Voters in Lodi rejected redevelopment, while those in Alamo said no to incorporation of a new city during municipal balloting on March 3. In Los Angeles, voters narrowly rejected two charter amendments, one for a solar energy program, the other for fiscal incentives for business development. Only in Glendora did the electorate provide a positive response to proposed change. A measure rezoning the site of a former automobile dealership for other retail uses passed easily. Redevelopment has been a controversial topic in the San Joaquin County city of Lodi for years. In 2002, the City Council dropped a plan to establish a redevelopment project area after opponents gathered enough signatures to force a referendum. But the idea never completely died, and the City Council last year approved a 2,100-acre project area covering much of the older, east side of town. Again, opponents forced a referendum election, but this time the question actually went on the ballot as Measure W. Opponents argued that redevelopment would saddle Lodi with debt, permit the redevelopment agency to use eminent domain on behalf of special interests and take money away from schools and the county. "This Lodi ordinance binds our city for the next forty years," stated one flyer against redevelopment. "No to Waste – Lodi doesn't need another layer of government." Proponents contended redevelopment would provide the best tools to revitalize a poor part of town, and they noted the City Council had prohibited use of eminent domain. Still, opponents carried the day, as 54.1% of voters overturned the council's redevelopment plan. "Lodi has a small but very vocal group of people who really distrust government. We have more than our share of referendums," said Mayor Larry Hansen, Lodi's mayor and retired police chief. A city of 63,000 people, Lodi is one of the few San Joaquin Valley cities where growth control measures and big-box limitations frequently make it onto the ballot. The Measure W defeat, said Hansen, "was really frustrating to me because those who understood it are just baffled why the community wouldn't help itself." He blamed the loss on the negative campaign against redevelopment and the timing of the election for a period when nothing else was on the ballot and the economy is bad. Still, the problems persist, he said. "What's your plan?" Hansen demanded. "You still have 100-year-old sewer pipes. You still have neighborhoods that are run down. People still need affordable housing. The sad thing is, we have no money to address these issues." However, Lodi Councilwoman Joanne Mounce, a redevelopment opponent, said the city has raised nearly $30 million through utility surcharges – enough to fund necessary infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. She denied the city's east side is blighted. "I've always felt the plan was a smokescreen for economic development, not for all of these other things," said Mounce, who decried incentives for developers and businesses. "I just think there needs to be reform of redevelopment on the state level." In Contra Costa County, voters overwhelmingly denied Alamo's bid to become the state's 481st city. Opponents agued that the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission's comprehensive fiscal analysis overstated revenues and underestimated expenses, especially for law enforcement. The opponents – who included Cecily Talbert Barclay, co-author of Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law – presented their own study that said the new city could face an almost immediate deficit that would prompt either service cuts or higher taxes. The proposed city of about 16,700 people and 10 square miles would have been based on a contract model more commonly seen in Southern California. The city would have had only about 10 employees, with private firms and other public agencies providing most services. However, the new city would have gained control of the politically sensitive topics of planning, roads and parks. The incorporation drive stemmed in part from the Board of Supervisors' decision a few years ago to convert a local land use advisory council from elected to board-appointed. The incorporation drive failed, as Measure A received only 35.6% support. In Los Angeles, voters defeated a charter amendment that would have required the Department of Water & Power (DWP) to install and operate 400 megawatts of solar energy facilities on city properties by 2014. Measure B provided a major component of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's renewable energy proposal, and Villaraigosa easily won re-election over token opposition during the March municipal election. But Measure B opponents said the solar program was ill-conceived, would have relied on DWP's union employees when it should have been open to competitive bidding, and would have raised electricity rates. Although Measure B lost 50.5% to 49.5%, Villaraigosa vowed to press forward with additional solar installations. Measure E, the economic development charter amendment, fared even worse, as 52.3% of voters said no. The proposal would have given the city clear authority to provide economic incentives to retain or attract businesses. The city already provides numerous incentives to developers and businesses, but the charter is unclear on the city's authority. Currently, incentives require City Council approval. Measure E would have clarified the charter and permitted city staff to offer incentives. Skeptics cited a city controller's report that found the city does a poor job of ensuring subsidized developers provide promised public benefits. Voters in the San Gabriel Valley city of Glendora endorsed the rezoning of the site of a former Hyundai dealership located in the Glendora Marketplace shopping area. Previously, the site was reserved for automotive-related uses. The Measure C zoning approved by 70.0% of voters permits up to 100,000 square feet of general and specialized retail, including restaurants and department stores.

