MEMBERS OR EMPLOYEES OR ITS TRUST
LANDS, AND SHALL ONLY CONSIDER OR EVALUATE SUCH LAWS AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED
UNDER THIS AGREEMENT;
B.
MAKE DETERMINATIONS AS TO FIRE, BUILDING AND SAFETY AND RELATED
CODE COMPLIANCE, INSPECTIONS, OR PLAN REVIEW DETERMINATIONS BY TRIBAL OFFICIALS
WITH JURISDICTION OVER SUCH MATTERS; OR
C.
LIMIT THE TRIBE'S AUTHORITY TO PURSUE NON-GAMING TRUST
APPLICATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
20.2.4
ARBITRATION JUDGMENTS MAY INCLUDE MONETARY AWARDS, SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE, DECLARATORY RELIEF, AND/OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, PROVIDED THAT
MONETARY AWARDS SHALL BE LIMITED TO REASONABLE AMOUNTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO
CURE A BREACH WITHIN THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, OR TO MITIGATE A SIGNIFICANT
ADVERSE IMPACT ON A PRACTICAL BASIS, TAKING ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, INCLUDING FEDERAL
LAW AND POLICY INTO ACCOUNT, AND SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS IN THIS SECTION.
NO
PUNITIVE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SHALL BE AWARDED.
EQUITABLE RELIEF SHALL BE
LIMITED TO COMPELLING SOME ACTUAL PERFORMANCE THAT IS DESCRIBED IN THIS
AGREEMENT OR PREVENTING A PARTY FROM FAILING TO TAKE SUCH ACTION.
20.2.5
ANY CONTROVERSY REGARDING WHETHER AN ISSUE IS SUBJECT TO
ARBITRATION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, BUT THE ARBITRATOR'S
JURISDICTION SHALL BE LIMITED TO ORDERING FORMS OF RELIEF AGREED TO IN THIS
AGREEMENT.
20.2.6
IN ARBITRATING DISPUTES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, THE ARBITRATOR
SHALL APPLY APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING WHERE APPROPRIATE, IGRA AND FEDERAL LAWS
AND POLICIES REGARDING TRIBAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
20.2.7
IN MAKING A DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE FAILURE TO ENTER INTO
AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL MITIGATION AGREEMENT WHEN REQUIRED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, OR
IN DETERMINING APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES, THE ARBITRATOR ONLY HAS
JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE REASONABLE MEASURES TO MITIGATE THE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED TRIBAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND MAY NOT
OFF-SET OR COMPENSATE FOR IMPACT OF OTHER PROJECT(S), INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO THE RESORT PROJECT, THE DUGAN PROJECTS, OR THE CULTURAL CENTER.
REASONABLE
MITIGATION MEASURES ARE THOSE THAT WOULD BE OR HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN IN OTHER
COMPARABLE PROJECTS WITHIN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TO MITIGATE SIMILAR ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
NOTHING HEREIN SHALL LIMIT EITHER PARTIES' ABILITY TO
REQUEST THAT REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL AND REASONABLE OUT OF POCKET COSTS BE
CONSIDERED AS PART OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT BUT THE TRIBE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO
ANY COUNTY FEES OR EXACTIONS FOR PROJECTS ON TRUST LANDS SINCE THE ARBITRATOR
ONLY HAS AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE REASONABLE MITIGATION MEASURES, THE PARTIES
RECOGNIZE THAT SOME SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS MAY NOT BE MITIGATED TO LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT AND THAT SUCH FACT DOES NOT PREVENT THE
42
PARTIES FROM ENTERING INTO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL MITIGATION AGREEMENT, OR THE
TRIBE FROM DEVELOPING SUCH TRIBAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, OR THE
ARBITRATOR FROM IMPOSING REASONABLE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT WOULD DECREASE OR
MINIMIZE THE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT.
ACCORDINGLY, THE ARBITRATOR DOES NOT
HAVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THAT SUCH TRIBAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
SHALL NOT BE BUILT; THAT AUTHORITY REMAINING SOLELY WITH THE TRIBE.
20.2.8
IN MAKING A DECISION REGARDING SATISFACTION OF THE TRIBE'S
OBLIGATION FOR THE EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD, THE ARBITRATOR MAY AWARD ALL
REASONABLE COSTS RELATED TO CURING THE DEFECT INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED