One of the many key features of 1978's Proposition 13 was the rolling back of the taxes, and limiting annual increases. A change in ownership was treated as a triggering event for purposes of establishing property valuation, and in turn, the recalculated property tax liability. Duea v. County of San Diego clarifies as aspect of how, and when, tax liability may be recalculated.  Over time, one of the important considerations in applying tax liability was whether a transfer took place. Subsequent to Proposition 13, the Legislature enacted legislation for purposes of defining certain transfers as not constituting a triggering event. Exemptions include acquisition through eminent domain, acquisition by a public entity, or governmental action resulting in a judgment of inverse condemnation.  David Duea, as trustee for a revocable trust, sold property to a private developer active in the development/redevelopment of San Diego's downtown baseball complex, today known as Petco Park. Following the sale of the property, Duea acquired replacement property. Duea then filed a request with the county tax assessor to have the tax base from the sold property transferred to the acquired property. The assessor rejected the request on the basis that the property was not acquired by a public entity.  Duea appealed to the Board of Equalization, arguing that the acquisition was the functional equivalent to an eminent domain proceeding (which would be a basis for base transfer). Backing up Duea, The city's development corporation, responsible for the ballpark and related projects, issued a letter to Duea indicating that had he not sold, the city would have condemned the property. The Board of Equalization affirmed the decision of the assessor. Duea filed a Superior Court action. At trial, Duea argued that the developer-buyer was acting as an agent for the city, but the trial court rejected this argument on the basis that Duea had not presented this issue to the Board of Equalization, thereby failing to exhaust administrative remedies.  The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that Duea had administratively pursued the "eminent domain" argument, but not the acquisition by agency legal theory and that the trial court was not obligated to consider the alternative theory. Recognizing the long line of cases which vest the primary legal proceeding with the local board of equalization, the appellate court declined to broaden the authority of the trial court. The Case:  Duea v. County of San Diego (Feb. 29, 2012, D058333), certified for publication March 27, 2012, 204 Cal.App.4th 691; 2012 Cal.App. LEXIS 350 The Attorneys: James Ellis Schneider, LL.M., Inc., and James Ellis Schneider for Plaintiff and Appellant.  Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, and Walter Joseph DeLorrell III, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.

While the presidential Primary Election will be a non-event in California,this upcoming Election Day, June 5, will be a relatively quiet one for land use measures in California as well. Only a handful of measures appear on city and county ballots. Perhaps not surprisingly, Orange County features two of the most contentious measures: one to promote affordable housing in Yorba Linda and to create a new commercial center in Cypress. In Shasta County, voters will be asked to do some "ballot-box zoning" to stop an approved development, and in Butte County voters may rein in marijuana cultivators, in keeping with a statewide trend to restrict the sale and cultivation of cannabis in communities where it is unwanted.  County of Butte  Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Referendum Measure A - Rejected Measure A is a referendum on an ordinance proposed for Butte County. It asks, "Shall the Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance, Ordinance Number 4029, be adopted?" The Butte ordinance forbids any cultivation - indoors or out - on properties of less than 1/2 acre; limits gardens to 6 mature plants on properties of 1/2 to 1.5 acres; requires all gardens over six plants to be registered with the County Dept of Development Services Gardens; and forbids any cultivation within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks, youth-oriented or residential treatment facilities.  No 19,833 55.27% Yes 16,051 44.73% Orange County Yorba Linda  Affordable Housing at Savi Ranch and Other Locations, Measures H and I - Both Approved On June 5, 2012 the City Council of the City of Yorba Linda called for a special election to be held to allow the residents in the City of Yorba Linda to consider two measures in accordance with the Yorba Linda's Right to Vote Amendment (Measure B). This vote is an effort for the city's housing element to comply with state law, by increasing the allowable number of residential units and building heights at nine specific locations within the city.  If a majority of the voters approve this measure, amendments will be adopted for the Land Use Element and Land Use Diagram of the City's General Plan, the City's Zoning Map and Regulations and the Town Center Specific Plan. Passing the Measure does not require property owners to construct multi-family housing on the identified sites. The measure merely allows housing to potentially be built. As determined by the city attorney, if the measure does not pass the city could potentially be more susceptible to legal challenges alleging that the city is in violation of state housing law Measure H Yes 6,535 60.4% No 4,287 39.6% Measure I  Yes 5,709 53.1% No 5,045 46.9% Orange County City of Cypress Zoning Amendment Measure L - Approved Loosening land use restrictions for the site of the former Cypress Golf Club, Measure L would amend the Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan by creating a new 33.5 acre planning area within the existing specific plan area where most commercial uses permitted in the CG zone would be allowed.  