I recently spent the better part of three days in the eastern Nevada town of Ely. For those of you not current on your Nevada geography, Ely is the largest town on a 400-mile stretch of Highway 50 through Nevada and Utah known as the "Loneliest Highway in America." In other words, Ely is a small town smack in the middle of nowhere. The nearest town is more than 70 miles away. Ely clearly is not thriving. Nor is it dying. It appears to be muddling along thanks mostly to resource extraction industries and outdoor tourism. What struck me about Ely is the local concept of land – all real estate, for that matter — as a disposable commodity. The streets of Ely are lined with abandoned houses, schools, gas stations, restaurants, storefronts, churches and motels. Some appear to have been boarded up since the Johnson administration. "Who owns this stuff?" I thought as I walked through town. Yes, a number of older structures are still in use, including a middle school right downtown and some historic hotel/casinos where smoking is apparently mandatory. But these buildings mingle among those that are abandoned. On the edge of town, naturally, are newer gas stations, motels and stores. Roughly two miles north of town is a fairly new manufactured home subdivision surrounded by a whole lot of sand. Ely's supply of land would appear to be unlimited, and, of course, Nevada is famous for its minimalist approach to regulation. Which means that there is very little incentive for anyone to try to make use of all those abandoned buildings, even if Ely's economy were to somehow gain strength. So, I guess, those vacant buildings are going to sit there and rot for years and years to come. It's a depressing thought, especially when you consider the guy who owns a home or business next door. In California, we have our share of neglected neighborhoods, downtowns and industrial districts. But, for the most part, real estate is not considered a disposable commodity. At some point, somebody or some entity is going to reinvest. Walking away forever is not an option. I find that thought encouraging. - Paul Shigley

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) executive board has approved the draft regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for cities and counties in the nine-county region. The RHNA is based on new methodology that directs more growth to existing urban areas and locations with transit and jobs, and less growth to the suburban fringes and unincorporated areas. The methodology also attempts to distribute low- and moderate-income units more broadly by taking into account existing low/mod housing stock within a jurisdiction (see CP&DR , February 2007). In April, the state Department of Housing and Community Development told ABAG to plan for between 214,500 and 227,500 new housing units for the period from 2007 to 2014. Cities and counties now have 60 days to submit appeals of the fair-share numbers allocated by ABAG. Officials at ABAG expect to make a final decision on the allocations in April 2008. Cities and counties use the figures to update their housing elements. In the last round of planning, HCD assigned the ABAG region 230,743 units for the 1999 to 2006 period. ABAG recently reported that builders took out permits for 212,000 units during that timeframe. However, builders produced only 43% of the RHNA's very-low income units, 79% of the low-income units and 37% of the moderate-income units. The only excess was in above-moderate-income units. Meanwhile, San Francisco is deciding whether to conduct an environmental impact report for its previous housing element update. In an unpublished decision issued in late June, the First District Court of Appeal threw out the city's 2004 housing element update for lack of environmental review. The city argued among other things that no EIR was necessary because the 2004 update was not substantially different from the previous housing element, which was adopted in 1990. A collection of neighborhood groups concerned about overcrowding, traffic and the impact on business disagreed and convinced the appellate court to overturn a trial court ruling in favor of the city. "Taken together, the changes to the housing element …reflect a shift away from preserving existing housing density and a movement toward allowing denser housing development, and decreased off-street parking, which, in turn could lead to increased traffic congestion, air pollution and noise, as well as a change in the aesthetic quality of city neighborhoods," the court ruled in San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco , No. A112987. City officials said they may simply set aside the 2004 plan and focus on a fresh update. The draft RHNA assigns San Francisco 31,000 housing units, about 50% more than the city's share for the 1999-2006 period. San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders' veto of an ordinance that would effectively ban big-box stores that sell groceries will stand. In early July, the San Diego City Council voted 5-3 for the limitation, which was clearly aimed at Wal-Mart supercenters. The measure would have prohibited new stores of more than 90,000 square feet from devoting 10% of floor space to nontaxable goods. Sanders promptly vetoed the measure. The council could have overridden the veto with a majority vote. However, Councilwoman Donna Frye changed her vote. Instead, Frye said she supports requiring an economic impact report on such new stores, similar to what the City of Los Angeles requires. Wal-Mart currently has four stores in San Diego but no supercenters. A disputed Wal-Mart supercenter in the City of American Canyon will apparently open this fall. In late 2006, an appellate court ruled that the city's mitigated negative declaration for the project was inadequate (see CP&DR Legal Digest , January 2007). After the city lost at the trial court level, construction halted and the city began work on an environmental impact report. That EIR recently passed muster with Napa County Superior Court Judge Raymond Guadagni, whose decision was not appealed by supercenter opponents. Placer County supervisors have approved a 14,000-unit housing development over the objections of regional planners who contend the 5,230-acre project is not dense enough and environmentalists who say the project does not set aside enough open space. The Placer Vineyards project would fill a strip of unincorporated territory between Roseville and Sacramento County. Leaders of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments said the plan conflicts with a regional blueprint adopted in 2004, and they advocated for 50% more housing units. Environmentalists decried the plan's dedication of only 700 acres of open space on site plus another 2,900-acres off-site. The opponents said the project would destroy vernal pools and habitat for the endangered Swainson's hawk. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has also questioned the proposed destruction of wetlands. Litigation over the project, which has been in the planning stages since the mid-1990s, is likely. In another setback for development of the gigantic Sunrise Douglas community plan in Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette threw out the city's approval of a 2,700-unit "town center" in the middle of the community plan area. Marlette ruled that the city improperly deferred mitigation of impacts to approximately 200 acres of vernal pools on the 530-acre site. Early this year, the state Supreme Court rejected an environmental impact report for the community plan because it did not adequately describe a long-term water source (see CP&DR Legal Digest , March 2007). The town center project, known as "The Preserve," would apparently preserve only about half of the existing vernal pools. State and federal agencies, in addition to the California Native Plant Society, have protested the wetlands destruction and uncertain mitigation. They have called for leaving nearly half the site as open space. The Kern County grand jury has recommended a "moratorium on future development within metropolitan Bakersfield" until transportation needs are fully funded. The recommendation arrived only three months after county officials said they could not endorse 13 projects totalling 6,500 units in northwest Bakersfield because of a lack of adequate roads. The City of Bakersfield responded to the county's position in May with a $3.3 billion, 20-year transportation funding plan. However, the grand jury said the majority of the plan is "no more than a ‘wish list' with little potential of actually happening in a timely manner," an assertion that city officials sharply challenged.