A former San Joaquin County political operative who was convicted of corruption in 2005 has had five of 17 guilty counts thrown out by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate panel overturned counts of attempted extortion against Monte McFall but upheld conviction on 12 counts of extortion, mail fraud and witness tampering. A former Water Reclamation District 17 board member and Stockton-based lobbyist, McFall was charged with illegally trying to block Calpine from competing with his client, Sunlaw Energy, for the right to build a power plant at the Port of Stockton. He was also charged with, among other things, shaking down a company called Golden State Developers for $50,000 to $100,000. Federal prosecutors indicted McFall, then-San Joaquin County Sheriff Baxter Dunn, former county Supervisor Lynn Bedford, and Allen Sawyer, who was chief deputy director of the Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Planning, in September 2004. Dunn, Bedford and Sawyer all pleaded guilty to mail fraud or making false statements. McFall went to trial and was convicted in March 2005, as was a former aide to Bedford. McFall was sentenced to 10 years in prison and a $50,000 fine (see CP&DR In Brief , April 2005 , February 2005 ). The Ninth Circuit, however, found that McFall was not guilty of attempting to extort Calpine. According to the court, McFall, Dunn and Sawyer formed a company that had a contract with Sunlaw that would pay them handsomely if Sunlaw won the right to build at the port. They pressured Calpine to withdraw from port competition; when Calpine refused, McFall and his partners drew up a resolution raising environmental, health and safety concerns about a Calpine project in neighboring Alameda County. Bedford sponsored the resolution, which the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors passed 4-1. McFall's participation in that activity, the Ninth Circuit ruled, did not amount to a conspiracy to commit extortion. Because of an improper jury instruction, the Ninth Circuit overturned McFall's conviction on attempting to extort money from Golden State Developers in exchange for delivering Bedford's vote. Part of McFall's case could be retried, or he could have his sentence reduced. He remains in prison in Arkansas. The Ninth Circuit ruling in United State v. McFall , No. 07-10034, 09 C.D.O.S. 2860, was filed March 9.

The future of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) service in the South Bay became less clear in March. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) learned in March that a planned extension of BART from Fremont into downtown San Jose and on to Santa Clara will be delayed by an unknown number of years because of lower-than-expected sales tax revenues. A VTA consultant reported that after inflation is considered, sales tax revenues will remain flat through 2036. Revenues from the Measure A 2000 sales tax override for numerous transportation projects will generate only about $7 billion, rather than the expected $11 billion. Estimated to cost $6 billion, the 16-mile BART extension had been scheduled for completion by 2018. Faced with the poor revenue forecast, Valley Transportation Authority officials now say they may build the extension in segments, with the final piece to downtown San Jose and Santa Clara not being completed before 2025. The news of the sales tax revenues arrived only five months after Santa Clara County voters approved an additional one-eighth-cent sales tax for the BART project. In the meantime, two former BART board members and a transit advocacy organization have sued the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Agency for allocating $313 million to help fund a 5.4-mile BART extension through Fremont to the city's Warm Springs District. The group Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund and former BART Directors Sherman Lewis and Roy Nakadegawa argue that a 2000 Alameda County sales tax measure bars use of that revenue source for the Fremont project until full funding for BART to Santa Clara is assured. The Alameda County agency has allocated $224 million in sales tax revenue to the project. The plaintiffs also say MTC cannot shift $91 million in bridge toll increase money from a proposed Dumbarton Bridge train project to the BART extension. The plaintiffs have asked a judge to block construction of the line to Warm Springs, which is scheduled to begin this summer. The Santa Clara County BART extension would take off from the Warm Springs station.

