The Sierra Club's challenge of the environmental review for a large annexation by the City of Orange and a related development by the Irvine Company has been rejected by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The court turned away arguments that the environmental analysis for the Santiago Hills and East Orange projects improperly described the project, segmented environmental reviews, failed to adequately address water quality, incorrectly analyzed traffic and lacked a proper project alternatives analysis. The area in question is 6,800 acres to the east of Orange but within the city's sphere of influence. During the 1980s, the city certified a program environmental impact report and adopted the East Orange general plan for the area. In 2000, the city certified a supplemental program EIR for the 500-acre Santiago Hills II planned community. Three years later, the Irvine Company submitted an application for a general plan amendment and development entitlements. It proposed 1,700 housing units at Santiago Hills II, 1,100 units in East Orange planned community 1 (EOPC 1), 1,200 units and 212 acres of commercial development in EOPC 2, and 50 units in EOPC 3. Nearly two-thirds of the 6,800 acres would remain open space under the Irvine plan. The city prepared a combined supplemental environmental impact report for the Santiago Hills portion, and an environmental impact report for the East Orange segments. In November 2005, the City Council certified the combined SEIR/EIR, adopted a statement of overriding considerations because not all impacts could be mitigated, and approved the project. The council eliminated the 50 units in EOPC 3. The Sierra Club sued, arguing that the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Orange County Superior Court Judge Stephen Sundvold ruled for the city, and a three-judge panel of the Fourth District, Division Three, upheld the lower court. First, the court had to determine whether the Sierra Club filed the lawsuit on time. Plaintiffs have 30 days to file a CEQA suit. The city approved the project on November 8, 2005, and filed a "notice of determination" the next day. To correct mistakes, the city filed a second notice of determination on November 14, and a third on November 22. The Sierra Club sued on December 14. Irvine argued the suit was too late because it was filed more than 30 days after the initial notice of determination. The court ruled the environmentalists could rely on the second notice; therefore, the lawsuit was filed on time. On the merits, the Sierra Club argued the project description was inadequate because the SEIR/EIR acknowledged the exact boundaries of territory to be annexed were yet to be determined. The court, however, said this one statement was not conclusive. The SEIR/EIR contained a written description of the project area and maps depicting the city's sphere of influence and the project area, and described in detail all four planned community areas. "Since the SEIR/EIR reviewed the entire project area, the mere fact defendant may eventually annex only a portion of it does not render the approval an abuse of its discretion under CEQA," Justice William Rylaarsdam wrote for the court. The Sierra Club argued that the SEIR/EIR broke up impacts into separate project components as a way of minimizing significance. Irvine countered that the Sierra Club did not raise this concern during the administrative proceedings, so it could not raise it in court. The Sierra Club cited numerous pages of the administrative record and two internal documents from the period before the draft SEIR/EIR was released. But none of the Sierra Club's citations were adequate for the court, which ruled the group had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies on the matter. Comments made prior to SEIR/EIR preparation were of little use here, and other comments cited by the Sierra Club were too general to alert Orange adequately to the question segmentation, the court determined. On the issue of water quality impacts, the court again determined that the Sierra Club had forfeited part of its argument for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. The court determined the Sierra Club could raise only the issue of impacts to Irvine Lake, but concluded the group "failed to accurately summarize the relevant facts." The Sierra Club complained the SEIR/EIR contained only one vague sentence about baseline conditions at Irvine Lake. However, the court noted that an appendix to the SEIR/EIR "provides the information plaintiff contends is missing." The Sierra Club's best shot might have been on traffic. Three years ago, a different panel of Fourth District judges threw out an EIR that Orange County approved for a development in the same general vicinity because the county did not use the general plan's prescribed methodology for measuring traffic service levels ( Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orang e, (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777; see CP&DR Legal Digest , September 2005 ). The Sierra Club argued the SEIR/EIR analysis of impacts to Santiago Canyon Road should have been based on county general plan standards because the area is unincorporated. Instead, the SEIR/EIR was based on the city's general plan standards. The court found the city's approach acceptable because the city would annex the portion of Santiago Canyon Road in question were the project to move forward. The Sierra Club also contested the project alternatives analysis, arguing that more environmentally friendly alternatives were dismissed with little explanation. The court found the alternatives analysis was less than exhaustive and "may not be perfect, but it is sufficient." The Sierra Club has asked the state Supreme Court to review the case. The Case: Sierra Club v. City of Orange , No. G037999, 08 C.D.O.S. 6661, 2008 DJDAR 7956. Filed April 30, 2008. Ordered published May 30, 2008. The Lawyers: For Sierra Club: Frank Angel, (310) 314-6433. For the city: Robert Bower, Rutan & Tucker, (714) 641-5100. For Irvine Company: Christopher Garrett, Latham & Watkins, (619) 236-1234.

An appellate court has reinstated a lawsuit over environmental review of a recreational trail proposed to be built in San Mateo County. A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge had thrown out the suit because it was filed after the California Environmental Quality Act's usual 30-day statute of limitations expired. However, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled there was "reasonable probability" environmentalists could show that a 180-day statute of limitations applied here. The longer period for filing a lawsuit applies in instances where an agency approves a project without determining whether the project would have a significant impact on the environment. The group Committee for Green Foothills argued that is just what the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors did when it approved an agreement with Stanford University regarding a new alignment for a trail required by earlier project approvals. In late 2000, Santa Clara County approved a general use permit (GUP) allowing Stanford to develop 2 million square feet of academic facilities and 3,000 housing units. Condition I.2 of the GUP required Stanford to develop and maintain portions of two trail alignments across Stanford lands. In December 2005, the county Board of Supervisors approved an agreement with Stanford that was intended to satisfy condition I.2. The agreement selected a final alignment for the trails, known as the S1 and C1 trails. At issue here was the C1 trail alignment. The agreement called for the Stanford-funded trail to be developed outside of Santa Clara County in unincorporated San Mateo County and the Town of Portola Valley, provided that those jurisdictions agreed. The Committee for Green Foothills sued, arguing that the agreement approved a new trail alignment without environmental review, and instead improperly deferred environmental analysis to San Mateo County and Portola Valley. The county and Stanford responded by saying the suit was too late because CEQA prescribes a 30-day statute of limitations. The county filed a notice of determination on December 13, 2005, and a revised notice on December 20, 2005. The committee did not file its lawsuit until June 9, 2006. The trial court judge agreed with the county and Stanford that the lawsuit was too late, but a unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth District overturned the lower court's decision. The revised notice of determination described the project and referenced the EIR for the S1 trail alignment, the EIR for the GUP, and the EIR and supplemental EIR for the 1995 county trails master plan. A notice of determination is intended to follow certification of an EIR or negative declaration, and starts the 30-day statute of limitation. The Committee said that, unlike with the S1 trail — which was realigned because an earlier proposed alignment would impact riparian habitat — the C1 realignment was never subject to environmental review. The Committee argued that because the county never determined whether the new C1 alignment would impact the environment, the 30-day statute of limitations did not apply. Instead, they committee argued that a section of CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21167, subdivision (a)) applied. That section permits suits for up to 180 days after an agency approves without environmental review a project that may have a significant environmental effect. The Sixth District appeared convinced by the Committee and determined the group should at least have the opportunity to make this argument to the trail court. "It appears that the Committee may be able to allege facts showing that the proposed changes with respect to the C1 trail alignment were sufficiently substantial to require an EIR subsequent or supplemental to the GUP EIR," Justice Franklin Elia wrote for the court. "In addition, the Committee may be able to state facts indicating that the proposed subsequent activities with regard to the C1 trail alignment should have been examined in light of the program EIRs to determine whether the activities were within the scope of the project covered by the program EIRs and whether those activities had potential environmental effects not fully examined in those EIRs." The county and Stanford further argued that the committee was suing over implementation of the GUP condition, and the Government Code permits only 90 days for such suits. But the court concluded the suit was essentially a CEQA claim that was governed by the 180-day statute of limitations. Stanford and Santa Clara County have asked the state Supreme Court to review the Sixth District decision. The Supreme Court already has one CEQA statute of limitations case pending, Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton (see CP&DR Local Watch , February 2008 ; Legal Digest , May 2008 ). The Case: Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors , No. H030986, 08 C.D.O.S. 4188, 2008 DJDAR 5178. Filed April 10, 2008. The Lawyers: For the committee: William Parkin, Parkin & Wittwer, (831) 429-4055. For the county: Lizanne Reynolds, county counsel's office, (408) 299-5940. For Stanford: Barbara Schussman, Bingham McCutchen, (925) 937-8000.

