The City of Los Angeles had no obligation under the California Environmental Quality Act to complete an environmental impact report for a project that it had rejected, the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled. The court dismissed all arguments put forward by the developer of the 555-acre Las Lomas project at the junction of Interstate 5 and Highway 14. " f an agency at any time decides not to proceed with a project," the court said, "CEQA is inapplicable from that time forward." Six years ago, developer Dan Palmer Jr. proposed 5,800 residential units, 2.3 million square feet of office space, retail space, community facilities and a hotel on the site in unincorporated Los Angeles County. About half the site would remain undeveloped. Palmer filed a preliminary application, specific plan and other entitlements with the City of Los Angeles to annex the county property. The adjacent City of Santa Clarita also tried to gain control of the site (see CP&DR Local Watch , January 2004 ), but Los Angeles had the advantage of already being in the process of expanding its sphere of influence in the area. In late 2006, the Los Angeles Local Agency Formation Commission approved Los Angeles' quest to include a portion of the Las Lomas site in the city's sphere – an early step toward annexation. A year later, Palmer signed a contract with Los Angeles to pre-pay the city's expected expenses for reviewing the project's EIR and associated applications. The developer followed up with a "master land-use permit application" for a slightly scaled down and retooled project. In December 2007, the city's Planning Department notified Palmer that his application was incomplete because it was missing the EIR. (In Los Angeles, project proponents typically prepare environmental documents for review by the city.) Throughout, Councilman Greig Smith questioned the project. Although city attorneys said the city was legally required to process the Las Lomas EIR and specific plan, Smith presented a resolution ordering the city to cease work on the application and EIR and to return all materials to Palmer. The City Council approved the resolution by a 10-5 vote in March 2008. Palmer's Las Lomas Land Company, LLC, which reportedly had spent millions of dollars on planning and environmental analysis, sued the city. Las Lomas contended the city had a duty under CEQA to complete the environmental review. The company further argued that the city's midstream rejection of the project violated due process and equal protection provisions in the United States and California constitutions. The company asked the court to order the city to complete the EIR and pay more than $100 million in damages. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge David Yaffe dismissed all the claims in January of this year. On appeal, Las Lomas contended that a section of CEQA – Public Resources Code § 21061 – requires a public agency to complete and certify an EIR before approving or rejecting a project. The company also cited CEQA Guidelines § 15270, which permits a city to reject quickly a project based on a preliminary screening without an environmental review, but which is silent on midstream project denials. The court ruled that neither the statute nor the guidelines required Los Angeles to complete the Las Lomas EIR before denying the application. "CEQA applies only to projects that a public agency proposes to carry out or approve, and does not apply to projects that the agency rejects or disapproves," Justice Walter Croskey wrote for the court. "A public agency need not prepare an EIR for a project that it rejects. "To require a public agency to prepare and circulate a draft EIR, and prepare a final EIR including responses to comments, before rejecting a project would impose a substantial burden on the agency, other agencies, organizations, and individuals commenting on the proposal, and the project applicant," Croskey continued, "Such a requirement would not produce an discernible environmental benefit and would not further the goal of environmental protection." On the constitutional issues, the court stated that due process applies only when a landowner "has a legitimate claim of entitlement to the approval." Wrote Croskey, "The city's decisions whether to seek to annex the site, enter into a development agreement, and adopt the proposed specific plan were discretionary decisions. Las Lomas can assert no claim of entitlement to the annexation, development agreement, specific plan, and development entitlements that it seeks. The city's denial of those benefits and decision not to proceed with the project therefore was not a deprivation of property for purposes of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment." In addition, the court ruled that the state's due process protection extends only to "property interests or benefits that are conferred by statute." Because the city had no mandatory duty under CEQA, Las Lomas's argument failed. The court weighed the equal protection claims using the "rational basis test," which, the court acknowledged, "is extremely deferential and does not allow inquiry into the wisdom of government action." In denying the claims, the court stated, "There are numerous conceivable legitimate reasons why the city would choose not to expand its boundaries and facilitate growth in this particular area at the time." Finally, the Third District refused to let Las Lomas amend its lawsuit based on different legal theories. The Case: Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles , No. B213637. 2009 DJDAR 13813. Filed September 17, 2009. The Lawyers: For Las Lomas: Carlyle Hall Jr., Akin, Gump, Strauss Hauer & Feld, (310) 728-3242. For the city: Amrit Kulkarni, Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, (510) 808-2000.