Since our previous blog on the possibility that auto malls – like regional malls – will soon become retail dinosaurs, the California press has glommed onto the idea big time. This is partly, of course, because auto sales are in the news in other ways. A few cities, for example, are offering auto sales tax rebates as part of their "local stimulus package," while other jurisdictions have provided loans to car dealerships . First came Brandon Lowrey in the Los Angeles Daily News , who used Palmdale's auto sales tax rebate as the hook for a story about how much auto sales tax is declining. He quoted a Los Angeles city official as guessing that auto-related sales tax revenue dropped 21%, or $2.1 million, during the fourth quarter. Then, Brooks Edwards in the Victor Valley News took the story one step further, reporting on San Bernardino's plans to offer a sales tax holiday for about 10 days, starting this Wednesday (March 25) and slopping over two weekends, to April 5. Of course, neither reporter explained how eliminating sales tax on automobiles will help increase city sales tax revenues. And this morning, Big Dan weighed in on the topic. Sacramento Bee political columnist Dan Walters took note of the general decline in auto sales and appeared to come down on the side of broadening the sales tax to include services as well as goods. Stay tuned. The auto-mall-as-dinosaur story isn't going away anytime soon. – Bill Fulton

A state appellate court has upheld a Santa Clara Valley Water District rate increase as exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, rejecting multiple arguments from a retail water company that the increase was subject to environmental review. Created by state law, the Santa Clara Valley Water District provides wholesale water to various retail water suppliers. The district also manages the groundwater basin by recharging the aquifer and by providing treated surface water so that other entities limit their groundwater pumping. The district has authority to levy a fee on water extracted from the groundwater basin. In March 2006, the water district submitted its annual report for the upcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors. The report contained the staff's recommendations and analysis concerning groundwater-charge rate increases for the 2006-07 fiscal year. The staff recommended for a "low case" scenario for potential rate increases of about 3% to 7%, and against a "high case" scenario that would fund additional operations and capital investments. Staff also recommended increasing surcharges on treated water, partly to reduce treated water sales because the groundwater basin was full at the time. Great Oaks Water Company submitted a formal written objection to the rate increases, arguing they were being used to affect groundwater levels and were therefore subject to environmental review. Great Oaks is a private utility that serves 100,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers with water extracted from the company's wells in Santa Clara County. The water company is subject to the district's groundwater charges. After several meetings, the district's Board of Directors accepted the staff's recommendations and approved the rate increases in June 2006. The board made findings that the charges were exempt from CEQA review because the charges were for meeting operating expenses, purchasing supplies, meeting financial reserve needs and completing capital projects necessary to maintain services within existing service areas. The district essentially cited the CEQA exemptions for rate setting found in Public Resource Code § 21080, subdivision (b)(8). Great Oaks sued, arguing that the district's CEQA findings were inadequate and not supported by substantial evidence, and that the rate increases were adopted for purposes requiring CEQA review. A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge rejected the contentions, as did a unanimous three-judge panel of the Sixth District Court of Appeal. Great Oaks argued the findings were inadequate because the district did not cite specific facts in the record to support the exemption. The court disagreed and pointed to the standard the state Supreme Court established in Environmental Protection & Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection , (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459. In that case, the court ruled that it was acceptable for an agency's findings to refer generally to the administrative record, even though specific references would be the better practice. What matters, the court ruled, was "the analytic route the administrative agency traveled from evidence to action." The Santa Clara district passed this test, the Sixth District ruled. The water district identified statutory purposes for which it claimed the exemption, and referred to portions of the annual report and other information from the hearing process to support those purposes. "In other words," Justice Wendy Duffy wrote for the court, "based on the totality of the resolution's findings, we can readily ascertain the analytic route that the district traveled from evidence to action." Great Oaks argued substantial evidence did not support the findings, and it pointed to evidence the district used rates to manipulate groundwater supplies and expand the district's services. The court rejected the contention, concluding the "annual report alone contains substantial evidence supporting the district's findings that the groundwater-charge rate increases were for statutorily exempt purposes." "Even if the record shows that the district was effectuating groundwater management policy through its groundwater rates," Duffy continued, "as long as its stated purpose for the use of the funds raised via the rate increases fell within the scope of the statutory exemption, the district's action remained exempt." Great Oaks pointed to evidence the district had used past capital expenditures to expand services, but the court said past practices did not matter here because Great Oaks failed "to provide linkage between these past expenditures or projects and the funds to be received in the future from the proposed groundwater rate increases." The Case: Great Oaks Water Co. v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist. , No. H032067, 09 C.D.O.S. 1179, 2009 DJDAR 1363. Filed January 28, 2009. The Lawyers: For Great Oaks: Jeffrey Lawson, Silicon Valley Law Group, (408) 573-5700. For the district: Thomas Berliner, Duane Morris, (415) 371-2200.