The measure would change the zoning designation within the new planning area from Public and Semi-Public (PS-1A) to Planned Business Park (PBP-25A) and change the various General Plan Land Use Designations with the new planning area to "Specific Plan".  The measure will also limit development in the new planning area to 875,556 square feet with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6:1. The site is currently constrained by 1987's Measure D, which put restrictions on the use of the site when it became apparent that the golf course might not survive. It closed in 2004. Yes 4,041 69.9% No 1,741 30.1% City of Riverside  Commission on Sustainability Measure F - Rejected Measure F asks, "Shall the Charter of the City of Riverside be amended by adding a new section 811, entitled "Commission on Sustainability," which would create a new commission to advise the Mayor and City Council on matters of sustainability as it pertains to environmental stewardship, economic development, and regional advantages as a means of pursuing a higher quality of life...?" The proposed commission has been described as a "think tank" for generating ideas for how the city can pursue a range of sustainable goals, including those that relate to land use. The commission would have no from authority but instead would be an advisory group and hub for gathering information. It would be the first such group to be enshrined in a city charter in California.  No 15,567 64.63% Yes 8,521 35.37% Shasta County Knighton Road Development in Churn Creek Bottom Referendum Measure A - Rejected In 2011, the Shasta County Board of Supervisors approved a commercial development on Knighton Road in Churn Creek Bottom. That decision was the impetus for Measure B, which would freeze zoning in that area.  A "yes" vote on Measure A will allow the proposed development to move ahead. A "no" vote means that the development will not be allowed to go ahead. No 19,957 65.88% Yes 10,338 34.12% Shasta County Freeze Zoning in Churn Creek Bottom Measure B - Rejected Whereas Measure A refers to only the particular development that supervisors have approved for Churn Creek Bottom, Measure B would have broader impacts. It would freeze the general plan in the Churn Creek Bottom until 2036. This will prevent any commercial development in the area until then.  No 21,315 70.66% Yes 8,850 29.34%

Once a shiny, exciting new concept, transit oriented development is easing into the mainstream like a train approaching a station--in thought, if not yet on the ground. Yesterday's Transit Oriented Development Summit, sponsored by the LA chapter of the Urban Land Institute and held at the University of Southern California, attempted to lay the track for a long, prosperous ride -- rather than a dead-end.  Yesterday's event was the third annual TOD Summit, and it's interesting to note what has changed since 2010. The inaugural event was a veritable pep rally for the way that many people think California should grow. Back then, ULI leadership made a deliberate -- and perhaps risky -- choice to get behind TOD and to introduce it to many members who were probably still mourning the collapse of the market for single-family homes. That conference implied that TOD would be one of the trends that would yank the development industry out of its malaise.  Two years later, the industry-wide malaise seems to be so deeply ingrained that it's ceased to be a malaise and instead has become the status quo. The good news, at least for proponents of TOD, is that developers are now having a more sober and, perhaps, more practical discussion about what TOD should be. In part because of the implementation of Senate Bill 375's Sustainable Communities Strategies, California is no longer discussing whether to do TOD but rather how to do TOD. No easy task, apparently.  Panels addressed crucial minutiae such as financing, design, and compliance with SCS's.   I had the pleasure of moderating a session on -- what else? -- redevelopment. That conversation has changed too. The panelists -- attorneys Murray Kane and Michael Kiley, as well as RDA veteran Renata Simril of Jones Lang Lasalle -- emphasized that the loss of redevelopment does not necessarily impact TOD's more than it does other kinds of developments. Nevertheless, it's hard not to notice that, in Los Angeles County at least, many current and future TOD sites lie in former RDA project areas. I'm thinking of South LA's Blue Line, East LA's Gold Lind, and the Purple Line subway through downtown. If there's no RDA, then all the TOD's in those places get harder to develop. Yesterday's discussion was a refreshing departure from the hand-wringing and post-game analysis that had occupied many panels earlier in the year and instead focused on the details of dissolution and the future of redevelopment.  They agreed that litigation would tie up the disposition of assets for 3-4 years and that no one was really sure how or when the plum assets -- including some that might be ripe for TOD -- would get sold off. Maximizing value is not, of course, the same thing as expeditious disposal. Perhaps most pessimistically, Kane in particular emphasized that financing schemes such as infrastructure financing districts and community taxing were unlikely to work at all, much less replace development. (Even though his business is booming, he called dissolution a "disaster" for the state, in part because, he said, revenue recovery that were once estimated at $1.7 billion are plummeting, possibly well below $1 billion.) Ultimately, the panel agreed that cities need to pursue policy solutions (parking came up more than once) in order to invest their windfall tax increments, make development easier, and guide developers who are bold enough to work in former RDA project areas.  