Search Results

Judging by the likes of Oakland, Berkeley, and, of course, San Francisco, a plan to encourage density, transit use, and environmentalism in the Bay Area might seem redundant. But these vibrant urban centers are just small elements in the sprawling, nine-county region that is the subject of the fourth and final Sustainable Communities Strategy to be drafted for California's major urban areas. Branded as Plan Bay Area and devised by the area's paired regional planning organizations�the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission�the SCS attempts to extend the smart growth ethos from the bustling streets of SoMa and the Haight all the way out to Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties. "The plan is this notion of trying to knit together housing, land use, climate change challenges, and livable communities into a unit so that we can talk about it all at one time," said Randy Rentschler, director of legislation and public affairs for MTC. The plan's Preferred Land Use Scenario and Investment Strategy was approved unanimously by a joint session of the MTC and ABAG boards in May; the agencies are now working on alternatives and will release a full draft of the plan in December . MTC also voted to approve the "One Bay Area Grants" (OBAG) program, and ABAG approved a draft housing allocation methodology for Bay Area cities. The plan is intended to help the region accommodate 2.1 million new residents and 1.1 million new jobs by 2035. Whether every locale in the Bay Area will welcome these jobs and residents remains to be seen. Many of the Bay Area's outlying suburbs have long maintained their cultural distance from the center cities and have been concerned that regional planning efforts would impose unwanted density on them. Self-described Tea Party supporters have been concerned that Plan Bay Area would go so far as to force residents out of their homes and put strict moratoria on the development of single-family houses. Officials say that the plan has been deliberately constructed so as not to upend residents' suburban lifetimes. "They got this idea that we were going to try to impose this urban vision in places were it didn't make sense," said Rentschler. "That's the last thing we were trying to do." As with the SCS's devised by the other three of California's "Big Four" MPOs�mandated to create SCS's by Senate Bill 375, the 2008 law that seeks to reduce driving via compact development and transit use�Plan Bay Area is designed around a core of transportation investment as described in the accompanying Regional Transportation Plan update. Though the Bay Area already famously has Bay Area Rapid Transit and other major elements of public transit infrastructure, the RTP includes elements such as a BART extension to San Jose, the San Francisco central subway, and 270 miles of new and converted express lanes on the region's freeways. Even with all of those investments, the plan actually emphasizes maintenance of the existing transportation system over the development of new infrastructure. Planners have hailed this "fix it first" strategy, which allocates 88% of transportation funding�up from current levels of 80%--to maintenance. "The very positive change is when we look at the shift in transportation money, where a much higher percentage is spent on maintenance and operation and a decline in the amount of expansion," said Egon Terplan, regional planning director at San Francisco Planning & Urban Research Association.  As well, the plan includes performance-based funding, which directs transportation investment towards areas of greatest need. To meet SB 375's goals of reducing per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 7% in 2020 and by 15% in 2035, planners estimate that�if current residents maintain their travel patterns, then each marginal resident will have to drive 75% less by comparison. On the land use side, Plan Bay Area centers on an innovative program that encourages cities to comply voluntarily with SB 375. Cities may submit applications to adopt "Priority Development Areas" (PDA's) and thereby become eligible for grants and technical assistance from MTC/ABAG. To be eligible to become a PDA, an area had to be within an existing community, near existing or planned fixed transit or served by comparable bus service, and planned for more housing. Though PDA the program has been in effect for six years, the advent of the SCS has given it greater purpose. Currently, there are 115,000 acres of PDA's in the Bay Area, in various stages of build-out. The "OBAG" grant program will allocate $14 billion of One Bay Area Grants to localities to plan and invest in PDA's. The plan intends for 75% of new housing and 64% of new jobs to be located in PDA's and for per capita vehicle-miles travelled to fall accordingly. Though this strategy has garnered widespread praise, some observers fear that achieving SB 375's greenhouse gas emissions reductions poses a greater challenge in the Bay Area than in the state's other big three MPOs. Many places in the Bay Area�most notably San Francisco�are already compact and already have high transit ridership. Therefore, achieving the marginal decreases in greenhouse gas emissions may be more difficult because the region is relatively efficient in the first place.            "For SCAG to reach its targets, it was more about encouraging a modest densification of land use patterns that are already in line with what the market is doing," said Terplan. "For the Bay Area, a place where per capita driving is already less than in a lot of other regions, getting a 15% reduction is harder." In fact, the plan acknowledges a six-percentage-point gap in emissions reductions for 2035. "The region really needs to look at pricing mechanisms, particularly road pricing, as a way to close the greenhouse gas emission gap," said Terplan. Others feel that those concerns are overblown, and they say that the region's density and, especially, its transit infrastructure simply provides greater opportunities for effective infill development.   "There's lots and lots of redevelopment opportunities around the Bay Area's existing network," said Hobson. "We don't have to spend a lot of money to put thousands of new homes and jobs around transit centers. In other regions, they need to build transit in order to have TOD." The big money, though, will be directed towards transportation projects. Through 2040, the region will invest $277 billion in roads, mass transit, and non-motorized transportation. As it turns out, getting people around is only half the battle for Plan Bay Area. Many planners and public officials in the region have also approached it as sort of economic development plan, with housing at its core. While MTC can direct the investment of transportation funds, Rentschler stressed that the plan's success relies on the participation of the region's localities�namely the 101 cities that make up the metro area. The plan calls for those localities to complement the region-wide investments with local plans and investments of their own. "If you want the Smart Train in Marin and Sonoma, that's great," said Rentschler. "But unless you want empty trains, communities in those counties have to �.you have to support those stations. In some cases that means TOD, in some cases that means retail, in some cases that's a big parking lot." The plan is designed to accommodate the Bay Area's Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, which is determined by the state. However, many planners are concerned that the plan still will not alleviate the region's notoriously high combination of transportation and housing costs.   "The most significant concern is that the agencies' own analysis shows that the share of income that low-income families spend on transportation and housing is going to get worse, not better," said Hobson. "So displacement risks are going to be much higher.  Though many communities consider the production of housing�especially affordable, subsidized housing for low- and moderate-income residents�to be a burden, regional planners are trying to convince localities of the opposite: that more housing will translate to greater regional economic growth. "If you provide the housing at a reasonable cost, you're going to get the strong economy that you're seeking," said Rentschler. Rentschler noted that, despite the tech boom in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, the Bay Area economy has been largely stagnant for the past decade. Those goals are frustrated by communities that are reluctant to grow, regardless of what incentives Plan Bay Area may offer. "I am concerned with a growing perception in the Bay Area that we are built out," said Terplan. "One of our great challenges is to overcome that perception and see the positive benefits of growth, particularly of adding housing�and the densification of existing employment centers." If that growth comes to pass, it would likely contradict the claims of Plan Bay Area's loudest opponents. Members of the Tea Party movement have accused the plan of being everything from a United Nations conspiracy to a plot to advance communism. More substantively, they fear that the plan's emphasis on dense development will impose on the suburban lifestyle in the suburbs. "A lot of these folks don't like government anyway so they're not going to give it a chance to be understood," said Rentschler. "What's ironic is that many of these folks who are from the Tea Party live in places that are going to be protected because we're going to be building dense housing in other cities. They should have come to our meetings and cheer-leaded us." More mainstream critics have raised concerns about whether the plan provides sufficient incentives and accommodations for private sector partners. A coalition of Bay Area business groups�including the Building Industry Association (BIA), the Bay Area Council, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group�issued a letter to the MTC and ABAG boards imploring them to ensure that the plan matches up with the realities of the housing market. As well, BIA officials have questioned whether the plan disadvantages suburban areas by investing in city centers. "We are concerned that the preferred scenario is not geographically balanced and may lead to �planned' economic marginalization of large parts of the Bay Area, especially suburban jurisdictions," said Paul Campos, senior vice president of governmental affairs for BIA of the Bay Area. Campos said he was concerned that inland job centers such as Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, and San Ramon might get overlooked and suffer from under-investment. Supporters of the plan contend that, despite the plan's nominal promotion of "urban" virtues, it is designed to benefit outlying cities as well. "If anything, the Priority Development Area framework sets such a low threshold, there are communities all around the Bay Area that have access to these funds," said Terplan. PDA's have been approved for cities on the region's outer edges, such as Gilroy, Livermore, and Petaluma. Terplan said that if outlying cities feel shut out of transportation funding, it's only because the plan's performance-based funding naturally hews towards center cities, where transit use is particularly intensive and, therefore, "more people are going to ride them for less money." Moreover, planners say that the BIA and other critics are responding more to a discomfort over the dense, multi-unit housing than to genuine flaws in the plan. "The challenge is always going to be, when you make