A couple of weeks ago, while I was listening to yet another SB 375 panel at the California state planning conference , a text message popped up congratulating me for being named the 99th top urban thinker in a recent Planetizen poll. Flattered – and, frankly, a little weary of regional emissions reduction target methodologies – I immediately checked it out. And there I was. Honored to be right behind John Norquist, a truly great mayor of Milwaukee. Both frightened and frustrated to be right ahead of Henry Ford.  Love him or hate him, I think it's fair to say that Henry Ford has had a much greater impact on American cities than me or practically anybody else, for that matter. When I looked at the rest of the list, I immediately realized that I should have gone hardcore in lobbying all my friends to vote for me – preferably on Facebook. How else can you explain Kaid Benfield (who is a pretty good urban thinker, frankly) polling so far ahead of Walt Disney? Or James Rojas (admittedly, one of my favorite people) edging out Henry George? So, just for the record, I came in 99th, but it's an honest 99th. I may be a politician, but nobody stuffed the ballot for me on this one. Anyway, you can probably argue over who should be 40th versus 60th versus 80th. But it's tough to argue with the Top 10: Jane Jacobs, Andres Duany, Christopher Alexander, Frederick Law Olmsted, Kevin Lynch, Daniel Burnham, Lewis Mumford, Leon Krier (Duany's main influence), William H. Whyte, and Jan Gehl, the pedestrian-oriented architect and author from Copenhagen. Seven trained designers, including several (Alexander, Lynch and Gehl) who are probably more important for what they wrote than what they designed. And three self-trained planning writers (Jacobs, Mumford, Whyte) whom no planning writer – take my word for it – would deny a spot in the Big 3. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that there are, in fact, a number of things that both disturb and reassure me about this list. Disturbing: Andres Duany No. 2, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk No. 24. OK, Liz is not as good an after-dinner speaker as her husband, but she's at least as good an urban thinker. Sexism? Ressassuring: Former professors of mine on the list: Two ( Don Shoup , a well-deserved No. 15 and John Friedman No. 74); former students of mine on the list: Zip. At least so far. Disturbing: Where's Reyner Banham? Reassuring: Where's Joel Kotkin ? Disturbing: Co-authors of mine who are far, far higher than me on the list: One ( Peter Calthorpe , No. 19). Reassuring: Contemporary mayors on the list: At least two (Norquist and Jaime Lerner, No. 20). I'll tell you one thing for sure: Next time I'm not sitting it out.  Here's a fair warning to all my former co-workers, students, and clients, and all CP&DR subscribers: Next time I'm lobbying. Watch out, Jane Jacobs! – Bill Fulton

San Luis Obispo County supervisors have approved a new $165 million wastewater treatment system and plant location serving the unincorporated coastal community of Los Osos. The community has been subject to a state-imposed building moratorium since 1988 because the town's 6,000 septic tanks pollute groundwater and the Morro Bay estuary. Everything about a Los Osos sewer system – such as cost, location, type of system and operation – has been controversial since it was first proposed during the 1970s. The Los Osos Community Services District (CSD) finally approved the project about six years ago, and the Coastal Commission granted a development permit for the wastewater treatment plant in 2004. Voters in the district then recalled CSD board members who approved the project, and construction was halted. The CSD subsequently went into a political and fiscal tailspin, resulting in bankruptcy (see CP&DR In Brief , November 2005 ). Meanwhile, state lawmakers approved a measure handing responsibility for the wastewater project to the county. Earlier this year, the county Planning Commission approved a gravity-flow system and a wastewater treatment plant on agricultural land east of Los Osos. No fewer than 17 appeals were filed to the Board of Supervisors protesting the decision, among them from the Surfrider Foundation and the owners of a cemetery. They questioned the environmental impact report, complained about the cost that residents and property owners might bear, and urged a different location and design for the plant. Supervisors, nevertheless, backed the Planning Commission's decision. The project next heads to the Coastal Commission. Construction could begin as soon as 2010, although commission hesitancy or litigation by opponents could slow the project. A state appellate court has upheld the City of Manteca's 1,200% increase in a "government building facilities fee" despite development agreements the city had with several housing developers. The developers contended that the fee, which the city increased from $350 to $4,700 per home over the course of three years, was actually a new fee prohibited by the agreements. Manteca countered that it was simply modifying an existing fee after a nexus study showed that the original $350 fee would not even be close to covering the cost of adding city office space, a library, an animal shelter and a performing arts center. In an unpublished opinion, the Third District Court of Appeal rejected the arguments of developers Morrison Homes and Pulte Home. "The mere existence of the development agreements between the builders and city did not entitle the builders to pay only the $350 facilities fee that was in force when the development agreement with the city took effect," the court ruled. The development agreements require payment of the fee at the time of building permit issuance, and nothing in the agreements or the Mitigation Fee Act prevents the hike, the court determined. The case is Pulte Home Corp. v. City of Manteca , No. C058744. A Sacramento County Superior Court ruling blocking the transfer of $350 million from redevelopment agencies to school districts in fiscal year 2008-09 will stand because the Schwarzenegger administration will not appeal the decision. Judge Lloyd Connolly ruled the shift was illegal because there was no guarantee the money would be used for redevelopment purposes (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , June 2009 ). The administration and state lawmakers closed part of the 2009-2010 budget gap by moving $1.7 billion from redevelopment agencies to schools and state programs. This time around, the state restricted spending of the shifted redevelopment tax increment to redevelopment project areas, and to services for people who live in the areas or in redevelopment-assisted housing. The California Redevelopment Association contends the latest shift is still unconstitutional and is preparing a lawsuit.

Forced into negotiations by the state Legislature, the City of Walnut has dropped its lawsuit contesting the adequacy of an environmental impact report for a proposed professional football stadium and 3 million-square-foot entertainment complex in the neighboring City of Industry. Representatives of the two cities and developer Majestic Realty signed the agreement two weeks after state lawmakers tabled a bill that would have exempted the stadium and entertainment complex from having to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and state planning and zoning laws. The measure would also have barred any legal challenges (see CP&DR , September 15, 2009 ). Faced with the possibility that state legislation could wipe out its lawsuit, the Walnut City Council voted 3-1 to approve a settlement that is similar to an agreement the City of Diamond Bar signed with Industry and Majestic Realty earlier this year regarding the project (see CP&DR In Brief , May 2009 ). In exchange for Walnut withdrawing its suit, Majestic agreed to do a number of things. It will pay the city $9 million for traffic mitigation, upgrade one of Walnut's intersections, and pay a fair share for traffic improvements elsewhere in town. The developer promised to pay from $350,000 to $500,000 annually, depending on the number of stadium events, into a "community fund" that Walnut may spend in any way. It will pick up Walnut's legal and consulting expenses. And Majestic and Industry agreed to work toward securing MetroLink train service to the project's site and to prevent stadium noise from reaching Walnut's residential neighborhoods. Multi-jurisdictional committees, composed of public representatives, were established to address transportation management and public safety. In an open letter to Walnut residents, city special counsel Jan Chatten-Brown said the agreement was the best the city could do under the circumstances. "It is extremely disappointing that so many members of the Legislature are willing to waive compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and state planning laws in order to further the project," she wrote. Meanwhile, Industry Mayor David Perez commented, "It has always been our interest to address issues of concern as they relate to our neighboring cities." Industry and Majestic continue to negotiate with a citizens group that has also filed a lawsuit to block the project.

Special Event: Planning for Aging Communities – Nov 2nd , 2009 A special event in conjunction with UCLA Extension will be held on Monday, November 2, at the Westin Pasadena Hotel to explore the nature of today's inter-generational relationships in regards to housing and transportation decisions. We will consider what role cities can play in addressing the needs of an exploding older population and what responsibilities belong to the families. What are the options? How do cities plan for more age integrated communities and why should they? What are the lessons learned?  Anyone with an interest or expertise in housing and transportation issues will benefit from this special event.  The event will run from 9am to 2pm with breakfast and lunch included for a fee of $85.  CM (AICP) credits available.  For more information regarding speakers or to enroll, please contact UCLA Extension Public Policy at (310) 825-7885, or by visiting www.uclaextension.edu and referencing course code V3823.