The one session that could rightly be called a cheerleading session was, not surprisingly, the speech by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The mayor seemed relaxed and even feisty in his advocacy for transit in the Los Angeles area and for smart development around transit. It's hard not to recall, though, that this very same mayor was pushing for "elegant density" a full seven years ago. It's a long haul, to say the least.  The most exciting upcoming TOD in Los Angeles County might that of USC's massive mixed-use district on the north side of its campus. Within a ten-minutes walk of the Expo Line, it's still not clear whether a revitalized area geared towards the USC community will really have much to do with the surrounding South LA neighborhood, which remains depressed after all these decades. Ironically, the least stirring aspect of the conference was the presentation of "visions" for Los Angeles' Union Station. Recently, LA Metro held a conceptual design competition yielding some lovely renderings--none of which, Metro later revealed, are likely to come to fruition. But big ideas and big projects are not necessarily what drive TOD. The final session, a plenary talk by Pasadena-based architect and New Urbanist eminence Stefanos Polyzoides presented a compelling vision of just how functional and attractive TOD can be -- if it's planned and designed properly. Polyzoides issued what amounted to a call to arms for planners: TOD, he said, is not one building or one project. It's an entire urban region radiating out from a transit station. Ideally, he said, that region needs to be planned as a whole (he, of course, recommended form-based code) and then developed according to the plan. In that sense, his own Del Mar station in Pasadena and other iconic early examples of TOD -- like Oakland's Fruitvale Station and even the award-winning Contra Costa Centre -- do not yet realize what TOD ought to be.   That's a big ought. It's tantalizing to think that, if the financing, the regulation, the planning, and the architecture all come together that LA County (and others around the state) could end up with dozens of gleaming transit-oriented districts to complement what are becoming extensive bus and rail systems. The conference certainly implied that this--and not suburban tract-home development--woudl be the wave of the future. How many more TOD Summits will pass before that happens--and how much of the enthusiasm will remain--is anyone's guess.

The dispute between the State of California and a group of Malibu residents regarding the restoration of the Malibu Lagoon is the latest land-use dispute in this city which occupies – apt word! – a coveted, 30-mile stretch of coastline in Los Angeles County. To the outward eye, the issue appears to center on the state's desire to restore a degraded wetlands area vs. the concerns of local surfers who are fretting about the fate of the legendary point break at Surfrider Beach.  Those surfers believe that the State Parks Department's restoration work , which involves draining polluted water and dredging sediment from a restored wetlands, might somehow ruin their surfing, even though the lagoon is separated from the ocean by an earthen dam.  In other words, to the uninformed eye, this case could easily be mistaken as the old canard of Malibu residents opposing any intrusion by "outsiders," such as state environmental agencies and other bandits.  \t Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the residents of Malibu are actually protecting us all from harm, God forbid. \t Never before has this been revealed publicly: Malibu residents base their actions on the Kabbala, the ancient mystical tradition. \t The truth is – and I tremble as I write these words -- the Malibu coast, famed for sunshine and sparkling blue water, is actually a place of metaphysical evil. We learn this from Zephaniah, Chapter 2, Verse 5: "Woe to the inhabitants of the seacoast … land of the Philistines." We know that Malibu is the home of the Philistines, because of the high number of local residents who work in the entertainment industry.   \t In our ignorance, Californians have wrongly criticized Malibu residents for being piggish and exclusionary. Like blind people, we have excoriated the selflessness of home owners—such as David Geffen and Barbara Streisand—who have attempted to keep non-Malibuans from accessing the coast, or even parking their cars in the city. May Heaven forgive our ingratitude! Malibu residents are simply shielding us from the bad magic of an accursed sea coast. (The pious are advised to spit three times, at the very mention of the place.) So conscientious are the Kabbalists of Malibu, in fact, that they have been known to chase away self-described "swimmers" who are "legally" enjoying what they naively refer to as "public" waters, especially those of Broad Beach, where rent-a-cops on Four-Runners keep the masses at bay. And to think that some of these so-called "by-right bathers" actually complain, mind you, about the "harassment" they receive at the hands at the blessed guardians of Malibu's private beaches! As my dad used to say, "no good deed goes unpunished."    When the state wildlife service brings its bulldozers to Malibu lagoon this month, nothing less than a cataclysm could be the result. Remember those billboards last year that publicized the end of the world on particular dates? Those were the originally scheduled start dates for the lagoon work! Just let that sink in for a minute. The Kabbalistic message is clear: Stay away from Malibu, you sheepish masses! It's bad for you. Trust me on this one, OK? One last thing: Every person who reads this article and has access to social media should tweet about it. This act will ensure good health and prosperity for the rest of your life. A 49-year-old school teacher in Michigan who tweeted an earlier article of mine on this very website won $7 million from the state lottery shortly after. If you fail to tweet this article, unfortunately, things just might go badly for you. I don't want to say any more. Like I said, trust me. Have I ever lied to you?