Post-war suburbia has its defenders and its detractors. Recently, I encountered a truly staunch supporter of suburbia and a well-spoken critic. One of them sees black where the other sees white. It was a good reminder of how difficult planning is in California. Helen Allen, a city councilmember in Concord, is an unapologetic defender of the suburbs. I spoke to Allen several weeks back while preparing a story on reuse plans for the closed Concord Naval Weapons Station. The council approved an urban blueprint centered on a BART station. Although she voted for the plan simply to move along the process, Allen hates the plan. People choose to live in places like Concord because they are attracted to quiet neighborhoods of single-family homes with nice yards, Allen said. The plan for the Navy property emphasizes transit-oriented development, high densities and mixed uses. How, she asked, can such a design be considered "smart" when it departs so radically from the rest of town, which people like very much? A well-known firebrand in the East Bay, Allen is in her fifth term on the Concord City Council. Previously, she served on the Clayton City Council and Planning Commission. She's been a player in Contra Costa County land use planning for 35 years, a period during which Contra Costa County's bedroom suburbs have boomed. That's because people find those suburbs desirable, Allen said. The high-density, transit-oriented plan for the Navy property? "Nobody wants to say the king is naked," Allen told me. "I'm trying to be realistic." A little more recently, I spoke with Graham Brownstein, executive director of the Environmental Council of Sacramento, for an upcoming story in Planning magazine on fast-growing cites. One of the cities I examined is Elk Grove. In many respects, Elk Grove is the epitome of modern-day suburbia: massive single-family subdivisions, several commercial power centers, and broad boulevards connecting to highways that carry commuters to jobs in nearby Sacramento. From Brownstein's perspective, Elk Grove also epitomizes everything that's wrong with suburbia. There are no real alternatives to the automobile, there are few employment centers, and the low-density development has paved over hundreds of acres of prime farmland and valuable habitat. "It's not a question of growing or not growing, but rather, how do we grow and are we growing in ways that harness our investment in the best way possible?" Brownstein said. "Even if there weren't economic benefits, you could make an argument that it makes more sense to build communities for people rather than for cars." Brownstein pointed to midtown Sacramento as a better model. Midtown's grid and street design make walking and bicycling feasible, there is a nice mix of structures and uses, traffic is congested but does move, and large employers are located in the neighborhood and close by. He also cited central Folsom, which has a walkable grid, mixed uses and a light rail transit station.   So which vision is correct? Allen's suburbia, which characterizes California since World War II ended? Or Brownstein's urbanism, which predominated prior to the war? Passage of Senate Bill 375 suggests Brownstein's vision may win. I would suggest, however, that we're still in the very early innings. - Paul Shigley

The City of Stockton had no right to take private property on which it later built a minor league baseball stadium, the Third District Court of Appeal has ruled. "This is a case of ‘condemn first, decide what to do with the property later,'" Justice Kathleen Butz wrote for the unanimous three-judge appellate panel. "We shall conclude that the project description in the resolutions of necessity was so vague, uncertain and sweeping in scope that it failed to specify the ‘public use' for which city sought acquisition of the property. This crucial defect precluded an intelligent inquiry into whether city had a legal right to condemn the property and fatally flawed the condemnation process." The court did not order the return of the property – complete with ballpark and parking lot – to the previous owner. Instead, it permitted the city to commence the eminent domain process anew. The court did order the city to pay the property owner's legal costs, estimated at nearly $1 million. The five-story Marina Towers office building was constructed during the mid-1970s as part of a waterfront redevelopment effort that never took off. By the time an entity called Marina Towers LLC (Marina) purchased the property and an adjacent unimproved parcel in 2000, the office building was vacant. The owners proposed renovating the building and opened negotiations with San Joaquin County officials about a potential lease. Meanwhile, city staff members were working on a plan that identified the Marina properties and others along the north shore of the Stockton Deep Water Channel for development of the Stockton Event Center, which would feature an indoor arena, a baseball stadium, a hotel and apartments. The city notified Marina in May 2003 that it was considering acquiring the property via eminent domain. Two months later, the City Council approved a preliminary site plan for the Stockton Event Center that called for an apartment complex on the site of the vacant office building. In September 2003, the council conducted a hearing to consider a resolution of necessity – an essential step before the filing of an eminent domain legal action. At the hearing, Marina's representative complained the city had not defined the project for which it needed the property and questioned how condemnation could benefit the public when it appeared the city was simply transferring the property from one developer to another. Nevertheless, the City Council unanimously approved resolutions of necessity for both parcels, stating that the city already owned 20 acres on the north shore it was preparing for development, that the site was a "catalyst site" for redevelopment and that assembling the north shore parcels would permit development of larger and economically feasible uses. Six days later, the city filed its eminent domain action. Marina fought the lawsuit vigorously. While the litigation was pending, the city adopted an environmental impact report for the Stockton Event Center project, adopted a new resolution of necessity stating it needed one of Marina's parcels for parking, and then adopted a supplemental resolution designating the other parcel for a ballpark. By the time a trial began in 2005 on the city's right to take the properties, the city had already constructed the ballpark and parking lot (see CP&DR Local Watch , December 2006 ). Marina argued the city's acquisition did not serve a public purpose, the resolutions were invalid because they did not identify a public use, the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to complete a new EIR before condemning the property, and the city unlawfully condemned property in a redevelopment