A city may determine that a project has no significant effects on energy consumption if it exceeds the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. The ruling appears to be the first on an environmental impact report's analysis of how a project might affect energy use, an area of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) receiving increased attention because of concerns about climate change. Opponents of a proposed WinCo Foods store in Tracy argued that the city could not rely on the energy efficiency standards, which are part of the Title 24 building code, in determining if the store and rezoning of adjacent land would have a significant effect on energy consumption. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel disagreed. "The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards are meant to promote energy efficiency as the name implies," Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland wrote for the court, citing a section of CEQA on energy. "In other words, they ‘reduce the wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy.'" The court ruled that Tracy's EIR did not have to discuss every possible effect of energy use or conservation measure contained in CEQA's Appendix F, which lists numerous energy-conservation measures and their potential impacts. In a case touching on numerous CEQA aspects, the court also held that the Tracy City Council did not have to return an amended EIR to the Planning Commission for further review; that the city did not have to require the project developer to improve two affected intersections located outside the city limits; and that the city did not have to analyze a smaller store as an alternative. Still, the court's handling of the energy issue may be of greatest importance to CEQA practitioners. "This is the very first appellate decision to discuss the analysis of energy impacts in an EIR," said Sarah Owsowitz, an attorney with Cox, Castle and Nicholson and who represented WinCo Foods. As the court noted, CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce "wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary" energy usage (Public Resources Code § 21100, subdivision (b)(3)). But neither the law nor the CEQA Guidelines explains how to determine if energy consumption will be wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary, she said. The court's decision to allow reliance on Title 24 standards provides some guidance. Rick Jarvis, Tracy's attorney, agreed that the court's holding is useful – for the time being. There is ongoing discussion of amending Appendix F to include a more prescriptive approach to energy, he noted. In 2003, owners of two parcels along Interstate 205 in Tracy applied to change the property's designation in the city's general plan and a specific plan from industrial to commercial. While the city was considering the request, WinCo Foods submitted an application for a 95,900-square-foot grocery store on the southern parcel. An EIR addressing the proposed amendments to the plans and the store was prepared. In May 2006, the Tracy Planning Commission approved WinCo's conditional use permit and recommended the City Council certify the project EIR and amend the general and specific plans. A group called Tracy First appealed the permit approval to the City Council. During a public hearing the following month, representatives of the group objected to the EIR and the project. The council directed its staff to revise the EIR to take into account some of the objections. By the time the project and EIR returned to the City Council in April 2007, the city had updated the general plan and rezoned the parcels to commercial. Over Tracy First's objections, the City Council certified the EIR and approved the specific plan amendment and conditional use permit. Tracy First sued. San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Carter Holly ruled for the city and WinCo. In upholding the Superior Court, the Third District initially published only that portion of its decision concerning process. Specifically, Tracy First had contended that the EIR must be set aside because the City Council did not return the document to the Planning Commission after ordering revisions. The court noted that CEQA Guidelines require an advisory body on zoning and land use – here, the Tracy Planning Commission – to review an EIR "in draft or final form." Because the commission had reviewed the draft EIR in 2006, and because the project did not change, the council was right to go forward with the amended environmental document, the court ruled. " he City Council was not required to remand the matter to the Planning Commission when the city amended the EIR because (1) although the final EIR considered by the City Council in approving the project may have been a different draft, it was not a different EIR, and (2) there is no express requirement that the project application be remanded to the Planning Commission when the city amends the EIR before it is certified by the City Council and used in granting the project application," Scotland wrote. The court published the remainder of its opinion after receiving requests to do so from Tracy, WinCo, the League of California Cities, the City of Sacramento and others. On energy, Tracy First argued that the city violated CEQA because it did not include the northern parcel in its energy consumption calculations, and relied the Title 24 standards to measure potential impacts. The group also argued the city's conclusions on the matter were not supported by substantial evidence, relied on unsupported opinion and omitted a CEQA Appendix F analysis. The court determined that the EIR analyzed energy use on the northern parcel, and though the analysis was less detailed than the one for the proposed WinCo store on the southern parcel, it was acceptable because "no application has been submitted to build" on the northern parcel. The court further ruled that Title 24 standards were appropriate for determining a significant impact and that Tracy First did not prove that the city's conclusions or the expert's opinion lack substantial evidence. As for Appendix F, " either Appendix F, itself, nor any other authority requires that an EIR discuss every possible energy impact or conservation measure listed in Appendix F." In deciding that the developer did not have to improve two intersections in an unincorporated part of San Joaquin Valley, the court noted that the county did request that the city extract a "fair share" payment from WinCo. But the city declined because the county's transportation program did not include the two intersections. Instead, the city identified the project's effects on them as unavoidable significant impacts and adopted a statement of overriding consideration. In seeking the mitigation measures, Tracy First argued that under City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of California State University , (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341, WinCo was obligated to address the project's effects outside the city limits. In that ruling, the state Supreme Court said that Cal State University, Monterey Bay, which is located on the former Fort Ord Army base, had to mitigate the effects of campus growth elsewhere on the old base (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2006 ; In Brief , September 15, 2009 ). But the Third District noted that the Ford Ord Reuse Authority had a plan for upgrading infrastructure throughout the base. "The county had no similar plan to improve the intersections, either in the near-term or within several years," Scotland wrote. "Because of this, the holding of City of Marina , that ‘a commitment to pay fees without any evidence that mitigation will actually occur is inadequate,' supports the city's conclusion that the mitigation, though needed, was not feasible." According to WinCo attorney Owsowitz, the court placed an important limitation on the City of Marina decision. "This is significant because a lot of petitioners have been claiming that under City of Marina , you have to mitigate any impacts, anywhere," she said. Jarvis, Tracy's attorney, said the court's reading of City of Marina helps local governments confronted by a project's extraterritorial effects. "This issue comes up time and again for lead agencies," he said. For alternatives, the EIR analyzed four: no project; an industrial development; a larger WinCo store; and the proposed store with a smaller parking lot. Tracy First argued that a smaller store should have been considered too because it could have reduced the project's effects on traffic and air quality. But the group did not demonstrate how the effects would shrink with the store size, said the court. "There is no evidence in the record that fewer customers would patronize the WinCo Foods store if the store were smaller," Scotland wrote. "Thus, we can only speculate that traffic would be lighter. And Tracy First offers only its ‘presumption' that air quality would be improved." The Third District's decision could be instructive for another lawsuit filed by Tracy First, this one regarding the city's approval of a Wal-Mart expansion project. Tracy First has raised many of the same issues in that litigation. The Case: Tracy First v. City of Tracy , No. C059227, 2009 DJDAR 13866. Filed August 27, 2009. Certified for publication in its entirety September 18, 2009. The Lawyers: For Tracy First: Steven Herum, Herum Crabtree, (209) 472-7700. For the city: Rick Jarvis, Jarvis, Fay & Deporto, (510) 238-1400. For WinCo Foods: Sarah Owsowitz, Cox, Castle & Nicholson, (415) 392-4200.

