Infill Report WEB VERSION

Smart Infill CREATING MORE LIVABLE COMMUNITIES IN THE BAY AREA

A GUIDE FOR BAY AREA LEADERS

By Stephen Wheeler, PhD, AICP

SPRING 2002

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 1 Smart Infill: Creating More Livable Communities in the Bay Area is a guide for local government officials, planners, and citizens concerned about how development within existing towns and cities—especially infill housing and mixed-use development—can help revitalize communities and accommodate the future growth of the Bay Area.

This Greenbelt Alliance report was researched and written by Stephen M. Wheeler, Ph.D., AICP, in collaboration with Greenbelt Alliance staff and the Greenbelt Alliance Livable Communities Board team. Team members include Roberta Borgonovo, Andrew Butler, Peter Cohen, Zach Cowan, Ignacio Dayrit, Marilyn Farley, Robert Johnson, Vivian Kahn, Trish Mulvey, Margaret Spaulding, Michele Stratton, and Michelle Yesney.

The author and Greenbelt Alliance would like to thank the many individuals interviewed for this report who gave generously of their time and knowledge (see list of interviewees at the end of this report), and especially those who reviewed drafts of this document: Steve Barton, Roberta Borgonovo, Peter Cohen, Ignacio Dayrit, Stephanie Forbes, Tom Jones, Vivian Kahn, and Laurel Prevetti. Infill Development for Livable Communities was designed by Lisa Roth.

Copies of this guidebook can be obtained from Greenbelt Alliance at the address below, or on the web at www.greenbelt.org.

This publication was made possible by a special grant from The Sapling Fund of the Peninsula Community Foundation and the Gaia Fund.

Additional support was supplied by The Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Greenbelt Alliance 530 Bush Street, Suite 303 • San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 398-3730 • Fax: (415) 398-6530 [email protected] • www.greenbelt.org

Our mission is to make the nine county San Francisco Bay Area a better place to live by protecting the region’s greenbelt and improving the livability of its cities and towns. We work through public policy development, advocacy and education, in partnership with diverse coalitions.

Tom Steinbach Executive Director

Janet Stone Livable Communities Program Director

2/ SMART INFILL executive summary

If the Bay Area is to meet the potential, revising zoning and tain View, San Rafael, and San growth challenges of the parking codes, adopting design Francisco are also creating twenty-first century, much guidelines, streamlining per- Specific Plans for infill loca- more of the region’s building mitting processes, facilitating tions. Emeryville has been a will need to take place as cleanup of contaminated sites, leader in cleaning up contami- “infill” development within and coordinating involvement nated “brownfields” sites and existing cities and towns. Infill of neighbors and other local in providing information and development can help the constituencies. It is particu- assistance to devel- region save open space, larly important for Bay Area opers. Redwood improve housing options and cities and towns to encourage City, Hayward, and affordability, reduce traffic multiple infill projects in close Oakland have built Together, all of us can congestion, make more proximity with new amenities new civic facilities efficient use of existing infra- such as parks, streetscape to help leverage help Bay Area cities structure, and create more improvements, public plazas, downtown infill. San livable communities. Given child care centers, local shops, Francisco’s Mission and towns become the region’s housing crisis, and restaurants. Bay project creates residential or mixed-use infill an entire new infill more livable and Such infill would produce not is particularly important to neighborhood on just individual buildings, but create additional housing near former railyard sustainable through revitalized communities that jobs in many existing Bay lands. Infill around can meet the needs of a wide Area communities. rail transit stations infill development. variety of residents. At the is underway in Infill development faces many same time, cities and towns Pleasant Hill, Mill- obstacles in the Bay Area. should adopt policies to pro- brae, El Cerrito, Impediments include land tect existing low-income resi- Walnut Creek, Richmond, availability, fiscal disincentives dents from displacement and Oakland’s Fruitvale neighbor- for local governments to to ensure that new housing hood, and other locations. approve infill projects, out- units serve all income groups. dated zoning requirements, Along with open space protec- Creating a context that nur- excessive parking standards, tion, improved transportation tures infill development in the financing difficulties, neigh- alternatives, and measures to Bay Area means putting in borhood opposition, lengthy promote regional equity, infill place mutually reinforcing permitting processes, toxic development can form the programs at different levels of contamination of sites, and core of a regional Smart government. State and poor schools and a lack of Growth strategy. regional policy should pro- amenities in older communi- mote local action. The active Some Bay Area communities ties. These obstacles must be involvement of citizens, busi- have already taken leadership addressed if infill is to achieve ness groups, neighborhood in creating a favorable context its potential of accommodat- associations, nonprofit organi- for infill. San Jose has adopted ing a majority of future Bay zations, elected officials, and a city-wide strategy combining Area development. the media is also crucial to an Urban Growth Boundary building political support for Local governments can play a with zoning changes, permit infill. Together, all of us can central role in making infill streamlining, financial incen- help Bay Area cities and happen. Local officials can take tives to developers, and cre- towns become more livable the lead by creating Specific ation of Specific Plans. Other and sustainable through infill Plans for areas with infill communities such as Moun- development.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 3 contents

INTRODUCTION ...... 7 EXAMPLES OF BAY AREA INFILL San Jose ...... 48

Emeryville ...... 50

THE NEED FOR INFILL Redwood City ...... 51 What is Infill? ...... 9 Mountain View ...... 51

The Role of Infill in Addressing San Francisco ...... 53 Bay Area’s Growth Crisis ...... 10 Oakland ...... 54 Varieties of Infill Housing ...... 15 San Rafael ...... 56 What Densities are Appropriate? ...... 16 Hayward ...... 57 Making Infill Affordable ...... 17 Berkeley ...... 58 Avoiding Displacement ...... 21 Pleasant Hill ...... 59

Millbrae ...... 61

Also Noteworthy ...... 62 STRATEGIES FOR PRODUCING BAY AREA INFILL 11. Land Availability ...... 23

12. Fiscal Disincentives ...... 26 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGIONAL AND STATE ACTION 13. Specific Plans ...... 27 The Regional Level ...... 63 14. Zoning Codes ...... 29 The State Level ...... 64 15. Parking Requirements ...... 32

16. Financing Options ...... 35 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 17. Design Guidelines ...... 36 CITIZEN ACTION ...... 67 18. Permitting Processes ...... 38

19. Working with Neighbors ...... 39 INTERVIEWEES ...... 68 10. Brownfields Cleanup ...... 41

11. Consistency and Completeness ...... 42

12. Community Revitalization ...... 43 ORGANIZATIONAL RESOURCES ...... 69 Other Problems and Potential Solutions ...... 45

