Although redevelopment often seems like a never-ending process, redevelopment of Old Town Monrovia is nearly complete. The city is now switching its focus to redevelopment of an 80-acre area about one mile south of Old Town and studying how to tie together the two areas. Located in the San Gabriel Valley about five miles east of Pasadena, Monrovia began redeveloping its historic core during the 1970s. After decades of planning and both public and private investment, Old Town Monrovia has become a successful area of interest to private developers. "It may not be the financial center of town, but it certainly is the emotional center of our town," Mayor Rob Hammond said of Old Town. Now the focus is shifting to the Station Square area — 80 acres adjacent to the 210 Freeway and straddling a planned extension of the Gold Line light rail system. The city's redevelopment agency is working with local developer Samuelson & Fetter on a transit-oriented development with between 1,400 and 3,000 housing units, 850,000 square feet of office space for high-tech and research-and-development companies, 140,000 square feet of retail space, and a hotel. The project would mark a major change from the hodgepodge of small industrial and service uses currently in the area. The redevelopment agency has acquired 20 acres for the project. Monrovia's redevelopment has not been without setbacks or discontent, but Monrovia's overall success stands in contrast to the experience in the neighboring cities of Sierra Madre and Arcadia, where redevelopment opponents have halted major projects in recent years (see CP&DR Redevelopment Watch , September 2007 ; Local Watch , May 2007 ). "Monrovia said 35 years ago this (redevelopment) is the thing that is going to be the difference in this town," said city spokesman Dick Singer. "It has driven economic development for a generation." "Our community," added Hammond, "has grown up with the concept that redevelopment is not the bogeyman, because we've had a very strong and a very ethical redevelopment agency." The agency has ensured that it treats property owners fairly, which everyone recognizes, he said. "It keeps people who are scared of government close to the path." Redevelopment in Monrovia generated $6.8 million in tax increment during the 2005-06 fiscal year, the last for which figures are available from the state controller's office. In 2002, the city added a new redevelopment project area south of the freeway, which includes the Station Square territory. Early morning at the south end of Old Town. Old Town is essentially a six-block stretch of Myrtle Avenue, about one mile north of the freeway. The area has been the center of town since the 19th century but has had its ups and downs. Today, the virtually spotless district contains a variety of shops and services — an appliance store, dry cleaners, numerous salons, coffee houses, bookstores, music stores, a few nightclubs. City hall is only one block off Myrtle, as are some classic century-old craftsman houses. Old Town turned a corner during 2000, when the redevelopment agency enticed Krikorian to open a 12-screen movie theatre on Myrtle Avenue. The cinema greatly increased the number of Old Town restaurants, which now number 24, according to Singer. Last year, the redevelopment agency completed a $3 million upgrade of Old Town sidewalks, landscaping and street furniture. Another turning point occurred in February, when developer Barker Pacific Group conducted the grand opening of models in Colorado Commons, the first residential units built in Old Town since the 1970s. The project contains 68 housing units ranging from simple 700-square-foot flats to luxury 2,100-square-foot townhouses, plus four retail spaces totaling about 4,000 square feet. Fourteen of the housing units are designated as "affordable," according to Singer. The agency began acquiring the property for Colorado Commons, a half-block west of Myrtle, during the early 1990s. The site contained a convenience store, an auto repair shop and some dilapidated housing, Singer said. The city demolished the structures and created surface parking. Eventually, the agency made a deal with Barker Pacific. The city provided the 2.1 acres in exchange for the developer building a public parking structure with about 200 spaces, according to Kevin O'Brien, the city's redevelopment division manager. "It was just a great location," said Barker Pacific Project Manager Reed Garwood, citing the proximity to restaurants, shops and the movie theater. The next residential project, scheduled to break ground this spring, is on the southern edge of Old Town. Urban Housing Group intends to reuse a three-acre former office industrial property for development of 163 apartments and about 4,000 square feet of office or retail space. The project, known as The Courtyards at Old Town, is purely market-driven and has no redevelopment agency involvement. But Don Deibel, vice president of development for Urban Housing Group, readily admits that the city's "ambitious redevelopment" attracted the company to the site, which it purchased from Barratt-American. "The overall sense of place they are creating is impressive," Deibel said. "They are very focused on improving downtown Monrovia." One of the final pieces of the Old Town puzzle also is not a redevelopment agency project, but it certainly involvements redevelopment. In January, the city tore down its library and began work on a replacement, 28,000-square-foot facility funded by a $16 million voter-approved bond. The construction has closed the square-block Library Park, which is Monrovia's primary community gathering place, until 2009. The Myrtle Avenue Corridor, just south of Old Town. Pink: Office/Commercial Violet: Residential Green: Mixed-Use Blue: Station Square, Phase 1 The Station Square project is not proceeding on such a tight timeline, partly because of the housing market downturn and partly because of uncertainty over the Gold Line extension. City officials feel like they have no control over either; nevertheless, they continue to plan and prepare for the huge redevelopment project with the longer term in mind. "The train is eventually going to get here. I hope it is within my lifetime," said the 47-year-old Hammond. "The City of Monrovia can't wait around for the MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) to do something." For years, the MTA has planned to extend the Gold Line 24 miles beyond its current terminus in Pasadena to Montclair. Cities along the line, including Monrovia, Azusa, Glendora and Claremont, have planned and even approved transit-oriented development projects along the proposed light-rail alignment. Last year, however, the MTA shifted its attention to Lost Angeles's Westside and a potential "subway to the sea." In January, the MTA declined to keep the $1.4 billion Gold Line extension on an important funding list. Assuming the Station Square project goes forward at some point, an additional issue concerns linking the area with Old Town. The two areas are about 10 blocks apart along Myrtle Avenue. Several years ago, an Urban Land Institute (ULI) advisory group recommended the city transform Myrtle into a more pedestrian-friendly boulevard between the two districts. The concept excites city officials, who see such a project as an important transformation of the Myrtle Avenue corridor that could goose Old Town commerce and ensure that Station Square integrates into the rest of town. The Station Square project "must fit into our community without feeling like it is a whole new community," Hammond said. "We cannot create a whole brand new area and say, ‘OK, that's Monrovia, too.'" The details remain undecided and potentially tricky. Hammond would like to see a trolley run for about a 1 1/2 miles from Station Square to the top of Old Town. Singer advocates an old-fashioned streetcar zipping up and down Myrtle. The ULI envisioned something other than the current auto-dominated commercial and industrial atmosphere. However, the redevelopment agency controls little land along the corridor, and, at a glance, existing businesses appear healthy. The city has not wielded a heavy hand with redevelopment (it has employed eminent domain only about six times in 35 years, including some instances requested by the property owner for tax purposes) and has no plans to become aggressive now. Thus, the Myrtle Avenue evolution may be slow. The city has been willing to use redevelopment powers more aggressively to combat gang violence that has flared elsewhere in town. Four people were killed and five others were wounded by gunfire during a 10-week period starting last November. Some of the victims were mere bystanders caught in the crossfire. The redevelopment agency has been buying houses that serve as gang hangouts, funding code enforcement, fence replacement and graffiti removal, and even sponsoring block parties to re-establish neighborhood ties, Singer said. All efforts are aimed at maintaining decent working-class neighborhoods, he said. Contacts: Mayor Rob Hammond: (626) 932-5550. Dick Singer and Kevin O'Brien, Monrovia Redevelopment Agency, (626) 303-6604. Dan Deibel, Urban Housing Group, (650) 340-4320. Colorado Commons website: http://www.livecoloradocommons.com /

