Search Results

1986 was a lousy year for urban planning but a relatively great year for journalism. Back then, when I was growing up in Los Angeles, my family received daily deliveries of the Los Angeles Times, the Herald-Examiner, and even the Santa Monica Evening Outlook, which, as its name implied, was quaintly printed during the day and distributed in the evenings—often by teenagers on bicycles, the newspapers hand-wrapped with rubber bands. I am not sure that truth has ever fully been spoken to power in Los Angeles—the metropolis being the city of noir, deceit, and scandals aplenty—but there was no shortage of outlets, reporters, and discussion fostered by what was then an incredibly healthy journalism industry. California Planning and Development Report was but one specific, unusual, and much-needed addition to this thriving ecosystem. At the time, those mainstream outlets seldom covered land use, a subject that was hardly an object of discussion the way it has become today. At a time when the state and much of the country was sprawling at a steady, inexorable pace y, there wasn’t much in the way of intrigue. Under the legacy media’s watch, sprawl crept across California’s landscape, smog alerts remained common, BART was the state’s only major rail system, and downtowns were as dead as disco. In November 1986, Los Angeles voters passed Proposition U , a slow-growth measure that haunts the city to this day.  That very same month, Bill Fulton had the radical idea of covering land use and planning as a serious journalistic endeavor, and he has done so ever since. Indeed, when Bill founded CPDR, he did so in part because planning was in such a sorry and beleaguered state.  Back then, I was not remotely attuned to the niceties of urban planning and policy. But, by coincidence, I lived (part-time) in the exact same city as Bill did: West Hollywood. While my parents dragged me to stores at the Beverly Center and the theater performances on Melrose Ave, Bill was plugging away at his newsletter. I was 11 years old, but I intuitively appreciated living in a dense, lively area, compared with the dullness of the suburbs or the Valley, where many of my friends lived.  How times have changed—in both urban planning and journalism. We celebrate the 40th volume of CP&DR at a time of relative triumph for the approaches and values Bill has long promoted. What were once fringe ideas—smart growth, new urbanism, and transit-oriented development—have now themselves become the dominant ethos of planning. The rapidity with which modernist planning took over in the 20th century has been rivaled only by the glacial pace  at which we have attempted to undo the problems it introduced. But undo it we must. The smart-growth build-out is far from complete. Still, we hope our state is better for these efforts. Perhaps we can credit some of the changes to this newsletter, to Bill, and certainly to Bill’s contemporaries, colleagues, and students. I wish we could say the same for journalism.  As cities have come roaring back, their nerve centers have atrophied and disappeared entirely. You don’t need to be a journalist to know that newspapers have folded at a staggering rate: 3,200 since 2005. Some of the influences are obvious: they did not keep up with the transition to digital media and did not figure out how to monetize it. Their ad revenue was siphoned away by sites like Craigslist. They competed for attention with social media. Much of these journalists’ hard work was given away for free. Most nefariously, many papers have been eviscerated by private-equity schemes that view newsrooms not as civic resources but as distressed financial assets—worth more dead than alive. They are taking a wrecking ball to public discourse—not unlike what planners did to American cities after World War II.  We are now accompanied by many other urban-related media services. Entire websites are dedicated to urbanism, among them Planetizen and Next City, while sites like  Atlantic Cities and Curbed have come and gone. Many journalists—not just one or two—have made urbanism their beat. We have Substack newsletters ( Bill’s included ), Twitter/X feeds, and impressive citizen journalists use social media to cover and comment on urbanism Despite traditional journalism’s decline,  urban planning and the new media ecosystem surrounding it are arguably healthier than ever.  In the next 10 or 40 years, I don’t know how  that combination will play out. Where was once Bill’s humble newsletter, CP&DR has aged into a vital legacy publication--that’s good for us, I suppose. And yet,I fear the loss of civic discourse, investigative reporting, and placemaking expertise that come only with robust papers of record. Sniping on Nextdoor and holding hands on Bluesky will not suffice.   What I do know is that Bill and I, supported by our talented contributors, are going to keep trying. We e want our readers to keep trying as well. What does that mean? It means reading actively. It means participating in discussions. It means making the time to be interviewed, sharing tips when something is newsworthy, and doing all the things required to facilitate a civil society, even if other venerable institutions have failed to step up.  So, while we celebrate this 40-year milestone for CP&DR and all of the great city-building that has taken place during its watch, let us redouble our dedication to a free, fair, and vibrant press -- for the sake of cities and of democracy itself.