A plan that alters regulations for the operation of a wastewater treatment plant that disposes of effluent into a Sierra Nevada foothills creek, rather than requiring improvements to the plant, has been upheld by the First District Court of Appeal. Anglers and environmentalists sued over the plan, arguing state water quality regulators violated the California Environmental Quality Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. But a unanimous three-judge panel of the First District, Division One, ruled for the government. Deer Creek runs through the lower foothills of El Dorado and Sacramento counties before flowing into the Cosumnes River near Elk Grove. In 1974, El Dorado Irrigation District (EID) built a wastewater treatment plant on Deer Creek below Cameron Park Lake. The treatment plant's effluent constitutes a majority of the flow in Deer Creek during much of the summer and fall. The creek was subject to the State Water Resources Control Board's plans adopted in 1989, 1994 and 1998 for the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers basin. The basin plan contained a generic "Delta 5-degree requirement," under which discharges were not permitted to raise the temperature of natural receiving waters by more than 5 degrees. Discharges from EID's treatment plant regularly exceeded the basin plan's objectives for temperature, as well as for pH and turbidity. After significant plant upgrades, the temperature of effluent remained too warm. In lieu of making further plant improvements, the district commenced a "site-specific basin plan amendment" for Deer Creek. The amendment actually provided greater temperature restrictions for the period of January through August, the time when water flows in the creek are naturally their highest. But temperature rules were relaxed for September through December. In 2003, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board accepted the amendment, and the State Water Resources Control Board approved it, as did the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water temperature is critical for salmon and trout, which require cold water environments. The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and environmentalists sued the state board to set aside the amendment and require preparation of temperature requirements that would allow salmon and trout to live in Deer Creek. A San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled for the state, a decision upheld on appeal. The First District opinion contains great detail about the facts of the case and the administrative procedure, and cites statutes and case law at length. The opinion devotes less space to analysis of the Alliance's claims. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to certified regulatory programs such as this one. Still, CEQA's broad policy goals and substantive standards do apply, so the regional and state boards follow an environmental review process that is the functional equivalent of CEQA. The Alliance argued the study approved by the regional board was the equivalent of a negative declaration — a document that may be prepared when a project would have no significant environmental impacts. Supporting the Alliance's argument was a regional board checklist. A box was marked next to the statement, "The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a negative declaration will be prepared." Despite the checklist, the court found the regional board prepared a full environmental study based on scientific studies and consultation with other public agencies and experts. "This is not a case in which the regional board merely offered a checklist that denied the project would have any environmental impact and ‘obviously intended its documentation to be the functional equivalent of a negative declaration,'" Justice Douglas Swager wrote for the court, citing City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Board , (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1423. "Rather, when read in its entirety the report demonstrates that the regional board considered all significant implications on the environment of the decision to adopt the proposed site-specific temperature amendments, in the nature of a full EIR, before finding that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on Deer Creek water quality objectives." The court also ruled that there was nothing about the marked checklist that misled the public. Regarding the Porter-Cologne Act, the Alliance argued that there was "undisputed and overwhelming" evidence that rainbow trout had historically inhabited Deer Creek, and that salmon could spawn in the waterway. These were "beneficial uses" that Porter-Cologne required state officials to protect, the Alliance argued. That assertions about trout conflicted with the conclusion of a state fisheries biologist. He said Deer Creek has not provided for a viable, self-sustaining population of rainbow trout before or after construction of the wastewater treatment plant. Swager called this "a classic case of conflicting evidence," which the appellate court was required to resolve in favor of the prevailing party at the trial court — namely, the state board. The court also rejected the Alliance's argument that the amendment would cause conditions that prevent salmon from migrating upstream into Deer Creek. The Case: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. State Water Resources Control Board , No. A117494, 08 C.D.O.S. 3259, 2008 DJDAR 3931. Filed March 21, 2008 For the Alliance: Greg Loarie, Earthjustice, (510) 550-6725. For the state board: William Jenkins, attorney general's office, (415) 703-5527.