public investment and improve a place, it changes the economics of that locale," said Rentschler. "I think one thing they're responding to is the fact that a traditional model in which their members worked and built is in transition." Rentschler added that planners need to pay attention to developers' concerns, to the extent that those concerns can bear on the plan's execution. "If they're advising us that we're creating a situation that can't happen in the real world then we want to be responsive to that," he said. In fact, suburban communities are already following Plan Bay Area's principles. Though the Contra Costa County city of Danville has not applied for a PDA, Chief of Planning Kevin Gailey said that the city's new downtown plan would be a strong candidate. He said he did not feel that the plan would be a burden on the city or its residents. "We're embracing the idea that�the lion's share of job growth and residential development is going to happen within 4-5% of our area" said Gailey. "Whether we're doing the SCS and doing a PDA, I don't think we'd be doing much different on our update." Whether or not their concerns are well founded, the Tea Party participation, in particular, has made public meetings unusually popular, according to Rentschler. Whether the volume of public participation�and strong gripes from the left and right�has created a better plan is not clear, however. "We used to have a hard time getting anyone interested in what we were doing. If we had 10 people show up and fed them cookies we thought we were doing good. Now we have packed rooms," said Rentschler. "I'm not sure that's a huge qualitative improvement, but it certainly means that a significantly larger spectrum of society is engaged." Rentschler also cautioned that the current plan is designed to evolve as it is updated at regular, four-year junctures. "What we're in here is a continuous planning effort," said Rentschler. Contacts: Paul Campos, Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs, BIA of the Bay Area, 925.951.6840 Kevin Gailey, Chief of Planning, City of Danville, 925.314.3305 Jeff Hobson, Deputy Director, TransForm, 510.740.3150x312  Randy Rentschler, Director of Legislation and Public Affairs, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 510.817.5780 Egon Terplan, Regional Planning Director, San Francisco Planning & Urban Research, 415.644.4284

Update: Yesterday the leadership of the California Chapter of the American Planning Association decided to oppose the current draft of Assembly Bill 904, which seeks to lower parking minimums in transit-oriented areas. Here is the APA's letter (.doc) to bill sponsor Nancy Skinner.   Ever since the 2005 publication of UCLA professor Don Shoup's book, The High Cost of Free Parking, the relaxation of parking minimums has been seen by many planners as the next best thing to manufacturing new land. Yet, the introduction of a bill that would enact a modest page from the Shoup playbook has roused opposition from a surprising source: the American Planning Association.  Last week Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Oakland) introduced Assembly Bill 904, which would require cities to impose reduced parking requirements in transit-oriented areas. The goal of the bill, which has been promoted primarily by the Infill Builders Federation (formerly Infill Builders Assoc.), is to promote the development of housing by reducing parking requirements and therefore making development less expensive in areas well served by public transit.  Among other provisions, the bill would prohibit cities from imposing minimum parking requirements of more than one space per residential unit or 1,000 square feet of commercial space in "transit-intensive areas"�defined, with certain qualifiers, as areas within a half-mile of a major transit stop.   Described by supporters as a modest but important reform�especially as cities are trying to comply with Sustainable Communities Strategies�AB 904 is characterized by others as giving the state too much influence over local land use policies.  "The primary issue is that it's a one-size fits all statewide standard," said APA California Vice President for Policy and Legislation David Snow. "While APA supports the concept that this bill puts forward�.from APA's perspective, a uniform standard from the state that doesn't take into account local considerations isn't the appropriate way forward."  APA California also contends that, by imposing lower parking requirements, cities would be less inclined to support transit and to support higher, denser infill development. APA California acknowledges that many cities want to "grow up and not out" and calls such a strategy "responsible."  In that sense, the APA and Infill Builders Association would typically be considered natural allies.  "The APA's best-selling book is The High Cost of Free Parking," said Mott Smith, a founding board member of the Infill Builders Association. "It's a bit weird that they would have this reaction." Shoup himself has publicly expressed his support for the bill.  Though Snow contends that the bill may be unduly limiting, Shoup's thesis�shared by many of AB 904's supporters�is that many existing parking standards are arbitrary and inefficient, and therefore are limiting in their own right.  "It's a relaxation of restrictions, not an imposition of restrictions," said Smith.  A similar bill, AB 710 (also sponsored by Skinner), met its demise last year when the League of California Cities and some nonprofit housing developers raised two major objections: the bill would impose improper uniform standards statewide, and it could undermine the parking bonus provision of SB 1818, which promotes affordable housing.  