Though 2025 is an off-year for elections, voters are going to the poll statewide because of Proposition 50, the Congressional redistricting measure sponsored by Gov. Newsom. Only two of these ballots include land use measures. But, despite the small numbers, there is a distinct pattern: both jurisdictions are upholding California’s not infrequent tradition of competing land-use ballot measures. The jurisdictions are far from surprising: the City of Santa Cruz and the City of Sausalito, neither of which is a stranger to contentious land use debates, and both of which have severe housing shortages and affordability crises. The two cities are debating very different solutions. Sausalito’s measures ask voters to approve zoning updates that will enable the city to implement a housing element compliant with state housing law. State Housing Element Law requires the City to have a housing element which plans for at least 724 new housing units at various income categories by January 30. It’s a move that other cities have used: city councils that are wary of allowing more housing put the onus on voters to approve necessary changes -- or else. In this case, the council is asking voters for piecemeal approval. Measure K calls for zoning of a portion of Martin Luther King Park for housing, and Measure J upzones 12 sites in the city’s commercial district. Both measures must pass in order for the city to reach compliance and avoid the threat of state-imposed penalties. The Santa Cruz County measures are both complex measures designed to fund affordable housing. Measure B, sponsored by the county’s Association of Realtors, would enact a 0.5% transfer tax on property sales over $4 million whereas Measure C, sponsored by members of the city council, imposes a similar tax on much smaller transactions: sales of at least $1.8 million. City staff estimates that Measure C would raise $2.5 million annually -- roughly four times more than Measure C would. If both measures pass, the one with more votes will prevail. Sausalito Measure K : Local Control Shall the measure to achieve compliance with State Housing Law mandates, by adopting a housing overlay zone allowing City-directed development on limited parts of the City-owned Martin Luther King Jr. property consistent with Sausalito’s publicly adopted Housing Element, providing capacity for no more than 50 units of housing prioritizing Sausalito’s seniors; while maintaining existing recreational, dog park, and school uses; maintaining building height limits, be adopted? Sausalito Measure J : Commercial District Local Control Shall the measure adopting various housing overlay zones to allow housing at various income categories, including housing for seniors/families/individuals, on twelve sites in Sausalito’s commercial districts, consistent with Sausalito’s publicly reviewed and adopted Housing Element – in order to maintain compliance with State Housing Element Law, preserve local land use authority, prevent state fines, and preserve historic community character, while maintaining existing required developer fees – be adopted? Santa Cruz Measure B : Parcel Tax for Workers and Climate Resilience Measure To fund affordable housing for local workers, seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, reduce/prevent homelessness, and increase climate resilience, shall the Santa Cruz County Association of Realtors-sponsored measure, enacting an annual parcel tax of $50 and a real estate transfer tax in the amount of 0.5% in excess of $4,000,000 (with a maximum of $100,000), with certain exemptions, providing approximately $1,100,000 annually, for 10 years, subject to oversight/audits, be adopted? Santa Cruz Measure C : Parcel Tax for Housing Measure To fund affordable housing for local workers, seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities, and reduce/prevent homelessness, shall the Housing Santa Cruz County-sponsored measure, enacting an annual parcel tax of $96 and a graduated real estate transfer tax from 0.5% in excess of $1.8 million, up to 2% in excess of $4.5 million (with a maximum of $200,000), with certain exemptions, providing approximately $4,500,000 annually, for 20 years, subject to oversight/audits, be adopted?

Voters resoundingly favored new housing Santa Cruz and Sausalito, two cities that have historically had strong anti-growth movements. In Sausalito, a pair of complementary measures designed ot help the city comply with state Housing Element law passed easily. In Santa Cruz, a competition between two measures to promote affordable housing proved to be a snooze, as the more aggressive measure won by a comfortable margin whereas a watered-down measure barely broke double-digit percentages.