Are the exurbs dead? You'd think so, based on all the publicity about plummeting home prices in California – and the rapidly increasing price of gasoline. In the short run, it is probably true that we'll see big housing price drops in the exurbs and construction will stop almost completely. The question is whether long-term California real estate prices will ever recover enough – and whether gas prices will stabilize enough – to make the exurbs competitive again. But there's another issue: whether better-located but troubled close-in suburbs can bounce back too. In many cases, they've been even harder hit. A year ago, the average home price in the state was $450,000 and gas was around three bucks a gallon. Today, the average home price is around $330,000 – and gas is moving steadily toward five bucks a gallon. The obvious conclusion here is that if you bought an overpriced exurban home on a subprime mortgage with the intent of commuting a long way to your job, you're screwed. And it's clear that a lot of people in this situation are screwed. Home prices have dropped more precipitously throughout inland California than in the coastal areas. DataQuick reported that prices dropped by 28-30% in May from the same month a year ago in Riverside and San Bernardino counties but by only 20-23% in the coastal counties of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego. Sacramento dropped by 35%, while San Francisco held almost even and Marin actually went up. Beneath the headlines are a few subtleties. The biggest wrinkle is that it's not just the exurbs that are hurting. There are lots of places – in all kinds of locations – that have been hard-hit by the subprime crisis. It's really not about location so much as it is about demography. In the Sacramento region, for example, the hardest-hit location has not been an exurb in some outlying county but Elk Grove, located only 15 miles to the south of job-rich downtown Sacramento. Almost 80% of recent home sales in Elk Grove have been of houses in foreclosure. Another hard-hit location has been Sacramento's Natomas area, located just over the American River from the Capitol. Both Elk Grove and Natomas are well-located in the metro area and close to jobs. But they were magnets for young renter families using teaser mortgages to get into a house. There was another type of location that was slammed by the subprime market – older, built-out, largely poor communities. One of the biggest price drops in Los Angeles County occurred in Compton. And in San Bernardino County, according to DataQuick, the home price drop in San Bernardino city zip codes (54%) far outweighed the drop in the High Desert (around 40%). Compton is extremely well-located in relation to jobs but, of course, has a reputation, deserved or not, as poor and crime-ridden. San Bernardino is much closer to Inland Empire and even Orange County jobs than the High Desert, but suffers from a similar reputation. So, really, the subprime mess creates two different problems for communities. The first is whether the exurbs can hang on to the ledge until the housing market comes back. And the second is whether the close-in suburbs – whether new like Elk Grove and Natomas or old like San Bernardino and Compton – will get bailed out by their locational advantage. Let's take the exurbs first. Conventional wisdom would suggest that any California exurb will be a long-term winner. After all, there are only so many places to build. Demand is still strong. People still want single-family homes and what they perceive to be good school districts. And jobs are gradually dribbling out of the coastal areas to inland locations. All this may be true, but it really depends on how strongly and quickly the housing market bounces back all across the states. The exurbs thrived during the '80s but suffered during the '90s when a big recession caused home prices to drop and construction to fall off. The result was not just half-built subdivisions in the exurbs, but a big move back toward the coast. Anybody who had a coastal job and could afford to move closer did so. This will surely happen again -- now that the average home price in Anaheim, for example, has dropped below $400,000. You would think, of course, that over time an exurb would become better positioned in the metropolitan constellation as all the other "moving parts" shift. This was certainly true of the postwar suburbs such as the San Fernando Valley, the San Mateo County Peninsula, and Orange County. And it has been true of some '80s suburbs that have gone high-end, such as Pleasanton and Santa Clarita. But the experience of the true '80s exurbs in the recent bust does not send an encouraging signal. In both the Antelope Valley and Moreno Valley – the signature '80s exurbs – home prices have dropped by more than 40% during the last year. They were exurbs 20 years ago and apparently they still are – to their detriment. So it would seem the recovery of the exurbs will be long and slow, and it is unlikely that all those subdivisions in the High Desert and the Central Valley and the Coachella Valley will get built anytime soon (see CP&DR Local Watch , December 2007 ). Exurbs may not become slums, as Christopher Leinberger of the Brookings Institution has predicted, but they will be sub-par real estate performers for a long time. In many ways, the more interesting question is what happens to the Comptons and San Bernardinos. After all, they have location on their side – and location is presumed to be an enormous advantage these days. It's true that over the last generation, the old assumption that affluent folks will keep moving farther out and their previous housing will "filter down" to less affluent folks has been debunked in many cases. But mostly this has occurred because middle-class suburbs – if they have some locational advantage – have gone rich. This has been true of Pasadena, Santa Monica and parts of the San Fernando Valley and, again, the San Mateo County Peninsula. What hasn't happened much is the gentrification of older suburbs of modest means. In other words, up to now, location hasn't been enough for these places to thrive. But in a world where traffic is congested and gas is five bucks a gallon, that could change. I'd say as traveling gets harder and more expensive, San Bernardino is a better bet than the High Desert, and Compton a better bet than the Antelope Valley.

Coastal wetlands used to cover a huge swath of Southern California's coast, serving as a sanctuary for wildlife and plants. But today one is hard pressed to find many wetlands left in this urbanized section of the state, where homes, marinas and ports long ago replaced native habitat. While wide, sandy beaches and rocky tide pools are part of the Southern California landscape, quieter wetlands with estuaries, marshes and sand dunes are harder to find. That might explain why coastal wetland habitat is prized in the region. One effort to preserve and re-create coastal wetlands is happening in Oxnard in Ventura County, where state and local officials have struggled to bring back a two-mile stretch of Ormond Beach. When finished, 750-acre Ormond Beach will be a significant addition to the regional wetlands inventory. But it's been a bumpy path to get there, and more bumps — in the form of adjacent urban development — remain. The largest city in Ventura County with approximately185,000 residents, Oxnard for years was a dumping ground of unwanted industrial uses. In the past generation, though, the city has focused on more desirable development and cultivating its coastal location. Ormond Beach reflects the city's past, containing the city's wastewater treatment plan, a power plant, a paper mill and even a Superfund site on its border. But it is also home to at least six endangered or threatened species, and more than 200 species of migratory birds are found there. Local environmentalists pushed for restoration of Ormond Beach for many years, and in 1999, the California Coastal Conservancy began purchasing land. The conservancy has spent $25 million on land purchases and planning for the restoration of the site, according to Peter Brand, senior project manager for the conservancy. The conservancy has already bought 540 acres, with plans to acquire more. A feasibility study for restoring the beach area is scheduled for completion this summer, Brand said, followed by more developmental studies before construction begins. A better-known wetlands restoration project in Southern California is at Bolsa Chica in Huntington Beach, a project that Brand said cost $145 million (see CP&DR In Brief , May 2005 ; Environment Watch , January 2002 ). Bolsa Chica's restoration costs were high due to its location next to busy Pacific Coast Highway and oil fields. Ormond Beach, in contrast, is located away from most development in Oxnard. It lies south of Port Hueneme and north of the 1,500-acre Pt. Mugu Lagoon. When Ormond Beach is restored, the combined wetlands will be the largest in Southern