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 71

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 5 introduction

Many Bay Area local leaders opportunities in recent case studies of successful support concepts such as decades, and by making a infill—places where municipal “Smart Growth” and “Sustain- greater range of housing, action is helping infill developable Development.” But how transportation, and employ- ment revitalize neighborhoods is the region to achieve such ment choices available to the or entire cities. Finally, two goals? The purpose of this full diversity of area residents. appendices provide a resource guidebook is to provide infor- list and bibliography on infill This guidebook presents a mation on how cities and development. range of specific policies and towns can implement one key programs which local govern- By publishing this strategy—infill development, ments and regional decision- guidebook, Green- especially of housing. Through makers can use to help the belt Alliance seeks well-designed infill, the region region “grow up, not out.” The to give local deci- can grow smarter and more analysis here focuses on infill sion-makers tools sustainably while improving The Bay Area is at a development that is residen- with which to pro- quality of life for current and tial or mixed-use in character. mote infill. Mayors, crossroads. Either we get future residents. There are two reasons for city council mem- serious about guiding Infill development is an essen- this: the Bay Area is suffering bers, and city staff tial complement to greenbelt from a severe and growing persons are on the new development toward protection. It provides posi- housing crisis, and bringing front lines of infill tive and constructive alterna- residents back into the cen- development, in our existing cities and tives to suburban sprawl ters of communities and older the most pivotal towns, or we risk losing development—alternatives neighborhoods is one of the positions to make that can help revitalize best ways to revitalize these policy changes to the high quality of life, existing Bay Area communi- areas. Even in times of slow encourage the ties and provide much-needed economic growth, planning for development of open space, and diversity housing for the region. infill can still occur. The more vibrant com- that make this region so region’s economy will munities through Infill development also offers rebound, and periods of eco- infill. wonderful. a prime way to satisfy the nomic downturn allow munici- “three E’s” of sustainable However, this palities a chance to prepare —Tom Steinbach development: environment, guidebook also the way for well-thought-out economy, and equity. It meets provides a Executive Director infill development when times environmental goals by lower- resource for citi- Greenbelt Alliance are better. ing threats to open space, zen activists and reducing automobile use, and Part 1 of this guidebook the media by sup- cleaning up polluted urban explains the concept of infill plying detailed lands. It meets economic goals development, summarizes the information on by supporting existing com- Bay Area’s current growth cri- how successful infill develop- munity businesses, providing sis, and describes how infill ment can occur as well as an needed housing for Bay Area development can help address extensive list of further workers, and using the many of the problems result- resources. Citizens’ groups region’s infrastructure more ing from rapid, poorly planned can play a crucial role in cost-effectively. And it meets regional growth. Part 2 pro- ensuring good infill develop- equity goals by reinvesting in vides a handbook of strategies ment in the Bay Area. They older or more established Bay that local governments can can work with planners and Area communities that have use to promote well-planned developers to ensure that lost tax base and economic infill. Part 3 supplies Bay Area project designs are responsive

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 7 Actual photo of existing Bay to neighborhood needs, sup- Overall, this document opment is likely to be one of Area street (top); computer- port good projects in front of intends to stimulate debate the main planning challenges generated image (below) shows this area attractively city councils and zoning about how the Bay Area can of the twenty-first century, transformed through mixed- boards, and mobilize support use infill development to and in the Bay Area like other use infill, plus a light rail for broader changes to muni- improve the livability and sus- regions a comprehensive, stop. cipal plans and zoning in order tainability of its communities, strategic approach at each Images courtesy of Joint Venture Silicon Valley and Urban Advantage for successful infill develop- rather than continuing to level of government is needed ment to occur. sprawl outwards. Infill devel- to bring it about.

8/ SMART INFILL the need for infill

have languished, with declin- members of the community. WHAT IS INFILL ing tax bases and little new Successful infill development DEVELOPMENT? investment. carefully integrates new proj- “Infill” development refers to Computer-generated construction of visioning (left) shows a suburban commercial street new housing, transformed into a workplaces, pedestrian friendly, mixed- shops, and use corridor with a dedicated bus lane... other facilities Images courtesy of Joint Venture Silicon within existing Valley and Urban Advantage urban or suburban areas. This development can be of several types: building on vacant lots, reuse of underutilized sites (such as parking lots and old industrial sites), and rehabilitation or expansion of existing buildings. Through infill, communities can increase their housing, jobs, and community amenities without expanding their overall footprint out into open space or otherwise undevel- oped lands. Infill Some infill development has develop- always taken place within ment can cities and towns. But the per- take many centage of development that is forms infill instead of “greenfield”— (described on open space or agricultural further land at the urban fringe—is below). In relatively small in the Bay the past, Area, as it is in most U.S. met- not all ropolitan regions. Instead of infill has caring for and reusing our managed urban land, we have literally to create ects into the urban context, moved on to greener pastures. attractive places. But much adds needed housing and Meanwhile, as sprawl develop- has been learned in recent amenities, and attempts to ment draws jobs and people to decades about how to design meet needs of both existing the urban fringe, many older and build infill projects that neighbors and new workers or Bay Area cities and suburbs add to quality of life for all residents. Because of the Bay

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 9 Area’s enormous need for amenities such as parks, child options, a better balance of housing—particularly housing care centers, shops, cafes, workplaces, homes, and affordable to a broad range of restaurants, schools, and stores, and other community workers and located near jobs walkable public spaces. amenities.

Infill by itself won’t solve the Bay Area’s growth problems. But combined with greenbelt protection, better public transit, more pedestrian-oriented street design, new congestion management efforts, measures to promote housing affordability, and protections for existing residents at risk of displacement, infill will be a central part of achieving regional smart growth and sustainability.

THE ROLE OF INFILL IN ADDRESSING BAY AREA’S GROWTH CRISIS In the decades since World War II, the Bay Area has expanded outward primarily through development in the ‘greenfields.’ Subdivisions have gobbled up farms, ranch- land, and wetlands. Walnut Creek lost its walnut trees, and the South Bay, once known as “Valley of Heart’s Delight” because of its flower- ing fruit trees, became Silicon Valley instead. The five- county Bay Area became a nine-county region and threatens to become a 14- ...and how additional and transit—it is especially housing options-duplexes Although infill development is county metropolis as a lack of and fourplexes-can be added important for infill projects to sometimes thought of as a housing choices forces many in a manner compatible include residential units. with existing homes. concern of older central cities, Bay Area workers to commute Images courtesy of Joint Venture Silicon In many ways infill develop- it is an important strategy for from homes in the Central Valley and Urban Advantage ment represents the opposite suburbs as well. Such devel- Valley. of sprawl, in that it can help opment can help create active The Association of Bay Area create compact and vibrant downtowns and neighborhood Governments (ABAG) proj- communities with a diverse centers, and foster a “sense of ects there will be a million mixture of land uses, well- place” within suburban com- new residents in the Bay Area connected street patterns, munities. It can also add a by 2020. Whether or not this and much-needed community broader range of housing