In an extremely long and complex opinion, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has upheld water discharge permits for Duke Energy's Moss Landing power plant. Environmentalists have been on the offensive ever since Duke applied for permits to rebuild and expand the natural gas-fired power plant in 1999. The concern arises because the power plant draws water from, and discharges water to, the Elkhorn Slough area, which is one of the largest intact coastal wetlands in California and of importance to hundreds of bird species, as well as rare plants and other animals. A primary point of contention regarded Duke's plan for "once-through" cooling, in which the power plant draws in water from the estuary for cooling and then discharges the water at a higher temperature into the sea. Environmentalists argued for a closed cooling system in which the same water is recycled through the plant for cooling — a concept that Duke fought because of cost. The California Energy Commission approved the project in October 2000, and the following month the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board approved the project's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. When the State Water Resources Control Board rejected environmentalists' appeal of the discharge permit, the group Voices of the Wetlands sued the water boards. A Monterey County Superior Court Judge in March 2003 remanded the permit to the regional board because the court found there was insufficient evidence that the board relied on BTA (best technology available) for one aspect of the cooling system. The regional board reconsidered the matter and concluded that its decision was in fact supported by substantial evidence. Voices, the water boards and Duke returned to the trial court, which in July 2004 upheld the regional board's action. Both sides appealed. The environmental group challenged numerous aspects of the discharge permit and the procedure behind it, while the water boards and Duke challenged the court's ability to even hear the case, and the lower court's remand of the discharge permit to the regional board. In a 98-page opinion, the Sixth District rejected all appeals. From a land use perspective, the court's ruling on the appeals from the water boards and Duke may be most important. The water boards and Duke argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit because state law provides that proceedings of the Energy Commission are appealable only to the state Supreme Court. But the court determined that power plant certification and the NPDES permit were separate issues, and the latter could not be decided by the Energy Commission. In fact, the Commission had deferred to the regional water board. Thus, environmentalists could seek review of the plant certification by the state Supreme Court while also challenging the discharge permit in Superior Court, the Sixth District ruled. As to the trial court's remand of the permit to the regional board, the water boards and Duke argued the remand was improper because there was substantial evidence to support the initial decision. The appellate court, however, said that California Environmental Quality Act principles applied and the board "was required to meaningfully analyze the alternatives itself." The administrative record showed that the board members during their initial consideration failed to adequately analyze BTA alternatives, the court found. The Sixth District rejected Voices' contention that the trial court should have invalidated the permit and returned the entire matter to the regional board, and Voices' argument that the regional board should not have considered new evidence during the remand hearing. The court also rejected the argument that the regional board improperly weighed the costs and benefits of a once-through cooling system. Voices has asked the state Supreme Court to review the Sixth District's decision. The Case: Voices of the Wetlands v. California State Water Resources Control Board , No. H028021, 07 C.D.O.S. 14339, 2007 DJDAR 18432. Filed December 14, 2007. Modified January 10, 2008 at 2008 DJDAR 385. The Lawyers: For Voices: Deborah Sivas, Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic, (650) 723-0325. For the Water Resources Control Board: Anita Ruud, attorney general's office, (415) 703-5533. For Duke Energy: Sarah G. Flanagan, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, (415) 983-1000.

The Second District Court of Appeal has rejected the environmental review of an oil refinery project in Wilmington and Carson because the South Coast Air Quality Management District used an improper baseline for measuring impacts. Instead of relying on the refinery's permitted level of nitrogen oxides emissions for the baseline, the air district should have used the actual level of emissions, which was less than half the permitted amount, the court ruled. The air district and ConocoPhillips relied on the Fairview line of cases, in which courts have allowed lead agencies to use permitted conditions — rather than actual conditions on the ground — as the baseline for environmental review. But the court said that approach was not appropriate because the Fairview line of cases involves projects that underwent prior environmental review, and there was no evidence that the refinery equipment in question "had ever been subject to environmental review." The project involved modification of ConocoPhillips's Los Angeles Refinery, which spreads across many acres in Wilmington and Carson, so that the company could produce ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel. ConocoPhillips submitted an application in late 2003, and in June 2004, the Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) issued a negative declaration — meaning the project had no potential to harm the environment — and a permit to construct the project. After workers found unexpected contaminated soil, the air district certified an addendum to the negative determination and issued a modified permit in September 2004. An environmental group and two trade unions sued, arguing that the air district violated CEQA and failed to apply its own prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulation. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Andria Richey ruled for the air district. On appeal, the Second District, Division Two, reversed only a portion of the CEQA ruling — which was still a major victory for the environmental group and unions. Under a 1994 permit issued as part of the air district's Regional Clean Air Initiative Market (RECLAIM) program, the ConocoPhillips refinery may emit up to 8,318 pounds per day (ppd) of nitrogen oxides (NOx). In recent years, the refinery has emitted a declining amount of NOx, down to 3,249 ppd during the 2002-03 reporting period. The district conceded the project could result in increased NOx emissions of 456 ppd. This amount exceeds the district's adopted NOx threshold of significance, which is 55 ppd. Typically, when a project exceeds a threshold of significance, an environmental impact report and mitigations become necessary. However, the air district determined that any emissions below 8,373 ppd — the permitted 8,318 ppd plus the 55 ppd in the threshold of significance — would be less than significant for CEQA purposes. When adding the additional 456 ppd to existing emissions, the refinery would still produce far less than its permitted NOx emissions. In court, the air district and oil company cited Fairview Neighbors v. County of Ventura , (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 283 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , April 1999 ) and Benton v. Board of Supervisors , (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467. In Fairview , the court ruled that the county could use a sand mine's fully permitted capacity as a baseline for studying a proposed expansion, even though the mine had been operating well below capacity. In Benton , the court found that impacts of a modified proposal for a winery should be measured against a winery that was previously approved and permitted. But the court said Fairview , Benton and similar cases were inappropriate here because they involved changes to projects that had previously received CEQA scrutiny. Instead, the court relied on a series of cases — including Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno , (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , June 2007 ), and Fat v. County of Sacramento , (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1270 (see CP&DR Legal Digest , June 2002 ) — that say established usage should serve as the baseline. " e conclude that a project's baseline is normally comprised of the existing environmental setting — not what is hypothetically allowed pursuant to existing zoning or permitted plans," the court ruled. "Where prior environmental review has occurred, though, the existing setting may include what has been approved following CEQA review." The air district presented two arguments: Because the refinery does not need discretionary approval to increase utilization of equipment, the baseline emissions and the post-project emissions are essentially the same because both are allowed by existing permit. Alternatively, the district argued that even if the increased emissions are not considered part of the baseline, the project would have a less than significant impact because total emissions still would be less than permitted levels. The court called both arguments flawed. Increased use of existing equipment is part of the project that SCAQMD must evaluate, the court determined. " mploying a baseline figure premised on emissions levels that far exceed the refinery's actual emissions is misleading and subverts full consideration of the actual impacts that will result from the ULSD project," the court ruled. Considering the alternative argument, the court ruled the air district was essentially creating a categorical exemption to CEQA for any project that remained within its RECLAIM permit emission levels. Neither the district nor the court may create such an exemption, the court ruled. "In this case, the SCAQMD conceded that the ULSD project would generate a best case of 237 ppd of additional NOx emissions and a worse case of 456 ppd of NOx emissions — figures ranging from approximately 400% to 900% of the CEQA significance threshold of 55 ppd," the court determined. " e must conclude that the record here supported a fair argument that the ULSD project's NOx emissions may have a significant effect on air quality." The court further found that the air district should evaluate the project's contribution to cumulative air pollution. The court rejected the plaintiffs' other CEQA contentions and arguments concerning PSD regulations. The Case: Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District , No. B193500, 08 C.D.O.S. 682, 2008 DJDAR 720. Filed December 18, 2007. Modified and ordered published January 16, 2008. The Lawyers: For CBE: Adrienne Bloch, (510) 302-0430. For SCAQMD: Bradley Hogin, Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, (714) 558-7000. For ConocoPhillips: Ward Benshoof, Westin, Benshoof, Rochefort, Rubalcava & MacCuish, (213) 576-1000.