California. "The Ormond Beach wetlands restoration project is larger than the other big coastal wetland restorations on the south coast like Bolsa Chica, Ballona, Batiquitos and San Dieguito," said Brand. "The biggest difference between Ormond Beach and Ballona and all these other projects is not just size, but that we can restore something close to the historic extent and function. … The others don't have that opportunity because of existing development." The biggest problem at Ormond Beach is probably the Halaco scrap metal facility, which operated next to the wetlands until 2004. Environmentalists fought for years to get Halaco to close after the plant was found to have caused both air and water pollution. Halaco's legacy is a 40-foot-high, 28-acre mountain of toxic slag that remains on the fenced-off site. Brand said drainage from Halaco's site is a problem for restoring the wetlands. The site was added to the federal Superfund cleanup list in 2007, but due to limited federal funding, clean up may take many years. A federal lawsuit brought against Halaco by two environmental groups, Channelkeeper and the Environmental Defense Center, is in the process of winding down. "Channelkeeper and the Environmental Defense Center have concluded that the Environmental Protection Agency can handle it from here," said Daniel Cooper, an attorney for the groups. "It's time for us to get out." While the bulk of development in Oxnard is far from Ormond Beach, two projects proposed near the area have alarmed environmentalists who fear that more development will hurt the wetlands restoration. The projects, which may be considered by the Oxnard City Council in the next year, are a 1,300 unit residential project called SouthShore, and a 287-acre industrial park. The housing project is especially of concern to environmentalists, who fear that the residents and their pets will disturb the nests of endangered birds at Ormond Beach. But Matthew Winegar, Oxnard's director of development services, does not share the concern about adding residents to the area. "The beach has never been a recreational beach," he said. "The wetlands didn't extend to SouthShore," Brand, of the Coastal Conservancy, said. "That's one project we've pretty much ignored." The industrial park also is not considered a big problem by everyone, although potential flooding of that site is a worry. David Armstrong, whose firm serves as land use consultants to the city as it plans for the industrial park, said industrial parks are usually raised above natural sea levels. He said the industrial park is a compatible use for the property, which had been zoned for residential use but is currently farmland. The project would also provide 3,200 jobs in a poor area, he said. Brand said the Coastal Conservancy hopes to buy some of the farmland adjacent to the beach, but no deal has been struck. Winegar said stormwater runoff will either percolate into the ground or, during larger storms, be treated to prevent harm to the wetlands. He doubts the industrial land will be turned into parkland. "I don't think there will be enough money to go around," he said. Some environmentalists are also concerned that a proposed $55 million overhaul of the city's water system could impact Ormond Beach by allowing these developments and others to occur on the edges of Ormond Beach. The project is reliant on federal enabling legislation that has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives, according to Al Sanders, conservation chair of the Los Padres Chapter of the Sierra Club. Federal funding for the project is still pending in Congress. Sanders bemoaned the time the Ormond Beach project has taken to complete. "It really has been a citizen driven effort," he said. "We don't have any elected officials who have taken this on as their cause celebre. The biggest problem is the lack of direction on what should happen." Contacts: Peter Brand, California Coastal Conservancy, (510) 286-4162. Matthew Winegar, City of Oxnard (805) 385-7896. Al Sanders, Sierra Club, (805) 488-7988. David Armstrong, Armstrong Real Estate Advisors, (310) 600-6682. Daniel Cooper, Environmental Defense Center, (415) 440-6520. The Case: Santa Barbara Channelkeeper and Environmental Defense Center v. Halaco , U.S. District Court case no. CV01-00456CAS(MCX).

The city with the best vacation downtown is the Rodney Dangerfield of beach towns. It gets no respect, and it is often overshadowed by its more glamorous neighbor. Still, Carpinteria has the best downtown for a vacation in California. We'll tell you why. Summer vacation season is officially upon us. People have very different concepts of what makes for a great vacation, although "getting away from it all" is a common thread. But even when you're headed to the middle of nowhere, it's often nice to find a town with a number of conveniences. And, of course, plenty of people seek out big cities across the globe for their vacations. With this in mind, we have chosen the best vacation city downtowns for our next installment in CP&DR 's ongoing best downtowns series. (Earlier, we ranked the best big-city downtowns , mid-sized city downtowns , small downtowns in the Central Valley , and convention city downtowns .) What makes for a great vacation city downtown? Obviously, it has to have bread and circuses, as well as lodging. Variety is essential: greasy spoons and white tablecloths; dive bars and jazz clubs; T-shirt shacks, art galleries and unique shops; motels, hotels, B&Bs and condos. You can get all of that in most vacation areas. But a great vacation city downtown must also be walkable and/or bikeable. Good public and quasi-public spaces are crucial for vacationers in need of places to linger. Most of all, the downtown needs to be a place where you want to spend time, because who wants to waste precious vacation hours navigating traffic from attraction to attraction? We Californians are lucky to have so many great vacation destinations close-by. People come from all over the world to enjoy our coastal cities and vacation hamlets. This makes our job of choosing the best particularly difficult. But, for the benefit of our loyal readers, we're only too happy to take a vacation. The best downtowns for a vacation in California: Overall Winner: Carpinteria. This beach town of 14,000 people is only 15 miles down Highway 101 from the much more famous Santa Barbara. But what makes Carpinteria a great vacation downtown is this: It's dead flat, and the beach is connected to the downtown in a seamless transition � interrupted only slightly by the railroad tracks � down Linden Avenue, the main drag. On the beach side of the tracks lie a variety of pretty typical beach-town attractions: Beachfront condos and houses for rent by the week; a nice state park facing the beach; a wonderfully groomed beach, perfect for lazing around; and the requisite burger joint, The Spot (flip-flops required). On the landward side, there are a number of slightly-more-upscale restaurants such as The Palms (where you cook your own meat) and, a little closer to the freeway, the inevitable Starbucks. There are also a few souvenir shops. There is also a supermarket, a drug store, and other places you might actually need in real life. Because Carpinteria so small, walking everywhere is easy; because it's so flat, biking everywhere is even easier. In other words, it's an old-fashioned, functioning downtown with a beach attached. Best of all, you can leave your car at home. Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner provides five trains a day in each direction. Step off at the station, and it's three blocks in one direction to the beach and three blocks in the other to the heart of downtown. Best in the wine country: Healdsburg. We'll concede that Healdsburg is an upstart among wine country destination cities, but that's part of its appeal. Healdsburg is an old farm town that has not been completely consumed by the chi-chi wine-and-brie set. Downtown centers on a classic town square park, which is frequently the site of festivals and art exhibits. Lodging ranges from mom-and-pop, 1950s-style motels to $500-a-night, ultra-hip hotels. Likewise, restaurants vary from order-at-the-counter Mexican places popular with field hands to four-star dining experiences. Buy a T-shirt for $5, or browse a store where items on the sale rack start at "only" $100. Suck on a Coors Light at a dive with a classic rock jukebox, or sip a Cosmo while a jazz trio plays on the heated patio. And here's one thing we love: You can walk out the door of your motel, hotel or B&B and down the street to a number of comfortable places to taste world-class wine. No drinking-and-driving necessary. Plus, Bear Republic Brewing Company has a great ales and pub grub. When you want to work off all that wine, beer and food, hop on a bike (your own or a rental) and head out on any one of a number of great country roads through the vineyards and oak woodlands. Honorable mentions: � Sonoma. A great town square