10 / SMART INFILL turns out to be an entirely are able to build. No agency ments where they don’t have accurate projection, we can currently keeps figures on the to drive as much as if they conclude that without smarter percentage of infill versus were living or working on the growth focusing on infill greenfield development in the suburban fringe. Studies have development, the result will Bay Area. (Such figures also shown far lower levels of auto- be enormous environmental depend on exact definitions of mobile use in more compact and social problems. Our cur- infill.) But judging by the Bay Area cities—where much rent pattern of suburban experience of other western infill would occur—than in sprawl development imposes a U.S. metropolitan areas such newer, low-density suburbs. number of specific burdens on as Portland, the current Bay For example, a 1995 study the region which infill devel- Area percentage of new hous- published by the California Air opment can help reduce: ing accounted for by infill Resources Board found that development is probably annual vehicle miles traveled Loss of open space between 20 and 30 percent. per household varied As many as 490,000 acres of With moderate effort, that from 5,500 miles in Bay Area open space may be level could be increased sub- northeast San Fran- Public attitude has lost in the next 30 years with- stantially within five years. cisco to definitely changed to be out strong action by local With much stronger efforts 12,500–14,300 in cities and counties to manage over several decades, levels of older cities like more understanding growth and promote infill. 60 percent or more are possi- Berkeley and north that everyone can’t live Sprawl development is likely ble. In its recent Envision Oakland to 22,300 in in a single family home to follow major freeway corri- Utah planning exercise, the suburban Lafayette or the freeways are going dors such as I-80 toward Salt Lake City area even stud- and Walnut Creek. Sacramento, I-580 toward ied an alternative in which However, even to be just jammed. Tracy, and 101 north past development would have been newer suburbs and People see that it makes Santa Rosa and south past nearly 90 percent infill. established subur- more sense to put higher Gilroy. This open space threat ban communities is documented in previous Traffic and automobile use can reduce auto density homes near Greenbelt Alliance At Risk Traffic congestion is already dependency by pur- transit and downtown. reports (see www.greenbelt.org). severe on Bay Area roads at suing appropriate many hours of the day. The infill development. —Kevin Roberts Infill development is one of total mileage that Bay Area res- Community the main antidotes to subur- idents drive each day is ex- Lack of housing Development Director ban sprawl. Every housing pected to grow by nearly 50 affordability Walnut Creek unit, office, or store developed percent by 2025, according to For much of the in a Bay Area infill location is the 2001 Regional Transporta- 1990s the Bay Area one less that adds to sprawl. tion Plan developed by the Met- produced nine times as many Infill development tends to be ropolitan Transportation Com- new jobs as housing units, more compact than sprawl, so mission (MTC). The amount of according to the Association the same number of dwelling traffic congestion is projected of Bay Area Governments units, stores, or offices takes to more than double (increas- (ABAG). Not surprisingly, up much less land. Increasing ing by 149 percent), even with housing costs have skyrock- the Bay Area’s infill develop- the expenditure of tens of bil- eted. Median home prices in ment rate even slightly would lions of dollars for new trans- the region neared the save hundreds of square miles portation infrastructure. $500,000 mark in 2001. To of open space and farmland. find affordable housing, many Infill development can dra- How much open space could workers have moved to outly- matically reduce this growing infill development preserve? ing cities or Central Valley need to drive. Well-designed The answer would depend on towns, exacerbating traffic infill puts people into walka- the amount of infill that we problems. ble, transit-oriented environ-

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 11 Infill development typically have seen little new invest- creates a wider variety of ment. Older cities such as housing choices than Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo, greenfield development. and East Palo Alto suffer from Second units behind exist- low tax base, deteriorating ing houses provide small, infrastructure, and accumu- relatively inexpensive units lated social service needs. A for students or the elderly. recent study by the Urban Studio, one-, and two-bed- Habitat Program found that room apartments and con- per capita tax base varies by a dominiums accommodate factor of five between wealthy singles and couples without cities such as Atherton and Approximately one Because of the homogenous children. Larger apartments, Danville and poor communi- million new Bay Area residents are expected in nature of suburban sprawl townhouses, and single-family ties such as East Palo Alto. the next 20 years. development, Bay Area resi- detached homes meet the New infill development, espe-

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census dents have a relatively narrow needs of families. Assisted liv- cially mixed-use development range of housing choices. ing facilities and supportive containing offices, retail According to ABAG, 60 housing provide on-site serv- stores, restaurants, and hotels percent of the region’s ices in addition to housing. as well as homes, can substan- land available for resi- Infill can help add all these tially increase the tax base of dential housing types to existing com- older Bay Area cities. develop- munities. To provide a com- ment plete range of housing choices Jobs/housing imbalance between affordable to lower income and mismatch 1995 and residents, though, will require The balance between jobs and 2020 is subsidies or other actions by housing within the region and zoned local government. within individual cities has for become seriously skewed. single- Uneven growth Housing is being created in family While some communities face cities like Tracy, Brentwood, Greenbelt homes. intense growth pressure, such Fairfield, and Vacaville, while Alliance’s At Risk map shows Yet a as those in Silicon Valley, San jobs are being created in the areas facing the large Francisco, the North Bay’s 101 Silicon Valley, San Francisco, greatest development pressure. corridor, and eastern Alameda and San Ramon. Many munici- and Contra Costa counties, palities have zoned overly proportion other parts of the Bay Area generous amounts of land for of Bay Area commercial or households cannot afford or industrial do not need such single-family development, detached homes. Many com- but are unwill- munities lack well-designed ing to accept duplexes, townhouses, or much housing. garden apartments that can The result is a provide attractive, high- worsening amenity residences at densi- “jobs/housing ties that can support public imbalance”— transit and save open space. meaning The number of miles Bay Area residents drive each day is expected to rise more than 30 percent in 20 years, more than among other twice as fast as the rate of population growth, in large part due things that to sprawling land use and the fact that jobs and housing are located far from one another.

12 / SMART INFILL Bay Area residents must drive quality of life falls for many dential options, it can help long distances to get to work, residents of the Bay Area. provide housing for the local and that traffic congestion Sprawl has led to disinvest- workforce as well as seniors and air pollution increase. ment in city services and and others. By putting new schools within central Bay residents and workers near Even within individual cities, Area cities and towns, and has existing local businesses, infill jobs, housing, and shops are fueled the movement of jobs helps create a vibrant local often widely separated by to newer suburbs far from economy and improves the conventional zoning and sub- where many current Bay Area market for new restaurants, urban development patterns. residents live. As such prob- cafes, and stores. By increas- This means that few daily lems mount, many individuals ing the number of travel destinations are within and businesses begin to won- people walking or walking distance of homes, der whether the advantages of bicycling along and that residents must drive In an urban the region are worth the neighborhood to get to most places they costs, and consider moving streets, infill environment like this the need to go. elsewhere. For those commit- improves public services are already Further, there is not a good ted to the region, daily life safety. By adding there—police, fire, match between the housing becomes slowly more difficult. well-designed new sewers, etc.—for us this being built and the incomes of buildings plus parks, We cannot have livable com- many who live or work in the public spaces, serv- makes a lot more sense munities in the Bay Area with- area. In most Bay Area com- ices, and streetscape out a range of housing options than putting develop- munities, many more above- improvements, infill affordable to residents at all ment out by the freeway. moderate income homes are can improve aesthet- income levels, plus good being constructed than low or ics and urban ameni- schools, safe and walkable moderate-income units, which ties. By adding —Mike Church neighborhoods, good employ- means that people with mod- potential riders, infill Planning and ment opportunities for exist- est incomes have few afford- makes higher levels ing residents, and local shops Redevelopment able housing options. of public transit serv- and services. Infill develop- Manager, Redwood City ice feasible. And by Infill development can help ment can add these vital increasing the tax create a greater mixture of ingredients. It can begin to base of older Bay land uses and housing options reverse many of the urban liv- Area municipalities, infill can within communities, both of ability problems created by help make possible better which will add vitality and sprawl, bringing older Bay schools, parks, and public interest. Particular efforts are Area communities back the Endangered farmland facilities. near Livermore. needed to add infill housing to vitality they once enjoyed, Stephen Wheeler areas such as Silicon Valley while creating walkable down- and San Francisco in which towns and new job growth has vastly out- neighborhood paced housing production, centers for and to create multifamily more recent housing with larger unit sizes suburbs. to accommodate families. Infill development can Declining community improve the livability Bay Area’s As traffic mounts, open space livability in a vanishes, older downtowns variety of ways. decline, and affordable hous- By creating a ing disappears, in large part range of resi- due to sprawl development,

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 13 Inefficient use of requires only small upgrades infrastructure to existing infrastructure. The Sprawl development requires exact amount of savings to that new roads, water mains, municipalities is a subject of sewer pipes, and other infra- debate and depends partly on structure be extended into the condition of current infra- greenfield areas. In contrast, structure. However, one infill development often authoritative 1992 study by Rutgers professor Robert Top to bottom: Burchell and others found The Classics of Mountain View that sprawl in some parts of provides small lot single family About one-third of the U.S. increased road costs homes located close to the downtown. Density is 14 units Americans want to live in 23.9 percent and water and per acre, including the private places that embody new sewer costs 7.6 percent com- rear alley that serves the pared with more compact garages and the public community design with a pedestrian mews that serve as development at the urban entry path to the units. focus on real neighborhoods, edge. Savings from infill Duplexes in Agua Caliente, a strong sense of community, development near the center Sonoma County, at a density of more than 14 units per acre. walkable streets, and less of cities are probably greater still. Foster City’s Metro Center dependence on cars, but less Senior Apartments, adjacent to shops and offices, share a plaza than one percent of housing with townhomes. Overall offers such mixed-use places. density: 30 units per acre. Metro Center residential—view —Joel Hirschhorn of courtyard and parking. National Governors’ All photos Tom Jones Association

Infill vs. Greenfield. A 2000 study by the Natural Re- sources Defense Council and the U.S. Environmen- tal Protection Agency of an infill subdivision in Sacra- mento vs. a greenfield counterpart found that the infill neighborhood substantially reduced driving and travel distances.