project area without complying with the Community Redevelopment Law. The property owner got nowhere with a San Joaquin County Superior Court judge, who rejected all of Marina's claims. A jury later awarded Marina $1.97 million as compensation for the taking. Marina found a much more receptive audience at the Third District Court of Appeal. In its decision, the court reviewed the details of eminent domain law and the Community Redevelopment Law. Although the property lies in a redevelopment project area, the City of Stockton – not the Stockton Redevelopment Agency – acquired the property. Thus, because the property was not being taken to eliminate blight as permitted under redevelopment law, the city had to find (1) the project was in the public interest and necessity, (2) the project was compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury, and (3) the property acquisition was necessary for the project. But the court determined that because there was "no intelligible description" of the project, Stockton could not make the required findings. "If the governing body does not have before it a definable project for which the property is sought to be taken, any discussion of the pros and cons of the condemnation would be an empty gesture and the necessity findings rendered at the conclusion of the hearing would be devoid of real meaning," Justice Butz wrote. Instead, the city provided a list of every potential legal reason for taking the property. But, the court held, "A statement that the property is being taken for any or all of the authorized purposes listed in the Government Code or Code of Civil Procedure amounts to a failure to disclose the purpose of the taking." The fact that the city later changed the resolutions of necessity and actually built public facilities does not matter, the court ruled, because, "a governing body's post-resolution conduct is not relevant" to the validity of the resolutions. Thus, the court ruled, the trial court should have dismissed the city's eminent domain action. Marina argued that if the city's condemnation was not valid, Marina should get the property back. But the court declined to give Marina a publicly funded stadium and parking lot. Instead, it offered the city "the opportunity to adopt new resolutions of necessity for the Marina property containing an adequate description of the proposed projects." Exactly how the process might work, however, is uncertain because the new resolutions arguably would be after-the-fact rationalizations and hearings to "consider" the resolutions mere formalities. Ever since Redevelopment Agency v. Norm's Slauson , (1985) 173 Cal.App.4th 1121 – in which the court blocked an eminent domain action because the agency had already contracted with a developer to build housing on the property being condemned – courts have frowned on resolutions of necessity that amount to foregone conclusions. The Case: City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC , No. C054495, 09 C.D.O.S. 1848, 2009 DJDAR 2187. Filed February 13, 2009. The Lawyers: For the city: Thomas Keeling, Freeman, D'Auito, Pierce, Gurev, Keeling & Wolf, (209) 474-1818. For Marina Towers: Norman Matteoni, Matteoni, O'Laughlin & Hechtman, (408) 293-4300.

If you're in a big hurry to build a road project, environmental review can get in the way. As Bill Fulton reports in this month's Insight column , the state budget pact exempted eight Caltrans projects from the California Environmental Quality Act so that they get built quicker. But some folks in Tehama County are saying, "Hey, wait a second" One of the exempt projects is on Highway 99 in Los Molinos, a small, unincorporated Tehama County community in the almond and pecan orchards between Red Bluff and Chico. Highway 99 is a two-lane highway in these parts. The speed limit south of Los Molinos is 65 mph; to the north, the limit is 55 mph. But the highway is the main drag and commercial corridor in Los Molinos. It's where the town's grocery store, pharmacy, gas stations, bank, post office, hardware store, restaurants and churches are located. The speed limit in town is 35 mph, but many motorists cruise through at 45-plus mph. Caltrans plans a significant traffic calming project to slow motorists passing through Los Molinos and make the situation safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. Caltrans's project calls for building an island at both ends of town, a traffic signal, curb, gutter and sidewalks, and a crosswalk with pedestrian-activated warning lights. I envision something like Highway 299 through Willow Creek in Humboldt, a marvelous traffic calming project completed several years ago. Willow Creek, on Highway 299. But as the Red Bluff Daily News reports, not everyone is satisfied with the Los Molinos project plan. The Chamber of Commerce suggests one aspect of the project could make the situation more hazardous. I don't know if the Chamber's concern is warranted. I do know that this project could be the biggest thing to happen in economically depressed Los Molinos in decades. If Caltrans had to complete an environmental review of the project, we might get some answers to the Chamber's concern. Because of the exemption signed by the governor, we apparently won't know until after the project is built. – Paul Shigley

In the High Desert north of Los Angeles, under the same patch of sky where Chuck Yeager first tore through the sound barrier, Palmdale Regional Airport has been the object of grandiose dreams for nearly two generations. Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) purchased 17,000 as yet undeveloped acres during the 1960s as a portal for commercial jets that would connect the Antelope Valley with any other point on the globe. High-speed rail would whisk passengers up from the Los Angeles Basin to this new international air hub. Three decades later, you can't fly from Palmdale to San Francisco, much less Singapore. In the most recent effort to get even a modest vision off the ground, United Airlines initiated in May 2007 two daily nonstops to SFO from the rechristened LA/Palmdale Airport (PMD), which had operated from Air Force Plant 42 since 1971. United was the eighth carrier to operate from this rinky-dink terminal amid the Joshua trees, but 18 months later, in December 2008, United cancelled the service. United's departure creates more than an inconvenience for High Desert dwellers. It marks perhaps the most grave setback in a long, frustrating effort to spread Southern California's immense amount of air traffic more evenly across the region. "Palmdale is basically the lifeline of the future," said University of California, San Diego, political science professor Steve Erie, a longtime observer of air service in Southern California. "It's just that the future hasn't arrived yet." United had agreed to serve Palmdale in part because of $4 million in federal and local subsidies, plus a heap of enthusiasm. Wheels Up Palmdale, a coalition