Supporters say that this year's version (introduced as a gut-and-amend bill) is far more flexible than last year's. It enables cities to opt out of the law if circumstances on the ground meet any of four criteria. Supporters also say that, on balance, it will promote affordable housing by making the production of both market-rate and low/moderate-income housing easier. In other words, the benefits of not having to provide what supporters consider excessive parking will more than outweigh any provisions in SB 1818 that might be undermined.  Cal APA has yet to take an official position on the bill, but an email to members dated June 13 expresses serious concerns, calling the bill "restrictive" and calling the matter "urgent." Cal APA executive director Sande George followed that email up with a detailed memo criticizing the bill.  The ensuing struggle inspired a nearly instant, and unusually spirited, debate among land use professionals once Cal APA's email alert went out. Few bills in recent memory have created such debate among planners who consider themselves progressive.  "The recent decision by Cal APA to oppose progressive transformation may actually hint at a larger chasm that is emerging between two distinct schools of thought," said Will Wright, director of government & public affairs for the Los Angeles chapter of the American Institute of Architects. Wright characterized the debate as a "lively" one of "classic old school sensibility versus progressive thinkers."  In its mailing last week, APA leadership issued a warning about AB 904 and asked members for input, but the group has not yet taken a position. Any opposition, however, surprises AB 904's supporters Smith called APA's recent concerns "out of left field," in part, he said, because he and other supporters have been trying to address concerns of AB 701's opponents.  California APA did not oppose last year's more restrictive AB 710. Though many groups that did officially oppose the bill, the APA does not appear in the bill's list of official opponents, dated August 26, 2011. Snow claims that California APA was involved with last year's discussions.  "We had conversations with the bill's authors," said Snow.  The League of California Cities opposed AB 710, and has indicated that it will reprise its opposition this year. A recent League newsletter contends that AB 904, "fails to address the League's concerns from last year's AB 710."  Snow said that California APA had not been privy to the language of AB 904 had not been able "to work in a thoughtful and productive manner to resolve issues with the infill proposal given the shortened period with which to work on the proposal." Smith said the bill's supporters still welcome input from all parties.  "We've been working with for the better part of the year to try to accommodate (opponents') concerns," said Smith.  "Anybody who's got constructive suggestions...we want to talk to." Smith said that the result of discussions thus far has been this a more flexible version than last year's  bill and that it includes provisions that were specifically designed to respond to concerns voiced last year. To opt out, cities would have to demonstrate one (or more) of the following in a transit-intensive area: insufficient walkability, insufficient transit, conflicts with existing parking standards designed to promote transit oriented development, conflicts with existing station-area plans that seek to reduce off-street parking.  Snow said that he had not thoroughly read through the provisions of the bill that would exempt cities, but he maintained that the bill's uniform treatment of cities throughout the state amounted to an undue imposition. Notably, California APA's email of June 13 incorrectly claims that cities would have to meet all four criteria in order to opt-out � rather than any one of the four.  "These certainly provide flexibility," said Snow. "I don't think they get us over the hurdle of having a statewide standard and imposing the burden." In particular, Snow noted that cities would have to expend money and manpower in order to present findings and comply with the bill's Jan. 1, 2014 deadline.  "I think that this is shifting a burden to local governments at this point that this isn't necessarily the right time for that with all the other difficulties and issues that local governments are facing," said Snow. Smith said, however, that AB 904 required nothing like a full environmental review and that findings could be made with "a few hours" of work, because the bill intentionally sets a relatively low bar for opting out and supports local control. He countered that under current conditions, cities that do want to reduce their parking requirements often have to go to great lengths to do so.  "Countless cities throughout California would like to have more infill-friendly parking standards," said Smith. "This bill gives cities basically a gift certificate to accept relaxed parking standards if they want them."  The bill's supporters have since responded with a document that outlines "myths versus facts" about AB 904, on the premise that much of the opposition is based on misunderstandings about how the law would actually operate. That document stresses that the Infill Builders is in accord with APA on the issue of local control.  "We don't want people to opt out of this capriciously," said Smith. "But at the same time we made the findings broad and inclusive so any city that legitimately wants to opt out." Snow said that APA did not have an alternative proposal for issuing parking reforms. He said that he encourages parking reform but that, without the passage of AB 904, "it would mean that cities need to figure it out one-by-one." Smith, however, says that a piecemeal approach will not help individual cities, nor will it contribute to the statewide effort to reduce vehicle miles travelled in major metro areas.