14 / SMART INFILL Compact infill develop- VARIETIES OF INFILL ment can be achieved DEVELOPMENT Confronting the “D-word” with many different For local residents, “density” is often a four-letter word. Infill development can take housing forms, most of Many associate residential density with large, impersonal many forms tailored to the which still allow yards, apartment buildings, public housing projects, or physical needs of particular commu- patios, and/or a sub- environments like downtown San Francisco. Yet few peo- nities. stantial amount of ple can actually envision what a particular development shared open space. density will look like, and have trouble, for example, distin- guishing 15 units per acre from 30.

One response by local planners and elected officials is to talk instead about “compact development,” “smart growth,” or “livable, walkable neighborhoods.” Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown has used the phrase “elegant density.”

Another approach used around the country, pioneered by Rutgers professor Anton Nelessen, has been to conduct a “visual preference survey” of local residents. People are shown images of typical low-density suburban development and other types of higher-density development, such as turn-of-the-century streetcar suburbs and well-designed urban infill projects. Most residents find they prefer somewhat higher density than found in recent suburbia because these include more attractive streetscapes, local shops and restaurants, and a greater diversity of housing choices. Nelessen and his colleagues have Residential administered this survey for over 25 years to approxi- infill can range mately 50,000 people nationwide, with fairly unani- from single mous results in all geographic regions. family detached Along with visual preference surveys, public work- homes to large shops and design charettes are useful tools to help multifamily citizens see that increasing densi- developments. Mixed-use infill ties can be desirable. Again, when can vary from modest one- or asked to choose among many two-story buildings on single housing and land use patterns, lots to mid-sized complexes residents often select traditional housing hundreds of residents town forms with higher densities to entire master-planned devel- and mixtures of land uses than opments with housing, office, typical suburban sprawl. and commercial development.

On the following pages are a number of images that illustrate the variety of residential and mixed-use infill.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 15 Recent Bay Area suburban WHAT DENSITIES ARE densities have been relatively APPROPRIATE? low, often 6–8 dwelling units Infill development often per net acre before local roads increases residential densities. and public facilities are fac- Although “density” is often tored in (gross densities are viewed as a negative, adding even lower). By contrast, den- residents, jobs, and busi- sities in many older Bay Area nesses to a community pro- suburbs built around the turn vides many advantages in of the century are often 10 to terms of 16 units per acre. Densities for apartment buildings in downtown locations can range above 200 units per acre—yet such densi- It’s getting easier to build the ties can improving safety, often fit well kind of projects I build. Density’s increasing the viability of local along existing come out of the closet. businesses, cafes, and restau- streets. For example, a five- rants, providing sufficient rid- story, 50-unit apartment —Patrick Kennedy ership for transit, and enhanc- building on a quarter-acre, Owner, Panoramic Interests ing community interaction. 100 by 100-foot lot represents a density of 200 units per acre, and still can have an attractive courtyard, entry plaza, and rooftop deck.

Upper Left: Open Doors in Los Gatos, designed to respect large single family homes nearby and preserve mature trees, provides affordable garden apartments around a shared common space. Density: 25 units per acre. Middle: Open Doors in Los Gatos— view of a common space area.

Tom Jones Bottom: The Gaia provides 91 apartments—with 20 percent affordable to low-income residents— one block from Berkeley BART. Even with a density of 250 units per acre, it includes 11,000 square feet of open space.

Panoramic Interests

16 / SMART INFILL To make efficient use of well- One main strategy to increase In-lieu fees also don’t have the located sites, infill develop- affordable housing is to adopt advantage of integrating ment should be relatively inclusionary zoning require- affordable units into each new dense but should also include ments. These mandate that project that gets built. amenities such as parks, shops, developers make a certain Other financing strategies for restaurants, attractive percentage of units in each affordable housing include streetscapes, and child care project affordable to residents charging fees to new commer- centers. In most Bay Area in specified income cate- cial development to support downtowns, infill apartment gories. Typically, inclusionary housing for less affluent resi- buildings of at least three to requirements only apply to dents, increasing the level of five stories with ground floor developments of more than a funding set aside for afford- shops can help create livable certain size, often 10 units, able housing within redevel- downtowns and neighborhood and require that 10 or 20 opment programs, and centers while adding signifi- percent of units be afford- bond cant amounts of housing. able to households making These buildings represent net 80 percent or less of the densities of 30–200 units per county median income. acre. In less central locations, Some municipalities spec- townhouses, duplexes, small ify that some units be apartment buildings, and even affordable to very low- small-lot detached houses can income households mak- provide attractive housing ing 50 percent or less of choices at 12 to 30 units per the median. acre, a level that can support Many Bay Area cities public transit. In existing single allow developers to family neighborhoods, a very pay an in-lieu fee simple step that can double instead of actually residential density with little or Berkeley’s Gaia building creating affordable features an attractive no change to neighborhood streetfront with space for inclusionary units. character is to allow homeown- a cultural center, as well as However, such fees a large rooftop deck and ers to add second units behind shared electric cars for or within existing houses. residents.

MAKING INFILL These infill townhouses two blocks from downtown AFFORDABLE San Mateo resemble older The strategies in this guide- Peninsula homes, but include second units off an book can help well-designed internal lane. Overall infill development take place density: 30 units per acre. within cities. This develop- Panoramic Interests ment can provide a range of housing units of different sizes and prices. However, infill development alone will not solve housing affordability problems. Cities will need to may be less effective in creat- financing measures to fund take additional steps to ing affordable housing, as the municipal affordable housing ensure that affordable housing amount of the fee is often programs. relatively low compared to the is available to residents in all Municipalities frequently cost of constructing a unit. income categories. provide low-interest loans or

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 17 Such direct finan- be discussed later—such as cial commitments permit streamlining, zoning are necessary to changes, and reductions in close the gap parking standards—can also between what resi- help make infill housing dents can afford affordable. and what housing The state’s Department of costs to build in Housing and Community the Bay Area. Development (HCD) works Other initiatives to together with the Association of Bay Area Governments to determine appropriate housing goals for each city within grants to non- Top to bottom: the region. These targets— profit housing The Carroll Street Inn in including housing production providers to Sunnyvale is an attractive goals for different income lev- affordable single-room ensure that occupancy development a els—were updated in 2000. affordable block from the city’s main The state required each city street. Density: 120 units units get cre- to adopt a General Plan Hous- per acre. ated. A num- ing Element in 2001 that spec- Mountain View ber of Bay ifies how these goals are to be Performing Arts Center, Area cities public park and a new city met. These Elements must be hall in downtown have estab- updated every five years. Mountain View shows lished Afford- how cities can locate public facilities so as to able Housing revitalize existing Trust Funds neighborhoods. for this pur- Tom Jones pose, and Centrally located new many use housing, convenient to BART and services, has Community been encouraged by the Development City of Hayward. Block Grant New townhomes are being (CDBG) constructed adjacent to Hayward City Hall. monies from

Greenbelt Alliance the federal government to support affordable housing.