For the past century or so, two industries have both fueled Los Angeles’s local economy and defined its civic image: Hollywood and real estate. Now that both are faltering, I can’t help but consider some of their perhaps surprising commonalities -- and their woeful indifference to each other. As many non-Angelenos probably don’t know, the most famous architectural symbol of the entertainment industry originally had nothing to do with Hollywood and everything to do with real estate. “Hollywoodland” was a 1920s housing development, advertised by a gigantic mountaintop sign. Eventually, the “LAND” fell down, and the movie studios stuck around. Landmarks aside, what does entertainment have to do with real estate development? Superficially, very little. One is as tangible as they come, while the other flickers through thin air. One is near the very base of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, providing shelter. The other is, notwithstanding the banality of the Kardashians, a crucial component of self-actualization. One can yield ungodly profits or plunge companies into bankruptcy. So can the other. When L.A. real estate was cheap. For all of their obvious differences, these two industries are unusually kindred spirits. Consider the dramatis personae: Developers and producers instigate the project, create the broad vision, raise the money, and assemble the team. Financiers and investors, through often Byzantine arrangements, put up capital up-front, based on their assessment of trends, taste in source material, demographic research, and, perhaps most importantly, blind trust in their creative teams. Then they wait for returns. Architects and writers draft the projects, with varying measures of creativity and practicality. Engineers make sure the building stands up; cinematographers make sure the camera captures what it needs to. Contractors and their teams of craftspeople and laborers actually build the thing, turning blueprints into framing and drywall. Directors and their teams of craftspeople and laborers shoot the thing, turning scripts into performances and images. The top brass work out of trailers. Around noon, the food trucks show up for everyone else. Fundamentally, entertainment and real estate must predict the future. Projects evolve on the order of years. They are capital-intensive, demanding up-front monies years before revenues come in, depending on the whims of consumers. Some projects appeal to urban aesthetes; others are family-friendly. Ultimately, audiences file into the theater or turn on the TV, inhabiting a fantasy for a little while. Residents and tenants move in, acting out their lives for months, years, or forever. Let’s not forget about some big personalities. Egos rise when you build something 40 stories tall, or when tens of millions of people know your name. The question for the aspiring Los Angeles mogul is, would you rather be an Ozymandias or a Shelley? These connections would amount to fun trivia if both industries were thriving. Alas, they are not -- at least not here. Moviemaking in Los Angeles County is flickering out , with 31% fewer filming days in 2024 compared to 2020. This year is shaping up to be worse . Craftspeople are out of work. Support services like prop shops are closing . CBS recently sold Television City, its West Coast headquarters, which will be redeveloped . At least one entire studio lot -- the historic 20th Century Fox lot, now owned by Disney -- may be vacated , left to an uncertain fate. Not enough action here. It started years ago with "runaway production" -- shooting in Georgia, New Mexico, or Canada, rather than on local sets and locations with local talent – usually because those states and countries offer tax credits and other incentives. These trends have only accelerated with the fragmentation of media, the rise of DIY "content creators" and the placelessness of apps and streaming services. The industry's decline became particularly apparent weeks ago when, chillingly and bizarrely, Pres. Trump mused about putting 100% tariffs on entertainment created elsewhere. (How this would work is beyond me.) Granted, a day of shooting in and of itself has little marginal effect on an economy as big as California’s. But, over time, other places have developed deep local talent pools and sophisticated infrastructure (such as Shadowbox outside Atlanta) on par with, or better than, any of the legacy studios in Los Angeles. It will probably always be the “entertainment capital of the world,” but the devolution of the industry means that the “capital” wields less power, and takes in less revenue, than it used to. One of the reasons production "ran away" in the first place is that the cost of labor in Southern California is exorbitant. It's cheaper to pay gaffers in Atlanta and extras in Vancouver than to pay them for the same work in Hollywood. And why do local people need to earn so much? In large part because the cost of living -- and especially the cost of housing -- is manageable only if you're Bruce Wayne. Housing development trends are in lockstep with entertainment trends. Despite RHNA numbers demanding that Los Angeles add over 400,000 units -- itself a large city -- apartment approvals in Los Angeles hit a 10-year low in 2024, with only 3,860 units approved -- half the number in 2014. Recent research out of the UCLA Luskin School is less than ebullient. Though Los Angeles recently adopted a massive housing-oriented rezoning program, called CHIPS, "Los Angeles will fall far short of its housing production goal" and will risk "displacement of vulnerable households" unless it supplements the rezoning with an "ambitious single-family upzoning policy." All of this arguably was foreshadowed by a massive citywide downzoning effort that took place back when Shampoo was the city's defining movie. More recently, the Hollywood Community Plan--governing development in the actual neighborhood--has been the target of one of the city’s most vicious anti-development lawsuits. It wasn't always thus. Cheap real estate made Hollywood. In previous