Stanislaus County voters became the first in the Central Valley to approve a county-wide growth-control initiative when they backed a ballot measure that prohibits the rezoning of agricultural land for residential uses without voter approval. While voters in what had been growth-friendly Stanislaus County endorsed growth control, voters in Santa Clara and Rocklin backed specific housing projects. Meanwhile, voters in San Clemente overturned the city's approval of a condominium project. Also on Super Tuesday, voters in the western Riverside County community of Wildomar supported incorporation, but voters in the Sierra foothills community of Oakhurst rejected formation of a new city. Traditionally, growth-control initiatives have been a coastal phenomenon. But they have been inching into the valley in recent years. A growth boundary initiative in Stockton narrowly lost out to a city-written boundary measure in 2004 (see CP&DR , December 2004 ). Tracy voters adopted a housing permit cap in 2000 and have refused to ease it. Davis has plenty of voter-imposed growth rules. Modesto has advisory vote requirements that date to the 1970s. However, none of those restrictions compares to Measure E — known as Stamp Out Sprawl or SOS — which Stanislaus County voters supported by a 2-to-1 ratio. Similar to Napa County's Measure J and the SOAR initiatives in Ventura County (see CP&DR , December 1998 ; Insight , December 2000 ), Measure E requires voters to decide the rezoning of agricultural land, although Measure E is limited to residential rezonings. In Ventura and Napa counties, significant development in unincorporated areas has nearly ceased. If the effect is the same in Stanislaus County, it would be a major change because, according to a Modesto Bee analysis, the county has approved nearly 3,000 houses in unincorporated areas since 2000. County supervisors tried to block Measure E. First, they delayed the vote on Measure E until 2008, even though advocates submitted petition signatures in June 2006. In the interim, developers drafted a growth-friendly plan for Salida, the county's largest unincorporated growth area, and gathered signatures to place the plan on the ballot. When the Salida plan qualified for the ballot, supervisors simply adopted the initiative rather than permitting voters to decide (see CP&DR Local Watch , September 2007 ). Surprisingly, the development community did not campaign against Measure E, which might have been the result of a county strategy that backfired. After placing SOS on the ballot, the county drafted an alternative ballot measure that would have placed a two-year moratorium on agricultural land conversions, created a citizens committee to update the general plan, and then placed that update in front of voters. Steve Madison, executive director of the Building Industry Association of Central California (BIACC), said the county's alternative Measure L was in some ways worse than SOS. Thus, the BIACC would have been in the untenable position of having to campaign against both the citizen initiative and the county's alternative. "In the near-term, it will result in people not wanting to do a project in the county," Madison said of SOS. "It makes the application process a beauty contest because you have to attract the voters." Denny Jackman, an SOS co-author and former Modesto councilman, said builders didn't fight Measure E because they know that protecting farmland has become a public priority. Plus, he said, "There are nine incorporated cities in Stanislaus County, so there are plenty of areas in which the BIA can still build." That may be, but Madison wonders how long those cities will remain growth magnets. "I don't for a minute think that the people who were behind this won't go to every city and try to get the same thing passed," Madison said. Jackman contended the SOS vote sent "a real strong signal" to the county and cities about growth planning and farmland preservation. But Larry Giventer, a professor of politics and administration at California State University, Stanislaus, questioned the significance of the SOS vote. "I don't think very many people followed Measure E, compared with all the hype the presidential election and state propositions were getting. It sort of flew under the radar," Giventer said. In addition, the City of Modesto had its own high-profile ballot measures — one giving the City Council more authority over city administration and one dividing the city into council districts. Those measures in the county's largest city received far more attention than the SOS initiative, Giventer said. What helped Measure E was its offer to let voters decide on development, Giventer added. "I don't think it's a harbinger of things to come, I think it's a reflection of the past. Voters like to control things," he said. In Riverside County, voters decided to make Wildomar the 479th city in California and the 25th in the county. Covering 24 square miles along Interstate 15, Wildomar has a population of about 27,000 people. In the past, Wildomar residents have fended off annexation attempts by the neighboring cities of Lake Elsinore and Murrieta. There are two unusual twists to the Wildomar incorporation. First, the county agreed to pay the new city between $250,000 and $310,000 annually for 10 years. Typically, the state's revenue neutrality law requires that new cities pay the county for a period to offset lost county revenue (see CP&DR Insight , July 2002 ; CP&DR, May 1999 ). But in Wildomar's case, an analysis found that incorporation would save the county money because the city would assume provision of services to the largely residential community. The revenue transfer from the county to the city was not a requirement for fiscal viability, Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission Executive Officer George Spiliotis said. But the transfer made the city even more feasible, and the county is strongly encouraging communities to incorporate, he said. The county-to-new city transfer appears to be the first of its kind, but maybe not the last. Voters in the Western Riverside County community of Menifee are scheduled to decide on incorporation in June. That incorporation includes a transfer of about $1 million annually for 10 years from the county to the city, according to Spiliotis. The second twist to the Wildomar incorporation is the creation of City Council districts, as nearly 57% of voters backed a second ballot measure calling for five districts rather than an at-large council. Only a handful of large cities in California elect the legislative body by district. While voters approved Wildomar incorporation, voters rejected creation of a new city in Oakhurst, a community of about 4,200 people in eastern Madera County at the junction of Highways 41 and 49. Opponents carried the day by arguing that proponents sought incorporation to encourage growth and that they did not keep the public adequately appraised of cityhood efforts. In the cities of Santa Clara and Rocklin, voters upheld approval of development projects, while in San Clemente voters tossed out an approved project. In Santa Clara, 60% of voters backed a plan to reuse the University of California's 17-acre Bay Area Research Extension Center site for development of 110-single family houses by SummerHill Homes and a 165-unit low-income senior citizens apartment complex by Charities Housing. The university closed the agricultural research center across from Valley Fair mall about five years ago. SummerHill agreed to pay the state $34 million for 11 acres, while the city and Charities Housing agreed to pay $10 million for 6 acres. Development opponents called the site the "last 17 acres of open space in Santa Clara" and still have a suit pending over the project's environmental