18 / SMART INFILL Greenbelt Alliance and the Bay Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition have launched a Regional Housing Needs Campaign to help Bay Area cities provide enough housing to meet the needs of moderate, low, and very low income residents. For more information, contact Janet Stone at 415-398-3730.

Top to bottom: Park Place II is a new Most Bay Area cities don’t mixed-use development located on busy Castro come close to meeting their Street in Mountain View. “fair share” goals for afford- These upscale apartments, able housing. Many older at a density of 75 units per acre, blend in with an office cities also don’t meet their building next door and the overall targets for housing. retail below. In most places, meeting fair Oakland’s revitalized City share goals will require Center has become a bustling area with shops, extensive infill development restaurants, offices, and a and very active municipal BART station. efforts to facilitate the cre- This downtown street corner ation of new housing. “pocket park” in Hayward replaced an abandoned building on the site.

Greenbelt Alliance Infill development encourages community interaction by providing interesting and safe public spaces—a downtown Oakland park hosts a pumpkin-carving festival.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 19 20 / SMART INFILL of steps. They can adopt con- To help reduce displacement AVOIDING trols on conversion of rental and meet the needs of exist- DISPLACEMENT properties to condominiums, ing residents, cities can make One major risk of infill devel- a step that tends to decrease a strong commitment to pub- opment is that it will gentrify the supply of affordable rental lic involvement in planning neighborhoods and displace housing. They can require new infill development. Spe- existing low-income commu- that developers renovating or cial outreach efforts may be nities in favor of affluent white tearing down older housing needed to ensure that current residents. Already many mem- replace any affordable units residents are made aware of bers of such communities are that would be lost on a one- infill planning, and are invited being forced to leave the area for-one basis. They can sup- to help decide the nature and because of high housing costs. port the construction of new design of new development. Often these individuals and affordable housing in infill families must leave the region neighborhoods. altogether to find affordable And they can pro- housing. Many members of vide assistance lower-income groups are mov- directly to existing ing as far as Stockton, low-income resi- Modesto, and Sacramento. dents to fix up Others are being pushed out their properties or of central city neighborhoods to purchase new to outlying communities in the homes. Rent con- region. trols are a poten- Infill development—especially tial though contro- of affordable housing units— versial strategy as can help fight such displace- well. ment by providing housing for A number of cities existing lower-income Bay have adopted or Area residents. Creation of are considering new jobs at infill locations can various other also give central city residents means to stabilize much-needed economic and preserve opportunities. Addition of existing affordable stores and services can pro- housing, such as vide older urban neighbor- emergency rental hoods with desperately assistance funds, needed amenities. (Often mobile home park these neighborhoods lack preservation pro- basic services such as nearby grams, and land- supermarkets and banks.) In lord-tenant media- these ways, well-planned infill tion requirements. development can reduce dis- San Francisco’s Larkin Pine Senior Housing helps placement, and not simply counter displacement by providing 63 affordable housing units, two courtyards, and community promote gentrification of space on top of a U.S. Post Office. It demonstrates older neighborhoods as use of air rights above otherwise low-rise buildings to add housing for community residents. investment returns to them and they gain popularity. Greenbelt Alliance

Municipalities can reduce displacement through a number

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 21 strategies for producing bay area infill

How do we increase the • Older commercial corridors cally identify key obstacles amount and quality of infill remain dominated by hindering it currently and to development in the Bay Area? wasteful strip development. work out solutions. Most parts of the region have These corridors could be The following pages describe seen only modest levels of retrofitted as pedestrian- a number of strategies that infill to date. The Bay Area’s friendly boulevards with Bay Area cities and counties track record at encouraging additional transit, housing, can apply in a dozen key infill has been mixed at best: and shops. areas: • Older downtowns still often • Many closed military bases 11. Ensuring Land Availability suffer from a lack of invest- still sit vacant or underuti- ment, with vacant lots, lized. 12. Reducing Fiscal empty storefronts, surface Disincentives • Declining shopping malls parking lots, and under- and industrial districts offer 13. Preparing Specific Plans sized, one-story buildings further opportunities for offering prime redevelop- 14. Revising Zoning Codes infill. ment opportunities. 15. Rethinking Parking Stan- Infill development is inher- • Vast surface parking lots dards ently more complex than still surround most BART greenfield building. Develop- 16. Improving Financing stations where higher ers must often deal with high Options density housing and transit- land costs, difficulties in accessible 17. Establishing Urban Design assembling small parcels, long shops and Guidelines approvals processes, opposi- offices What really becomes vacant tion from neighbors, toxics 18. Streamlining Permitting might flour- cleanup issues, financing Processes land? It’s old gas stations, ish in addi- uncertainties, and compli- tion to park- 19. Working Constructively hamburger stands, car cated zoning and parking ing garages With Neighbors washes…. We’ve found sites requirements. Cities must also for com- exert strong leadership if infill 10. Cleaning Up Brownfields that are on their second or muters. is to include affordable hous- third use. 11. Improving Consistency ing as well as three- and four- and Completeness —Dan Sawislak bedroom housing units to Executive Director accommodate families. 12. Revitalizing Communities and Adding Amenities Resources for Yet many current impediments Community Development to infill can be eased by local government action. Cities can’t solve all the problems, but they can do many things that create a favorable climate for reinvestment in existing urban areas. For infill to meet its potential in the Bay Area, it will be important to systemati-

22 / SMART INFILL 1. ENSURING Most of the Bay Area’s former tions, based on current policy LAND military bases have great and market conditions. About potential for reuse, despite 60 percent of these units AVAILABILITY political arguments over their would be built on vacant redevelopment. parcels while 40 percent THE PROBLEM would be on reused or intensi- Many Bay Area cities have fied sites. One main challenge is ensur- also zoned excessively for ing that enough land exists to commercial development, on Local governments can ensure accommodate Bay Area popu- the theory that it will bring that sufficient land is available lation growth in infill locations. them greater tax revenue. for infill development by tak- Although there are still many Rezoning some of these areas ing the following steps: vacant parcels within Bay Area for housing can help accom- 1. Do land surveys cities, these are slowly disap- modate new residents within to identify poten- pearing as developers build the existing urban footprint. A lot of cities have tons tial infill opportu- new infill projects. Remaining Lastly, infill housing and nities. Likely infill and tons of land lying vacant lots are often challeng- stores could be added to many parcels include ing in terms of size, location, existing office parks and cor- around, but it’s zoned those for which or toxic contamination. porate campuses. commercial. the assessed A 2000 study by U.C. Berkeley property tax valu- —Doug Shoemaker, SOLUTIONS researchers Juan Onesimo ation of the land Policy and Program Although the supply of vacant Sandoval and John Landis exceeds that of Director, Nonprofit infill parcels is diminishing, found that the Bay Area has buildings, those Housing Association of another large pool of infill plenty of land available for where buildings land exists: underused parcels infill development, although only cover a small Northern California that can be redeveloped. most of it is redevelopable fraction of the These “refill” sites include rather than vacant land. The site, and down- surface parking lots, declining study found that 58,173 acres town buildings that are shopping centers, under-used could be profitably developed one-story or have low floor- motels, decaying industrial as multifamily housing— area ratios. districts, and low-intensity enough for hundreds of thou- 2. Check to be sure that these commercial land uses along sands of homes. This estimate sites are zoned properly for arterial strips. Old factories, is probably low, since it infill development (see sports stadiums, and office depends on conservative Strategy 4), and work with parks can also be redeveloped assumptions about the densi- developers to address into compact, livable mixed- ties and uses for which land cleanup problems. Develop- use neighborhoods. In addi- will be zoned, and about the ing Specific Plans is particu- tion, many older buildings can economic feasibility of rede- larly helpful for larger-scale be rehabilitated or expanded velopment. Nevertheless, San- efforts (see Strategy 3). to create new infill housing, doval and Landis conclude shops, or offices. that the biggest constraints to 3. Examine land zoned for infill in the Bay Area are eco- commercial or industrial Also numerous are “brown- nomic and political, not the development to see field” sites where toxic physical amount of land. whether this can be cleanup problems have so far rezoned for housing or prevented redevelopment. A A second study in 1999 by mixed-use development. variety of local, state and fed- Greenbelt Alliance and the Sil- Currently many Bay Area eral programs can help clean icon Valley Manufacturing local governments have up and recycle these sites for Group found that room exists over-zoned for commercial new building (see Strategy 10 in Silicon Valley for 74,300 development—which below). homes, primarily in infill loca-

