 1983-84, which allegedly included the penalty
amount, was received by BIA on January 31, 1983. On March 1, 1983, Palm
Springs BIA recommended that cancellation procedures be initiated. The Area
Director concurred and mailed the show-cause notice to appellant on March 9,
1983. Analyzed in accordance with the Ninth Circuit's holding, the lapse of
only 1 month between appellant's alleged payment of the penalty and the
lessors' decision to seek cancellation of the lease provides a strong indica-
tion that the lessors did not intend to accept appellant's election simply to
pay the penalty amount. Legally, the lessors were free to respond to appel-
lant's default by choosing any of the options provided in article 7, includ-
ing cancellation. 5/
5/ Appellant states that "Article 7(a) * * * is really an alternative means
by which the Lessee may perform its obligations with respect to construction
under the Lease. By paying the penalty rents, the Lessee has completely
discharged its obligations under the Lease to date" (Brief at 6-7) . This
statement is a major over-simplification. Article 7(a) provides one means
through which the lessors may willingly grant a dispensation to appellant in
order to permit the continuation of the lease. The decision of whether to
proceed under article 7(a) or under one of the other provisions of article 7
was entirely within the control of the lessors. As the Board noted in Small,
supra, the primary consideration for the granting of the lease was the con-
struction of income-producing improvements on the property, with the intent
13 IBIA 66
• •IBIA 84-19-A
Appellant next argues that the lessors, by accepting rent for the years
following July 25, 1978, have waived any failure by appellant to submit plans
or to post a rental bond as required by articles 12 and 16. Although the
failure to complete required construction is itself sufficient cause to can-
cel this lease, there is also no evidence that the lessors waived the arti-
cles 12 and 16 defaults. The number of default notices sent to appellant
from August 1978, immediately following initial default, through March 1983,
when cancellation procedures were initiated, clearly shows that the lessors
were consistently attempting to obtain compliance with all of the lease
terms. Under these circumstances, the acceptance of rent for periods after
the defaults under articles 12 and 16 does not constitute waiver of the
defaults. 1
[31 Finally, appellant contends that it should have been granted a
reasonable time in which to cure its defaults following its response to the
March 9, 1983, notice to show cause. Under 25 CFR 162.14, which is incor-
porated by reference in the first paragraph of the lease, f a lessee in
default must be given a 10-day period
in which to show cause why the lease should not be cancelled.
* * * If within the ten-day period, it is determined that the
breach may be corrected and the lessee agrees to take the neces-
sary corrective measures, he will be given an opportunity to
carry out such measures and shall be given a reasonable time
within which to take corrective action to 'cure the breach.
Appellant failed to give any indication during the 5 years it held the
lease that it intended to fulfill its contractual obligations. Article 29
plainly states that " [t]ime is of the essence of this contract." See Idaho
Mining Corp. v. Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (Operations),
11 IBIA 249, 90 I.D. 329 (1983) . When appellant made no progress toward cocr
mencing the construction of $1,500,000 worth of improvements during the first
4 years of the lease, the time within which the construction was required, or
during the additional year given to it by the lessors' forbearance in not
canceling after the January 25, 1982, default, it was reasonable to conclude
that the breach was so substantial that it could not be corrected. Under the
circumstances, BIA was not required to give appellant further additional time
in which to correct its 5-year failure to abide by the terms of the contract.
fn. 5 (continued)
that the lessor would ultimately realize greater advantages from the construc-
tion and operation of those improvements than from the initial payment of
rent. Although the rent in the present case is much higher than that in
Small, it is no substitute for the construction of the improvements and the
income eventually to be realized from their operation.
6/ The Board rejects appellant's reliance on Kern Sunset Oil Co. v. Good
Roads Oil Co. , 214 Cal. 435, 6 P.2d 71 (1931). For a similar rejection, see
also Sessions, Inc. v. Morton, supra; Sessions, Inc. v. Ortner, supra.
7/ Part 162 of 25 CFR was formerly numbered Part 131. The part number was
changed without substantive change to the regulations by notice published
in the Federal Register. See 47 FR 13327 (Mar. 30, 1982) .
13 IBIA 67
IBIA 84-19 A
Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Indian
Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior, 43 CFR 4.1, the December 7, 1983,
decision of the Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs (operations) is
affirmed.
Bernard V. Parrette
Chief Administrative Judge
We concur:
Jerry Mu rat
Administrative Judge
Anne Poindexter Lewis
Administrative Judge
13 IBIA 68
i
I.
Downtown Properties, Inc. v. Deputy
Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs
(Operations)
Docket No. IBIA 84-19—A
Final Decision
Issued December 27, 1984
13 IBIA 62
Distribution by certified mail:
Bruce A. Ray, Esq. Sacramento Area Office
Baxley, Mantino & Ray Bureau of Indian Affairs
443 West C Street, Suite 201 U.S. Department of the Interior
San Diego, CA 92101 Federal Office Building
2800 Cottage Way
Clarice Bow Mathews Sacramento, CA _ 95825
c/o Sacramento Area Office
Bureau of Indian Affairs Palm Springs Field Office
2800 Cottage Way Bureau of Indian Affairs
Sacramento, CA 95825 U.S. Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 2245
Thomaq Diaz 441 S. Calls Encilia, Ste. 8
2122 North Broadway Palm Springs, CA 92262
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Office of the Solicitor
Lucilee A. Bow U.S. Department of the Interior
P.O. Box 4 Attn: Division of Indian Affairs
Pala, CA 92059 18th and C Streets, N.W.
Washington , D.C. 20240
Nancy Bow Souza
c/o Sacramento Area Office Office of the Regional Solicitor
Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of the Interior
2800 Cottage Way Room E-2753
Sacramento, CA 95825 2800 Cottage Way
Sacramento, CA 95825
Georgianna Rice Ward
P.O. Box 1282
Banning, CA 92220
Diane M. Bow
490 Ranchita Vista Road
Santa Barbara, CA 93108
Deputy Assistant Secretarv—
Indian Affairs (Operations)
U.S. Department of the Interior
18th and C Streets, N.F.
Washington , D.C. 20240