impact report. In the Sacramento suburb of Rocklin, voters backed developer Rick Massie's proposed 558-unit, 622-acre project in Clover Valley. The site has been a growth battle zone since the 1990s, with development opponents arguing the oak-studded grasslands should be preserved as a park. Project supporters defended the development for maintaining about half of the site as public open space. The United Auburn Indian Community, which owns the nearby Thunder Valley Casino, has promised to buy 154 lots to preserve the remains of an ancient community. In San Clemente, more than two-thirds of voters overturned the City Council's approval of a project that involved replacing nine holes of the private Pacific Golf Club with 224 housing units. The project, approved 3-2 by the council in June 2007, included a development agreement in which landowner Michael Rosenfeld would pay $11.5 million for development of a community park and senior center elsewhere in town. Opponents who forced a referendum vote said the housing project would reduce open space, increase traffic and raise public service costs. In November, San Clemente voters are scheduled to decide on a measure that would prohibit any conversion of designated open space to residential use without approval of the electorate. February 2008 Local Election Results Alameda County Voters rejected two parcel tax measures for Children's Hospital and Research Center Oakland. Measure B was a hospital-backed initiative, while Measure A was a compromise between the hospital and the county. Both would have imposed an annual tax of $24 per residential parcel and $100 to $250 for business parcels to raise about $300 million for construction of a new hospital. Measure A would have lasted 35 years compared with Measure B's 30 years, and Measure A would have given a greater cut to the county to pay for tax administration. County officials disliked both measures because they imposed a tax to pay for a private hospital and placed the burden solely on Alameda County landowners even though the hospital serves the region. Hospital neighbors complained that new hospital facilities would displace families and conflict with the North Oakland neighborhood character. • Measure A (2/3 vote required): No, 58.9% • Measure B (2/3 vote required): No 69.2% Imperial County A measure prohibiting the importing of sewage sludge into the county passed easily. The measure is aimed at blocking a "sludge-to-energy" plant proposed by Liberty Energy east of the Salton Sea. • Measure X: Yes, 68.8% Madera County Oakhurst. Voters in this 13-square-mile, 4,200-person community in the foothills rejected incorporation. • Measure C: No, 57.1% Napa County Voters approved a general plan amendment and zoning change to permit the four-acre Stanly Lane Pumpkin Patch, located in an agricultural zone south of Napa, to have a delicatessen and wine tastings. • Measure K: Yes, 57.3% Orange County City of Newport Beach. Voters approved an initiative that amends the city charter to require a new city hall to be built on city-owned land between MacArthur Boulevard and Avocado Avenue, next to the central library. For years, the city has promised to develop the hilly 12.8-acre site as a park. Initiative proponents said the site offers the cheapest location for a much-needed city hall. • Measure B: Yes, 52.9% City of San Clemente. A project that involved replacing nine holes of the private Pacific Golf Club with 224 housing units failed at the polls. Opponents who forced a referendum vote said the development would reduce open space, increase traffic and raise public service costs. • Measure C: No, 68.9% Placer County City of Rocklin. In a referendum, voters backed a proposed 558-unit, 622-acre project in Clover Valley. However, the development may amount to only about 400 houses, as the United Auburn Indian Community has promised to buy 154 lots to preserve the remains of an ancient community. • Measure H: Yes, 52.8% Riverside County Wildomar. Incorporation of the community of 27,000 people along Interstate 15, between Lake Elsinore and Murrieta, won approval. • Measure C: Yes, 61.6% San Diego County City of Coronado. In a showdown over public facility development at the beach, voters said they want new projects. An initiative that would have prohibited any building at the beach — including lifeguard buildings, restrooms or a bike path — without voter approval failed. Meanwhile, a measure asking whether the city may go forward with a planned 2,500-square-foot lifeguard support building won easily. • Proposition A (voter approval requirement): No, 53.2% • Proposition B (lifeguard support building): Yes, 68.1% San Francisco A $185 million park bond to pay for development of three new bay front parks and extensive repairs and renovations at existing parks and green spaces was approved. • Proposition A (2/3 vote required): Yes, 71.3% Santa Clara County City of Santa Clara. In a referendum election, voters backed a plan to re-use the University of California's 17-acre Bay Area Research Extension Center site for development of 110 single-family houses and a 165-unit, low-income senior citizens apartment complex. • Measure A (general plan amendment): Yes, 59.8% • Measure B (rezoning): Yes, 59.8% Stanislaus County Voters endorsed the "Stamp Out Sprawl" initiative prohibiting the rezoning of agricultural land to residential uses without voter approval. Also on the ballot was the county's alternative "Responsible Planning and Growth Control Initiative" proposing a two-year moratorium on agricultural land conversions until the county completes a general plan update. Although both passed, the SOS initiative takes effect because it received about 600 more votes than the county alternative. • Measure E (citizen initiative): Yes, 67.4% • Measure L (county alternative), Yes: 62.7% Yuba County Not surprisingly, voters turned down the 5,100-unit Yuba Highlands project that the county had approved on 2,900 acres between Beale Air Force Base and Spenceville State Wildlife Refuge (see CP&DR Local Watch , June 2007 ). In January, developer Gary Gallelli urged voters to reject the project so that he could pursue a scaled-down version. • Measure N: No, 77.6%

Is Gov. Schwarzenegger's "Strategic Growth Council" simply the latest in a decades-long string of gubernatorial efforts to make it look like he is dealing with growth? Or can Schwarzenegger actually take coherent action on growth by appointing a Cabinet-level council devoted to the issue? It's probably a little bit of both. Despite all the focus in Sacramento these days on greenhouse gas emissions reduction, the Strategic Growth Council doesn't seem likely to focus on the "smart growth" policy initiatives that many leaders seem to think are necessary to meet the goals of AB 32. Meanwhile, the real focus of Schwarzenegger's "strategic growth" effort appears to be infrastructure – and, in particular, getting bond money out the door as quickly as possible to build new infrastructure. Schwarzenegger first glommed onto the "strategic growth" theme during 2006, when he used the phrase to describe his 10-year, $222-billion infrastructure effort – including the $40 billion in bonds that were placed in the ballot that fall (see CP&DR Insight , February 2006 ). The "strategic growth" phrase was borrowed from Schwarzenegger's political mentor, Pete Wilson, who used the same words to describe his stillborn growth management initiative back in the early '90s. Now that all the bonds have passed, Schwarzenegger has taken the next step and appointed a five-member, Cabinet-level council charged with implementing the vision contained in the infrastructure effort. Chaired by Cynthia Bryant, the director of the Office of Planning and Research, the council also has as members Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman; Business, Transportation, and Housing Secretary Dale Bonner; Environmental Protection Secretary Linda Adams, and Food & Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura. In and of itself, the idea of a Strategic Growth Council isn't a bad one. Whether the council helps to bring about much-needed change in the state's growth strategy depends on what Schwarzenegger decides to do with it. The growth council has been charged by the governor with four tasks: • Award and manage grants and loans from Proposition 84 funds — the open space bond placed on the 2006 ballot by initiative, not by the governor — "to support the development of sustainable communities." • Coordinate the four member state agencies, as they undertake infrastructure and development projects, to "encourage sustainable land use; protect natural resources; improve air and water quality; increase the availability of affordable housing; improve transportation; and meet the goals of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)." • Recommend policies to the governor, the Legislature and state agencies that encourage sustainable development. • Collect and provide data to local governments to help them develop and plan sustainable communities. Although this charge is long on the rhetoric of "sustainable communities," it's not clear that this is where the council's actual work will be focused. For one thing, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel on the growth question; California has no lack of laws and policies calling on the state to do the right thing in this regard. For more than 30 years, a state law – usually honored in the breach – has required the governor to issue an "Environmental Goals and Policies Report" every four years (see CP&DR In Brief , December 2003 ). In 2002, shortly before he was recalled, Gov. Gray Davis signed AB 857, a law which requires all state actions to promote what might be called a "smart growth" pattern emphasizing infill development, compact greenfield development, and protection of agricultural and open space land. The state hasn't done much with this law since Schwarzenegger was elected in 2003, and there is no mention of AB 857 in any of Schwarzenegger's strategic growth literature. It's almost as if the law were never passed. The second big question is how aggressively the Strategic Growth Council will focus on implementing AB 32, the state's greenhouse gas reduction law. Environmental Secretary Adams – a veteran of the Davis Administration – was Schwarzenegger's chief negotiator on AB 32, and her agency oversees the California Air Resources Board, which is the primary implementer of AB 32. But implementing the land use portion of AB 32 has fallen mostly to Bonner's Business, Transportation, and Housing (BTH) Agency, and the administration's rhetoric on the BTH side has focused mostly on providing local governments with carrots rather than wielding sticks in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, it appears that soon the Legislature will hand Schwarzenegger SB 375 – a bill that is supposed to provide a roadmap for implementing AB 32 on the land use side, but looks an awful lot like a statewide growth management law. It's hard to know how aggressively even a moderate Republican administration will go after implementation. Most important, however, is the fact that the focus of the Strategic Growth Council isn't really on the land use and greenhouse gas aspects of California's growth. Its major focus is on infrastructure – and, specifically, on building infrastructure more quickly. Virtually all of the administration's public information on the Strategic Growth Council is not about land use and growth patterns but, rather, about using public-private partnerships to speed up the delivery of infrastructure projects. The administration calls this approach "performance-based infrastructure." It includes not only the "design build" approach, which allows construction firms rather than state engineers to design infrastructure projects, but also efforts to permit private companies to finance, own, and lease public infrastructure projects. The strategic growth portion of the governor's 2008-09 budget focuses on public-private partnerships, going into extended detail about privately financed and owned infrastructure projects throughout the world. The administration has highlighted such efforts as the private toll lanes on State Highway 91 between Orange and Riverside counties as a successful example of such public-private partnerships. However, after a middling performance under private ownership, the toll lanes were taken over by the Orange County Transportation Authority a few years ago (see CP&DR Public Development , February 2003 , February 2000 ). The strategic growth portion of the governor's budget also highlights the next round of proposed infrastructure bonds in Schwarzenegger's agenda, including the eternal effort to build a more efficient – but potentially more environmentally destructive – system of moving water from north to south through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the need to build more surface reservoirs in California. Some of these efforts are likely to line up nicely with greenhouse-gas-driven growth management efforts. Almost everyone agrees, for example, that more reservoirs will be required as global warming continues to influence precipitation patterns. If the Strategic Growth Council is a serious effort by the administration to get the state's act together on growth and greenhouse gases, it could be very effective. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be just an effort to promote private infrastructure financing, it'll be yet another opportunity missed.

A pro-development initiative in San Luis Obispo County was not the proper subject for an initiative, a San Luis Obispo County Superior Court judge has ruled. Meanwhile, a slow-growth initiative approved by Loma Linda voters in 2006 was upheld by a San Bernardino County Superior Court judge. In November 2006, San Luis Obispo County voters approved a measure backed by property owner Ernie Dalidio, who has been trying to develop 130 acres on the south edge of San Luis Obispo since the 1980s. About 65% of voters supported Measure J, which permitted development of a 530,000-square-foot retail center, 100,000 square feet of office space, 60 residential units and a 150-room hotel (see CP&DR , December 2006 ). Project opponents sued and Judge Roger Picquet ruled that Measure J was not legal because approval of the specific, detailed development project was an adjudicatory function, not a purely legislative act. Initiatives must be solely legislative. Picquet also ruled the measure illegal because it removed Dalidio's property from an airport review combining district without a determination of consistency by the Airport Land Use Commission, as required by the State Aeronautics Act. An appeal appears certain. The case is Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo , San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case No. CV 070164. In Loma Linda, Measure V established a 7,200-square-foot minimum lot size, capped building heights, imposed new traffic mitigation requirements and limited development of the "South Hills" area (see CP&DR , December 2006 ; Local Watch , December 2005 ). Holland Partners, which hopes to develop a 138-acre housing and commercial project, sued over Measure V. The developer argued, among other things, that the initiative was inconsistent with the city's general plan, made compliance with fair-share housing requirements impossible, and unconstitutionally exempted Loma Linda University. Judge John Wade rejected all of Holland Partners' arguments. An appeal is likely.