of the cities of Los Angeles and Palmdale, LAWA, the Air Force, and local business groups, had lobbied for the service and for the subsidy. Their goals included local economic development and shorter drives for High Desert residents who would otherwise use LAX or Burbank airport. " would have a positive ripple effect throughout the county and region," said Tony Bell, spokesman for Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents northern Los Angeles County. "It would be a tremendous boon for the area, improving air quality, the economy, and mobility." "When we went up there for everybody was happy," added Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who served on the Southern California Regional Airport Authority (SCRAA). "But I knew it was a stretch. It was more symbolic about what the future could be than the reality of the moment." More than 300,000 people live in the immediate Palmdale/Lancaster area, with many more in the greater High Desert region. Smaller free-standing cities throughout California, such as Redding, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo, support commercial service. But, lacking major employment centers, the bedroom communities of the Antelope Valley did not generate the business United sought, and would-be passengers from surrounding areas did not materialize. "There simply wasn't enough customer interest," said United spokesman Jeff Kovic. "It was heavily marketed by United and our partners in the Los Angeles area." Because of freeway traffic and the crush of passengers at LAX, Los Angeles-area public officials and regional planning agencies have long sought to divert passengers away from LAX and towards the region's six other commercial airports (Palmdale, Burbank, Ontario, Long Beach, Orange County and Palm Springs). Palmdale features prominently in the Southern California Association of Government's 2004 "Integrated Metropolitan Airport System Plan," which had figured on up to 12.8 million annual passengers and $1 billion in investment in Palmdale by 2030. Now, LAWA has actually relinquished PMD's Federal Aviation Administration certification to operate as a commercial airport (it can be reinstated), while jackrabbits preside over LAWA's 17,000 vacant acres. Proposals for using that property as a sanitation facility and even a solar power farm have recently surfaced. "Regionalization is dead for the near term," said Erie. "There was some commitment on the part of L.A. and L.A. World Airports, but the problem is that they cannot force the airlines to do what the airlines don't want to do. Airlines fly to markets not to airports. And the problem is that when the airlines are financially troubled they cut back on particularly new, uncertain, and marginal routes." As its proponents describe it, airport regionalization centers not so much on air travel per se but rather on the associated traffic and land use patterns. The hope was that public sector leadership could compel airlines to spread out flights among the region's airports so that fewer travelers would have to drive across the region in search of convenient flights and favorable prices, often found at LAX. The economic benefits an airport provides would also spread out. Though few local leaders voiced opposition, the political will and infrastructure to make regionalization a reality never materialized, as unorganized and often mutually uninterested municipalities and rival airport authorities made coordination nearly impossible. The SCRAA, which had convened sporadically for the past decade to discuss ways to coordinate Southern California's 14 commercial and cargo airports, was only an ad hoc group that garnered little attention and, like the Southern California Association of Governments, wielded no coercive or budgetary power. "It's difficult to coordinate the efforts unless everyone comes to the table willing to take additional air traffic," said LAWA Executive Director Gina Marie Lindsey, who praised the efforts of both United and Palmdale's local boosters. "Everybody to push their air traffic somewhere else as opposed to coming to the table and saying, ‘Let's divide this up evenly.'" Lindsey noted that, since 1980, LAX's share of regional passenger traffic has dropped from 74% to 57%. Whatever spirit of regionalization remains is now focused on L.A./Ontario airport, which can legally serve up to 30 million passengers per year but currently serves fewer than 10 million. The greatest long-term hope for Palmdale may therefore depend on the ground transportation infrastructure that comes of Los Angeles County's $30 billion Measure R, the 2008 sales tax initiative. "To make Palmdale ever happen you need the transportation links," said Rosendahl. "This needs a 10- to 20-year plan with the commitment from leadership that says we're going to do it. And there's never been that commitment from the regional approach." LAWA recently issued a post-mortem report declaring the airport currently unsuited for commercial service. Nevertheless, the City of Palmdale holds out hope that PMD can be revived. It may try to assume control of the airport and pursue a low-cost carrier. "We're going to take greater control of our destiny," said Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford, who has championed the airport since he first took office in 1992. "It is an economic engine that we have not even seen the beginning of." Ledford added that he welcomes LAWA's involvement if it chooses to return. While proposals for new airports historically meet with the fierce local opposition, Palmdale is eager to capitalize on an asset that is bought and paid for. "We have what I would submit is the best land use plan for an airport," said Ledford. "We have the best buffering, we've done the noise corridors; the air quality zones off the freeways are in place; it's part of our general plan." Ironically, though, the very same reasons why Palmdale will not become another El Toro – the former Orange County Marine Corps base that infamously failed to win approval as a commercial airport (see CP&DR Deals , May 2003 ; CP&DR , April 2002 ) – is the same reason why Palmdale is unlikely to become another LAX. "The difficulty in building or activating an airport is directly proportional to the population at the site," said LAWA's Lindsey. "The viability of a regularly scheduled commercial service at Palmdale is a ways off. There's not all that many people around the Palmdale airport. That makes it difficult to build traffic, but it does mean that there's not much opposition." Except maybe from the jackrabbits. Palmdale Mayor Jim Ledford, (661) 267-5100, www.cityofpalmdale.org . Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, (213) 473-7011. Steve Erie, UCSD Department of Political Science, (858) 534-3083. Gina Marie Lindsey, Los Angeles World Airports, (424) 646-5260, www.lawa.org . Office of County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, (213) 974-5555.

