Too many casinos may spoil the Bay

If tribally owned casinos are allowed to develop outside normal regulations, the impacts could be tremendous

The Bay Area has become ground zero on the issue of urban Indian tribal casinos. The Sierra Club is already on record opposing two of these casinos, one at Point Molate in Richmond and another next to Arrowhead Marsh in Oakland, which threaten wildlife and scenic values.

The Point Molate casino would develop a precious stretch of open Bay shoreline. It would threaten the last large eelgrass bed in the East Bay and intensify already horrendous traffic congestion in the East Bay, on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and in Marin County.

The Oakland casino would be right next to Arrowhead Marsh and surrounded on three sides by the Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Preserve. Arrowhead Marsh was created to enhance and protect endangered species. The marsh has the largest single concentration of clapper rails in the entire Bay Area - 60 to 100 of the estimated remaining 1,000 individual birds left of this species.

There are two other Bay Area casino proposals, one for San Pablo and the other for North Richmond, about which the Sierra Club has not to date taken any position. These are in existing urban areas and so do not have major impacts on open space and wildlife resources, but they do have traffic impacts. (The Club will evaluate these casinos and consider taking positions on them in the near future.)

Sierra Club California's position on casinos is that they should be evaluated like any other commercial use for a site and be subject to the same environmental laws and land-use controls. Tribes insist that they should not be bound by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local land-use controls. In the case of Point Molate, because the city owned the land and has attempted to sell it, the city must comply with CEQA. In all the other cases, the tribes are going through environmental review according to federal law, preparing Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), but not according to state law. Unfortunately NEPA is weaker than CEQA; both laws require studying environmental impacts, but only CEQA requires actual mitigations for damage as a condition for project approval. For example, the casino proposed for Oakland could result in massive traffic impacts; NEPA would require studying these impacts, but would not require the Florida-based developer to pay for doing anything about them.

The Bay Area casino proposals range from 2,500 to 5,000 slot machines each, for a total of 10,000 to 13,000 slots. (The largest Las Vegas casino has 2,800 slots). Existing traffic analyzes show that a 5,000-slot casino will add on the average 68,000 daily vehicle trips to adjacent roadways. With 2,500 slots one would see `only' 34,000 more. Added to the existing I-80 and Richmond-San Rafael Bridge corridors, this is a recipe for gridlock. Marin cities are so worried that Fairfax Councilmember Frank Egger has sponsored a statewide initiative for a moratorium on urban casinos. The Club will be evaluating this and a number of other statewide ballot measures about urban casinos.

Each casino proposal with a tribe must be approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Then the tribe must negotiate with the governor to devise a compact with the state. The only way to guarantee mitigations for environmental impacts is if the governor insists that they be fully taken care of, and if the tribe agrees in the negotiating process. California residents, organizations such as the Sierra Club, and even tribal members can not challenge any of these decisions in court.

What You Can Do

To join with the Club and Chapter in evaluating these issues and proposals, contact Norman La Force by or (510) 526-4362.

Norman La Force, chair, East Bay Public Lands Committee, and statewide coordinator on Indian tribal-gaming and casino issues.