The Newhall Ranch project has acquired a substantial new foe: The City of Los Angeles. And not a moment too soon for longtime project opponents. Newhall Ranch, of course, is a 21,000-unit, 12,000-acre project west of Santa Clarita that has been "in the planning stages" since the mid-1990s. In fact, the second story I ever wrote for CP&DR was about Newhall Ranch water supply issues (see CP&DR , January 1999 ). Newhall Land and Farming Company (now a subsidiary of Lennar) contends those water issues — as well as other concerns over species, traffic, air quality, etc. — have been resolved. Longtime opponents, lead by the Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment, have a different opinion. Los Angeles County approved the Newhall Ranch specific plan in 2003. Now, just as the project is headed to the Board of Supervisors for the first phase of entitlements, SCOPE has gained a major ally in the City of Los Angeles. On Tuesday, February 19, the City Council voted 14-0 for a motion to oppose the project, in large part because many future residents of Newhall Ranch would commute into Los Angeles proper on Interstate 5, which is already horribly clogged between Santa Clarita and the San Fernando Valley. You can read the motion crafted by Councilman Richard Alarcon here . It's an interesting motion for a variety of reasons, including its admission that the city "never reviewed or commented upon the county's environmental reports prior to the close of the county's comment period." Lawyers would call that a "bad fact;" nevertheless, it sounds like the city is gearing up for a lawsuit. What's before the Board of Supervisors on February 26 is approval of Landmark Village, the first phase of Newhall Ranch. Landmark Village entails 1,444 residential units, 1 million square feet of commercial and mixed uses, and extensive drainage and utility improvements on about 1,000 acres. Update: The Board of Supervisors did not consider Landmark Village on February 26, and probably won't do so until late May, according to a Newhall Ranch spokeswoman.   You can learn more than you ever wanted to know about the Landmark Village project at http://planning.lacounty.gov/spLandmark.htm. When I wrote that story for the January 1999 issue, I never envisioned that the project would still be going through the process more than nine years later. Anyone want to take bets on where the project will stand in 2017? - Paul Shigley

A ruling that could result in more plant and animal listings under the California Endangered Species Act will stand. The state Supreme Court on February 13 declined to review a decision by the Third District Court of Appeal, which held that "evolutionary significant units" of a species may qualify for protection, and that state officials need only consider a species' range within California. The California Forestry Association and the California Chamber of Commerce had asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the Third District decision. However, only Justice Marvin Baxter voted to accept the case. " he court's decision could expand the pool of species eligible for listing to include any population of the species irrespective of the size of that population, the ecological significance of that population, and the relationship of that population to the viability of the species as a whole," Paul Weiland, a Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott attorney who frequently represents the development industry, wrote in an analysis of the decision. The case concerned a California Fish and Game Commission decision regarding coho salmon. Nearly eight years ago, 10 environmental groups calling themselves the Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Coalition petitioned the Commission to list coho salmon north of San Francisco Bay as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The Department of Fish and Game, which advises the Commission, separately evaluated two coho units: the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast evolutionary unit, which populates waters from Punta Gorda (on the Humboldt County coast) into southern Oregon, and the Central Coast unit, which lives between Punta Gorda and Monterey Bay. The department found that both units qualified for protected status, and in August 2002 the Commission designated the Southern Oregon/North California Coast unit as threatened, and the Central Coast unit as endangered. After the department prepared a recovery plan, the Commission in August 2004 amended state regulations to reflect the listings. The recovery plan called for measures such as decreased pumping from rivers by farmers, and less logging near waterways. In June 2005, the Forestry Association, the Chamber, the California Cattlemen's Association and other groups challenged the listings in court. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled for the Commission, and the Third District upheld that decision on appeal. The listing opponents had four primary arguments: CESA permits protection of species and subspecies, but not "evolutionary significant units;" the Commission failed to consider coho salmon range in Oregon; the Commission did not adequately consider the role of hatchery salmon; and the Commission violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The first two arguments — concerning evolutionary significant units, and species' range — were of primary importance. Property rights groups in California and nationally have repeatedly contested the definition of evolutionary significant units and their role in species protection regulations. The Commission argued that its listing of evolutionary significant units comported with the 1984 version of CESA, which provided automatic protection to more than a dozen variety of plants whether or not they comprised a species or subspecies. The court sided with the Commission. " eference to the Commission and the department's interpretation of the term ‘species or subspecies' as including evolutionary significant units is appropriate here given their central roles in the listing process, their scientific expertise, and their longstanding adherence to the policy that the CESA allows listings of evolutionary significant units," Justice Ronald Robie wrote for the Third District. Regarding the coho salmon's range, the court said the Commission was under no obligation to consider the coho's entire geographic range. Listing opponents contended the Commission had to account for the coho's Oregon habitat. Although the statute is ambiguous, the court ruled, "It is reasonable to infer that the CESA's focus is protecting species within the state, which is the extent of the state's regulatory authority." The court quickly dismissed the hatchery coho salmon question by noting that § 45 of the Fish and Game Code defines fish to mean "wild fish." Concerning the Administrative Procedures Act, the listing opponents contended the Commission's ruling was unnecessary and duplicative because coho salmon have been protected for years by the federal Endangered Species Act, and other federal and state laws (although the Bush administration has taken numerous steps to reduce salmon protection). The court ruled that the Commission's decision was not unnecessary because CESA implementation requires the adoption of regulations. The Commission's listing of the species was not duplicative because CESA and the federal ESA do not serve the same function, the court ruled. The CESA is concerned only with protecting a species in California. Plus, the two acts have different provisions for allowing "incidental take" of protected species, the court noted. The Case: California Forestry Association v. California Fish and Game Commission , No. C053866, 07 C.D.O.S. 13318, 2007 DJDAR 17252. Filed November 20, 2007. The Lawyers: For the Forestry Association: Damien Schiff, Pacific Legal Foundation, (916) 419-7111. For the Commission: Tara Mueller, attorney general's office, (510) 622-2100.