generations, aspiring actors, craftspeople, and dealmakers gravitated to Los Angeles, living in flophouses, bungalow courts, dingy apartments, and pool houses. They didn't go bankrupt while they went to auditions and worked on their scripts. They probably didn’t pay attention to civic affairs. But they should have. And they definitely should now. On an annual basis, I attend more events related to planning and real estate that I can count. Panel discussions; keynotes; daylong conferences; mixers -- you name it. These events, repetitive though they may be, contemplate how the city should grow; how it should look; who should build it; who should pay for it; and who it should serve. This is heady stuff, and it's relevant to anyone who lives or does business in Los Angeles. How many times have I run into someone from the entertainment industry? How many representatives of production companies or studios? How many agents? How many reps of unions or guilds? Zero. Not a single one. How do I know? Because I keep track. For years, I’ve hoped that, someday, someone would descend from the glitz and be willing to talk about what’s going on in the dirt. I keep waiting for someone in our city’s global, influential, once-wealthy industry to take even a passing interest in the health of the city. But, no. These people make Greta Garbo look like Ryan Seacrest. The metonymy that is Hollywood has taken a woefully dim view of the all-too-real city that hosts it. Bigwigs who live in Bel Air don’t have to care about worldly concerns like workforce housing or civic pride. The last time the real estate industry and Hollywood cooperated with each other was, as CP&DR Publisher Bill Fulton argues in The Reluctant Metropolis , in the development of downtown Los Angeles’s Music Center complex, championed by Buffy Chandler. That was in 1960. Since then, the prevailing indifference is a symptom of a frustratingly tepid civic spirit in Los Angeles. Life here has been easy for too many people and for too long. Now that it's gotten hard, we can either cooperate with each other, or we can retrench further. The latter isn't going to work out well for anyone. The industry recently got some promises from Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and it has been lobbying for help from Sacramento, in the form of Georgia-style tax credits. All of that is... fine. But there's no incentive or tax break that could begin to compensate for the macroeconomic impacts of Los Angeles's bonkers housing market. The question is, has Hollywood or the housing industry missed their cues? Have both entered their Norma Desmond phase? Not if they stop playing make-believe and start getting real. Hollywood needs to wake up. Whatever the civic equivalent of a line of coke is, that's what the industry should be snorting. (Or, more elegantly, it needs another Buffy Chandler.) Then, it might want to apply its powers of messaging and persuasion to this crisis. The need for housing -- via apartments, ADU's, transit-oriented development -- needs to go viral. Ideally, Hollywood should promote exactly the type of neighborhoods that it likes to shoot. Movies and TV shows disproportionately portray busy, walkable, attractive urban neighborhoods (see related CP&DR commentary ) that are easy to create on a studio lot but almost impossible with conventional zoning, financing, and infrastructure. The entertainment industry needs to understand that a cheaper city will also be a more creative city, where artists can thrive without worrying so much about eviction or starvation. A more creative city means better (and maybe more profitable) shows, movies, music, and art. As for what developers and, especially, planners can learn from Hollywood? Let’s face it: planners are, in general, not quite as dynamic as movie stars are, nor are they as tenacious as producers and agents are. A little of that swagger probably wouldn’t hurt. Developers already have it, but they often end up looking like bullies—the proverbial “ greedy developers ”—rather than partners hoping to realize a civic vision. I know it’s become a cliche, but let’s also not discount the importance of storytelling—or at least of clear communication. Whether it’s a mayor articulating a citywide vision for development or a staff planner seeking public input into a project, the sense of drama, conviction, and eloquence that characterizes great entertainment can come in handy. Like actors who shoot 20 takes of the same scene or appear in 100 nights of the same stage play, planners must sell their performances each and every time. Great actors, directors, and writers understand the histories and backstories of their respective performances, and they understand why their characters, plots, and themes are important. Developers and planners need to do the same: they need to understand how projects or plans fit in with greater vision for their respective places. The idea should be to win as many fans as possible. Another thing these two industries share in common: making movies and building buildings are both exceedingly boring . They are long, tedious processes aimed at exciting results. They have that in common with public policy. But, I’m willing to bet that not making movies and not building are even worse. This is the moment when both of these once-great industries, with help from planners, need to recognize their common interests and flip this script. Hooray for Hollywood(land). Image credits:  California Historical Society Digital Archive, via  Waterandpower.org. Coolcaesar - Own work,  CC BY-SA 4.0

Regular readers of CP&DR will recall the major controversy over the review under the California Environmental Quality Act of the proposed construction of a student housing project on the People’s Park property in Berkeley: A community group in Berkeley – Make UC A Good Neighbor -- challenged the CEQA analysis and won in the appellate court. Then the Legislative adopted a bill to essentially overturn the appellate ruling and the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of California and against the neighbors.