A bill tying all local transportation projects to a regional "preferred growth scenario" that reduces automobile travel is quickly becoming the most important land use proposal of recent years in Sacramento. The bill has sparked sharp debate in the Legislature over land use policy, with some Republicans criticizing what they see as an attempt to force local compliance with a top-down planning system. Meanwhile, a bill that had led many lists of land use measures, SB 303 by Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), stalled in an Assembly committee and is apparently dead for the year. Among other things, the California Building Industry Association (CBIA)-sponsored bill would have required local governments to zone for 10 years worth of housing growth. Ducheny could revive the bill in 2008, or its provisions could be placed into a different piece of legislation after lawmakers return from their summer recess on August 20. While the developers' housing measure appears to be going under for the third consecutive year, a package of bills that attempts to incorporate flood hazards into land use planning is advancing. Among the bills that remain alive are measures that would require state agencies to take a greater role in flood planning and that would require local governments to comply with state plans. However, it is SB 375 by Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) that has risen to the top of many agendas. Steinberg contends his legislation is simply the next step in the regional "blueprint" or "visioning" process that all four large councils of government have undertaken during recent years, and is a way of implementing last year's greenhouse gas reduction bill, AB 32. The blueprints adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SAGOC) all speak to infill, higher densities, transit-oriented development and minimizing urban expansion into greenfield areas. Steinberg's legislation not only requires transportation that planning agencies to adopt such a preferred growth scenario, but also that the scenario be based on greenhouse gas reductions. The bill would further require that all transportation projects comply with the growth scenario. Steinberg and the bill's defenders have characterized the funding provision as an incentive for cities, counties and regional agencies to implement growth plans that minimize automobile travel. But an Assembly Local Government Committee analysis said, "If this is a proverbial ‘carrot,' it is an extremely hard one." Before the Senate approved SB 375 on a partisan, 21-15 vote, Steinberg and Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) engaged in an exchange that still has people buzzing. "I've got news for the authoritarians on the Left," McClintock said. "Most people don't want to live in dense urban cores. Most people want a little elbow room. They want a yard for their children to play in. They want a little grass, a little garden, a little breathing room they can call their own. "And who the hell are you to tell people they can't?" McClintock continued. "Who the hell are you to tell people how and where they're going to live? Who the hell are you to impose your preferences for their lives over their preferences for their lives?" Steinberg responded that cities in the SACOG region voluntarily adopted a regional plan "not as an ideology, but as a necessary step to address traffic congestion and air quality." The SACOG blueprint won support from Sacramento liberals and suburban conservatives, he said. "It's about time we not only start talking about regional planning, but we start acting on it. This bill is a way to get there," Steinberg said. "I proudly stand to urge my colleagues to vote for a more sensible and sane way to grow the state." Environmental and clean air groups as well as SCAG have endorsed SB 375. However, SANDAG has come out in opposition, and SACOG and many cities and counties are skeptical. California State Association of Counties lobbyist DeAnn Baker said CSAC agrees with Steinberg's intent and supports blueprint processes. But, she said, the blueprint processes have been successful because they are locally-driven, not the result of a prescriptive state law. "We're concerned that if you push too hard, which this bill does, you'll lose political support at the local level. We're concerned about this taking us backward, about there being a backlash," Baker said. "I think this is beating up the good actors to get to the bad actors." The bill also contains a number of provisions that exempt certain infill projects from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. However, according to a bill analysis, the provisions are very tight and few projects may qualify. "The additional pressure on land use decisions created by SB 375 could lead to an avalanche of suits," the analysis said. The builders' SB 303 skated through the Senate on a bipartisan 28-2 vote before it stalled in the same Assembly Local Government Committee that asked hard questions about SB 375. The committee staff prepared a long and extremely critical analysis of SB 303, and Committee Chair Anna Marie Caballero (D-Salinas) made it known she would halt the bill's progress. Opponents said that the bill would place housing above every other concern facing cities and counties. For example, the bill would have narrowed the scope of open space elements so that the documents did not have to consider wildlife habitat, waterways, earthquake fault zones, areas at high risk of flood or fire, military base buffer zones and Native American sacred sites. The intent clearly was to open up more areas for housing development. The CBIA and other backers said legislation is necessary to prevent cities from blocking needed housing development. During the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing, Assemblyman Guy Houston (R-San Ramon) made a motion to approve the bill — a motion that was followed by an awkward silence. Although SB 303's author is a Democrat, no Senate Republican had voted against the bill. Still, freshman Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, the former mayor of Santa Clarita and the only other Republican on the committee, declined to second Houston's motion. The package of flood bills is similar to last year's legislation, which builders and real estate interests defeated during the session's final weeks. The bills address comprehensive state flood planning, more flood accountability in general plans and local government liability for flood control projects. Assemblywoman Lois Wolk (D-Davis), who lashed out at builders after last year's defeat, said she is optimistic this year. "I think we're going to have legislation. The governor is engaged. The building industry is engaged and trying to be constructive," said Wolk, who is carrying three bills this year. "Everyone recognizes that at the general plan level, we ought to have analysis and planning for floods that's at least as good as we do for fire and earthquakes." 