Have you registered to attend the nation's premier redevelopment conference? The 2009 CRA Annual Conference & EXPO will feature an outstanding slate of speakers and workshops that will provide attendees with new insights, useful strategies, and practical guidance on how to carry out the work of redevelopment in these difficult times. This year's event is being held on April 1-3 at the Monterey Conference Center and Portola Hotel in Monterey. This year's theme is Redevelopment. New Strategies for Making Communities Better and Greener. Attendees will learn the latest information on the State's budget, Federal Stimulus Package, CRA's lawsuit against the State, how to build green communities, how to build coalitions at the local level, CRA's California's Communities program, and more. CRA is so confident that you will learn at least three new things at the 2009 Annual Conference & EXPO that will help you build better communities; we will give your money back if you don't! Wednesday morning's opening speaker is former Governor of Maryland and chairman of the National Governors Association, Parris Glendening, who is President of the Smart Growth Leadership Institute. Governor Glendening will discuss the blending of smart growth and sustainability strategies to address the challenges facing redevelopment agencies. He will also discuss how, as governor, he created a groundbreaking smart growth initiative that focused on using the entire $23 billion state budget as an incentive for smart growth. The Awards luncheon will begin at noon followed by the 13th Annual Awards of Excellence ceremony. This year's program will recognize the eight award-winning projects and the recipients of the Lifetime Achievement In Redevelopment Awards and the William A. Carlson Fellowships. Concurrent sessions and bus tours will be held following the awards ceremony and on Thursday morning. A bus tour of a successful green development project in downtown Monterey is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, and a bus tour of Fort Ord's redevelopment area is scheduled for Thursday morning. Concurrent sessions will feature topics of discussion that include compact development to comply with AB 32 and SB 375; an update on real estate capital markets; innovative approaches to public/private Brownfields development; case studies on green downtown and affordable housing projects; building healthy communities; attracting new economy businesses; implementing AB 987; and, "Train the Trainer" sessions on effective presentations and use of PowerPoint. Thursday's luncheon features Huell Howser, the host and producer of California's Communities, CRA's ground-breaking public television series. Huell will discuss his adventures in filming California's Communities. A DVD featuring the first six episodes will be given free to all attendees at the luncheon! Huell will also be at the EXPO following the luncheon. Attendees will have an opportunity to say hello to Huell and have their photo taken with him. This year's EXPO begins at 2:00 p.m. and features 90 exhibitors displaying the widest array of redevelopment products and services in one place. A list of exhibitors is on CRA's website at www.calredevelop.org . At the website, click on Annual Conference then click on EXPO and Exhibitors . There is a line-up of outstanding sessions on Friday morning that attendees will not want to miss. It begins with concurrent sessions addressing how to lessen the impact of the foreclosure crisis on communities; exurbanization and its implications; declining assessed values; and pass-throughs to comply with AB 1389. Following these sessions will be a general session that will discuss a topic of vital importance to sustaining the funds and tools of redevelopment into the future—coalition building at the local level. Assembly Member Anna Caballero, Chair of the Assembly Local Government Committee, has been invited to begin the session. The session will then feature Dr. Tom Wolff, co-author of From the Ground Up! A Workbook on Coalition Building & Community Development. His topic, Coalition Building: Key to Avoiding More Takeaways of Agency Funds, will discuss how to build local coalitions to advocate redevelopment as an economic stimulus and job creation engine. Following Dr. Wolff, a panel of local redevelopment representatives will discuss how they are successfully building coalitions in their communities. The session will conclude with a discussion on strategies for the future of redevelopment. CRA is a State Bar of California approved Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) provider. MCLE credits will be available for many of the workshops at the conference. The conference program identifies those sessions eligible for MCLE credit. Registration for CRA's 2009 Annual Conference & EXPO is available online by going to the CRA website here .  Registration forms in the conference announcement can also be faxed to CRA at (916) 448-9397. For additional information on the conference, contact Judy Jennemann by email at jjennemann@calredevelop.org or by telephone at (916) 448-8760. Special Speed Coaching Session for the Next Generation of Redevelopment Leaders A speed coaching workshop for the next generation of redevelopment leaders is being held on Wednesday, April 1, from 3:45 – 5:00 p.m. at the Marriott Monterey Hotel (across the street from the Monterey Conference Center). The workshop will provide young, aspiring redevelopment professionals with guidance and counseling from senior level redevelopment officials on how to become leaders in the field of redevelopment. To learn more about this workshop, including how to register, go to CRA website and click on the Annual Conference then click Speed Coaching Workshop.