Yesterday the American Planning Association proudly released the results of a recent poll entitled Planning in America: Perceptions and Priorities , which it commissioned indicating that Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of community planning. Given the state of national politics, it's no wonder that Americans are reserving their passions for local issues. Boss Tweed and Mayor Quimby are looking like angels by comparison.  Some of the results are beyond obvious -- such as the fact that 77% of Americans "agree that communities that plan for the future are stronger" -- while others could, if heeded, foretell profound changes for the profession.  Let's parse the obviousness. The report's lead finding is that 79% of Americans "support community planning." What the other 21% have in mind, I have no idea. It's hard not to check "yes" to a question as dazzlingly broad as that one.  I'm trying to figure out what it means to "support community planning" -- or what role actual urban planners would play in this process. First, "community planning" is not the same as "urban planning." everyone loves communities, and they particularly love their own communities. But "community" extends to all sorts of formal and informal institutions: schools, organized religion, sports, businesses, ethnic and demographic connections, and indelible social networks. Professional urban planners, such as those who belong to the APA, can affect these institutions only indirectly. And its certain that most stakeholders would not want planners to influence them.  More importantly for planners, this idea of "support" is hopelessly value-neutral. KKK members in the backwoods are probably equally passionate about their communities as hipsters in Williamsburg are. Stefanos Polyzoides can "support" community planning just as strongly as Ron Paul can. It's just that each are in favor of vastly different results. So, if you're an urban planner and you're looking to capitalize on all of this "support," then you'd better hope that you're working in a homogeneous community whose stakeholders feel exactly the same way as you do.  Likewise, when over 60% of Americans across the political spectrum and in every type of settlement say that they want "more" planning. I'm not exactly sure what "more planning" looks like. Planning isn't measured in volume, like cake or gasoline. It's an set of approaches that are intended to lead to certain results. Even so, you really need to ask what kind of planning they want.  The poll's more substantive results reveal attitudes that may, I think, be unsettling most planners.  In case planners think that their job is to shape the built environment, they should think again. Out of either desperation or misunderstanding, the public thinks that their number-one job priority should be to effect job creation. Seventy percent of respondents said so. The next four priorities are as follows:  Safety: 69 percent Schools: 67 percent Protecting neighborhoods: 64 percent Water quality: 62 percent Unfortunately, only one of these things relates directly to urban planners, and that one thing suggests a rejection of progressive planing principles. The idea of "protecting" neighborhoods -- as opposed to developing, improving, or enlivening them -- implies a conservative desire to maintain the status quo. Stakeholders are certainly entitled to maintain their respective status quos, but I can't think of a planner worth his or her salt who would accept the status quo in 90% of the communities in this country. Like Clint Eastwood says, America has a lot of work to do. The poll even says so: 84% of respondents believe that their communities are getting worse or holding steady compared to five years ago. There's a contradiction afoot. It seems that Americans really want two things that planners aren't necessarily inclined, or equipped, to create: stagnant communities and more money. Seventy-two percent of respondents say that their local communities aren't doing enough to encourage economic growth, and 75% say that "engaging citizens through planning is essential to job creation." In other words, they're putting responsibility for a national economic crisis on to their local officials. (I suppose that's not surprising given that the rancor in Washington, D.C., has stifled national action.)  In some sense, the public has a point. Ever since the publication of Jane Jacobs' Cities and the Wealth of Nations , study after study has suggested that certain types of urban forms can create jobs. Those forms tend to center on density, diversity, transit, and interaction. In other words, Manhattan. But, time and again, social and political conservatives -- the type who prefer the status quo -- have rejected policies to make places more dense and vibrant. So even if planners were to accept this burden, it's unlikely that the public would embrace the job-creating those urban strategies that are most likely to foster jobs.  Some of America's desires, however, are not so fanciful and are within planners' powers. Asked what makes an ideal community, half or more of respondents said having locally-owned businesses nearby (55 percent); the ability to grow old in the same neighborhood (54 percent); availability of sidewalks (53 percent); energy-efficient homes (52 percent); and availability of transit (50 percent). Interestingly, these desires are a far cry from "preserving neighborhoods," since most neighborhoods have few or none of these components.  After attending April's APA conference and going to session after session about innovative planning techniques, I'm surprised that APA would publicize a report that, in many ways, undercuts the dreams of so many planners who are eager to implement contemporary planning ideas into their respective urban fabrics. The tone of the report suggests that APA is willing to follow popular sentiment, but I hope they don't give in to passivity. This desire for "more planning" -- and even for economic growth -- invites planners who can forcefully, and passionately explain what sort of planning can work best and how that approach can, directly and indirectly, create jobs.  If they can pull that off, then maybe those other 21% will come around. This piece also appears on Planetizen's Interchange blog.

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.