2007 Land Use Legislation Update These are the top land use bills for the 2007-2008 legislative session. A bill's status as of the beginning of the Legislature's summer recess is in italics. Measures described as "two-year bills" are likely to be dead for the year. Two-year bills and any other legislation that does not pass before the legislative year ends on September 14 may be revived next year. Economic Development • AB 89 (Garcia). Directs the Business, Transportation and Housing secretary to study financing mechanisms for infrastructure along the border with Mexico. Approved by Assembly. • AB 831 (Parra). Requires a sunset date for all new tax breaks or existing tax breaks that get extended. Approved by Assembly. • AB 1398 (Arambula). Proposes a complete overhaul of the system for awarding hiring tax credits. Among other things, the bill would eliminate the ability to claim multiple tax credits for one job. Two-year bill. • AB 1606 (Arambula). Requires several state agencies to coordinate preparation of a statewide economic development strategic plan, and to develop a system for measuring the performance of all state policies intended to stimulate the economy. Approved by Assembly. • ABs 1719, 1720, 1721 and 1722 (Arambula). A series of bills concerning economic development, trade and investment policies. Only AB 1720 remains alive this year. • SB 103 (Cedillo). Requires local agencies to conduct hearings on the details of proposed economic development subsidies of at least $25,000 and provide reports after approval. Stalled in Assembly. Flood Control • AB 5 (Wolk). Requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to prepare a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, and requires cities and counties to comply with the plan's standards. The bill also increases insurance and notice requirements for development in flood hazard zones. Approved by Assembly. • AB 26 (Nakanishi). Requires the Department of Fish and Game and the Reclamation Board to prepare a natural communities conservation plan (NCCP) for multiple species in the San Joaquin-Sacramento river delta. The bill also directs the agencies to prepare a streambed alteration agreement based on the NCCP. Stalled in Assembly. • AB 70 (Jones). Makes local governments partially liable if a flood control project fails. Approved by Assembly. • AB 156 (Laird). Increases the DWR role in Central Valley flood protection. The bill requires DWR to report on levee conditions, map flood-prone areas, undertake levee maintenance, provide annual warning notices to landowners, and establish mitigation banks. Approved by Assembly. • AB 162 (Wolk). Requires cities and counties to include flood hazard information, policies, and implementation measures in general plans. Approved by Assembly . • AB 1452 (Wolk). Sets priorities — including environmental enhancements — for allocating funds from Proposition 1E, last year's $4.1 billion flood prevention bond. The bill complements AB 5. Approved by Assembly. • SB 5 (Machado). Requires DWR to prepare a Sacramento-San Joaquin River flood management system plan, and mandates that cities and counties amend their general plans to comply with the state plan. Approved by Senate. • SB 6 (Oropeza). Requires local governments to consider in their general plans the potential impacts of global climate change, and prohibits subdivisions in areas that could be flooded by rising sea levels. Two-year bill. • SB 17 (Florez). Renames the Reclamation Board the Central Valley Flood Protection Board and requires the board to review local and regional land use plans for compliance with standards adopted by the board. Approved by Senate . • SB 34 (Torlakson). Authorizes DWR to collect user fees and assessments to fund flood control in the Delta. Approved by Senate. Funds for planning • AB 1253 (Caballero). Establishes criteria for the Resources Agency to distribute $90 million to local and regional governments for long-term planning, and $90 million for "urban greening" projects. Funds come from Proposition 84. Approved by Senate. • SB 732 (Steinberg). Takes a comprehensive approach to funding contained in Propositions 84 and 1C for sustainable communities/urban greening, planning, local parks and housing-related parks. Among other things, the bill requires that local and regional governments receiving long-term planning grants or loans agree to plan consistently with Proposition 84's strong environmental goals, and that cities and counties consent to plan consistently with any regional blueprint. The bill has been amended numerous times and more amendments are likely. Approved by Senate. • SB 669 (Torlakson). Makes the Great California Delta Trail eligible for Proposition 84 planning funds. Stalled in Assembly. Housing • AB 414 (Jones). Limits cities' and counties' use of land zoned for nonresidential uses in meeting regional housing needs. Approved by Assembly. • AB 641 (Torrico). Requires that local governments defer all fees on projects with at least 49% affordable units until the certificate of occupancy stage. Approved by Assembly. • AB 1096 (DeVore). Requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to report on the California Environmental Quality Act's impact on affordable housing development. Two-year bill. • AB 763 (Saldaña). Increases the required notice given to tenants of apartments being converted to condominiums. Approved by Assembly. • AB 1053 (Nuñez). Allocates $450 million from the Proposition 1C housing bond for infrastructure related to infill housing. Approved by Assembly. • AB 1254 (Caballero). Reduces the shift of property tax revenue from cities and counties to school districts when the city or county approves an affordable housing project. Two-year bill. • AB 1256 (Caballero). Exempts local governments from the state density bonus law if the local government has an inclusionary zoning ordinance that mandates a portion of new units be available to low- or moderate-income residents. Two-year bill. • AB 1449 (Saldaña). Tightens eligibility for density bonuses and waivers of local regulations. Two-year bill. • AB 1497 (Niello). Exempts land that is covered by Williamson Act contracts from the inventory of land suitable for meeting regional housing needs. Two-year bill. • AB 1542 (Evans). Imposes new requirements for the conversion of mobile home parks to resident-owner subdivisions. Approved by Assembly. • SB 2 (Cedillo). Requires cities and counties to identify and zone sites for development of emergency shelters and transitional housing without conditional use permits. Approved by Senate. • SB 12 (Lowenthal). Revises the Southern California Association of Governments' regional housing needs assessment process to align with the regional transportation plan. Signed by governor. • SB 46 (Perata). Establishes how the Department of Housing and Community Development may spend the $850 million in Proposition 1C's regional planning, housing and infill incentive account. Approved by Senate. • SB 303 (Ducheny). Requires cities and counties to identify land for 10 years worth of housing demand, update housing elements every five years, and update all other general plan elements every 10 years. The bill also narrows the definition of land to be considered in an open space element. Two-year bill. • SB 900 (Corbett). Increases the ability of local governments to block the conversion of mobile home parks to resident-owned condominiums, which would not be subject to rent control. Two-year bill. Local government finance • AB 239 (DeSaulnier). Authorizes Contra Costa and San Mateo