and a mission are highlights in this upscale destination city. � Calistoga. Lincoln Avenue has everything for visitors and locals, and is alive from morning through night. Best in the mountains: Mammoth Lakes. For many years, Mammoth was a ski resort in the winter and early spring, and dead in the summertime. No more. This is a four-season town that's busy year-round. Downtown may be a little difficult to discern, but it is essentially an L that runs along Mammoth Road and Main Street. It's arguably a little too spread out for walking, but when there isn't 6 feet of snow on the ground, the place is a joy for cyclists because of the all the bike trails. In fact, proximity is everything at Mammoth. The village gondola will carry you from the top of Main Street to the resort. Ambitious cyclists may walk about the door, clip into their pedals and ride forever through the mountains. There are golf courses and parks right in town (and plenty of trout in Mammoth Creek), and there's even a skate park along Main Street. Lodging and restaurants span the gamut, although everybody seems to end up at Roberto's at some point. Add to this mix a growing artists' community, a touch of nightlife and a seemingly endless series of events and festivals. Honorable mention: � Mount Shasta. A downtown oriented toward outdoor adventure sits at the base of the 14,000-foot mountain. Best on the beach (besides Carpenteria): Laguna Beach. This Orange County town is a quintessential California artists' enclave and is often called the California Riviera. The city has many art galleries and hosts three summer-long art festivals. The city is most famous for its Pageant of the Masters, in which actors "reenact" famous paintings and sculptures on stage. � The dozens of coves and warm seasonal water temperatures make the beaches some of the best anywhere. Laguna is a mecca for scuba divers and surfers, as Laguna boasts the best water clarity in mainland California. The south-facing nature of most beaches make them great for picking up end-of-summer south swells from hurricanes off Mexico. Here's the part we particularly like: The sand, surf and festivals are located within walking distance or a free electric tram ride of the beachfront downtown, which is a charmingly manageable scale for pedestrians. Heck, Main Beach Park (a popular� beachfront gathering place full of public art) and Heisler Park (a two-mile-long greenway) are across the street from downtown shops. This proximity is essential because Pacific Coast Highway gridlock makes driving a total drag; besides, you don't want to give up a parking spot once you've found one. Honorable mentions: � Santa Barbara. An easy place to see and do things without a car. You could spend two or three days simply exploring State Street. � Santa Cruz. Although locals may have mixed opinions, downtown Santa Cruz is more inviting to visitors since it was rebuilt following the 1989 earthquake. Best big city: San Diego. We have to be careful, because downtown San Diego could win just about any category we think up. Still, the place is ideal for a long weekend or even a week. Take a cab from the airport or, better yet, ride into town on Amtrak. You won't need a car, as you may get everywhere you need by walking, grabbing one of those bicycle rickshaws or hopping on the trolley. There's the Gaslamp Quarter's dining and nightlife, the renewed waterfront, the baseball stadium, shopping at Horton Plaza, Little Italy's eclectic India Street, some spectacular architecture, decent museums, etc. If you can't find something to do in downtown San Diego, you're not trying very hard. And the weather's always perfect. Honorable mention: San Francisco. Downtown is dominated by the financial district, which isn't very interesting if you're not wearing a suit. But vacationers don't have to go far to find endless food, drink, culture and entertainment. Just don't go to Pier 39. Best for alternative lifestyles: Guerneville. Best known for nearly getting washed away by the Russian River every few years, this Sonoma County getaway has long been popular with both gays and straights from the Bay Area. Main Street is packed with galleries, working spaces for artists and artisans, restaurants and watering holes. Naturally, there is great access to the river, where beaches and the shallow waters of summer and fall provide an ideal place to laze away the afternoon. Hop on your bike, and in about 10 minutes you'll be at Korbel, where Champagne, beer (seriously), a deli and gorgeous grounds await. Honorable mention: � Palm Springs. Palm Canyon Drive is rocking at night. Best chi-chi vacation: Carmel. In the last couple of decades, Carmel (technically Carmel-By-The-Sea) has evolved from quaint to cloying. The locals, including the regular visitors, are pretty smug about how precious it is. But generally speaking, they are right to be so smug: Carmel is one of the best tiny downtowns to visit for a vacation. It's compact, not too dense, and has lots of great shops and restaurants, as well as some extraordinarily expensive B&Bs. There's topographic interest � it's hilly, but not overly so � and the ocean is down at the end of the street. The place is so pedestrian-friendly you never notice all that money leaving your wallet as you walk down the street. Honorable mention: � St. Helena. Yountville may have a greater number of renowned restaurants, but St. Helena has plenty of its own, and the downtown is fun whether or not you can afford a $100 bottle of wine. Most disappointing: South Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe is one of the most beautiful places in the world. The City of South Lake Tahoe is not. There is no real downtown, just a few jam-packed arterials on which walking and bicycling (let alone driving) are no fun. Things are too spread out for walking anyway. Old motels with lots of deferred maintenance, cheesy souvenir stands and fast food drive-throughs predominate. The locals know this, which is why redevelopment is a high priority for the city. We're all for it. - CP&DR staff

Cities, counties and other agencies approving plans and projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act may not ignore greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. That's the bottom line contained in a technical advisory issued Thursday by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Meanwhile, on Friday the California Air Resources Board issued protocols for local governments to follow in quantifying and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from their own activities. The OPR advisory document says that lead agencies must quantify or estimate greenhouse gas emissions from a project, determine whether those emissions are individually or cumulatively significant, and if so, identify project alternatives or impose mitigation measures. If full mitigation is not feasible, the lead agency must adopt a statement of overriding consideration that explains why further mitigation is infeasible, according to OPR. The advisory document is important because it eliminates the argument that emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) is too speculative an issue to be addressed in environmental review documents, said Brian Nowicki, California climate policy director for the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Nowicki's organization has sued several cities that did not consider GHG emissions while reviewing proposed developments. "Hearing this come from the administrative branch is helpful," Nowicki said. "I think we will see a change over a very short period of time." While environmentalists appeared to be thrilled with the OPR advisory, the building industry was not celebrating. "We won't be able to comment on it until we have had a chance to review it carefully," California Building Industry Association spokesman John Frith said. The advisory specifies "three basic steps" for CEQA compliance: 1) Identify and quantify GHG emissions. 2) Assess the significance of those emissions. 