Seemingly since the invention of the elevator, critics of growth in California have warned of “Manhattanization,” as if the adoption of liberal zoning policies could instantly result in a thicket of high-density towers. Thus far, that fate has not befallen any cities. But due to a recent confluence of new laws and economic conditions, high-rises are being proposed, approved, and built in some unusual places.

Mariposa County is looking for a Planner III

Glendale Reverses Course on Rejection of By-Right Project The Glendale City Council is set to rescind  its October 2025 decision to reject a large housing and mixed-use development at the former Sears site at 236 N. Central Avenue after state officials warned that the denial violated California’s Housing Accountability Act. The council originally rejected the plan on a 4–1 vote, largely because members felt the design didn’t sufficiently honor the old Sears building’s Art Deco character, despite Mayor Ara Najarian and an attorney for the developer warning that this could result in legal consequences. (See predvious CP& DR coverage here .) After the state Department of Housing and Community Development issued a notice of violation and set a January 29 deadline to reverse the decision, city staff recommended rescinding the denial and moving forward with the project. The proposed project by Trammell Crow Residential would build an eight-story, approximately 650,000-square-foot complex with 682 rental apartments, including 72 very low-income units, ground-floor commercial space, and a 930-car garage. Trump Claims Authority to Speed Up Permitting for Fire Recovery President Donald Trump   signed  an executive order aimed at speeding up rebuilding in Pacific Palisades and Eaton Canyon one year after wildfires destroyed nearly 40,000 acres and an estimated 17,000 structures. The order seeks to cut what Trump calls “bureaucratic red tape” by allowing the federal government to preempt state and local permitting processes and move approvals to the federal level. The order   seeks  to "preempt State or local permitting processes, and other similar pre-approval requirements, that... have unduly impeded the timely use of Federal emergency-relief funds." Trump again accused California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of catastrophic failures in wildfire preparation, response, and rebuilding, particularly criticizing forest management, water systems, and permitting delays. Newsom’s office dismissed the order as ineffective and urged Trump to release withheld federal disaster funding instead, arguing that money, not permitting, is the main barrier to rebuilding. “Mr. President, please actually help us. We are begging you,” the mayor’s office posted on social media. “Release the federal disaster aid you’re withholding that will help communities rebuild their homes, schools, parks, and infrastructure.” Los Angeles Tables Measure to Reform Controversial ‘Mansion Tax’ The Los Angeles City Council   postponed  a vote on a proposed ballot measure that would have exempted newer apartment buildings from the Measure ULA real estate transfer tax, delaying any change until at least the November election. Councilmember Nithya Raman sponsored the proposal, asking her colleagues to place a measure that would exempt sellers of newer apartment buildings from paying the tax. She claimed ULA is holding back housing production and warned that lenders and investors are pulling out of Los Angeles. Labor unions and tenant advocacy groups strongly opposed the changes, arguing that ULA has generated about $1 billion to fund affordable housing and provide assistance to thousands of people at risk of homelessness. Developers argue that ULA, approved by voters in 2022, has made many housing projects financially unviable and contributed to a slowdown in apartment construction, while ULA backers say other factors such as high interest rates are the cause. The council sent Raman’s proposal to the Housing and Homelessness Committee for further