counties to impose a $25 real estate recording fee to fund affordable housing. Stalled in Senate. • AB 373 (Wolk). Makes numerous technical and substantive changes to the School Facilities Improvement District and the Mello-Roos Community Facilities acts. Among other things, the bill makes road maintenance and lighting, graffiti removal and snow plowing eligible for financing through Mello-Roos taxes. Approved by Assembly. • AB 980 (Calderon). Requires greater disclosure of real property transfer fees that fund various local government programs and projects. Approved by Assembly. • AB 1091 (Bass). Establishes policies for HCD's administration of $300 million in transit-oriented development funding contained in Proposition 1C. Approved by Assembly. • AB 1221(Ma). Permits a city or county to divert tax increment to fund infrastructure for transit villages. Stalled in Senate. • AB 1574 (Houston) and SB 670 (Correa). Restrict the imposition of real property transfer fees. Two-year bills. • SCA 12 (Torlakson). Exempts fees to fund stormwater projects from Proposition 218's voter approval requirement. In Senate. • SB 934 (Lowenthal). Authorizes creation of up to 100 housing and infrastructure zones in which tax-increment financing would pay for a variety of housing and infrastructure projects. Two-year bill. Natural resources • SB 27 (Simitian). Calls for a new study of a potential "peripheral canal" that would channel fresh water around the Delta toward Southern California. Stalled in Assembly . • SB 421 (Ducheny). Authorizes the Department of Parks and Recreation to acquire property under a conservation easement or similar restriction. Approved by Senate . • SB 634 (Wiggins). Prohibits local governments from approving the subdivision of lands covered by a Williamson Act contract unless the government can make certain findings. Stalled in Assembly . Redevelopment • ACA 2 (Walters) and SCA 1 (McClintock). Limit the use of eminent domain. Two-year bills. • ACA 8 (De La Torre). Prohibits the taking of owner-occupied housing for economic development projects. The measure also prohibits the taking of small businesses unless the owner is first given a chance to participate in the proposed development project. In Assembly committee. • AB 887 (De La Torre). Provides additional notice and compensation for owners and tenants of property the government takes via eminent domain. On Senate floor. • AB 987 (Jones). Permits almost any low- or moderate-income person to enforce affordability covenants on housing units subsidized with redevelopment funds. Approved by Assembly. • AB 1553 (DeSaulnier). Allows use of tax increment for loans to firefighters for the purchase or rehabilitation of homes in a project area. Two-year bill . • SB 437 (Negrete McLeod). Requires redevelopment agencies to report their project area's time limits in annual reports and implementation plans. Signed by governor. Other • AB 35 (Ruskin), AB 888 (Lieu), AB 1058 (Laird). Require state agencies to establish sustainability standards for building construction. All three bills have been approved by Assembly. • SB 375 (Steinberg). Requires most transportation funding to be consistent with regional growth "blueprints." Approved by Senate. • AB 411 (Emmerson). Gives cities and counties greater say over the siting of group homes for six or fewer residents. Two-year bill. • AB 665 (DeSaulnier). Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to produce the Growth Management Information Report every five years. Stalled in Senate. • AB 704 (Eng). Requires local governments to establish a resident advisory commission on the environment to make planning recommendations. Two-year bill. • AB 724 (Benoit), SB 530 (Dutton), SB 992 (Wiggins) and SB 1000 (Harman). Address local government concerns with the siting and licensing of "sober living" homes in residential areas. All four pieces of legislation are two-year bills. • AB 889 (Lieu). Creates a new authority to construct a rail line to the coast of Los Angeles, including a stop at Los Angeles International Airport. Two-year bill . • AB 1066 (Laird). Requires local governments that could be affected by rising sea levels to account for climate change when updating general plans. The bill charges OPR with preparing guidelines for how local governments should consider the issues. Approved by Assembly. • SB 10 (Kehoe). Changes the governance and structure of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority and assigns the entity various duties and deadlines related to siting a new airport. Stalled in Assembly. • SB 162 (Negrete McLeod). Requires local agency formation commissions to consider environmental justice when considering boundary changes. Approved by Senate.

What's the economic engine of the 21st Century? It's not exploitation of natural resources – which, according to one recent report, accounts for only 5% of our nation's wealth. It's not factory-style production – that's only another 18%. It's "intangible capital" – our education, our system of laws that creates a predictable society, ingenuity, and the ability to convert ingenuity into tangible products. These represent more than three-quarters of our nation's wealth. The United States is being broken up economically by "The Big Sort" – a sorting of states and metropolitan areas into economic winners and losers. The losers are the ones that exploit natural resources or manufacture products. The winners are the ones with lots of intangible capital. But are farming, mining, and manufacturing states and towns destined for the dustbin? Not necessarily – if they can find a way to capture wealth from these activities when and where it's created and put it to long-term use locally. Part of the reason that California is a wealthy state is that we've been doing this consistently here for a century and a half. Wealth from the Gold Rush was plowed into the transcontinental railroad, which created more wealth, which endowed Stanford University, which in turn spawned Silicon Valley, which has generated vast amounts of investment capital and philanthropic wealth that is stimulating the next generation of economic growth. The flip side of this approach is what might be called the "colonial" strategy. Investors in the centers of finance put money into natural resources and production in other parts of the world, but then remove the wealth and take it back to the financial center. This is one of the reasons that London is rich and Africa is poor. In America's Big Sort today, the winners are London – rich with capital -- and the losers are Africa – bereft not only of jobs but, more important, without wealth either. For the losers in the Big Sort, the solution – if there is one – lies in strengthening the place-based institutions such as universities, hospitals, and other institutions that can't easily leave. These are the institutions that will create the intangible capital of the future through research breakthroughs, and they can also serve as the recipients of philanthropic wealth. In this way, even the Big Sort losers can focus on creating enough wealth so that they are Silicon Valley in a small way, rather than Africa in a big way. -- William Fulton To read a longer article in Governing magazine by William Fulton on this topic, click here .