3) If the impact is significant, identify project alternatives or mitigation measures that will reduce the impact below significant. On the first point, OPR urges lead agencies to "make a good-faith effort, based on available information" to calculate emissions from a project, including emissions from: • Traffic • Energy consumption • Water usage and • Construction activities. An attachment to the OPR advisory directs practitioners to modeling tools that are readily available for calculating emissions. The question of significance may be the trickiest. The OPR advisory says, "As with any environmental impact, lead agencies must determine what constitutes a significant impact. In the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact,' individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice." Although OPR has asked the California Air Resources Board to recommend methods of setting thresholds of significance, the air board has not yet provided such guidance. Determining whether a project contributes to cumulative impacts may be even trickier. The OPR advisory says that not every project which emits GHG must be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact, and says reliance on previously approved plans and mitigation programs may be adequate. Documentation is critical. On the final point, OPR states that mitigation should vary depending on the project, "but may include alternative project designs or locations that conserve energy and water, measures that reduce vehicle miles traveled by fossil-fueled vehicles, measures that contribute to established regional programmatic mitigation strategies, and measures that sequester carbon." The advisory also includes a three-page attachment of potential mitigation measures. At the top of the list: "Implement land use strategies to encourage jobs/housing proximity, promote transit-oriented development, and encourage high-density development along transit corridors." The advisory document is set in the context of AB 32 and SB 97. Approved in 2006, the former bill requires California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to cut emissions further in future decades. The latter bill, approved in 2007, amended CEQA "to clearly establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis," according to the OPR advisory. Guidelines for mitigating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by SB 97, are in process at OPR and must by law be adopted by the Resources Agency by January 1, 2010. The technical advisory on CEQA and climate change is available on the OPR website at: http://www.opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=sch/announcements.html

An environmental impact report for the Cal-Fed Bay-Delta project has been upheld by the state Supreme Court. The unanimous decision was at least somewhat academic because the Cal-Fed process has essentially halted. Still, the court appeared to signal that it would defer to policymakers on Delta water and environmental policy, and to agencies that certify broad program environmental impact reports. In upholding the Cal-Fed EIR, the state high court overturned a Third District Court of Appeal decision rejecting the environmental study (see CP&DR Legal Digest , November 2005 ). The appellate panel determined the program EIR (which also served as an environmental impact statement to meet federal law) was inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the PEIR did not consider the alternative of reduced water exports from the Delta, failed to identify water that would be used to carry out the program, and did not provide details of an "environmental water account." The state Supreme Court ruled that Cal-Fed directors had good reason to dismiss a reduced water export alternative as infeasible, and ruled that a program EIR for a project as large as Cal-Fed need not provide the details on which the Third District insisted. Those details could be postponed until specific projects to carry out the larger program were proposed, the court determined. "The PEIS/R complied with CEQA by identifying potential sources of water and analyzing the associated environmental effects in general terms. The level of detail contained in the PEIS/R's impact analysis was consistent with its first-tier programmatic nature," Justice Joyce Kennard wrote for the court. "By compelling Cal-Fed at the first-tier stage to provide greater detail about potential sources of water for second-tier projects, the Court of Appeal's decision undermined the purpose of tiering and burdened the program EIR with detail that would be more feasibly given and more useful at the second-tier stage." Fourteen years ago, 18 federal and state agencies with management or regulatory authority over the Delta signed the Bay-Delta accord with the idea of solving numerous water and environmental concerns to everyone's satisfaction. In 2000, the state resources secretary certified the program EIS/EIR and approved the 30-year Cal-Fed program. Although portions of the program advanced — mostly environmental restoration upstream from the Delta — Cal-Fed has withered during recent years. Some government funding never materialized and new efforts at planning for water and the Delta emerged. Now, the governor's Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force is formulating policy, while various state and local entities work on a Delta habitat plan and Delta flood control plans. Pending state legislation would essentially end the state's role in Cal-Fed. "There is no more formal Cal-Fed process that will build on this decision," said attorney James Moose, who represented the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in the litigation. "No one is using this EIR anymore. But there is the Bay-Delta conservation plan process that is going forward, and this decision will provide guidance." What is important, said Moose, is the court's deferred to Cal-Fed officials on the fundamental purpose of the project. Environmentalists as well as the Regional Council of Rural Counties, both of whom sued over the Cal-Fed EIR, argued that a reduced water export alternative should have been considered — an argument that the Third District accepted. But the state high court disagreed. "As the Court of Appeal correctly pointed out, an EIR should not exclude an alternative from detailed consideration merely because it ‘would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives,'" Kennard wrote, citing California Code of Regulations 14 § 15126.6, subdivision (b). "But an EIR need not study in detail an alternative that is infeasible or that the lead agency has reasonably determined cannot achieve the project's underlying fundamental purpose." "Cal-Fed's determinations that an integrated water solution was necessary to the success of the program, and that the water supply objective could not feasibly be achieved with a reduced exports alternative, are supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the rule of reason," Kennard continued. Richard Frank, director of University of California, Berkeley's Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said he was struck by the first eight pages of the court's opinion, which contain sweeping statements about water policy, the plight of the Delta and government's failure to resolve the issues. "Justice Kennard and the court were speaking to a larger constituency," said Frank, a member of the governor's Delta Vision task force. Frank said he has commended the opinion to the task force. The court, said Moose, placed provision of water on the same footing as environmental protection. Environmentalists decried the high court's decision. Since the Cal-Fed EIR was adopted in 2000, Delta-dependent fish species have declined, as has water supply reliability, said Mindy McIntyre, water program manager for the Planning & Conservation League, one of the plaintiffs. "This tragic history clearly dispels the myth that Delta ecosystem restoration can be achieved alongside ever-increasing levels of freshwater export," she said. As for potential CEQA precedent, Moose said the court provided some standards for program EIRs. The decision indicates that an emphasis on a project's essential objectives is important, he said. The decision also indicates that the court is willing to uphold a program EIR, even one involving water. Last year, the court rejected a program EIR in Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova , (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412 (see CP&DR , March 2007 ). In Vineyards , the court ruled that the program EIR should have described long-term water sources for a 20,000-unit development, and the impacts of using those sources, in more detail. Unlike Vineyards , where decision-makers knew water would be needed for a certain number of housing units, the Cal-Fed program was designed to be flexible. Thus, Cal-Fed appropriately deferred analysis of specific water projects such as sales and transfers until those projects were identified and could be studied in detail, the court determined. The decision is the state Supreme Court's fourth CEQA ruling in two years and came out only two weeks after the court upheld the environmental review of three timber harvest plans (see next Legal Digest item). Three other CEQA cases are pending at the court. The court "is really engaging in CEQA to a far greater degree than at any other time," Frank observed. "I think it's part of a renewed interest by the court in environmental policy and law in general." The Case: In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings , No. S138974, 08 C.D.O.S. 6822, 2008 DJDAR 8241. Filed June 5, 2008. The Lawyers: For California Farm Bureau Federation: Alan Bick, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, (949) 451-3800 For Regional Council of Rural Counties: James Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe, (415) 371-8500. For State of California: Danae Aitchison, attorney general's office, (916) 322-5522.