review, missing the deadline for the June ballot. CP&DR Coverage: Constitutionality of SB 9 Will Be Reconsidered   In effect since 2022, SB 9 permits landowners to build up to four units on their single-family parcels by splitting their parcels in two and build two units on each of the resulting parcels, all by ministerial action. However, SB 9 mentioned only “affordable housing” and not “a lack of housing supply” as the justification for interfering with home rule. This was the basis of the constitutional challenge brought by several cities, led by Redondo Beach, to which Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Curtis Kin ruled  in favor of the charter cities in 2024, saying that housing affordability and housing supply are not the same thing. This year, however, the Legislature passed SB 450, which expanded the purpose of SB 9 to include housing supply as well as affordability. For this reason, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office argued that Kin’s ruling no longer applied, and the Second District Court of Appeal, agreeing with Bonta, sent the case back to Kin for reconsideration. Another appellate ruling declaring SB 9 constitutional as it relates to general-law cities still stands.   Quick Hits & Update ​​ A new economic report from the San Francisco city controller   shows  job losses picking up while the housing market becomes stronger. The report attributes job losses largely to continued tech layoffs, while office attendance and transit ridership both dropped. At the same time, rents have remained at fairly consistent levels, home prices are rising and housing permits are steadily increasing. Mill Valley  in Marin County is   offering  a one-time payment of up to $14,000 to property owners who sign a one-year lease with someone who works in the city. The average cost of rent in Mill Valley is around $3,500 per month while the average home price hovers around $2 million. The “Lease to Locals” program is being run by PlaceMate, based on a model the company generally uses in vacation destinations which has placed about 2,000 locals in 850 units across 15 markets. San Jose planning administrators   gave  final approval to a plan to build two housing towers containing 768 residential units in the downtown area. The building would also include 10,700 square feet of ground-floor retail, 26,100 square feet of residential lobbies, and five underground levels, four of which are reserved for parking. California has   sued  the  Trump administration over its decision to take federal control of pipelines tied to Sable Offshore Corp.’s plan to restart offshore oil production near Santa Barbara. Attorney General Rob Bonta argues that the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration unlawfully seized oversight from the state and improperly approved Sable’s pipeline restart. State officials say the federal move contradicts prior agreements that gave California authority to review any restart and undermines environmental and public safety protections. A previously privately owned and inaccessible stretch of Northern California coastline near Bodega Bay has   opened  to the public for the first time in over a century. The 547‑acre Estero Americano Coast Preserve now offers walking trails, scenic beaches, panoramic ocean views, and natural habitats for wildlife. The preserve is open daily from sunrise to sunset, and entry is free. Vanderbilt University has   acquired  the California College of Arts campus in San Francisco, with plans to establish a full-time academic campus in the city beginning in the fall of 2027. The Trump administration has   filed  a lawsuit against California over Senate Bill 1137 , a law establishing a 3,200-foot buffer between new oil and gas wells and homes, schools, hospitals, and parks. The U.S. Department of Justice argues that the law violates federal law by restricting federally authorized oil and gas leases, while California officials say the setback protects public health and is based on scientific evidence.