Just as new policies are arising in California to wean Californians off their cars, a force more powerful than public policy has arisen to get the next generation all amped up about driving. No, gas prices haven't plummeted and high speed rail isn't dead (yet). Those would be child's play compared to Cars Land -- the newest "world" at Disney's California Adventure theme park.  Forget the old Autopia ride, which was basically a string of glorified golf carts putting down a track. According to its website, Cars Land re-creates seemingly the entire landscape of the American West and sends cartoony roadsters bounding over ravines and along canyon walls. Kids can scamper among jalopies, jeeps, and low-riders, and then have a milkshake at a roadside diner. It may remind you of a movie you've seen. It was called Cars.  I spend enough time bounding over nothing while I'm idle on the 10 Freeway, so I don't think I'll be engaging in this particular fantasy. But I have a feeling that millions of kids have other ideas. They're going to clamber aboard and experience a thrill unlike anything they've ever experienced before. Unless they've ever ridden in a real car before.  Cars Land could make driving cool in a way that we haven't seen since James Dean. Well, OK, Paul Newman. Maybe Steve McQueen. Or Burt Reynolds. And David Hasslehoff. And Dale, Jr. Hey Girl , Ryan Gosling grabs a mean gearshift too.  Oh, never mind.  Given that cars have been cool for the past 100 years or so, I guess Cars Land isn't going to leave any impressions that aren't already there. In fact, given Disney's track record with Americana, Cars Land, which opens June 15, might actually herald good things for the real California.  Disneyland inspired lot of interesting 1980s urban theory, which celebrated the eerie unreality of the place. Fresh off Space Mountain (and who knows what else), Jean Beaudrillard theorized that Disneyland created a copy of the real world--and yet, is also in the real world. Disneyland is a place and the idea of a place all at once. I, for one, never bought into this notion of hyper-reality, which Bauldrillard refers to as "simulacrum," meaning a copy without an original. I have never for a moment believed I was in anything other than an enormous diorama.  (California Adventure takes this idea to a new extreme, by re-creating famous sites in California, as if visitors couldn't just visit the actual sites themselves. It even includes replicas of old Los Angeles landmarks, including the Carthay Circle movie theater and the streamline modern masterpiece Pan Pacific Auditorium. The thought of seeing buildings that really ought to still exist sounds, to me, more depressing than It's a Small World.) For those of us who can neither suspend our disbelief nor stomach too much poststructural theory, Disneyland as a magical place isn't so interesting. But Disneyland as an archeological site is another matter entirely.  With the possible exception of Fantasyland, each of the other five "lands" in the original Disneyland park--Adventure-, Tomorrow-, Frontier-, and Main Street, USA---was grounded in something resembling reality. Even Tomorrowland drew inspiration from the conquest of space during the Cold War.  Notably, this is archive of places we've lost, sometimes in tragically ironic ways. The rainforest is retreating and conquered the frontier. Fairy princesses have given way to Snookie and Khloe, and tomorrow has come and gone. Main Street, USA troubles me the most, since it celebrated the classic American main street at the very moment when small town life was giving way to suburban life (thanks, in part, to the car). The Happiest Place on Earth is, in short, a graveyard of American ideals.  There's an argument to be made that Disney actually contributed to the decline of main street America, by introducing mass-produced entertainment that degraded community life, but that's beside the point. What's more salient is that Disney may be on to something with its uncanny ability to predict, and create, nostalgia. I'm sure that at one point the demise of the frontier, the jungle, and manned space flight seemed preposterous. It could be that, in the near future, driving and automobiles will also lose their luster and that they'll be best enjoyed in amusements parks rather than on I-5 at rush hour.  If that's the case, then Cars Land may flip Baudrillard's simulacrum on its head: the real world might actually become better than the fake one.  Even in light of that rosy notion, I confess that I'm still not excited to visit Anaheim anytime soon. But I'm sure plenty of other people are. I wonder how they'll all get there?