The California Supreme Court has upheld three timber harvest plans that an appellate court had found to be in violation of the state Forest Practices Act and the California Department of Forestry's functional equivalent of the California Environmental Quality Act. The state high court ruled the analysis of cumulative impact on two rare species was adequate, as was an analysis of likely herbicide use. While it appeared the Department of Forestry (CDF) was initially reluctant to address in detail issues raised by environmentalists, CDF in the end provided information and analysis, primarily in responses to comments on the draft timber harvest plans. The disputed timber harvest plans were proposed for land in Tuolumne County owned by Sierra Pacific Industries, the largest private landowner in the state. Sierra Pacific proposed to harvest three sites of 534, 441 and 394 acres in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In April 2002, CDF approved all three timber harvest plans (THPs). Two environmental groups sued, arguing that CDF had violated the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Tuolumne County Superior Court judge ruled against the groups, but in 2006 the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the lower court. The appellate panel ruled that a cumulative impact analysis regarding the California spotted owl and the Pacific fisher failed to comply with regulations implementing the Forest Practices Act, and that CDF should have addressed the "reasonably foreseeable" use of herbicides. The state Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal decision. On the issue of cumulative impacts, environmentalists argued that Sierra Pacific's THPs did not consider a broad enough area. The appellate court found that the THPs violated the Forest Practices Act Technical Rule Addendum No. 2, which requires that "biological assessment areas will vary with the species being evaluated and its habitat." The environmentalists were right "in a formalistic sense," Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote for the state high court. The analysis defined "planning watersheds" of several thousand acres around each proposed timber harvest site, and the discussion of cumulative impacts did not designate by name different assessment areas for the owl and the fisher. "When one reads the THPs for substance , however, a different picture emerges," Werdegar wrote. he THPs, as well as CDF's response to comments on them, actually discuss potential cumulative impacts on the California spotted owl and Pacific fisher over areas of the Sierra Nevada much more extensive than the designated planning watersheds." " he regulation directing timber harvest plan preparers to follow the technical addendum also directs them to be ‘guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness,'" Werdegar continued. "In that light, we believe the technical addendum is properly read to direct that a timber harvest plan's cumulative-impacts assessment be reasonably tailored, in geographic scope as in other respects, to the species under decision, but not to require rigid adherence to a particular analytical process." Regarding the use of herbicides — timber companies often apply herbicide after harvesting timber so that scrub brush does not overwhelm newly planted seedling trees — Sierra Pacific initially said that herbicide use was "entirely too speculative" to be considered in the THPs. CDF appeared to agree, saying that it was not required to analyze in a THP the use of herbicides and that the Department of Pesticide Regulation's programs would address the issues. The court said that CDF could not simply defer to another agency and had a duty "to approve, disapprove and impose mitigation measures on timber harvest plans, including measures to address the foreseeable use of herbicides in planned silvicultural operations." Although CDF initially declined to address herbicide use, in fact the agency's response to comments contains "an extended consideration of the ‘cumulative watershed or biological effects' of using any of six herbicides in silviculture," the court noted. "CDF thus did not erroneously rely on the Department of Pesticide Regulation's regulatory program and fail to conduct its own environmental impacts assessment." The court's ruling centered on process and did not address the question of whether substantial evidence supported CDF's conclusions in the THPs. In a footnote, Werdegar wrote, "We have not attempted to weigh the parties' competing factual claims in this case." Environmentalists complained that the court ruling elevated process over substance. Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center Executive Director John Buckley called the decision a "technical, procedural ruling that accepts the current level of paperwork analysis." But Sierra Pacific attorney Edgar Washburn told the Los Angeles Daily Journal that is was environmentalists who were arguing "any technical error is grounds to invalidate" a timber harvest plan. He praised the court for allowing CDF to exercise discretion while evaluating plans. The Case: Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection , No. S143689, 08 C.D.O.S. 6184, 2008 DJDAR 7481. Filed May 22, 2008. The Lawyers: For Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch: Thomas Lippe, (415) 777-5600. For CDF: Charles Getz IV, attorney general's office, (415) 703-5500. For Sierra Pacific Industries: Edgar Washburn, Morrison & Foerster, (415) 268-7860.

I've always known that there are limits to celebrity in the world of urban planning. You write a book or two, people get to know your name, they ask you to come and give a speech, you make ‘em laugh, and maybe – maybe – they'll give you a couple of bucks for showing up. In a small professional field where nobody's very rich, that's the best you can hope for. In other words, people might know who you are, but you're not really a star. Which is kind of a problem when the professional planners decide to have a conference in a place where you can find real stars – Hollywood. This fall, California planners will converge on Hollywood for their annual and apparently not-very-star-studded event . But it seems as if they are having a tough time figuring out who the headliners should be. In a YouTube video uploaded by the conference organizers – intended to be a parody of "The Office" – a group of nerdy planners are depicted sitting around a conference table discussing which "stars" to invite. One nerd suggests inviting me , since I'm apparently a star in the pint-sized constellation of California planning. Another nerd says he never heard of me and suggests William Shatner instead. William Shatner over me ? I'm not hurt by this. Honest. But it does raise the question of who planners in California really want to hear – or should want to hear – when they gather together in Hollywood. After all, nowhere else on the planet do planning and celebrity collide in quite the same way. You might want Shatner as your keynote, for example, but you definitely want George Takei , who played Mr. Sulu on Star Trek , on your transportation breakout session. He was appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley many years ago to serve on the board of the Regional Transit District, the predecessor to L.A. Metro. (Because he was a … transportation expert ?) And while you're at it, you might want to pick up 88-year-old Ray Bradbury for the urban design breakout, because he grew up skateboarding just outside the Paramount gate and has spent the past several decades talking about what the urban future of Los Angeles might be like. (Because he's an expert on … cities that don't exist ? Now that's the kind of speaker planners need to hear!) But even these huge stars fade in the firmament of Hollywood when compared with the most obvious candidate for keynote speaker at the fall conference: that eminent land-use expert Angelyne . Okay, Angelyne – blonde and comically buxom -- is really better known as a real estate investor. She invests in Hollywood billboards advertising herself, thereby making her a celebrity whose main claim to fame is making herself a celebrity. That alone ought to qualify her as a keynote speaker at any conference in Hollywood. Traditionally, Angelyne hasn't flaunted her land-use knowledge. But all that changed recently when no less than the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency turned her life upside down. For several years, the CRA has been working with Dallas-based Gatehouse Capital Corp. on a $ 600 million redevelopment project at the Hollywood & Vine Red Line station. And in order to build the W Hotel as part of the project, the wrecking ball came down on … the building on Selma Avenue where Angelyne had her mailbox. The mailbox where everybody writes her fan letters and from which she sells the trinkets that pay her bills. Well, Angelyne raised a stink, saying it would cost 400 grand to reprint her letterhead. And because Angelyne is famous for being famous, her stink got some ink in the local press. The end result was a deal in which Gatehouse will allow Angelyne to continue receiving mail at the same address … even though it will now be the W Hotel. She's also getting money. All of which suggests that maybe Angelyne is smarter than she looks. Which, frankly, I always thought was a prerequisite for being a keynote speaker. So go ahead, push me out of the way and replace me with a buxom blonde. If that's the way those nerdy planners want it, fine. Everybody knows Hollywood is a brutal place. -- Bill Fulton