Director of Development Services - Redlands, CA

City of Gilroy Is Hiring - Senior Planner

Southern California's most ambitious freeway "cap" proposal is still going forward – though there are literally mountains to move before the cap is constructed. At a discussion Thursday of the so-called " Park 101 " project, a half-dozen panelists debated methods for moving the cap forward. But all were enthusiastic – and it's clear that if the Park 101 cap by Union Street is constructed, several more in Southern California will quickly follow. "Let's get this thing into environmental," said Doug Failing of L.A. Metro, who formerly served as Caltrans District 7 director in Los Angeles. His comment summed up the day. Park 101 is a proposal to cap several blocks of Highway 101 in the vicinity of Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles. But the cap isn't the only aspect of the project. The project's proponents have also suggested that several under-used onramps and offramps be reconfigured or eliminated, opening up lots of land either for development or for parks.  In 2008, CP&DR's Morris Newman praised the concept of Park 101, calling it " naïve but necessary ". Four freeway caps are under active consideration in Southern California right now, including three along Highway 101 -- Park 101, a cap to accommodate a park along Highway 101 in Hollywood, and a cap on Highway 101 in Ventura that would reconnect the downtown to the beach. Santa Monica is considering a cap on Interstate 10 that would reconnect the Civic Center with the rest of the its downtown. All are the subject of planning efforts funded either by their respective cities or by the Southern California Association of Governments. Of the four, Park 101 is by far the most ambitious – seeking to reclaim several blocks of land surrendered to the freeway 60 years ago. The Highway 101 corridor was on the edge of downtown when the freeway was built in 1950, but development has gravitated toward it, as it now separates the Civic Center area from Union Station, Olvera Street, and Chinatown. One advantage that the Park 101 project has is that virtually all surrounding development is controlled by public agencies, meaning a joint agreement among all the agencies could facilitate both the public construction project and private development opportunities.  Panelists had several ideas to speed the process along, including: 1. Break it into small pieces. Vaughn Davies of AECOM, the lead designer on Park 101, has suggested covering one block to begin with – the block between Main and Los Angeles streets, which would re-connect Olvera Street with the City Hall area. Daies estimated that such a cap would cost a relatively modest $20-25 million. 2. Don't build anything on the cap itself. One of the biggest potential obstacles is to construction is Caltrans, which owns the air rights over the freeway. Caltrans typically wants to lease, not sell, the air rights; and insists on retaining the right to reclaim the air rights at any time. All the panelists agreed that keeping development off the freeway cap itself – and concentrating it on adjacent property, which will increase in value – will make the path to construction much easier. Indeed, by capping only one block, making it a park, and pushing development to the side, the Park 101 project – in the short run, at least – begins to look a lot like the freeway cap constructed over I-15 in the 1990s in the Mid-City neighborhood of San Diego. 3. Use the Transfer for Floor Area Ratio system to help fund the cap and related improvements. A number of Park 101 proponents have suggested that the City of Los Angeles confer development rights on the freeway cap, which can then be sold to nearby developers as a way of raising money – a system previously used in Downtown Los Angeles on the convention center property. "The freeway is zoned PF, public facilities," said Park 101's Emily Gabel Luddy, formerly chief urban designer with the City of Los Angeles. "If we can write the cap into the community plan, the City could bestow development credits that could be used somewhere else." Others cautioned that the market for such TFARs isn't currently strong. "There's already extra density available from the convention center," said developer John Whitaker of DLA piper. "Some people who can get 13:1 don't want to build it? They're looking at smaller projects. 4. Combine the Park 101 project with the Union Station master plan. L.A. Metro is about to undertake a master plan for the Union Station property – and, in fact, is about to interview several design teams. A number of panelists suggested that Metro fold Park 101 into this project. Metro's Failing didn't take the bait – "The teams themselves will be initially focused on the confines of Union Station," he said – but held out the possibility that in the long run Metro is "open to all ideas". The 101 Freeway through downtown LA, before and after proposed capping. Courtesy www.park101.org .

If you want to know where Jerry Brown is going on redevelopment, just take a look at AB 664 – a bill he signed in late September designed to help San Francisco finance facilities for the 2014 America's Cup race. The bill does exactly what Brown was trying to undo in eliminating redevelopment: It diverts new property tax increment for a local purpose. But Brown included several other features in the bill that might suggest his thinking on redevelopment. First, he relied on the structure created by the existing Infrastructure Finance District law – a cumbersome law which nevertheless permits tax-increment diversion without a blight finding. Second, he capped diversion of funds from the so-called ERAF fund – the property tax fund used to finance schools – at $1 million per year. And third, he subjected the entire thing to state oversight – in this case, the California Development and Infrastructure Bank, or I-Bank. The America's Cup situation is an unusual one with a one-of-a-kind backstory. But it's striking that the bill contains so many of the likely components of redevelopment reform. When Brown proposed eliminating redevelopment last January, he promised "a replacement tool". It's never been clear to anybody what he meant by that statement – it may not have been clear to him – but the America's Cup model show the way. To understand the bill and the complicated backstory, read Peter Detwiler's bill analysis for the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. Actually, you should read it just to enjoy it. Like all of Detwiler's bill analyses, it is notable for its clarity, depth of understanding, and humor. There's nobody else in the Capitol who writes like Detwiler, and he  retired at the end of the session. Those of us who strive to understand what bills really say will have to find some other shortcut.