Explaining The ISA Agreement Vote
The recent 2-2 deadlock over the ISA agreement with the proposed Buena Vista Casino has, in the minds of many citizens, raised more questions than answers. In a statement released last week, County Administrative Officer Terri Daly explained the future implications of the Board’s vote. “Today’s decision by the Board of Supervisors means the ISA that the County negotiated has been rejected. The Tribe or the County immediately could seek to renegotiate another ISA, or to begin the binding arbitration process,” says Daly.
The decision also means that the County can continue to fight the lawsuit that challenges the Tribe’s right to the land in question as “Indian land”. The arbitration process could be initiated at any time and a decision will be provided by a neutral arbitrator who will choose between either the County’s or the Tribe’s last best-and-final offer. At the conclusion of the arbitration process, the Tribe will be free to construct and operate a casino in Buena Vista, so long as it conforms to the arbitrator’s decision. An injunction to halt the casino construction can only be granted by the federal court hearing the County’s current challenge.
Home Depot: Next In Jackson Development Proposals
City Of Jackson: Jackson Hills Decision
Board of Supervisors Discusses Ione Bypass
Jackson City Council Votes To Send Letter of Support For Bill That Would Amend IGRA
City Of Plymouth Looks At Waste Water Treatment Plant Expansion Options
Jackson Planning Commision Meeting
Amador Water Agency Holds A Strategic Planning Meeting: Wastewater & Development
AC Planning Department Tackles Inadequate Parking For Fast Food Est.
For those of you frustrated at the parking situation at several of the new food and coffee outlets located in the developing Martell commercial area, help is on the way- at least for establishments built in the future. According to documents prepared by Planning Director Susan Grijalva, a comparative analysis of other jurisdictions shows that perception is reality on the parking situation and the parking issue has reached “critical mass”. The County’s standards for the number of parking spaces required for these types of businesses have been “significantly below average in terms of spaces required for parking at fast food restaurants.” Staff has now recommended that each proposed establishment be viewed on an individual basis, case by case using Parking Generation Guidelines that have been established by the Institute of transportation Engineers. According to Planning Director Grijalva this will allow the county to avoid future situations of inadequate parking.
Jackson Hills Golf Course
The proposed Jackson Hills Golf Course and Residential Community project was the center of intense discussions at Monday night’s Jackson City Council meeting. New Faze Development and local broker Tom Blackman, the developers of this project, requested that the council rescind two resolutions that were approved by the council on November 13, 2007. The first resolution approved the Final Environment Impact Report, and adopted the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The second resolution adopted a General Plan Amendment for the first phase of the project. Both resolutions are scheduled for the June 3rd ballot. The meeting was truly divided, with the developers on one side, and a large number of citizens on the other.
The developers say they want to “take a step back” and put more time into solving and researching issues, such as wastewater, citing that state and federal regulations have repeatedly changed during this process. Public comment went on for almost two hours and shared the same theme. Local citizens repeatedly asked the council to not rescind their decisions and allow the measures to stay on the ballot. Some citizens implied that the council accommodated New Faze Development by approving the zoning changes needed by the developers. Jack Georgette accused the council of “greasing the skids to accommodate New Faze Development.” Despite public opposition, both resolutions were approved by the council, effectively removing the measures from the ballot. Per the Election Code, these measures cannot be put back on the ballot for a period of twelve months.