When we listed the best small-city downtowns in the Central Valley , we didn't include Exeter, a Tulare County community eight miles east of Visalia. Exeter was in our discussion, but it didn't make the cut for reasons that I don't recall. After spending part of one day last week in Exeter, I'm convinced we made a mistake. In fact, Exeter has one of the best downtowns for a city of its size (about 10,700 people) not only in the Central Valley, but in the entire state. Exeter has long been one of the preferred places to live in the citrus and cattle growing territory at the base of the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains. Crime is low, schools are good and neighborhoods have character. During the last 10 years, the city has become known for its murals, which now number 24. Art snobs might be quick to dismiss the mural project , but these are professional works executed by real artists. Most murals are located in the center of town, and they certainly grab your attention. But what most got my attention was the number of people on the sidewalks of what is obviously a thriving downtown. Hundreds of people — including many teenagers from the high school on the edge of downtown — were walking to restaurants and coffee shops, running errands, meeting friends, taking care of business and quite clearly enjoying their town. There are California cities of 100,000 people that don't have the downtown foot traffic that Exeter has. Some touristy small towns boast busy downtowns (Carmel, Sonoma, St. Helena), but Exeter throbs with a local energy. One of downtown Exeter's many gathering places. The downtown core covers about three blocks of Pine Avenue, plus a block or two (depending upon your definition of downtown) in either direction. You'll find two hardware stores, a bookstore, professional offices, restaurants, a couple watering holes, a few clothing stores, city hall, the post office, the upstart Sierra Forge & Fire , and a number of small parks and gathering places. What's missing? Obviously dilapidated buildings. Trash. Empty storefronts (OK, I counted a couple vacancies). In fact, the whole place is spotless — the downtown business district, the adjacent residential areas and Exeter City Park, and even the high school, which was carefully overhauled and expanded a few years ago. People care about this town. "Exeter has always had a lot of community pride," said Greg Collins, of Collins & Schoettler and Exeter's contract city planner for more than 20 years. Collins said he hears regularly from locals who want to open a store or other business — people who are willing to invest in their town. When we rate downtowns, we give a lot of weight to "sense of place." In downtown Exeter, the water tower on the edge of downtown, historic building facades (some of which were restored with redevelopment money) and the murals depicting the local social and economic history let you know where you are. Except for the True Value and Ace hardware stores, I don't remember seeing a chain business. "Most of the time you do talk to the owner when you are in a business," said Sandy Blankenship, executive director of the local Chamber of Commerce. Exeter High School's nicely manicured grounds.  How has Exeter done it? By expecting the best and not accepting development simply for development's sake, said Collins. "I really come back to the vision of the City Councils present and past that set the bar for development high," Collins said. He added: "The City Council has allowed me and the city manager and some of the other staff to do what we do best. I've made mistakes, but we've had successes. You don't always get that in cities. They've allowed me to be aggressive in planning the city." I hate to gush. We journalists are supposed to be circumspect. Let me simply suggest that people who are in search of "small town atmosphere" may want spend a day or two in downtown Exeter to experience the real thing. "The downtown is really the heart of Exeter and the place where you meet friends and family members for a meal or whatever," Collins said. "That's something that so many other towns have lost." – Paul Shigley

The Los Angeles Times is running an all-week series on traffic congestion in L.A. and how miserable everybody's commute is. The topic is a sure-fire winner among readers, and the personal stories of commuters are interesting and well-told. But the Times appears to have taken the position that the problem can be solved by simply building more highways and denying development projects that would generate traffic. Good luck getting that package through the Legislature! The policy debate about what to do was contained mostly in Monday's story , written by Jeffrey L. Rabin and Dan Weikel. The nerdy parts of the article are very well-done for a general-circulation newspaper – probably because both writers (especially Rabin) are experienced hands at covering the growth wars. The article basically lays out the California Environmental Quality Act process in layperson's terms, even the "Statement of Overriding Consideration" that a government agency adopts when a project's impacts cannot be fully mitigated. The story also documents highway underinvestment in California relative to increases in both population growth and driving. Yet the story is framed around the killer, 72-mile-each-way commute of Aundraya Reliford. Poor Aundraya drives from her home in Rialto every morning to the nearby Metrolink station, takes the train to Union Station in downtown L.A., where she transfers to her junker car and then makes the killer commute across town to Santa Monica, where she works at MTV. Elapsed time: Two hours and 40 minutes each way. Rabin and Weikel even track the history of the Water Garden project in Santa Monica, where Reliford works, noting that it was approved with a Statement of Overriding Consideration on traffic. As I noted above, the article also takes the state to task for underinvesting in highway construction. It concludes with poor Aundraya saying: "At the rate things are going, there's certainly going to be a time when I have to pull out." The pairing of the nerdy policy discussion with the compelling story of the long-distance commuter creates a weird dynamic. What is the Times really saying? That we should spend more money on highways and approve fewer office buildings on the Westside? So that Aundraya Reliford can drive faster from Rialto to Santa Monica, where she won't have a job because the Water Garden project wouldn't have been built? This is the problem with journalism about growth that focuses on traffic and on the sexiest traffic story, which is the nightmarish long commute. Yes, traffic in L.A. is horrible. But most people in L.A. have short commutes. In terms of distance, the average commute in L.A. is actually getting shorter. And the problem on the Westside isn't only too many jobs, but also not enough housing – a problem that doesn't get solved by not adopting Statements of Overriding Considerations and building more highways. (Almost any housing project on the Westside would also require a Statement of Overriding Consideration on traffic.) The Times seems to suggest that transportation policy has failed because we cannot figure out how to provide one person with a comfortable, fast way to commute 72 miles across one of the most densely crowded landscapes in the world every single day. Most of the commenters on the Times web site pointed something out that the writers didn't mention: Maybe poor Aundraya ought to live closer to work, or work closer to home. I agree. If poor Aundraya has to give up the ghost on her 72-mile commute because it's just too hellish, I'd say that's a public policy success, not a public policy failure. – Bill Fulton