Need to know where you can find the Timberland Productivity Act in state law? How about the statute governing specific plans? Want to know what the heck the Mills Act really offers to owners of historic properties? Can't figure out where to locate an appellate court opinion that was issued in 1999? Then you need "The Quick List," a glossary of statutes pertaining to local government that also provides guidance on retrieving public documents, as well as links to useful government, planning and policy websites. The 28-page document is a very helpful reference guide for anyone with an interest in local government or land use matters. Compiled by the state Senate Local Government Committee, "The Quick List" has been around since the 1980s, and legislative staffers, government officials, lobbyists and journalists have been relying on it ever since. Staff members and Senate fellows have updated and expanded the document over the years, and the latest and greatest version hit the streets in February. "The Quick List" is available right here . – Paul Shigley

A few months ago, leaders of the California Building Industry Association started using the term "depression." When you look at the numbers, it's hard to argue that the homebuilding industry is not in a depression, rather than a recession. That's why builders are flogging a new, $10,000 state tax credit for purchasers of new homes. The tax credit was part of last month's state budget package, which appears to have had goodies for a large number of constituencies (see Bill Fulton's Insight column ). The homebuyer's program contained in SBx2 15 (Ashburn) provides purchasers a $3,333 credit annually for three years that may be applied to the buyer's state income tax return. The unit must not have been occupied previously, and the buyer must agree to occupy the home as a principle residence for at least two years. The program has a $100 million limit, meaning 10,000 buyers could receive the subsidy. Some buyers may also be eligible for the new federal tax credit program, although it appears the criteria don't overlap well. The intent of the state program is to kick-start California's moribund homebuilding industry, which is reporting the lowest number of starts since, well … since anyone started keeping track. In January, builders pulled permits for 2,007 units, the lowest seasonally adjusted month on record, according to the Construction Industry Research Board. The low numbers caused the board to knock down its forecast for 2009 to 56,000 housing starts – or about 150,000 fewer units than were produced in 2005. True, January is often slow for builders. Still, Santa Cruz, Merced, Madera, Napa, Solano, Sutter and Yuba counties combined issued only 15 permits for new units in January. Fifteen! These are counties with a combined 1.4 million residents. Essentially, new homebuilding has stopped in large portions of the state. Not slowed, but stopped. But will the tax credit program actually goose construction activity, or will it simply help some big builders unload inventory? "We should be able to see very quickly the willingness of builders to start pulling building permits again," Lane Marceaux, chairman of the California Major Builders Council and head of Shea Homes' Northern California division, told reporters during a recent conference call. But Marceaux and Tim Coyle, vice president of the CBIA, declined to predict how quickly builders would respond. "We can't predict it will produce the outcome we expect, but it does have a track record," Coyle said. He was referring to a federal program implemented in 1975, also during an economic slump. Congress authorized a tax credit worth 5% of home value up to $2,000 for the purchase of new homes. Home buying increased by 25% within a year and housing starts doubled in two years. Fear and uncertainty have been keeping people out of the home buying market lately, observed Coyle. He said the tax credit should help ease consumers' worries, but I'm not convinced. With the state unemployment rate steaming past 10% and real estate values continuing to drop, I think fear and uncertainty rule the day. Combine them with continuing tight credit for both buyers and builders, and reasons for confidence diminish further. I have other questions about the tax credit program, such as whether it should have been targeted to certain areas or certain buyers. But I'm probably asking for too much. Give the builders credit for trying to get something going. We'll check back later this year to see if the program seems to be working. – Paul Shigley