Despite objections from the public and 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr, the Board of Supervisors majority withdrew a letter on Tuesday protesting challenging a bid by the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians to expand a liquor license at its casino hotel and resort.

Farr first brought the issue to the board’s attention after she became concerned when a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control official told her the tribe’s request was being reviewed as a new application and would cover the entire casino.

On May 28, 2010, the tribe informed ABC that it intended to expand the casino liquor license for the Willows Restaurant to cover the Creekside Buffet on the third floor, the Samala Showroom on the second, and the nearby hotel. In June, an ABC official told the Journal the requested license would enable the casino to sell beer, wine and hard liquor throughout the casino’s guest areas.
Before long, the board majority voted 3-2 to send a protest letter to the state licensing department, on the grounds that the casino is within a half-mile vicinity of three elementary schools, Santa Ynez Valley Union High School, and the YMCA; would add to an already high concentration of liquor licenses in the area; and may worsen public safety problems in the Valley.

These were the same grounds for Farr’s opposition at the July 5 hearing to a conditional withdrawal of the protest letter, despite 18 conditions attached to the request that would limit the scope of the proposed license. The tribe agreed to these stipulations after meeting with the Sheriff’s Department, County Counsel, the County Executive Office and the Board of Supervisors.

ABC seldom issues licenses if local law enforcement or government agencies submit a letter of protest. County staff told the board that the protest letter was unnecessary because the tribe had collaborated with the Sheriff to clarify that the liquor license expansion only applied to three locations under certain conditions. Local governing bodies have a strong voice in the permit application process, they noted.

These conditions include banning sales, service or consumption of alcohol on the gaming floor and at the Chumash Café; barring patrons under 18 from using the gaming floor or showroom; ensuring that the sale of alcohol is commensurate with the sale of food; allowing Sheriff’s deputies to inspect the casino when alcohol is being served; requiring casino staff that sells alcohol to receive extra training in the sale and handling of alcoholic beverages; limiting the sale, service and consumption of alcohol between the hours of 9 a.m. and midnight from Sunday to Thursday, and between 9 a.m. and 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday; and preventing the sale and consumption of alcohol during concerts, boxing and cage-fighting events.

County staff told the board that ABC believes these are both adequate and enforceable conditions after 2nd District Supervisor Janet Wolf said she worried that withdrawing the letter of protest wouldn’t guarantee that ABC would accept them. “It is not necessary for your board to make a finding of public convenience and necessity, as this is a transfer of a license for an on-sale permit,” staff told board members.

The tribe could be fined or lose its alcohol license for violating the conditions, said John Carr of the California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. Arrest reports, he said, would trigger ABC to investigate the Casino Resort & Hotel. But law enforcement or ABC officials would have to prove that the arrest was related to alcohol served on the premises.

In a letter to Farr, Kathy Cleary, the President of Preservation of Los Olivos, wrote that she learned the Sheriff’s Department had not been sending ABC alcohol and drug arrest reports, which is required by law. She also questioned the wisdom of approving a permit when there have been more than 1,400 arrests reported at the casino (ABC notes it only counts incidences related to the licensed portions of the casino and resort).

Farr said she’s been deluged with emails from Valley residents alarmed about the potential impact of an expanded liquor license on public safety. She said she shared the concern.

“Today, in my district, the alcohol licensees and all of the negative impacts to this community and the public safety impacts are enormous,” she said. “It’s real serious in Isla Vista. This has become a serious issue in Los Olivos – and a very serious issue in Santa Ynez.”

According to Sheriff Brown, the state is poised to take a portion of Indian gambling revenue. These state funds reimburse local law enforcement agencies located near casinos; but this fund “has been held hostage” as state lawmakers propose to slash it from $30 million to $18 million. This would make it difficult to keep nine public safety positions (including five sheriff’s deputies) funded, Brown told the board.

The tribe’s representative said the conditions showed the pains the tribal administration took to minimize the casino’s potential impact on public safety, even though the conditions did not ease the concerns of locals who spoke at the board hearing.

A 28-year Los Olivos resident said she opposed any kind of expansion because of “the atrocious casino track record of drug and alcohol crimes that has been chronicled in the police blotter for the last five years.”

“There’s nothing but expense and fatalities that will result if more liquor licenses occur,” she said. “And there’s certainly no monetary benefit to the county by expanding the casino’s ability to get hard liquor to most of the facilities of the casino grounds and gambling floor. This is just the beginning.”

For one Valley resident, the matter seemed like a foregone conclusion.
He pointed to Sheriff Brown’s (who also had filed a conditional protest with ABC) meeting with the tribe without informing the public. Additionally, not long after the board and the sheriff issued their protest letters, ABC granted the tribe an interim liquor license that allowed the casino to immediately sell alcohol in facility’s Creekside Buffet and Samala Showroom and at the nearby hotel. “And your agenda on this item recommends withdrawal,” he noted. “It doesn’t look like there’s much discussion about what’s going to happen.”

“Many other sheriffs have cut deals with their tribes to mitigate impacts outside of the floor,” he said. “They’ve gotten into the bigger public safety issues and the budget issues that you’re facing.

“Frankly, I think the sheriff has let us down. While cutting the coverage in the county, he’s endorsing the increase of threats to public safety. And today you’re being asked to do the same thing.” Andy Caldwell, executive director of the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business of Santa Barbara County, defended the Chumash. He said the tribe is a “victim of its own success” because of the triumph of its security self-enforcement.

Sure, there’s a lot of crime reported at the casino, he said, but “it’s because they have one of the most assertive, aggressive self-enforcement policies of any resort or hotel or event center on the Central Coast.”

Despite Farr’s concern, her motion to continue the county’s protest was overridden by a counter-motion by Supervisor Steve Lavagnino, which passed with support from supervisors Salud Carbajal and Joni Gray.
Lavagnino didn’t explain his reasoning for the new motion. Mum was the word for the other supervisors.

Farr told the Journal she was “very disappointed” with the board majority’s vote. “I was quite concerned to learn from the sheriff during the hearing that the funding for maintaining the current staffing levels of both law enforcement and firefighters in the Valley is forecast to be sharply reduced by the state during this current fiscal year.”
jfoster@syvjournal.com