On July 24, the last 7-mile stretch of the 210 Freeway opened from Rialto to San Bernardino. In a way, it was the end of an era. The 210 has been on the books for 60 years, connecting Pasadena with San Bernardino at the base of the Angeles National Forest foothills. The 210 has been opening section by section for many years. It greatly increases highway capacity in a fast-growing part of Southern California. And it's a freeway. That's right: Driving on the 210 is free. No tolls, no special lanes built by private contractors, no "Lexus Lanes". The 210 was paid for with tax revenue, built by private contractors working directly for the government, and is available to drivers on a first-come, first-served basis. Transportation experts talk a lot about different ways to deal with traffic congestion in California these days, but usually new freeways built with tax revenue are last on the list. We might see a few more of these – especially in the Central Valley – but in Southern California, at least, the 210 might be the last. Freeways in California are free mostly because of the state gas tax, which was passed 60 years ago. But the gas tax isn't indexed to inflation or the price of gas, and fuel efficiency is on the rise once again. Combined with the rising cost of construction materials and environmental mitigation, California is in a bind. State bond funds like Proposition 1B and county sales taxes help fill the gap, but they won't be enough. So now, California is experimenting – with toll roads built by government agencies and with toll roads built by private companies that receive long-term franchises from the government. Most radically, somebody in California will probably soon begin experimenting with "Lexus Lanes" that allow solo drivers priority access to the freeway if they pay. But will any of this make a real dent in traffic congestion? Or, to mix metaphors, are we just nibbling around the edges? When experts talk about innovation in highway financing, tolls, and pricing, they're really talking about three different things: using toll revenue to pay for new construction; using privatization to reduce the cost of construction; and using pricing as a market mechanism so that capacity is used more efficiently. The first two are nothing new. The third is a radical idea. Toll roads built and maintained by public agencies are pretty common elsewhere in the country and the world. It's impossible to drive the interstate system in the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic states, or the Midwest without hitting a toll booth every now and then¸ especially in big cities. We've already seen more public toll roads built in California. The three toll roads in southern Orange County are the most prominent example. They're not drawing as much traffic as predicted so far, but surely more will be built. The idea of having private companies own and operate toll roads is an old idea revived by privatization advocates arguing that the private sector will be more motivated to construct needed roads and more able to control costs. Prior to the rise of "big government" during the 20th Century, it was not uncommon for both state and federal governments to use private entities – franchise-holders or concessionaires – to construct, own, and operate transportation corridors. Even the transcontinental railroad of the 19th Century – a story known in detail by every California fourth-grader -- was a good example of this "public-private partnership" approach. The private railroads received both money and land in exchange for building the railroads, and after construction was complete they had a monopoly. But public accountability was always a problem – that's why all astute California fourth-graders can explain Union Pacific's Credit Mobiliere scandal – and good-government reformers of the early 20th Century pushed the idea that the public sector, not the private sector, should do both the financing and the building. Now we're swinging back in the other direction. But public accountability and risk can still be problems. Private investors on the 91 Freeway toll lanes between Orange and Riverside counites had to be bailed out when traffic and revenue did not meet expected levels – partly because of competition from one of the public toll roads (see CP&DR Public Development , February 2003 , February 2000 ). The 91 toll lanes are now run by a public agency and charge the highest tolls in California – close to $10. Which leaves congestion pricing. Except on the 91 – where the toll structure has certain congestion pricing aspects – congestion pricing is an idea that has been kicked around a lot but not implemented many places. Promoted largely by the market-oriented Reason Public Policy Institute in Los Angeles, congestion pricing allows drivers premium spots on the existing freeway – in the carpool lane — if drivers are willing to pay for access. This idea is often derided as Lexus Lanes providing rich people with a way to avoid congestion while the poor are stuck in traffic. But Reason's idea is backed up with some polling that suggests most people would pay to use the carpool lanes only when they are in a hurry, not all the time. On the I-15 in San Diego, the public appears to have accepted a variable pricing experiment in place since the late 1990s. Underlying the congestion pricing concept, however, is a radical shift in the way we think about highways. In the freeway era, space on the highway was viewed as an unlimited public resource available to anyone. Whenever we ran out, we just created more. Congestion pricing acknowledges there is a limited amount of freeway space and argues that space should be allocated, like most everything else in our society, through price. In a sense, congestion pricing – promoted largely by Reason's conservative economist Bob Poole – is not much different than the parking views of UCLA's more liberal economist Don Shoup, who argues that parking should be priced at market rates as well (see CP&DR Q&A , May 2005 ). In some ways, the idea of selling space on the freeway is not so different than the current situation. Most urban freeways in California have already diminished the first-come, first-served idea. Instead, they allocate some freeway space to those who engage in what might be called a social good – carpooling, riding a bus or a vanpool, or, more recently, driving a hybrid. By simply adding people willing to pay money to those engaging in a social good, congestion pricing can be viewed as an adaptation of an existing idea. Of course, there's only so much space in the carpool lane – especially with those fussy Prius drivers slowing things down – so choices will have to be made there as well. In fact, Reason's plan in Los Angeles would do just this. It would increase the carpool minimum from two to three people. Essentially, the Reason proposal would take the freeway space currently allocated to two-person carpools and reallocate it to solo drivers willing to pay. Of course, nobody is talking about reallocating first-come, first-served lanes to special drivers – either drivers who pay or drivers who pursue a social good. The last person to try that was Jerry Brown 30 years ago, and he's still regularly skewered around the state for trying it. So what we have is, pardon the expression, a hybrid system. Most people ride their brakes while in the regular lanes, while a few people who pay money or do special things get to slip through in the few express lanes we've created. Which is why I say that all this is nibbling around the edges. Until we're willing to overhaul the entire freeway system to eliminate the first-come, first-served idea, other approaches – whether market-oriented or based on social good – won't make much difference. For now, I'll keep riding Metrolink.

Planning Manager - City of Ventura ($80,082 - $107,312 per yr + excellent benefits). Beautiful seaside community has an exciting opportunity for a municipal planning professional committed to the principles of urbanism, smart growth, and traditional neighborhood design to lead a dedicated and talented team in the Current Planning Section of the Community Development Department. Incumbent will play a pivotal role in reshaping new development to make Ventura a national model of smart growth by managing the Current Planning Section work program which includes planning, zoning, development, environmental review and design review activities of the City. Requires B.S. in related area and 5 years of professional planning experience and/or related program management experience including two years of supervisory responsibility for a major planning function. A Master's degree is preferred. Apply immediately for this exciting opportunity at www.cityofventura.jobs . EOE.