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 23 produces higher tax rev- 7. Offer financial incentives • To make possible new enues—while seriously for developers to redevelop downtown infill, Redwood under-producing housing. infill sites, such as fee City’s Redevelopment waivers or tax reductions. Agency actively assembled 4. Use redevelopment agen- a developable site from cies—planning authorities 8. Adopt Urban Growth seven parcels, and assisted established under state law Boundaries (UGBs) to dis- developers in cleaning up to help renovate blighted courage greenfield devel- contamination produced by areas—to assist in assem- opment. Infill is unlikely if a former gas station. For bling infill parcels, creating large amounts of greenfield more information, see the necessary infrastructure, land continue to be avail- case study on page 50. and coordinating infill able. In that case develop- development. ers will usually find it • The U.S. Postal Service cheaper and easier to build negotiated an air rights 5. Take action to discourage at the suburban fringe— agreement with the China- speculative holding of infill even if this imposes huge town Community Develop- sites. Such specu- costs on society in the long ment Center in San Fran- lators can stymie run. So, along with steps to cisco through which the city efforts to revi- We feel we can reuse existing urban land, developer constructed 63 talize a large area accommodate thousands it is important for local gov- affordable housing units, through redevel- ernments to limit sprawl. common facilities, and two and thousands of units— opment, as in outdoor courtyards with it’s true of almost all parts of uptown roof gardens on top of a Oakland. One solu- cities—through the EXAMPLES U.S. Post Office. The result- tion would be for recycling of land. We just • The City of Emeryville’s ing Larkin-Pine Senior cities to institute One Stop Shop provides on- Housing project illustrates don’t believe cities are an “anti-specula- line information about avail- how air rights can be used tion tax” raising built-out. We think there able infill parcels through- in urban areas to provide assessments on are creative ways that out the entire city, including sites for infill. See photo on vacant urban land cities can plan for more available sites and environ- page 21. as an incentive for mental data. For more housing. owners to develop information, see the case the land. Another —Laurel Prevetti study on page 50. RESOURCES strategy is for Sandoval, Juan Onesimo and John Lan- Principal Planner cities or their • To provide land for infill, dis. 2000. Estimating the Housing Infill City of San Jose redevelopment the City of Mountain View Capacity of the Bay Area. Berkeley: rezoned 40 acres of a for- Institute for Urban and Regional Devel- agencies to use opment Working Paper 2000–06. mer industrial site owned eminent domain to Greenbelt Alliance and Silicon Valley acquire land and resell or by GTE for the new 525- Manufacturing Group. 1999. Housing lease it to developers. unit Whisman station devel- Solutions for Silicon Valley: Housing opment. For more informa- Solutions Report, 1999. Available at 6. Explore air rights leases for tion, see the case study on http://www.svmg.org. infill development. Under page 51. For strategies on creating a context for these agreements, housing infill development without inequitable displacement of existing residents, see or other uses can be con- • The City of San Jose is in PolicyLink’s Beyond Gentrification the midst of a citywide structed over roads, parking Toolkit, available at http://www. lots, and low-rise facilities. mapping project to locate policylink.org/publications.html. available infill sites. For more information, see the case study on page 48.

24 / SMART INFILL EXAMPLE: INFILL POSSIBILITIES IN DOWNTOWN LIVERMORE Like many older Bay Area communities, the city of Livermore features a compact downtown based on a nineteenth century street grid. Although this city center has great infill development potential—and possesses a new ACE commuter train station and regional bus facility—it is currently full of vacant lots, parking lots, and suburban-style one-story buildings. The photos and map below show major vacant or near-vacant parcels. All sites shown are within easy walking distance of the regional transit station.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 25 2. REDUCING not. In effect the state’s fiscal commercial development FISCAL system encourages sprawl and into a regional pool, thus works against infill residential reducing pressure for fiscal DISINCENTIVES or mixed-use development. zoning and providing funds for municipalities building THE PROBLEM infill housing instead. SOLUTIONS One of the main reasons that Action at the state level is 4. Join with other California many Bay Area cities don’t most needed. Legislation cities to lobby for repeal of promote residential or mixed- could be passed to put meas- Proposition 13’s limits on use infill currently—or hous- ures on the ballot repealing property tax rates, its pro- ing in general—is that there is many elements of Proposition vision preventing property very little economic reason for 13. Or the legislature could of pre-1978 homeowners them to do so. Jurisdictions reform the tax system by from being reassessed, and have little to gain apportioning revenues from its requirement of a 2/3 from such devel- new sales tax dollars between vote to pass any local tax opment in terms The downtown vision jurisdictions based on popula- measure. of tax revenue, tion rather than point of ori- helped a great deal. and much to lose gin. Such “tax-base sharing” People wanted a more in that they will EXAMPLES could also be done regionally need to provide • The City of Millbrae expects vital downtown and within the Bay Area, and services for resi- to double its general fund understood that that would lessen the fiscal incen- dents ranging budget through new rev- tives for sprawl. came with a residential from fire protec- enue from infill develop- component. Doing the tion to special But local governments can do ment under its Millbrae upfront master planning education. some things themselves: BART Station Specific Plan. In the early 1990s the city Much of this situa- 1. Refrain from zoning for has been incredibly recognized an opportunity tion results from sprawl development, and valuable. to coordinate future devel- the state’s fiscal instead look for ways to opment around the new —Bob Brown landscape follow- maximize tax base through BART station. This transit- ing the passage of infill, for example by pro- Community oriented infill will greatly Proposition 13 in moting downtown revital- Development Director add to the city’s coffers. 1978. That ballot ization and mixed-use City of San Rafael (See case study, page 60). initiative capped development near transit property tax rates stations. • The City of Oakland is seek- and made new ing to build its long-term 2. Adopt a differential fee local tax measures tax base and urban vitality structure, in which city difficult to pass. through intensive infill development fees in sprawl Cash-strapped municipalities development in downtown locations are substantially now depend heavily on Oakland, and has also higher than for infill sites, attracting the forms of devel- sought to assist high sales as a way of changing fiscal opment that will generate tax-producing automobile incentives to developers additional sales and property dealerships through inten- without altering overall city tax revenue without much sive urban design improve- revenues. need for government services. ments and marketing of Strip development, automobile 3. Join with other Bay Area “Broadway Auto Row” along dealerships, regional malls, local governments to work its Broadway Avenue near and office parks are much for regional or subregional downtown. sought after; housing, espe- tax sharing that would cially affordable housing, is place income from new