California Water Projects and Urban Water Supplies: Environmental Compliance Requirements and Practical Approaches Efficient environmental review and permitting of water projects has become more important than ever, given regulatory restrictions and drought conditions that are increasingly limiting the state's water supplies. Currently, state law requires large development projects to prove they have sufficient water supplies. The objectives of this course are to provide an in-depth and up-to-date understanding of the complexities of environmental compliance for water projects and urban water supplies, as well as provide practical guidance on navigating the legal and regulatory maze. Participants will learn how California water projects and urban water supplies are affected by regulatory and recent case law requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 of 2001, water rights law, CEQA, the Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act Section 404. Participants will also learn how global climate change is changing environmental compliance for water projects and urban water supplies, and how to prepare comprehensive environmental permit strategies. Class will be held Thursday, December 10 at the Figueroa Courtyard in downtown Los Angeles. For more information or to enroll, please contact UCLA Extension Public Policy at (310) 825-7885, or by visiting www.uclaextension.edu and referencing course code V3322.

Special Event: Planning for Age-Integrated Communities A special event in conjunction with UCLA Extension will be held on Monday, November 2, at the Westin Pasadena Hotel to explore the nature of today's inter-generational relationships in regards to housing and transportation decisions. We will consider what role cities can play in addressing the needs of an exploding older population and what responsibilities belong to the families. What are the options? How do cities plan for more age integrated communities and why should they? What are the lessons learned? Anyone with an interest or expertise in housing and transportation issues will benefit from this special event. The event will run from 9am to 2pm with breakfast and lunch included for a fee of $85. For more information regarding speakers or to enroll, please contact UCLA Extension Public Policy at (310) 825-7885, or by visiting www.uclaextension.edu and referencing course code V3823.

There are consequences to every public policy choice we make. An editorial in today's Monterey County Herald makes the argument that one consequence of not providing enough decent, affordable housing for low-wage laborers is crime and violent death. The Herald's argument may be a bit of a reach in this particular instance, in which a Salinas police officer shot and killed a young man wielding a knife. Still, the fact that overcrowded, slum-like conditions exist in parts of Salinas is not news. Nor would it be news in many cities and unincorporated towns in California. We simply don't have enough decent, affordable housing for people of modest means. The existence of shoddy, overcrowded housing and neighborhoods in Salinas is the result of public policy choices made by the Salinas City Council, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, the state Legislature, the administration and the federal government. In other words, these are public policy choices made by all of us. And none of the consequences are good. – Paul Shigley

It's increasingly clear that land use planners are not quite sure what to do about climate change. For the third consecutive year, the subject of climate change dominated the annual conference of the American Planning Association, California Chapter. What was evident during this year's event, which concluded September 16 in Squaw Valley, was that the issues are extraordinarily complex, and the available tools are not ideal. Planners, as well as engineers and attorneys, acknowledge they are "just making it up as they go." No one appears to feel comfortable about it. The generally accepted premise is that certain land use patterns and urban development forms result in less emission of climate-altering greenhouse gases (GHG) than other land use patterns and urban development forms. Because most of the GHG reductions derive from decreased use of automobiles, the emphasis is on compact, walking- and cycling-friendly, mixed-use development near transit. So far, so good. But … • CEQA is not climate friendly. In our state, the California Environmental Quality Act lords over every land use plan, public works project and real estate development. And, as Bill Fulton wrote last week , CEQA reviews often cite increased traffic as a negative impact. How do we typically mitigate for that impact? Build more and wider roads – so that it's easier for people to drive! • LOS is the wrong measurement. Level of service is a traffic congestion measuring stick. At LOS A or B, traffic moves freely. At LOS E or F, bottlenecks and slowdowns are common. Many jurisdictions have adopted LOS C or D as their standard. The way to achieve a high LOS is by building lots of wide streets and roads that move cars quickly – so that it is easier for people to drive! "LOS is going to work against your walkable area," City of Modesto planner Cindy van Empel summed up during one panel presentation. • "Our transportation models suck." So said the always-candid Jennifer Hernandez, an attorney with Holland & Knight. Indeed, I heard over and over at this year's conference that the Institute of Transportation Engineers' trip generation handbook incorrectly predicts the number and length of trips produced by a California development, and that the ITE handbook is worthless for forecasting GHG emissions. Ron Milam, of Fehr & Peers, and Jeffrey Tumlin, of Nelson/Nygaard, talked up the need for transportation models to take into account factors such as building density, urban design, diversity of uses, proximity to transit, transportation demand management systems, and demographics. Research is starting to show that mixed-use, transit-oriented infill development produces one-third fewer vehicles miles traveled (VMT) than typical greenfield development, according to Milam. • It's not that simple. The overarching objective seems to be reducing VMT. But Shari Libicki, a Stanford professor and principal in consulting firm Environ, pointed out that not all VMT is the same. A car with a cold engine making a low-speed, two-mile trip may generate as much carbon dioxide as a car with a warm engine traveling 10 miles at freeway speed, according to Libicki. Considering that people are always going to drive some, which trip should land use planners try to encourage? One thing that is certain is that the field is evolving. Maybe we will achieve total enlightenment during next year's APA California conference in Carlsbad. Or maybe we'll just be one step closer.      – Paul Shigley