A trial court judge's decision ordering the closure of a neighborhood market in Santa Monica has been thrown out by the Second District Court of Appeal. The unanimous three-judge appellate panel said that the lower court judge misread two agreements between property owners and the City of Santa Monica in a way that improperly superceded the city's police power. The Fair Market has been a neighborhood grocery store on Fourth Street since 1928, a year before the property was first zoned. After World War II, the city zoned the property "residential" but permitted Fair Market to remain as a nonconforming use. The city approved a number of short-duration conditional use permits for Fair Market before, in 1985, approving a conditional use permit effective through October 23, 2000. When the property owners sought to build two condominiums behind the market, the city in 1987 approved a parcel map and new use permit. Thereafter, the city and the property owner (who no longer owns the property) entered into an "Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property" (AIR), and, in 1990, the city approved covenants, codes and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the property. In April 2000, the Fair Market owner sought permission to operate the market beyond the October 23, 2000, termination date of the conditional use permit. Processing apparently took some time, as not until September 2003 did the city approve a new use permit allowing Fair Market to operate indefinitely. About one year later, the owners of one of the condos (Juanita Richeson and Eugene Kallman) sued the new owners of Fair Market (Haque and Bakul Helal), who also own the other condo. Richeson and Kallman argued that the AIR and CC&Rs clearly prohibited the market from operating past the October 23, 2000, deadline contained in the 1987 conditional use permit. Kallman had testified before the city three times in support of the 2003 conditional use permit but apparently changed his mind about the neighborhood store when the housing market took off. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge John Segal agreed that the AIR and CC&Rs required the market to close in 2000. The Helals appealed and the Second District, Division Eight, overturned the lower court. Richeson and Kallman cited language in the AIR that requires the market building "shall be removed and the underlying area shall be landscaped or redeveloped … at such time as the retail use is discontinued for a continuous period of one year, the conditional use permit expires (on October 23, 2000) or the conditional use permit is revoked, whichever occurs first." But the court found that the documents, when read together, "raise an ambiguity." The court said that the AIR does not prohibit the city from extending the termination date, and the CC&Rs contain no termination date at all. The court also noted that the only original party to the AIR and CC&Rs — the city — argued that the conditional use may be extended beyond the October 23, 2000, date. "If that date was certain and immutable, surely the parties would have taken care to set it forth in the recorded CC&Rs," Justice Madeleine Flier wrote for the court. "Moreover," Flier wrote, "the absence of any express freeze provision in the AIR and CC&Rs is consistent with an implied reservation of the city's police powers under existing authorities." Indeed, the court noted, the city's right to exercise the police power — which is the basis for all land use regulation — cannot be contracted away. "The AIR and the CC&Rs do not expressly restrict the city's power to legislate in the future. The AIR, and corresponding CC&Rs, therefore must be read as containing an implied provision reserving the city's police power to modify its zoning regulations and conditional use permit for the property," the court ruled. The court also rejected Richeson and Kallman's argument that the AIR amounted to a development agreement, finding that the document lacked the substantive requirements for a development agreement. Richeson and Kallman appealed to the state Supreme Court, which declined to accept the case. The Case: Richeson v. Helal , No. B187273, 07 C.D.O.S. 14683, 2007 DJDAR 18876. Filed November 29, 2007. Ordered published and modified December 21, 2007. The Lawyers: For Richeson: Mitchell Dawson, Dawson, Tilem & Gole, (310) 285-0880. For Helal: Christopher Harding, Harding, Larmore, Mullen, Jakle, Kutcher & Kozal, (310) 451-2968. For the city: Barry Rosenbaum, city attorney's office, (310) 458-8336.

Earlier this month, I was in our nation's capital, which served as the stage for the most recent federal theatrics on the issue of climate change regulation. The seventh annual New Partners for Smart Growth conference, sponsored by the Local Government Commission (an organization of locally-elected officials, city and county staff, planners, architects, and community leaders), took place in the hotel neighboring the site of the Conservative Political Action Conference. While we attended sessions such as "Where is the Money? Trends in Funding Smart Growth," the young conservatives were rehearsing their Republican roles in sessions titled "What Do Liberals Have Planned for Your Money?" Thickening the plot was the cast of characters that traveled from California, including state officials and representatives from the California Air Resources Board, the Governor's Office of Planning of Research, and Caltrans. Jake Mackenzie, the mayor of Rohnert Park and LGC board member, alluded to the reputation of the members of the traveling show as "fruits and nuts" at a session demonstrating the strides that the state is taking to achieve Governor Schwarzenegger's goals to combat global warming. Who would have guessed that the most dynamic session on climate change policy would feature a cast including the likes of Mr. Peanut and Chiquita Banana? Over the three days, conference segments that are typically replete with droning wonky policy jargon that no semi-normal person can comprehend were replaced by approachable language and legible statistics. Professionals and policy experts came together not only to share the efforts being made by the planning, development, and public heath communities, but also to speak out against the lack of federal participation and leadership on carbon emissions.  The most recent sting resulting from the EPA's decision to deny California's bid to set stricter carbon emissions standards for motor vehicles was still on everyone's mind. What began as a daytime soap opera viewed by few has become a blockbuster hit in the eyes of the 1,500 professional planners, architects, public health experts, and policymakers: the climate change issue has taken center stage. The message even recently graced the cover of Sports Illustrated . Once I stepped outside and squinted against the afternoon sun, I briefly forgot why I spent three full days inside the sunlight-starved set of the conference, filling my head with new ideas surrounding the climate change issue. But once I got back to the land of fruit and nuts, and more specifically, Los Angeles, where everyone is looking for their 15 minutes of fame, I remembered why. I was now well-versed with the knowledge that acting on behalf of the climate change issue on Capitol Hill is more than just a cameo role. - Jessica Daniels

INCREASING HOUSING IN THE MIDST OF A CRISIS:ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FRIDAY FEBRUARY 22. 2008COVEL COMMONS, UCLA CAMPUS LOS ANGELES The housing crisis continues in Southern California. The existing population grows and new people move here every day. The traditional rules of supply and demand have pushed housing costs beyond the reach of the average family. We need more housing of all types, yet existing residents are afraid of the impacts of those projects. The state has stepped in and imposed numerous requirements on cities, exacerbating the tension. Understanding these various forces, learning about the new rules, and discovering strategies which have worked are the focus of this seminar presented by a team of legal and public policy experts. WHO SHOULD ATTEND This program is designed for professionals in the public and nonprofit sectors, who are participating in the preservation or production of housing in Southern California. It should be particularly useful for municipal planners, council members, planning commissioners, and citizens involved in the policies and politics of affordable housing; consultant firms preparing legislation for cities; attorneys working in housing; and housing developers trying to create successful projects. TOPICS INCLUDE ? The Empirical, Political, and Practical Nature of the Problem ? A Brief History of Government's Role ? Where We Are Now The role of the federal government ? Role and Requirements of the State Housing ? Finding a site ? Where are we going SEMINAR LEADER Mark Winogrond , FAICP, past director of community development in three Southern California cities, consultant to and board member of numerous housing development corporations, consultant to the City of Los Angeles on Mayor Villaraigosa's new housing strategy GUEST SPEAKERS Michael Dieden , President, Creative Housing Associates, developers of affordable housing projects in South Pasadena, Metlox Block in Manhattan Beach, Bixel Lofts in downtown L.A., and others Cristi Hogin , Partner, Jenkins& Hogin, a Manhattan Beach Law firm representing ten cities and many more special agencies Allyne Winderman , Director of Housing and Redevelopment, City of West Hollywood Robin Hughes , Executive Director, Los Angeles Community Design Center and Planning Commissioner, City of Los Angeles DATE, TIME, AND LOCATION Friday, February 22 - 9 am-4:30 pm (Registration and refreshments begin at 8:15 am.) UCLA Covel Commons 330 DeNeve Drive Plaza Room A Los Angeles, California (310) 825-7885 FEES AND CREDIT $300/$325 Reg # T6473 ($300 for enrollments postmarked, phoned in, or faxed by February 8, $325 thereafter) **We are in the process of applying for the new CM credits for this course: 6.0 hours.