26 / SMART INFILL One particularly important To use Specific Plans effec- RESOURCES element of Specific Plans is tively, local governments can: For recommendations on statewide the creation of urban design action, see Restoring the Balance: Man- 1. Identify areas within the aging Fiscal Issues and Land Use Plan- guidelines that specify ways to city of substantial infill ning Decisions in California, California ensure attractive streetscapes potential well in advance of Planning Roundtable, 1997, available at and public spaces, appropriate www.cmcaplans.com/cprwww/docs/ development. fiscal.htm. building scale and design, connected and walkable street 2. Hire design and process networks, and amenities such consultants and 3. PREPARING as neighborhood parks and initiate a Specific SPECIFIC community gardens. Care Plan process for The city had a vision for PLANS should be taken, however, to this area. what it wanted to see make sure design guidelines 3. Identify key there, near the Richmond do not inadvertently add costs THE PROBLEM stakeholders and that will reduce housing BART Station. We wanted Often infill development may hold public work- affordability. not occur in a particular area shops and design a mixed use development unless the municipality takes Environmental Impact charettes to that would integrate with a lead in promoting it, working Reports (EIRs), prepared involve the public the community and with with neighbors, and providing along with Specific Plans, can in establishing a transit. We went out needed infrastructure and take environmental review vision for the amenities. Or infill may take burdens off individual proj- area. looking for a developer place in a poorly designed and ects. State law allows such that could meet those 4. Formally adopt uncoordinated fashion, failing “tiered EIRs” under a 1979 the Specific Plan goals. to help create an attractive, amendment to the California as a General Plan livable new neighborhood. Environmental Quality Act —Alan Wolken amendment, (CEQA). Developers then do including zoning Project Manager not have to prepare time-con- changes and Richmond SOLUTIONS suming environmental docu- urban design Redevelopment Agency Specific Plans (also known as ments and face a reduced guidelines to Area Plans or Precise Plans) threat of CEQA litigation. help establish a framework for ensure that devel- coordinating infill develop- If zoning changes are also opment within the ment and involving existing made at the time of plan designated area produces a residents and businesses in approval, Specific Plans can highly livable, attractive developing a vision. Essen- help reduce the development urban environment. permitting process by 6–12 tially a city or other authority 5. If appropriate, use redevel- months. Involving residents in undertakes a planning process opment powers to acquire developing a vision for a par- for a particular district or land, improve infrastruc- ticular neighborhood can also neighborhood. Workshops are ture, and add amenities to minimize neighbor opposition, held and public input the designated area. solicited. Professional consult- avoid lawsuits, and ensure that ants may be hired to coordi- community needs are met. 6. Actively recruit and assist nate public involvement, pre- developers to bring this pare urban design guidelines, infill vision into reality. and produce an Environmen- tal Impact Report. The final Plan is then approved by the City Council as the framework for future development.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 27 • Under its Better Neighbor- EXAMPLES hoods 2002 program, San RESOURCES • The City of Mountain View White, Kate. 2000. Specific Area Plans: Francisco is working with Building Consensus for Infill Housing. has used Specific Plans— residents to develop Spe- San Francisco Planning and Urban which it calls Precise Plans— cific Plans for three areas of Research Association (SPUR). Available very extensively to promote the city. See the case study at www.spur.org/infill.html. transit-oriented develop- on page 53. ment, downtown revitalization, and other forms of

A portion of the Hayward Cannery Area design concept calls for live/work residential development along with cluster townhouses on a former industrial site. These building types have been extremely successful in other Bay Area locations.

• The City of Hayward has prepared a Cannery Area infill development. The city Design Plan that establishes has prepared approximately a framework for transform- 30 Precise Plans, many paid ing an older, industrial area for in part by developers. See in the heart of the city into the case study on page 51. a new mixed-use neighbor- • The City of San Jose has hood. See the case study on likewise created seven page 57. Specific Plans designed to accommodate some 10,831 units of housing in infill locations. See the case study on page 48.

28 / SMART INFILL 4. REVISING Specific zoning changes which 4. Instead of requiring only ZONING CODES encourage infill and a greater single-family detached range of housing choices housing, allow include the following: other housing THE PROBLEM types if they fit in 1. Make sure General Plans Like communities across the with the character and subsequent zoning country, Bay Area cities and of the neighbor- We need a framework codes allow appropriate towns have zoning codes in hood. Small pock- densities within downtown where if zoning and place that often work against ets of beautiful or neighborhood center design meet local affordable, compact, and townhome devel- development. In many mixed-use infill development. opments, for standards, projects can cases maximum dwelling- Particularly counterproduc- example, have unit-per-acre or floor-acre- move ahead by right. tive are zoning rules limiting been blended into ratio (FAR) density figures That would save so urban residential densities, single-family should be eliminated in prohibiting mixed-use devel- neighborhoods much time and money. favor of height or design opment, setting one- or two- near downtown regulations which get more —Betty Padgett story height limitations, and Palo Alto and directly at basic project Director of Education prohibiting or limiting second- Mountain View impacts. Minimum, rather ary units in existing single without nega- and Advocacy than maximum, densities family home districts. tively changing Ecumenical Association and heights should be neighborhood for Housing In Santa Rosa, for example, established. character. the city’s 1998 General Plan 2. Move away from allowing designates 92 percent of avail- 5. Review height low-density residential able residential land (5,235 restrictions. Many Inconsistent codes are a development. Net densities acres) for very low, low, or Bay Area jurisdic- of less than eight units per problem. Even though medium low densities, with tions restrict acre are inappropriate in zoning allows [building only 15 acres for “medium- downtown devel- most places given the high” urban densities. In Fair- opment to 36–45 heights] up to 50 feet, if region’s need for new hous- field, maximum downtown feet without ing. Minimum density of you’re over 40 feet you residential densities are only special permits, eight units per acre still have to get a conditional 32 units per acre. Meanwhile and buildings in allows sizable lots of up to in Oakland, the city’s zoning residential dis- use permit in San 50 by 100 feet. code requires that downtown tricts to 24–30 Francisco, which means developments provide 150 3. Reduce minimum lot sizes feet (two stories). many extra hearings. square feet of open space per for residential development. Limits of 50–70 unit—working against the sort For example, San Jose still feet in suburban —Kate White of intensive infill development requires single family downtowns (up to Co-founder that other Oakland policies detached home lots to be at five or six stories) San Francisco are trying to promote. least 6,000 square feet. Zon- and 35–40 feet in Housing Action ing in urban areas should residential areas Coalition allow duplex or single fam- (three stories) SOLUTIONS ily detached home lots of as can allow more Bay Area cities should review little as 3,000 square feet effective and eco- their zoning codes to be sure and townhouse lots of as lit- nomical infill. These they allow appropriate land tle as 2,000 square feet. heights have been common uses, densities, building set- These lot sizes use space in many traditional Ameri- backs, heights, and floor-area- efficiently and are still large can towns. ratios in infill locations. enough to allow for a small yard or outdoor space.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 29 6. Zone and provide incen- flexibility of developers to 18. Zone to allow second tives for mixed-use build- make infill development units on existing single- ings in many locations in work financially. family properties. Such downtowns, neighborhood units are one of the easi- 17. Establish special zoning centers, and along arterial est ways to provide addi- districts for transit station corridors. Such buildings tional housing in already- areas and other areas can add shops, restaurants, built areas. Municipal where more intensive and offices to neighbor- zoning currently often infill development is hoods, and increase the restricts such units to 16 appropriate.