While most of California's cities undergo the arduous wind-down of their redevelopment agencies, a handful of cities have been going about business as usual. For most of the cities that never had redevelopment agencies, business has been, and probably will continue to be, good. Redevelopment took root in economically disadvantaged places, so the likes of Beverly Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, and Sausalito are carrying on contentedly. Add to that rarified group the East Bay of Benicia and the south Los Angeles County city of Gardena. They are among the few cities in California that, by most accounts, should have had redevelopment agencies and yet did not. Though the demise of redevelopment has not necessarily been a blessing in disguise, those cities have nonetheless escaped the trauma that their peers are suffering.  "All the other cities in Solano County have redevelopment agencies, and it's extremely difficult dealing with it," said Benicia City Manager Brad Kilger, a former redevelopment manager who also serves on a League of California Cities post-redevelopment task force. "There are dozens and dozens of issues that need to be worked out on how you unwind these things." Though both Gardena and Benicia face economic challenges – Benicia has an outdated industrial park and Gardena's median annual household income of $45,599 is well less than that of the state as a whole – Kilger said that the benefits of his city's current situation are twofold. The city does not have to contend with what Kilger described as the administrative and logistical "debacle" that is the dissolution process. Moreover, the city will not have to part with full-time staff members whose salaries may have been funded by redevelopment, as they were in many other cities.  "Since we didn't have an RDA….our city wasn't heavily invested in personnel or other costs…..associated with RDAs, so we weren't really impacted by the changes recently," said Ward Madrono, Gardena's police chief and assistant community development director. "We are thankful that we have no liability because of the recent decisions." In that respect, the loss of redevelopment is yet another blow that has followed years' worth of fiscal constraints brought on by the recession.  "Given the turmoil that's created inside organizations who have been over the last 3-4 years dealing with downsizing…(dissolution) is like the last straw," said Kilger. "From that standpoint we do not have to contend with that and I see that as a major plus for us." Cities that have lost their redevelopment agencies are currently caught in a maelstrom of uncertainty as the Department of Finance deliberates on the validity of their Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules.  "We are thankful that we have no liability because of the recent decisions," said Madrono. Cities without redevelopment agencies might not be in strong shape, but their fate may be more predictable.   "We feel that we've probably hit bottom and, barring another major turnaround recession, that we'll be able to continue to deal with the need for cost reactions and such," said Kilger. "The cities with (former) redevelopment agencies…they don't know where the bottom is." The two cities missed out on the redevelopment trend -- which gained momentum in California following the 1978 passage of Proposition 13 -- for different reasons.  For decades, Benicia had funded development activities from its general fund surplus, created in part by the success of a mid-20th century era Benicia Industrial Park. But, with the industrial park in decline, Kilger said that, upon arrival in Benicia, he felt the city was ready to explore other options.  "When I came on board about a year ago, the infrastructure in the industrial park had deteriorated over the last 30-some years," said Kilger. "Before redevelopment had met its demise, I was thinking this is a prime community for redevelopment!" Madrono said that the city had not necessarily suffered for lack of redevelopment, except for having trouble assembling parcels.  "We're a built-out city for the most part," said Madrono. "Without having the funding of an RDA to do that ourselves we've been limited in our ability to do large-scale developments."  Gardena's failure to form a redevelopment agency was not for lack of trying. Rather, Gardena residents raised the common--if not necessarily substantiated--complaint that redevelopment would lead to rampant use of eminent domain. Redevelopment foes called for a voter referendum on redevelopment and won.  Madrono said that, had the issue come up again more recently, the vote might have yielded a different result.  "There was a lot of misinformation about it and maybe some lack of trust at the time," said Madrono. "If it was on the ballot now, there might be more trust in government…to move that forward."  As cities are now trying to devise their own home-grown economic development initiatives, Benicia and Gardena do not necessarily offer much by way of models. Benicia, with fewer than 30,000 people, thrived in large part because of the industrial park. Meanwhile, Gardena employed a range of administrative reforms in order to facilitate the development process.  "We've tried to develop a one-stop approach to economic development….identifying potential businesses that want to come here, through our hand-holding and pre-meetings," said Madrono. He added that the city has also tried to streamline the code-enforcement process.  Those practices, said Madrono, helped make Gardena a finalist for the honor of "Most Business-Friendly City" by the Los Angeles Economic Development Corp. last year.