California's Central Valley is a distinctive place. It is a place of flat ground and extreme weather. It is a place of fruits, nuts, grains and dairy products, yet it's also a place of extensive suburban sprawl. It's a place with some of the worst air pollution in the country, but, when the sky is clear, a place with stunning mountain views. It's a place of recent immigrants and extreme poverty, and of fourth and fifth generation landowners.And the Central Valley is a place of small towns, many dating to the 19th century and laid out on a grid that straddles the railroad. The classic valley town has a business district along a primary thoroughfare, handsome public buildings that often front on a public square or park, and leafy residential neighborhoods just off downtown. Frequently, there's a sign or arch stretching across the Main Street at the entrance to the downtown � often with a corny saying. The high school might be right downtown. There is always a strong connection to agriculture.Many Central Valley cities are struggling, and plenty of the downtowns are badly neglected, even abandoned. But there are some downtowns that are gems � centers of community and commerce that reflect a true sense of the valley's distinctive place. Central Valley sprawl has not yet obliterated the great downtowns that were created more than a hundred years ago, and in many cases they are coming back. __________Editor's Note: Our presentation of the best small-city downtowns in the Central Valley kicks off our "Best Small Downtowns" series. Over the next year, we'll roll out a series of "bests" of California's cities smaller than 75,000 people, of which there are about 365.__________ We list our favorite small Central Valley downtowns here, but first a few caveats: Even though they have first-rate downtowns, Chico and Visalia don't appear on this list because the cities have more than 75,000 people. You also won't find Davis on this list, because we consider Davis a college town that happens to be in the valley. Watch for Davis to rate highly on our future rundown of college towns. The best small-city Central Valley downtowns:1. Woodland. Unlike downtowns in similar sized cities, downtown Woodland never died � not even when County Fair Mall opened at the southern edge of Woodland during the mid-1980s. Restaurants, watering holes, small professional service businesses and offices helped keep Main Street as the center of town. In the heart of downtown sits the City Hall, a 19th Century valley classic that was rebuilt during the Depression. The residential neighborhoods between East and West streets are filled with tall trees and well-maintained houses of Victorian, Tudor and craftsman design. But the jewel is the Woodland Opera House, a national historic landmark and, since the 1970s, a state park. The brick opera house was closed for 76 years before it reopened in 1989 and today provides a gorgeous setting for live theater. And both before and after the show, you'll find people on the sidewalks of downtown Woodland.2. Hanford. Especially in smaller cities, downtowns often thrive if they are the county seat. In the old days, county seats were usually the regional center of commerce and culture, leaving behind a legacy of both architecture and activity. That's what makes Hanford a great downtown. Hanford has only 50,000 people, (it's the county seat of extremely poor Kings County), and it's not on the freeway. Yet the downtown goes on for blocks, stretching from the old commercial core � which also features an opera house � to the governmental core that revolves around a town square that contains the old Kings County Courthouse. The 1896 courthouse is now used as an office building; the 1898 jail is now a restaurant. To the north is the new courthouse � architecturally pretty similar. Just to the west of the old courthouse is the 1929 Hanford Fox Theater, which now features live musical acts. Except for Visalia � similar in that it's an old county seat off the freeway � Hanford is the best downtown in the San Joaquin Valley.3. Lodi. When Woolworth and JC Penney closed their stores in downtown Lodi during the mid-1990s, the district appeared on the edge of collapse. Instead, the redevelopment agency, merchants and property owners invested in wide sidewalks, cobble-covered streets, a new parking structure, a cinema, a refurbished train station (which now serves as a busy bus station) and events such as a regular farmers' market and street fairs. Nowadays, downtown Lodi's restaurants, movie house, shops and 100-year-old buildings provide a destination for locals and people from outside the area. A kid-oriented science museum is scheduled to open soon. There is even interest in residential development. Getting close:- Red Bluff. It's often not a good sign when a downtown becomes known for its antique and second-hand stores. But in Red Bluff it's not necessarily a bad thing. The antique stores do decent business and attract people to downtown's coffee houses, bars and restaurants, some of which have been around for decades. A new plaza is under construction on Main Street. But it's architecture that helps set apart what is otherwise a fairly ordinary downtown. The county courthouse, the gothic Sacred Heart Church and the century-old Herbert Kraft Free Library (now a home d�cor store) would be landmarks in nearly any city. The close-in residential neighborhoods have some glorious Victorian and craftsman homes. Still, there's a feeling that downtown, including some historic structures, could use substantial new investment. A better connection to the adjacent Sacramento River would help, too.- Dinuba. The water tower that looms over downtown Dinuba screams "valley town." Thanks in part to the high school at one end of downtown, and a vocational center several blocks away, downtown is a fairly busy place. A six-screen cinema and bowling alley, separated by a plaza and all fairly new, help generate activity after hours and reflect a willingness to invest in the place that is clearly the center of town. Others of note:- Turlock. The leafy downtown is fairly small for a city of 70,000, but it offers some interesting eateries, architecture and a good park. It's tough to compete for downtown-type activities with the nearby behemoth Modesto, which has put enormous effort into downtown redevelopment. Nevertheless Turlock has some excellent urban fabric, deriving in part from a diagonal street grid that creates a flatiron-building-style site at a critical spot.- Winters. There's not much in this tiny Yolo County town (population about 7,000) that isn't "downtown." The Palms Playhouse is a great performing arts house. The delightful Buckhorn Steakhouse is located on the "100% corner," at Main and Railroad. The small-town funky atmosphere � with just a touch of sophistication � is one of the reasons bicyclists stop on way their way from Sacramento to Lake Berryessa.- Delano. Here's a good example of how the outside observer's expectations and cultural background plays a role in assessing a place. Located along Highway 99 in Kern County, Delano has an extensive downtown. Unlike Hanford or Visalia, Delano has never been a county seat or a center of commerce or culture, and it's unlikely to become one anytime soon. But you can't deny that downtown Delano is functional. Like a lot of older L.A. suburbs that have a Mexican flavor, Delano pulses with businesses catering to the local market � Latino families with modest incomes. Delano ain't pretty, but it's awfully tough to find a for rent sign. So it works for the locals. And what's so bad about that? Woe is them (for now):- Marysville. The story of this city's downtown is mostly a tale of demographics. Marysville is the county seat in what has long been one of the poorest counties (Yuba) in the state, and downtown reflects the state of the community. The five-story beaux arts Hotel Marysville closed more than 20 years ago and sits as a boarded-up and burned-out landmark at downtown's most visible intersection. There are plans to refurbish it into housing or a genuine hotel, but there have been plans for years. There were also plans for a multi-screen cinema, but that development never happened either. Still, there are far fewer vacancies in downtown buildings these days, a handful of coffee houses, restaurants and other businesses seem to thrive, and there's even a new bookstore. The city is trying to create a better link between downtown and adjacent Ellis Lake, located in a classic valley park. While the "catalytic" project has never materialized, the little successes are starting to add up.- The CP&DR Staff