San Francisco's practice of using building permit fees to fund long-range planning has been upheld by the First District Court of Appeal. The court rejected arguments that the fee plan violated Proposition 13 and the city charter. Instead, the court ruled that long-range planning is sufficiently related to the regulation of building construction to justify the spending. Indirectly, the court also upheld a 2002 law that expressly permits local governments to levy building fees to fund general plan updates. The court's decision leans heavily on two landmark cases that upheld other fees facing Proposition 13 challenges: Sinclair Paint Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization , (1997) 15 Cal.4th 866, and California Assn. of Prof. Scientists v. Department of Fish & Game , (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 935 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , May 2000). "We … slightly broaden the import of Sinclair Paint by holding that a municipality may, under its police powers, spend regulatory fee revenues for the purpose of legitimate regulation so long as those revenues do not exceed the reasonably necessary expense of the regulatory effort," Justice Joanne Parrilli wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel of the First District, Division Three. Stephen Collier, a San Francisco attorney and affordable housing advocate, argued that long-range planning was not a regulatory activity related to the purpose of the building fees. But the court said Collier's view was too limited. " ere we to adopt a too narrow definition of 'regulatory activities' in applying Government Code § 50076 , we would risk depriving municipalities of a reasonable degree of flexibility to determine whether regulatory fee revenues collected by their agencies are being spent in furtherance of the purpose for which those fees were assessed," Parrilli wrote. "That, in turn, could hinder a municipality's ability to address burdens placed on the community by the activities of certain classes of individuals. A regulatory fee, after all, ‘is enacted for purposes broader than the privilege to use a service or to obtain a permit. Rather, the regulatory program is for the protection of the health and safety of the public,'" Parrilli continued, citing California Assn. of Prof. Scientists . Michael Coleman, fiscal advisor to the League of California Cities, was unsure how commonly local governments use building fees for planning purposes. "It's certainly a favorable ruling for local governments, but it's probably too early to tell if it will result in any change in fee rates, or the amounts or use of revenues," Coleman said. Nick Cammarota, general counsel for the California Building Industry Association, said the decision may have limited implications. "It's a question of how they can spend money they have already collected," Cammarota said. "It's not a case in terms of how much you can charge in fees." The plaintiff could have argued that the amount of the fee was erroneous because it included the costs of doing things unrelated to plan check and building inspection, he said. But that was not the argument here. For more than a decade, fee revenue in San Francisco's Building Inspection Fund (BIF) exceeded the cost of operating the Department of Building Inspection. Thus, when it faced a deficit in the 2003-04 general fund, the Board of Supervisors transferred $2.53 million from the BIF to the Planning Department for long-range planning activities, which include preparing adopting and maintaining the general plan and related zoning ordinances. The board also allocated $250,000 from the BIF to the Fire Department for enforcing new sprinkler requirements in multi-family residential buildings and single-room occupancy hotels. For the 2004-05 fiscal year, the city allocated $5.8 million from the BIF for long-range planning, and $250,000 for Fire Department safety and code compliance activity. In July 2004, Collier and two other individuals who later dropped out of the litigation sued San Francisco. They argued the fee transfer amounted to a special tax prohibited by Proposition 13 and violated San Francisco's charter limiting the use of BIF revenues. San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren rejected the arguments, ruling that the city was spending the fee revenue on regulatory services that benefit, or are necessitated by, the fee payers. On appeal, Collier argued that the fees were a special tax that required two-thirds voter approval under Proposition 13. He also contended that the planning and fire departments should have assessed their own fees rather than used building inspection funds. The First District, however, found an adequate relationship between the fee's purpose and the city's expenditures. The court noted that the Department of Building Inspection referred more than half of building permit applications to the Planning Department for a determination of compliance with the zoning code and the general plan. "Given this connection between the Planning Department's long-range planning activities and the building permit approval process, we conclude the Planning Department spent the transferred BIF fee revenues for purposes related to the regulatory activities for which those building permit fees were assessed," the court ruled. The court determined the Fire Department expenditures were appropriate because the department shared responsibility for enforcing the city's sprinkler ordinance. The court further found that the fee amounts were reasonably related to the actual cost of performing the planning and fire safety functions; that the expenditures need not be traceable to individual building permit applicants; and that the fee plan did not violate the San Francisco charter. In a footnote, the court discussed AB 2936 (Aroner), which the Legislature approved in 2002 as an amendment and addition to Government Code § 66014. The court found that the measure "was intended to clarify the legality of the practice of using building permit fees to finance activities related to the general plan; the legislation did not make legal a practice that had previously been illegal." That court's acceptance of AB 2936 could embolden more local governments to charge builders for long-range planning activities. Cammarota, however, contended that the opinion does not stand for the proposition that a city may place the entire burden for funding general plan updates on new development. The Case: Collier v. City and County of San Francisco , No. A113171, 07 C.D.O.S. 6730, 2007 DJDAR 8661. Filed June 12, 2007. The Lawyers: For Collier: Mark A. White, Chapman, Popik & White, (415) 352-3000. For San Francisco: Wayne Snodgrass, city attorney's office, (415) 554-4700.