Now that the age of Senate Bill 375 has arrived, transit-oriented development is poised to become not just a trend but indeed a common practice in California. But, as a typology, TOD is still unknown territory for many developers and planners. Just how to create appealing, equitable developments that actually achieve the goal of getting people out of their cars remains an inexact science. Thus, the Urban Land Institute's TOD Summit, to be held at USC this Thursday, June 7. Among the featured panels will be one on the impact of the loss of redevelopment on planned and dreamed-about transit oriented developments. This panel will be moderated by CP&DR's own Josh Stephens. For more information on the summit, please click below:   http://la.uli.org/event/tod-summit-2012/

In the wake of a court ruling to deny a temporary restraining order against the June 1 disbursement of property tax funds, KCRW Santa Monica's venerable public affairs show "Which Way L.A.?" included a segment on the ongoing fallout from the death of redevelopment. CP&DR editor Josh Stephens participated in the discussion, along with host Warren Olney and Irvine City Council Member Larry Agran, who explained the impact of redevelopment on plans for Irvine's Great Park. Tune into the podcast, recorded Thursday, May 31, by clicking below:  http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/ww/ww120531redevelopment_funds_

How do cities create a thriving urban fabric on large lots?  How do you build large developments to fit within existing communities?  How can large developments contribute to neighborhood vitality rather than overshadow it? Such was the theme of "Large: Designing for Density", the third installment of the Lunchtime Forum series held by San Francisco Urban Planning & Research (SPUR) last week.  In the hour-long forum, moderated by Anne Torney of Daniel Solomon Design, speakers from the public, non-profit, developer, and architectural worlds held forth on what they considered the essential elements for large residential design. More than just an esoteric discussion, the topic could prove to be important for cities that, in the coming years, will be conforming to Sustainable Communities Strategies and deciding what density ought to look like.  Joshua Switzky, representing the San Francisco Planning Department, compared large residential developments to UFOs landing in the midst of a city. He characterized zoning and design guidelines as the controls to rein in large-lot development that can otherwise "run amok".  While San Francisco adopted its first Urban Design element in 1972, it became clear over the proceeding decades that it didn't give enough guidance for large-lot development.  The Better Neighborhoods Program, launched in 2002, hopes to provide both citywide and neighborhood-specific design guidance for incorporating large-lot development into the urban fabric.  The tools Switzky listed for integrating large development are well known to most: re-establishing street-grid connections on super-blocks, requiring ground floor activity, syncopating building facades to create sight-line variations, and breaking up the massing of building frontages. Daniel Murphy, the president of Urban Green Devco LLC, next spoke on design for large-lot residential from the developer's point of view. Murphy drew most of his examples from the South-of-Market neighborhoods (South Beach, Bayside, Mission Bay) that have seen a shift from industrial/port activity to large-lot residential development over the last 25 years.   In the South Beach area, near the foot of the Bay Bridge, he extolled the variation in height and architectural styles of the existing large residential developments, the development of continuous urban streetwalls, and the proliferation of POPOS (privately-owned open space) as elements that soften large developments and tie the community together.  He also stressed that, in large residential developments, design trumps materials: successful urban places can be made on the cheap if they are built the right way. In the Mission Bay area, near the San Francisco Giants' waterfront ballpark, he held up the "framing" of streets with an appropriate ratio of street width to building height as a key for successful design.  He also complimented the developers' "respect for open space and heritage" by retaining houseboats in the Mission Bay inlet as well as providing easy waterfront access.  For those who have experienced the ghost town that Mission Bay often feels like when the Giants aren't in town, Murphy urged patience.  Large-lot residential developments, he said, need time to mature before they can be judged as successful urban spaces. In closing, Murphy urged the audience to "dream big", and not get bogged down in what he called the "blood sport" of neighborhood development politics.  He instead urged communities to let planners and developers do their jobs, which earned him an earful from neighborhood activists at the Q&A session following the forum. From the non-profit world, Raime Dare spoke in her capacity as president of the SF Community Housing Partnership and a senior project manager with Mercy Housing.  While the previous two speakers spoke mostly about the exteriors of large-lot residential developments, Dare instead focused on the design elements inside the building necessary to thriving communities.  Drawing on the 12-story, 136-unit Mercy Housing development for low-income and senior housing at 10th & Mission, Dare emphasized the need for varied spaces within the building itself. Lounges, play areas, event space, patios, youth centers, and day care were among the semi-public spaces needed to make large, high-density buildings successful.  Also stressed was the role that buildings can play in the framing of outdoor spaces, whether they are public or reserved for the use of residents. The final speaker was Glenn Rescalvo, principal-in-charge at Handel Architects, LLP.  Rescalvo portrayed increasing density as a boon to San Francisco, but one which requires additional attention paid to the challenges that a crowded city can bring.  While Rescalvo was more inclined to judge each building individually for its merit, he stressed the importance of increased pedestrian infrastructure and open space as a counter-balance to an increasingly dense city.  He highlighted three downtown open spaces in close proximity: Yerba Buena Gardens, the Crocker Galleria, and the plaza at 555 Mission (with its interesting public art).  To Rescalvo, each open space provided different urban functions, which further contributed to the enjoyment of a denser city. When it came the buildings themselves, Rescalvo urged planners and residents to be less concerned with height than with bulk.  By allowed taller building heights (invoking shades of LeCorbusier), he said that building footprints could be reduced and more open space provided for public benefit.  Rescalvo characterized such an approach as "getting your sky back" by reducing building bulk; he eschewed "holding the height line" on buildings which would create an uninterrupted wall. While the forum was interesting and informative, I couldn't help but feel that its brevity left out major points in the discussion.  The focus of the forum was almost entirely on aspects of the buildings themselves, paying scant attention to the transition between large developments and the surrounding community.  It's telling that almost every example at the forum came from the historically industrial and commercial areas along the South-of-Market waterfront - these new residential communities were cut out of whole cloth and did not face the task of transitioning into a well-established residential neighborhood. Another issue unresolved by the forum was that of infrastructure: while Mr Rescalvo briefly mentioned the need for better and larger sidewalks, none of the other speakers mentioned what types of cumulative impacts denser residential development has on our streets.  Though not as pertinent to design, the demise of redevelopment in the state could have been another fertile topic for a forum on high-density residential housing.  Many large-lot residential projects across the state, especially those built for or incorporating low-income and senior housing, were made feasible through redevelopment funding.  The loss of such funding may play out in future project design as developers attempt to make things pencil out. Christopher Kidd was the founder and former writer of the LADOT Bike Blog.  He currently works as a planner at Alta Planning + Design in Berkeley.