State lawmakers wrapped up the first year of their two-year session without taking action on numerous bills regarding land use planning, development and natural resources. But some of the legislation could receive consideration before the end of the month because lawmakers are likely to return for special sessions called by Gov. Schwarzenegger. The Legislature passed bills that would require fire safety to be a larger factor in land use planning, allow farmworker housing to be built on agricultural land and give local government the authority to limit the conversion of mobile home parks to resident-owned condominiums. Schwarzenegger has until October 11 to sign or veto the bills. Nevertheless, the regular 2009 session, which concluded September 11, was marked by a budget deal that pillaged the budgets of redevelopment agencies (see CP&DR , August 1, 2009 ) and by failure to pass several high-profile bills. Among the failed legislation was a package of water and Bay-Delta bills, a measure exempting a planned football stadium and entertainment complex from planning and environmental laws, a bill lengthening the statute of limitations for lawsuits over a jurisdiction's housing element and a building industry proposal to extend a tax credit for buyers of new homes. Legislation may return in 2010 as a "two-year bill" or in entirely new form. Proponents of the five-bill water package, which included some Southern California water agencies and the Natural Resources Defense Council, contended that the legislation would advance the "co-equal" goals of restoring the Delta's environment and improving the reliability of water deliveries (see CP&DR Capitol Update , August 15, 2009 ). But a coalition of strange bedfellows blocked passage. The Association of California Water Agencies and the building industry said the legislation was too heavily weighted toward the environment. A number of environmental organizations complained that the bills bypassed existing water planning procedures and could authorize construction of a taxpayer-funded peripheral canal. And the Schwarzenegger administration and Republican lawmakers opposed the package because it did not contain a bond for construction of dams and water-storage facilities. Despite this, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) insisted that lawmakers were making progress toward alleviating the state's seemingly intractable water shortages. He asked the governor to call a special session of the Legislature to work on the bills this fall, but Schwarzenegger has declined to do so. Tim Coyle, vice president of the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), said builders favor legislation that would improve the reliability of water supplies because the lack of available water is stalling numerous projects. "I agree with Darrell Steinberg that progress was made," Coyle said. "There is some general interest in getting this resolved, and that's encouraging." Jim Metropulos, a lobbyist for Sierra Club California, said the package was flawed because it did not reduce reliance on water from the Delta. He recommended implementing last year's Delta Vision plan (see CP&DR Environment Watch , February 2008 ), stepping up conservation, and spending more money on improving water quality and enforcing water rights. Nearly overshadowing the debate over water was a bill advanced by the City of Industry, developer Majestic Realty and the Los Angeles Federation of Labor. The measure would exempt a planned football stadium in Industry, 2.9 million square feet of adjacent entertainment and commercial development, and related public works projects from having to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as state planning and zoning laws. The bill, AB 81 X3, by Assemblyman Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) also would bar any legal challenge to the project, including two lawsuits already filed by the City of Walnut and a citizens group. The opponents contend that Industry violated CEQA and other statutes when it approved the project (see CP&DR Places , June 2008 ; CP&DR In Brief , April 2009 ). Proponents say the project would create about 12,000 construction jobs and more than 6,000 permanent jobs. "This is an extraordinary time for California's economy requiring us all to find ways to protect our environment and build our economy," said Hall. The bill cleared two Assembly committees and won approval of the full chamber by a 54-18 vote in a 24 hour-period concluding on the evening of September 10. But in the Senate, environmentalists, worried that the bill would set a bad precedent, lobbied hard against it, as did San Diego interests who feared a new stadium might tempt the Chargers to leave their city. Democratic lawmakers were caught in the awkward position of having to choose between two key constituencies – labor and environmentalists. But before the Senate could take eleventh-hour action, Steinberg intervened and asked all parties to negotiate. In a letter distributed to his colleagues hours before adjournment, Steinberg wrote, "Because I see the obvious merit in the proposed stadium development in the City of Industry – the creation of up to 18,000 jobs, the economic development for the area, and the tax revenue for the local and state governments – I am willing to use the full force of my office to commence negotiations in an attempt to settle the litigation in this matter. … If negotiations prove unsuccessful, the California State Senate will consider AB 81 X3 before the end of September." John Semcken, a partner in Majestic Realty with Ed Roski Jr., said the parties have commenced talks, which are being brokered by former state Attorney General John van de Kamp. "We would prefer to have a negotiated settlement," Semcken said. The bill "has been portrayed as trying to get around CEQA," Semcken said, "but we have already done two environmental impact reports." He said Majestic sponsored the bill because it could not wait years for the litigation seeking to block the stadium to be resolved in court. "There's an immediate opportunity to move a team to Los Angeles, but before we could do that, we had to have the stadium finalized," he said. While the Legislature has previously approved CEQA exemptions for some projects – such as for the expansion of the San Francisco airport, Northridge earthquake recovery and the Los Angeles Olympics – it has never before exempted a project from state law requiring development projects and public works projects to be consistent with a general plan, according to legislative analysts. Nor has the Legislature exempted a project from existing and all future legal challenges. "For the most part, this was just a huge giveaway," said Sande George, lobbyist for the American Planning Association's California Chapter. Planners, Los Angeles County and other opponents of AB 81 X3 fear that the bill would set a precedent under which lawmakers could choose to exempt any favored project from state environmental and planning laws, greatly undercutting the credibility of general plans. Approval of the fire-safety planning bills – AB 666 (Jones) and SB 505 (Kehoe) – came after years of debate and a governor's veto of similar legislation last year. The Jones measure would require counties to intensify their scrutiny of proposed development in fire-prone areas and those served by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. SB 505 would require cities and counties to add fire safety goals and policies to general plan safety elements. The California State Association of Counties opposes SB 505 but has turned neutral on AB 666. "There is just nothing in that helps with cost-recovery," CSAC lobbyist Karen Keene said. The legislation could require general plan amendments that might cost from a few thousand to several million dollars to prepare and analyze, she said. Initially, the farmworker housing bill – AB 494 (Caballero) – would have permitted new housing on any agricultural parcel. But in the face of strong opposition from planners and local governments, it was amended to allow nonprofit entities to build farmworker housing on no more than 5 acres of agricultural land. The bill's author, Anna Caballero (D-Salinas), has vowed to return in 2010 with a more far-reaching measure. A priority for housing advocates was AB 566 (Nava), which would permit cities and counties to consider resident support for a mobile-home park owner's application to convert a park to a condominium or common-interest ownership development. Park owners use such conversions to bypass local rent-control ordinances for moderate-income residents and to generate revenue through the sale of individual