During a recent visit with my family, I vowed never again to drive my car to work. Well, at least as little as possible. They looked at me as if I was crazy. When I told them how much I enjoyed walking to work and nearby shops, they were speechless. Like my parents, I commute 30 miles to work. The difference is I live in Santa Barbara and work in Ventura. I walk six minutes from my house to the bus stop,though if it was much farther, I could take the Metro bus, which stops one block from my home. I pass the gorgeous Santa Barbara courthouse, wait outside the equally impressive downtown library and then hop on the bus to Ventura. It takes 10 minutes to walk from the Ventura bus stop to the Solimar office. It is certainly not a hard walk: both cities offer fresh ocean air, temperatures that average 70 degrees year around and great architecture. . My parents, on the other hand, live in the Woodlands, Texas, and work in Houston. They too have commuter buses, but, in a suburb like the The Woodlands, there is no public transportation. The most popular way to get to the bus stop is by car. The Woodlands does have 155 miles of hike and bike paths winding through all the different villages. But, unlike my short walk to the bus stop, it is not efficient to travel a sprawling suburb on foot. The weather is always an issue too: other than winter, it is either hot and humid or hot, humid and raining. Houston, however, has worked hard in recent years to become a very walkable city. The city has constructed new light rail lines as an addition to the already established bus system and has cleaned up the streets and sidewalks to make downtown easier for pedestrians. My parents' walk from their bus stop is only a few blocks to their office buildings, but they don't quite enjoy their walks as much as I do. This is not because downtown Houston isn't a beautiful city, but because you break a sweat the moment you step outside. And if you have longer than a few minutes walk from your bus stop, your coworkers will avoid you all day like someone eating a can of tuna. Admittedly, I wasn't too surprised by my parents' reactions to my vow of walking. In the suburbs it is hard to imagine traveling without a car. But for me in the city, a car is more of a hassle. A walk along the Central Coast of California is also very different than a stroll through the subtropical and humid forests of Southeast Texas. Every time I fly back to visit, I'm reminded how good Californians have it, especially those of us who live on the coast. There is no doubt that I see more and appreciate more when I walk to work rather than drive. - Sara Smith

There are few places more exciting than the pulsing downtown of a big city. There is a vitality and diversity that is palpable. Sure, it might be kind of noisy and dirty and crowded. But there is so much going on � commerce, entertainment, education, travel, socializing � that it's easy to overlook the grime and congestion. At the same time, there are few places more depressing than the forgotten downtown of a struggling big city. Those downtowns have the dirt, but the noise and crowds are gone. In their wake is crime, poverty, and the only thing that's palpable is a sense of hopelessness. Of course, things are not black and white. Downtown in City A is not ideal in every way and without problems, while City B's downtown is totally pathetic and beyond salvage. Manhattan may be the center of the world, but it has problems, starting with a lack of decent housing that's affordable on working class wages. Downtown Cleveland may be literally the poster child for a burned-out, abandoned central city. Yet there is new investment, including sparkling sports venues and a smattering of new housing. Determining the "best" downtowns is, of course, entirely subjective. Sure, you could count the number of jobs or museums or nightclubs with live music. But simply selecting the quantifier is a subjective exercise. Determining the "best" downtown is more of a seat-of-the-pants exercise. What does it feel like to be there? Within most states, there is little competition among big city downtowns because most states have only one or two big cities. California has no fewer than 11 cities of at least 300,000 people. (From north to south: Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Anaheim, Santa Ana and San Diego.) Some of these are world-class cities with dynamic downtowns. Some of these are the butts of many jokes. Some are both. Here then is the California Planning & Development Report ranking of the best and worst. Best Big-City (300,000-plus) Downtown in California: 1. San Francisco. A recent story in the Economist magazine, which was not altogether flattering of The City By The Bay, said, "San Francisco is, indeed, one of America's most alluring and urbane spots. Next to it, every other big city in California resembles a glorified suburb." One of the issues, however, is identifying San Francisco's "downtown." The Financial District is the core of downtown, but that's mostly a gigantic employment center. We also view Chinatown, SoMa, Nob Hill, the Tenderloin and the Civic Center as part of downtown. When you consider this larger area, it's hard to identify what could possibly be lacking � except maybe the aforementioned decent affordable housing. There are a wide variety of jobs, first-rate museums, maybe the best live theater west of New York City, world-class restaurants, popular public gather spaces, varied architecture, shopping, a scenic waterfront, public institutions and great transit. There is even a baseball stadium and growing UC campus nearby. 1. (TIE) San Diego. It probably looks like we chickened out, but we really can't decide which is better. Twenty years ago, San Diego wouldn't have been a contender. But since then it has become a downtown of unusual grace and sophistication. Beginning in the 1980s with the Horton Plaza shopping mall � admittedly a bit garish � downtown San Diego has turned into exactly the kind of lively 24/7 location planners always dream of. Horton Plaza kick-started the revitalization of the adjacent Gaslamp district, an historic area that is now home to the city's nightlife. The Gaslamp, in turn, spawned a huge construction boom in high-rise condos. There's the requisite baseball park, of course, but best of all San Diego had the first � and still the best � urban Ralphs' market anywhere. 3. Long Beach. For decades, downtown Long Beach was simply a place with potential. Many of the city's aggressive redevelopment efforts either backfired or didn't fire at all. A long-struggling, enclosed shopping mall was a cancer. A no-man's-land of vacant lots cut off downtown from the waterfront. But much of this has started to change in recent years. The mall is gone. Ethnic restaurants and shops are everywhere, often underneath new loft residences. Entertainment venues have filled in the no-man's-land and now connect downtown hotels, shops, offices and eateries with a great waterfront. There may be no West Coast downtown that is a more enjoyable place to be a pedestrian. 4. Los Angeles. Yes, downtown L.A. has been on the comeback for, oh, 50 years. It's still very much a work in progress and it's not necessarily an inviting place after hours. But while the redevelopment work continues, a lively, incredibly international community has taken over much of downtown. A walk down Broadway will have you in Korea one minute and El Salvador the next. Downtown L.A. has great restaurants and watering holes, the new Disney concert hall, the most remarkable cathedral built in America in many years, Staples Center, both classic and cutting edge architecture, and even new housing. Worst Big-City Downtown in California: Fresno. It's really not even close. Bakersfield, Oakland and Anaheim all have less-than-ideal downtowns, but none of those districts is as desperate, depressing and even threatening as downtown Fresno. The hideous 1970s office buildings are the least of the problems in Fresno's core. The place is one gigantic real estate "opportunity," and it's usually deserted after 6 o'clock. Yes, there is a nice new minor league baseball stadium, but that's about the only reason locals willingly go downtown.