Yesterday the Senate Budget Subcommittee 4 heard testimony from cities and other supporters of redevelopment in opposition to a bill that could limit the number of former redevelopment projects that receive funding under Assembly Bill 1X 26.  Released last week, the bill would make changes to the redevelopment dissolution statutes that would reduce the discretion of local oversight boards and expand the power of the Department of Finance, including granting it the ability to divert local sales and property taxes when it determines successor agencies have "improperly" transferred funds to other agencies or private parties.  "It's designed to provide additional clarification in terms of some of the actions associated with the dissolution of redevelopment agencies," said DOF spokesperson H.D. Palmer.   The DOF's proposal would direct all remaining affordable housing and other funds to benefit the state and empower DOF and county auditor-controllers with authority to resolve all matters of dispute involving Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules and enforceable obligations in favor of the state without regard to priorities set by local oversight boards. Though many have expressed concerns about AB 1X 26, the League of California Cities is leading the opposition against this new bill, which, League officials say, makes the dissolution process even harder on cities.  Palmer said, though, that the bill includes provisions that could benefit successor agencies. Many successor agencies have been concerned about obligations that might not get funded by the deadline of June 1 but that are still under investigation by DOF. The bill would ensure that monies would be available even if deliberations extend beyond June 1.  "There's an opportunity to catch up or recoup this amount if after June 1 we review additional evidence that the successor agency has provided...and that additional information that it was in fact an enforceable obligation," said Palmer.   The bill may complicate the progress of other bills intended to supplement AB 1X 26 and provide cities with new tools for promoting economic development and affordable housing. Those bills include AB 1585 (Pérez), SB 986 (Dutton), SB 1335 (Pavley), SB 1151 (Steinberg) and SB 1156 (Steinberg).  The bill is part of the larger budget package, which is scheduled to be approved on or around the deadline of June 15.  To read the current bill language, please click here (pdf).  DOF is in the process of posting all of its letters concerning successor agencies' ROPS's; they can be found on the DOF website here .  This post will be updated as this issue develops.

Update: Yesterday, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley ruled against a group of cities seeking a temporary restraining order that would have effectively set aside funds for former redevelopment obligations that are still under review by the Department of Finance. Though the loss is considered a blow to cities that are trying to cover bonds and pay for former redevelopment projects, it is expected to be only the first of many such lawsuits.  Call it the spawn of Matasantos vs. California Redevelopment Association . As expected, the Department of Finance's rejection of hundreds of items for which successor agencies had requested funding has spurred a legal action. The first of what could be many lawsuits was filed last Tuesday by a coalition of nine cities.  A hearing is set for May 30 in Sacramento Superior Court. The suit calls for a temporary restraining order that would prevent the state from disbursing tax increment funds to taxing entities and instead sequester those funds until the disputes are settled.  DOF has reportedly questioned a total of $350 million worth of payments towards projects and other obligations statewide in the recent rounds of ROPS requests. Those payments are just for this year; the total value of affected projects is much higher.  June 1 is the date on which the Department of Finance will release monies to cover successor agencies' approved obligations. The suit is intended to compel DOF to loosen its purse strings before that date rather than to effectively kill projects, in some cases, put successor agencies at risk of defaulting on bond payments. Many successor agency officials are anxious because, although they intend to re-submit their Recognized Obligations Payment Schedules, DOF's final decisions are still uncertain.   In City of Palmdale, et al vs. Ana Matosantos, et al, t he nine cities are asking a judge to issue a writ of mandate to require the June 1 payment to the successor agencies, a temporary restraining order prohibiting the distribution of the funds to the taxing entities while the amount of the payment to the successor agencies is in dispute, and declaratory relief resolving the disputed issues. "The City and the Successor Agency understand and want to fully comply with the obligations of the Successor Agency under the law. Based upon the continued uncertainty caused by the State Department of Finance's lack of clear guidance, the looming June 1, 2012 payment date and the critical importance of this issue, we felt we had no choice but to join the other similarly situated cities in taking this action," said Mayor Andrew Weissman, who also serves as chair of the Culver City Successor Agency, in a statement. DOF maintains that it is faithfully executing Assembly Bill 1X 26. He noted that the department sent letters to all successor agencies throughout the state on March 2 in order to give them notice of what the ROPS process would entail.  "I think the authority given to Finance under the law as affirmed by the Sup Court is fairly clear," said DOF spokesperson H.D. Palmer. "As for the issue of timing, we have been nothing if not forward-leaning in terms of providing as much early notification as possible." The far, the suit includes mainly Southern California cities: Pasadena, Glendale, Palmdale, Huntington Beach, Imperial Beach, Inglewood, National City, Hayward, and Culver City. Others, including Ojai, have indicated that they may join the suit.