spaces. However, many mobile home park tenants cannot afford to buy their spaces, nor can they sell their mobile home on the open market because of the exorbitant cost of the space, explained Brian Augusta of the California Housing Law Project. Some cities and counties that count on mobile home parks to provide affordable housing have tried to limit conversions, but park owners have successfully sued to block local discretion. The legislation would provide that authority. A second priority for housing advocates was AB 602 (Evans), which proponents contend would merely clarify the statute of limitations for suing over a local housing element or implementation of an element. In Urban Habitat Program v. City of Pleasanton , 164 Cal.App.4th, 1561 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2008 ), the state appellate court said a party must serve a 60-day notice of a potential lawsuit on a city or county within 90 days of a local government action. Until that decision, parties could file a 60-day notice of a potential lawsuit over housing policy and decisions at any time, Augusta said. "There was never any question before the Pleasanton decision," he said. The bill did not pass in part because it was not folded into an unrelated bill until late in the session and in part because of opposition from planners and local government. They argue that AB 602 would provide an unlimited statute of limitations, resulting in uncertain housing policy and decisions. Also failing to pass this year was AB 765 (Caballero), which would have extended a tax-credit program for buyers of new homes. Lawmakers approved tax credits of up to $10,000 per buyer earlier this year. But the state ended the $100-million program in July when nearly 12,000 applications had been received. When the Franchise Tax Board found that many buyers did not have $10,000 worth of state tax liabilities, it announced that about $30 million worth of tax credits remained unclaimed. AB 765 would have extended the program to allow about 4,200 buyers to tap the $30 million, said the CBIA's Coyle. The original legislation "tells the story of how a public policy could have a profound impact on a troubled sector of the economy," Coyle said, pointing to new home sales increases when the tax credit was available. "We think it should be continued." While the legislation passed the Senate Appropriations Committee, which halted numerous spending bills this year, it never came up for a vote on the Senate floor. Contacts: Brian Augusta, California Housing Law Project, (916) 446-9241. Tim Coyle, California Building Industry Association, (916) 443-7933. Karen Keene, California State Association of Counties, (916) 327-7500. Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California, (916) 557-1100. John Semcken, Majestic Realty, (562) 692-9581. Sande George, American Planning Association, California Chapter, (916) 443-5301. APA California legislative update: http://www.calapa.org/en/art/260 . Key Land Use Legislation For 2009 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • AB 696 (Hagman). Would allow a project applicant to resolve CEQA disputes with a lead agency before an arbitrator. Failed in Assembly committee. • AB 1321 (Eng). Would create an "advance infrastructure mitigation program" in the Natural Resources Agency to streamline environmental review and mitigation of infrastructure projects. Stalled in Assembly committee. • AB 81 X3 (Hall). Would exempt a proposed football stadium, an associated 3 million square feet of entertainment and other development and related public works projects from CEQA and state planning and zoning law. Stalled in Senate. • SB 476 (Correa). Would require potential plaintiffs to pursue additional administrative remedies before filing a CEQA lawsuit. Stalled in Assembly committee. Climate Change • AB 1404 (De Leon). Would impose limits on a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Backed by environmentalists and social justice organizations, the measure would limit the use of offsets from outside the regulated sector. Approved. • AB 881 (Huffman). Would create the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Authority to coordinate the efforts of local government and private entities in reducing GHG emissions and meeting AB 32 mandates. Approved. • SB 104 (Oropeza). Would add nitrogen triflouride (NF3) to the list of gases regulated under AB 32. NF3 is used to manufacture photovoltaic solar panels, LCD television screens and microprocessors. Approved . • SB 144 (Pavley). Would require mitigation for loss of carbon storage when timberlands are converted to other uses. The bill was strongly opposed by the forestry industry and rural counties. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 295 (Dutton). Would require the Air Resources Board to prepare a study of the cost of complying with AB 32. Failed in Senate committee . • SB 391 (Liu). Would require the California Transportation Plan to address how the state will reach AB 32 emissions goals. Also requires Caltrans to report by the end of 2012 on how the sustainable communities strategies mandated by SB 375 will influence the state's transportation system. Approved. • SB 575 (Steinberg). Would clarify housing element due dates under SB 375. Approved . • SB 721 (Steinberg). Would establish a Climate Action Team to coordinate state policy. Stalled in Senate committee . SB 722 (Steinberg). Would establish advertising and documentation requirements for the sale of GHG emissions credits or reductions. Stalled in Assembly . Economic Development • AB 507 (Arambula). Would require a project that receives assistance from the Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) to meet certain economic development and land use criteria. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 1047 (V. Manuel Perez). Would require the I-Bank to establish a program to assist small and rural communities with obtaining local infrastructure financing. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 27 (Hancock). Prohibits a business from collecting incentives as a result of moving its situs address but not its physical location. The bill is intended to prevent one local government from stealing another entity's sales tax, which is allocated based on situs address. Signed by governor . Finance • ACA 9 (Huffman) and SCA 12 (Kehoe). These constitutional amendments would ask voters to lower the approval threshold, from two-thirds to 55%, for local special taxes, property-tax increases and bonds. ACA 9 stalled in the Assembly, SCA 12 stalled in Senate committee . • ACA 15 (Arambula). Would lower the approval threshold for transportation tax measures from two-thirds to 55%. Stalled in Assembly . • AB 338 (Ma). Would expand from one-quarter mile to one-half mile the area around a transit station that may be part of an infrastructure financing district that uses tax-increment financing. The bill also eliminates the requirement for voter approval, and requires that all housing lost to transit-facility development be replaced. Approved . • AB 1176 (Ammiano) Would authorize the Port of San Francisco to create an infrastructure financing district to aid redevelopment of a 65-acre brownfield site at Pier 70. Approved . • AB 1192 (Audra Strickland). Would prohibit a local government from using lease-purchase financing. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 99 (Senate Local Government Committee). Would impose additional accountability requirements on public agencies that provide conduit financing. Approved . • SB 279 (Hancock). Would authorize use of Mello-Roos financing to pay for water conservation, energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. Approved . Housing • AB 558 (Portantino). Would authorize a city to meet 10% of its regional housing-needs assessment through a program that places foster youth in existing households. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 566 (Nava). Would authorize cities and counties to consider resident support for a proposed conversion of a mobile home park to a condominium or common interest development (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 1, 2009 ). Approved . • AB 570 (Arambula). Would alter a Department of Housing and Community Development program so that housing trust funds in small and rural communities are better able to compete for state funding. Approved . • AB 602 (Evans). Would provide that a lawsuit over a housing element, or implementation of the element, may be brought at any time. Stalled in Senate . • AB 761 (Charles Calderon). Would limit local mobile home rent-control measures. Stalled in Senate committee . • SB 326 (Tony Strickland). Would require a housing element to quantify existing and projected foreclosure rates, and specify how those rates affect housing needs. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 595 (Cedillo). Would place a $1.5 billion bond to fund supportive housing projects for veterans on the state ballot. Stalled in Senate committee . Local Planning • AB 333 (Fuentes). Extends the expiration date of tentative subdivision maps by 24 months. Signed by governor . • AB 596 (Evans). Would establish a grant program, but provides no actual money, for funding local planning. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 666 (Jones). Would require a county to make specific findings regarding fire-service availability and firefighting access before approving development in a state fire responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone. Approved . • AB 853 (Arambula). Would expedite city annexation of unincorporated islands and fringe communities, and obligate local government to improve services in the areas. Stalled in Senate committee . • AB 1084 (Adams). Would authorize anyone willing to pay for an audit to request an audit of local development impact fees. If the audit finds fees are excessive, the local government must adjust fees accordingly and refund excess fee revenue. Approved . • SB 43 (Alquist). Would authorize a Santa Clara joint powers authority to use a no-bid design-build process to construct a football stadium for the San Francisco 49ers. The Santa Clara City Council is split 3-2 in favor of this approach. Approved . • SB 194 (Florez). Would require that cities and counties receiving Proposition 84 funds adopt general plan goals and policies to promote environmental and social justice in disadvantaged, unincorporated communities. Stalled in Senate committee . • SB 215 (Wiggins). Would require local agency formation commissions to consider sustainable communities strategies and alternative planning strategies required by SB 375 before acting on boundary changes. Approved . • SB 268 (Harmon). Would require alcohol and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities to comply with local zoning. Failed in Assembly committee . • SB 310 (Ducheny). Would permit a city, county or special district to develop a watershed improvement plan that addresses stormwater runoff, and to assess fees to implement the plan. The building industry-sponsored bill provides an alternative to project-specific stormwater regulation. Approved . • SB 406 (DeSaulnier). Would permit metropolitan planning organizations and county transportation commissions to levy a $2 annual fee on vehicle registrations to fund regional and local blueprint planning. The bill also would require the governor's Strategic Growth Council to coordinate with a reconstituted Planning Advisory and Assistance Council within the Office of Planning and Research on implementing regional blueprints. Approved . • SB 505 (Kehoe). Would requires cities and counties in "very high fire hazard severity zones" to adopt, by 2015, new general plan goals, policies and objectives to minimize wildfire risks to new development. Approved . • SB 518 (Lowenthal). Would prohibit the expenditure of state funds to subsidize parking and would require local governments to select from a menu of parking policies, such as eliminating minimum parking requirements or setting maximum parking standards. Failed on Senate floor . • SB 737 (Negrete McLeod). Would repeal an exemption permitting counties to avoid forming a countywide airport land use commission. The bill would affect nine counties and is strongly opposed by the City of Watsonville and cities in San Bernardino County, which now have land use autonomy around airports. Stalled in Assembly committee . Redevelopment • AB 720 (Caballero). Would permit a city or county that uses housing set-aside funding to count a rehabilitated unit toward meeting its fair share of low-, very low-, or extremely low-income housing. Approved . • SB 93 (Kehoe). Would limit the ability of a redevelopment agency to fund a public-works project outside of a redevelopment project area. Initially opposed, the California Redevelopment Association eventually endorsed the heavily amended legislation. Approved . • SB 430 (Dutton). Extends from 10 years to 15 years the time limit on San Bernardino County's Cedar Glen disaster recovery project area redevelopment plan. Signed by governor . • SB 477 (Florez). Would permit a redevelopment agency to lend or grant money to the purchaser of low-income housing-tax credits for the construction of low-income rental housing. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 530 (Dutton). Would revise how pass-through payments for certain redevelopment projects are calculated. Stalled in Assembly committee . Renewable Energy • AB 45 (Blakeslee). Would reauthorize counties to regulate small wind-energy systems and limit the height of turbines. Approved . • AB 64 (Krekorian) and SB 14 (Simitian). Together, these bills would require utilities to obtain 33% of their energy from renewable sources, primarily located within California, by 2020. The bills also would tighten the Public Utility Commission's process for siting new transmission lines. Saying the legislation is too restrictive, Gov. Schwarzenegger has promised a veto. Approved . • AB 1351 (Blakeslee). Would permit utilities to count certain hydroelectric projects in their renewable energy portfolios. Approved . SB 560 (Ashburn). Would provide emissions credits to cities and counties that permit and site commercial wind, solar and biomass energy projects. Stalled in Senate committee . Transportation • AB 744 (Torrico). Would authorize congestion-pricing programs within the nine-county Bay Area. Stalled in Senate committee . • AB 1135 (Skinner). Would require motorists to report their odometer readings when renewing vehicle registrations. Transportation engineers and planners say such information is crucial for refining transportation-demand models. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 1375 (Galgiani). Would establish a Department of High-Speed Trains, which would assume responsibility for the proposed high-speed rail system. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 205 (Hancock). Would authorize transportation planning agencies to place on the ballot for majority approval a measure raising vehicle registrations by up to $10 to fund transportation projects and programs. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 409 (Ducheny). Would consolidate existing rail programs into a Department of Railroads. Stalled in Senate . • SB 545 (Cedillo). Would require that any extension of the 710 freeway through South Pasadena be constructed in a tunnel. Approved . Water • AB 39 (Huffman). Would outline requirements for a Bay Delta conservation plan, to be adopted by a new Delta Stewardship council before 2012. Stalled in Assembly . • AB 49 (Feuer) Would establish methods for reducing urban water usage by 20% by 2020, a stated goal of the Schwarzenegger administration. Stalled in Assembly . • SB 12 (Simitian). Would create an appointed Delta Stewardship Council that would approve a Bay Delta conservation plan and have other broad authorities. Stalled in Senate . • SB 229 (Pavley). Would establish new plans for water diversions from the Delta and groundwater monitoring. Stalled in Senate . • SB 458 (Steinberg). Would create a new Delta Conservancy and modify the membership – and the responsibilities – of the Delta Protection Commission. Stalled in Senate . • AB 55 (Jeffries). Would establish new criteria for nonresidential projects that require a water supply assessment. Only projects that would use at least as much water as a 500-unit housing project would require an assessment under the bill. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 300 (Caballero). Would require a city or county to consider voluntary demand-management measures when reviewing a development project's water supply assessment. Stalled in Senate committe e. • AB 1408 (Krekorian). Would establish a "water conservation mitigation fund" into which subdivision developers would pay fees for conservation projects that fully offset the new subdivision's projected water use. The offsets could be used to meet water supply requirements for large projects. Failed on Assembly floor . • SB 565 (Pavley). Would require that 50% of wastewater now discharged into the ocean be recycled by 2030. Stalled in Assembly committee . Williamson Act • AB 494 (Caballero). Would permit construction of farmworker housing by nonprofit entities on some agricultural lands. Approved . • AB 512 (Yamada). Would make horse breeding and training facilities compatible uses under the Williamson Act. Stalled in Assembly committee . • SB 170 (Florez). Would permit an Indian tribal government to cancel a Williamson Act contract so the tribe may develop a cultural center, housing or infrastructure on the agricultural land. The Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, which operates a casino and wants to expand its reservation in Santa Barbara County, is the bill's sponsor. Stalled in Senate committee . • SB 715 (Wolk). Would strengthen various Williamson Act provisions. Stalled in Assembly committee . Other • AB 102 (Smyth). Would authorize a new Santa Susana State Park Advisory Committee to recommend whether the 2,800-acre Rocketdyne property in eastern Ventura County should become a state park. Stalled in Senate committee . • AB 109 (Feuer). Would impose a moratorium until 2012 on new digital advertising displays visible from any highway. Stalled in Assembly committee . • AB 210 (Hayashi). Clarifies how cities and counties may adopt their own green-building standards. Signed by governor . • AB 444 (Caballero). Would clarify that nonprofit entities may accept and disburse public funds for management of mitigation lands and conservation easements held by land trusts or special districts. Approved . • SB 213 (Florez). Would extend an existing moratorium on new card clubs from 2015 to 2020. The measure is strongly backed by existing card clubs and the City of Hawaiian Gardens, which is heavily dependent on card room revenue. Approved . • SB 690 (Leno). Would permit removal of illegal outdoor advertising displays and displays that were permitted but have been modified in a way that makes them illegal. Stalled in Senate committee .

Acting as the Sonoma County Water Agency, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to drop a long-held and controversial plan for additional water diversions from the Russian River. The September 15 decision by the board angered five cities and a Marin County district served by the water agency, because those entities have planned on the additional Russian River water being available to serve future development. The Sonoma County Water Agency currently has rights to take 75,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Russian River. Ten years ago, the agency applied to the State Water Resources Control Board for permission to take up to 101,000 acre-feet annually. The state has never acted on the proposal, which environmental organizations have opposed and cities have supported. Environmental and fiscal considerations finally forced the county to abandoned the water plan. Because of a mandate to protect coho salmon habitat in Dry Creek, the county would probably not be able to use the creek to move the additional summertime water from Lake Sonoma storage to the water system. Instead, the county would have to build a 24-mile pipeline at cost of more than $400 million. At the same time, implementation of a 15-year fisheries recovery plan required by the federal government is likely to cost $100 million, according to the water agency. There simply is not enough money for everything, according to supervisors and agency staff members. The agency provides water to Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, Petaluma, Windsor, Sonoma a small part of unincorporated Sonoma County and the North Marin Water District. Agency officials say they can continue to provide enough water for many years, largely based on implementing conservation efforts. However, Santa Rosa sued the county to halt the Board of Supervisors from even considering abandoning the 101,000 acre-foot application. A court declined to intervene, but additional litigation appears certain. The City of Marina, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority and California State University, Monterey Bay, have signed an agreement to settle an 11-year dispute over the effects of university expansion at the former Army base. The city and the reuse authority sued the university in 1998, charging that the campus master plan's environmental impact report did not fully address remedies for the effects of campus expansion on traffic and emergency fire services. The state Supreme Court eventually ruled in City of Marina v. Board of Trustees , (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341 that the university could not ignore the off-campus effects of its expansion (see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2006 ). While it ruled that the authority could not assess an impact fee on CSU Monterey Bay, the court said that the university must negotiate with the authority over the school's contributions to the former base's infrastructure needs. The agreement, signed in September, limits daily vehicle trips to and from campus to about 13,000 (up from the current 8,500). The university also agreed to seek $1.34 million from the Legislature to cover its share of the cost of a regional water augmentation project and $52,000 to help fund a habitat conservation program. If the Legislature does not allocate the money, the university must pursue other funding sources. Gov. Schwarzenegger has signed a compact with the Habematolel Pomo tribe that could lead to development of the fourth Indian casino in Lake County. The tribe plans to build its casino on 11 acres near the town of Upper Lake and only two miles west of the Robinson Rancheria's casino on Highway 20. The tribe still needs to gain the consent of the Legislature and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to proceed. The tribe eventually wants to build a large casino and hotel on the land. The compact calls for it to pay the state 15% of net casino revenues, while a separate agreement with Lake County requires the tribe to pay a 1% assessment on its property and to make other fiscal contributions to local government. In 2001, the Habematolel Pomo tribe proposed building a $200 million casino in West Sacramento, a project that met significant opposition and died.