Sixty million Californians? Even people who think far into the future haven't given that one much thought. Demographers are pretty accustomed to thinking that there might be 50 million Californians one day. But last week the state's demographers came out with the prediction that there would be 60 million Californians in 2050 – a little over 40 years from now. It's a prediction that does make sense on one level. After all, California has been adding about a half-million people per year for almost 70 years. The latest state forecast assumes that this trend will continue well into the future. If the forecasts are right, California's population will have increased tenfold in a century – a rate of sustained growth rarely seen in the industrialized world. Which raises two important questions: What if it happens? And What if it doesn't happen? Most people are focusing on the first. So let me focus on the second: slow population growth. It's something so unlikely that most people in California have never even thought about it. Population growth occurs when one or both of two things is going on: 1. Births outnumber deaths ("natural increase") 2. In-migration outweighs out-migration From the Gold Rush to the 1970s, California's population grew primarily because of #2. During the late '70s, believe it or not, California's population growth completely stopped because out-migration to other states began to outweigh in-migration from other states. Since then, domestic out-migration has continued to exceed in-migration, but population growth has remained strong because of international immigration (both legal and illegal) and high fertility rates among the immigrant population. But immigration and fertility rates have been slowing down during the last few years. So it's possible to imagine a time when California's population growth also slows. What would that mean? It would mean a rethinking of our landscape and our economy in a way that most Californians can't conceive. I grew up in New York State during the 1960s and ‘70s, at a time when a slowing of both population and prosperity in the Empire State was impossible to imagine. Yet it happened. New York's population hasn't changed in 40 years, and it's largely because people who grew up there (like me) tend to move away. (This has been mitigated some by international immigration, especially in New York City.) And both downstate and upstate have been up and down economically – mostly down – ever since. New York is still one of the most populous and wealthiest states. But it is not what it once was. This has required a huge adjustment in the way people think and approach public policy. Even a generation ago, everybody assumed that New York's population would still grow dramatically. It's been a particular problem Upstate, where both the population and the economy have been stagnant for 40 years. Rolf Pendall, a Cornell planning professor and former housing director at the Bay Area Council, and his colleagues once analyzed the sewer system in the Rochester area. They concluded that it was devised as a countywide system – basically, the entire county was sewered – on the assumption that the entire county would be urbanized because of population growth. What happened instead, of course, was that the county sewer system facilitated a kind of large-lot sprawl we never see in California. The population of Rochester has essentially been redistributed throughout the entire county. In Buffalo, we see a slightly different problem. There are so many local government jurisdictions and agencies that they can no longer be supported by either the population or the tax base. So leaders in the region have to think about shrinking or consolidating – which would save a lot of money and probably serve the taxpayers well, but would reduce the political base of operations of practically everybody who has to buy into the decision, which is why it hasn't happened. Can you imagine what would happen if we had to start consolidating some of our thousands of special districts here in California? Recently, a few of the smarter states and metropolitan areas in the Rust Belt – I'm thinking especially of Cleveland and Pittsburgh – have come to realize that population growth and prosperity don't necessarily go together. They are pursuing a "growth without growth" strategy. They are focusing on creating wealth even as they lose population. This, of course, is a dream that many no-growth Californians have – let's be richer but have fewer people. Like Downstate New York, California has so much wealth that it will probably be economically powerful forever, even if the population slows. But we'd have to make some difficult choices — much more difficult than today's — about how to manage our remaining prosperity and how to govern ourselves. Whenever no-growthers start talking about rampant population growth, they usually place the blame on international immigration and the high fertility rates among the immigrants. But let's not forget one thing about "natural increase." It's not simply the number of births. It's the ratio of births over deaths. And we're living longer than ever. Part of the reason that California's population is growing is that, even as babies are born, older folks are, essentially, delaying death much longer than ever before. So California will be populous in the future partly because a lot of really old people will still be alive. That is fine with me. I'll be only 95 in 2050. I'm looking forward to being waited on in restaurants by those spry 80-year-olds. - Bill Fulton

Riverside County is moving toward adopting restrictive zoning and even acquiring private property in high fire hazard areas. The county is considering the fire-safety measures at the same time that representatives of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Safety (CDF) are conducting a statewide tour to discuss new fire hazard maps. Those maps cover only areas for which CDF has primary responsibility, but the maps for Riverside County make clear that much of western and central county is fire-prone, and many high fire hazard zones extend right to the borders of fast-growing cities. In early July, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors accepted a report from a county task force spearheaded by Supervisor Bob Buster and county Fire Chief John Hawkins, a CDF employee. The report calls for updating the county general plan and adopting zoning to address fire safety. The report also recommends the county "acquire lands in developing communities to both act as greenbelts and buffers to high fire hazard areas." Buster said county supervisors have long recognized that some areas are fire-prone, but decision-makers have not had adequate maps and fire hazard analysis in front of them when making development determinations. "This is an attempt to give a clear emphasis. In the past, it has always been one consideration," Buster explained. Riverside and some other counties have certain building and landscaping standards for fire hazard areas, but planning practices have not necessarily accounted for fire hazards. Buster envisions a fire hazard overlay zone that is similar to zoning for a 100-year floodplain in which little or no development is permitted. The general plan, which the county is beginning to update, is the proper place for this consideration, he said. "One of the fundamental reasons for a general plan is public safety," said Buster. The county formed the task force in response to an October 2006 fire that killed five U.S. Forest Service firefighters attempting to protect a house in Twin Pines, in the San Jacinto Mountains. The state fire hazard severity zone maps may be eye opening to planners, developers and landowners. Some of the most fire-prone areas are also some of the fastest growing, including western and central Riverside County, San Diego County, and western Placer County. The maps are available on the CDF website . The department is scheduled to adopt the maps before year's end.

Sometimes even journalists get it right. Three weeks ago, the California Supreme Court ruled that an airport land use compatibility plan qualified for a "common sense" exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. In my story about the decision in Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission , I noted that the court applied the substantial evidence test "even though the CEQA Guidelines and previous cases suggest that an exemption is not appropriate if an argument can be made that a project may have a significant effect on the environment." I wasn't exactly saying the court got it wrong, but I did detect an apparent inconsistency. Two respected CEQA lawyers are willing to go further. They flat out say that a unanimous state Supreme Court got it wrong. More importantly, the court appears willing to listen to their arguments. Richard Jacobs, the losing attorney in the case, has asked the court for a new hearing. Susan Brandt-Hawley, whom I once heard called "petitioner's lethal weapon" in CEQA cases, has asked the court to modify its decision without changing the judgment. (Brandt-Hawley has not been involved in the case but submitted the request nonetheless.) Both attorneys point to the court's standard of review for the exemption. Shortly after the attorneys filed their requests, the court extended the period of time for reconsideration until September 19 — a sign that the justices are taking the requests very seriously. This might seem like something of interest only to CEQA fanatics. (OK, I'm one, but so are you if you're reading this.) Still, there are potentially major implications here for future development. Citing the CEQA Guidelines and more than 30 years of case law, Jacobs and Brandt-Hawley argue that the "fair argument" standard applies to any nonstatutory exemption. That means that if a fair argument can be made than an activity may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not exempt from CEQA review. The fair argument standard favors environmental analysis. On the other hand, the substantial evidence standard means that a project is exempt from review if an agency can cite enough evidence supporting the exemption. The fact that there might be contrary evidence does not necessarily matter. The substantial evidence standard is deferential to the lead agency and favors exempting projects from environmental review. If the test becomes one of substantial evidence, you can expect to see a whole lot more developers and local governments claim that their projects are exempt from CEQA. We'll let you know if the court reconsiders. - Paul Shigley