Several weeks after I wrote what could be described as emotion-driven defenses of California's approach to smart growth (in response to separate commentaries by Wendell Cox and Joel Kotkin), I was heartened to read a  different, but complementary, perspective  from Christopher B. Leinberger in this weekend's  New York Times . It would appear that, when you run the numbers, smart growth might make sense after all.  Leinberger led a Brookings Institution study with the delightfully rock-n'-roll title  "Walk This Way: The Economic Promise of Walkable Places in Metropolitan Washington, D.C."  which compared changes in housing prices in walkable neighborhoods as compared to suburban neighborhoods. Setting aside the subjective nature of "walkable" and "suburban," Leinberger found  "real estate values increase as neighborhoods became more walkable, where everyday needs, including working, can be met by walking, transit or biking." Leinberger cites places like Columbus, Ohio's, Short North neighobrhood and Washington, DC's, West End, where real estate prices have risen 163% and 205%, respectively, since 1996. In the same time period, prices comparable suburban areas have risen only 69% in the DC study area and  negative  13% in the Columbus study area.  Lest these trends reflect residents' native incomes more than their lifestyle preferences, Leinberger notes that "People who live in more walkable places tend to earn more, but they also tend to pay a higher percentage of their income for housing." This means that the walkable areas are more dear--and, by extrapolation, more desirable--on both an absolute and relative scale.  As we all know, real estate economics is an inexact science. The consumer trends are invisible swells that rise from the abyssal plains of culture, demographics, and economics.  We can't just go to the house store and see which ones are flying off the shelves. Instead, we have to look at the prices of existing stock and infer that increases in prices correlate with increases in aggregate demand, and we need lots of data. Leinberger thinks that the data is reaching a critical mass.  "Walk this Way" offers the following conclusion, signaling nothing short of the biggest shift in urbanism since, arguably, the late 1940s:  "While U.S. home values dropped steadily between 2008 and 2011, distant suburbs experienced the starkest price decreases while more close-in neighborhoods either held steady or in some cases saw price increases. This distinction in housing proximity is particularly important since it appears that the United States may be at the beginning of a structural real estate market shift. Emerging evidence points to a preference for mixed-use, compact, amenity-rich, transit-accessible neighborhoods or walkable places." In other words, we have entered a new era.  Though the bulk of the Brookings study focused on the Washington, DC, metro area, Leinberger writes that "these findings appear to apply to much of the rest of the country." Could that mean California, too? I don't see why not.  This analysis means that, whatever your aesthetic objections to smart growth may be, it might actually turn out to be a good investment for California. If the Brookings results are right, then California's Sustainable Communities Strategies are directing growth towards the very places were demand is likely to be higher.  My visceral take on smart growth is that it's good for everybody. If you like dense urban living, then now you get more of it. If you enjoy the wide-open suburban lifestyle, then you're in luck too: growth is going to happen in the places were you aren't.  In defending SCS's against some recent criticism ( here and here ), I noted some contradictions and some leaps in logic, and I corrected some inaccuracies and what I considered to be willful disregard for facts. From all the articles I've written on the subject, I know firsthand that countless people have been working very hard on California's Sustainable Communities Strategies, from which tens of millions of us will--hopefully--benefit.  Critics can, and should, say what they want. But, while California's planners should take pride in being ahead of the curve, they should bear in mind one caveat, though: we can't let nonsensical critiques drown out those that might be legitimate. Of course the SCS's aren't perfect. No less an authority than the state attorney general has said so -- and CP&DR has  reported  accordingly. Critiques such as Harris' should set up sensible discussions about how to implement SCS's and address nuances. It's hard not be frustrated, however, by "us vs. them" rivalries based on what appeared to be visceral, aesthetic objections that do not advance the public discourse or make California a better place.  As California grows more dense, the Brookings study should remind planners and developers to pay attention not just to the difference between walkabilty and mere density. You have have dense slums and dense hotspots, and you can have friendly single-family home neighborhoods and indifferent multifamily neighborhoods. It's all in how you design them and in what mix of uses you include.  If we can all get behind smart growth and clamor for it to be done well--which isn't going away now that it's the law of the land--then we can make sure that the less convincing critiques become self-defeating prophecies.