ZONING CHANGES TO PROMOTE INFILL DEVELOPMENT Typical current practice Smart growth alternative Minimum lot sizes 6,000 sq. ft. or more 2,000–4,000 sq. ft., if any Maximum lot sizes Rarely regulated 5,000 sq ft. or less for single-family homes in many infill locations Dwelling units allowed per lot Most urban land zoned for single Allow second units on existing lots; allow family detached housing (one unit per lot) multiple units on vacant lots in single family districts if building design conforms to neighborhood context Allowable densities, Many suburban cities specify maximum residential Eliminate maximum densities; rely on height, downtown areas densities of 20–40 dwelling units per acre even bulk, and/or design restrictions instead. in high-density zoning districts Institute minimum densities of 20–30 dwelling units/acre. Allowable densities, Many suburban cities have maximum residential Establish minimum residential densities of residential areas densities of as little as 1–4 units per acre in 8-10 units per acre for new single family low-density zoning districts development and 20 units per acre for multifamily development; allow residential infill at this level Height restrictions, Often 2–3 stories even in town centers; no minimum At least 3–5 stories in downtowns and neigh- downtown areas borhood centers; a 2–3 story minimum Height restrictions, residential areas 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet At least 3 1/2 stories or 40 feet Lot coverage Often less than 50 percent of the site No maximum if parks and other public open spaces are nearby; encourage use of rooftops for open space Floor area ratio Often .50–.80 maximum in downtown locations At least 1.0–2.0 maximum, 0.5 minimum in downtowns, or use height limits instead. Front setbacks Often 20–40 feet minimum except in No minimum necessary in many areas; downtown areas; no maximum consider adding maximum Side setbacks Often 5–15 feet Allow zero-lot-line construction with appropriate design Lot widths Some cities require minimum widths of at least No minimum necessary 50 feet for single family housing, 70 feet for duplexes Mixture of land uses Only homes, stores, or workplaces allowed Allow a finer mix of land uses to reduce across large areas of cities driving and enhance community vitality; allow housing and shops to be added to office parks, offices and shops to housing districts Mixed use buildings Not permitted most places Allow mixed-use buildings within neighborhood centers and along arterial strips; provide incentives for these Secondary units Prohibited or subject to conditional use permits Allowed as of right in single family residential districts

30 / SMART INFILL feet (one story). At least 12. Allow builders to con- two-story secondary units struct infill housing proj- EXAMPLES should be allowed. ects “by right”—without • The City of Pleasanton is having to obtain a condi- considering revising its 19. Rethink the concept of tional use permit—if zoning to allow additional suburban office parks, these developments meet housing in Hacienda and zone for housing and zoning constraints. Under Business Park and other shops to be mixed with state law cities that don’t office parks. Originally Cities need to start workplaces in such areas. meet their fair share zoned only for business Codes should allow hous- working on zoning housing allocations for uses, starting in 1993 ing to be added to exist- minimum densities all income groups are the city allowed housing ing office parks. Rezoning required to do this to pro- on the Hacienda site, for land—the some commercial or light vide sufficient multifamily and has issued permits industrial land for infill inverse of what is housing to meet the fair for approximately housing can help improve usually done. share needs. However, 1,500 units. the balance of jobs and there is little enforcement —Alex Amoroso housing at local and • The City of Gilroy has of this provision. regional levels. established a new Senior Regional 13. Award “density “Neighborhood District” Planner 10. Change zoning codes to bonuses”—under which a land use designation for Association of Bay require that parking be builder is allowed to new development that placed behind or beneath Area Governments exceed zoned height or mixes housing types and buildings rather than in density—to developers densities. The zoning front, and to require who provide affordable establishes target and mini- streetfront retail in down- housing or public ameni- mum densities, and calls for town locations. Putting ties in infill areas. State public spaces and pedes- shops and restaurants at law requires bonuses of 25 trian and bicycle planning. sidewalk level helps make percent above zoned den- streets vibrant and pedes- • Oakland is beginning a com- sities for projects with at trian-friendly, while hav- prehensive revision of its least 20 percent affordable ing offices and housing zoning code to bring it in units or 50 percent senior above supports local busi- line with a new General units, but additional nesses, ensures that peo- Plan emphasizing infill bonuses are possible. ple are on the streets at development. all hours, and improves 14. Institute “transfer of safety. development rights” RESOURCES (TDR) frameworks under 11. Remove other zoning Association for Bay Area Governments which developers receive et al. 2001. Blueprint 2001: Housing obstacles to infill such as rights to build above Elements Ideas and Solutions for a unnecessarily low limits zoned densities in infill Sustainable and Affordable Future. on lot coverage and floor- Oakland. locations by buying those area-ratio (FAR), as well California Futures Network. 2001. Local rights from landowners in as unnecessarily high Strategies for Increasing Housing urban fringe areas that Supply and Housing Affordability: A requirements for set- the city has targeted for Primer for Housing Advocates. Oakland. backs, lot area per unit, open space preservation. Ewing, Reid. 1996. Best Development and open space (see Practices. Chicago: American Planning chart). Association. Urban Ecology. 1998. “Building More Intensively” and “Encouraging Mixed Uses.” No. 2 and No. 5, Realize the Vision series. Oakland.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 31 5. RETHINKING such as restaurants required region’s largest nonprofit PARKING to provide much higher levels builder—recently surveyed of parking. residents of two of its subur- STANDARDS ban projects in Santa Rosa. A recent study by the Non- Although the city had profit Housing Association of THE PROBLEM required BRIDGE to include Northern California points out two and a half spaces per unit, Overly high parking standards the great parking code dispar- actual vehicle ownership was for commercial or residential ities between jurisdictions in approximately one car per development waste valuable the region. Residential unit at one development and land, discourage requirements range from an .8 cars per unit at the other (a transit use, reduce average of 2.5 spaces per unit senior housing project). Thus You can’t stop sprawl and housing affordabil- in Los Gatos to 1.0 space per the builder had spent hun- ity, and diminish unit in San Francisco and not make some adjust- dreds of thousands of dollars the comfort and Berkeley. ments for development in safety of pedestri- for parking that was not being downtown core locations. ans by fostering Residents of affordable hous- used. high rates of auto- ing projects and senior hous- Cities have got to look at ing in particular often don’t mobile use in SOLUTIONS lower parking ratios near neighborhoods. use all the parking that devel- Cities should review parking transit—otherwise you’re Excessive parking opers are required to provide. requirements, reduce them requirements add BRIDGE Housing—the not going to get the where possible, allow develop- enormous costs to density you need to make infill development. projects pencil. Surface parking PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTED BAY AREA CITIES (for a hypothetical 100 unit development) —Carol Galante frequently costs developers $5,000 City Total Spaces Required Spaces per Unit President and CEO or more per space; Los Gatos 250 2.50 BRIDGE Housing underground or Dublin 230 2.30 structured parking can range between San Leandro 225 2.25 $20,000 and $50,000 per Mountain View 215 2.15 space. These costs require Milpitas 210 2.10 developers to charge higher Santa Rosa 200 2.00 prices for housing and may Vallejo 195 1.95 make entire developments San Mateo 189 1.89 economically infeasible. Hayward 188 1.88 Suburban Bay Area jurisdic- San Jose 167 1.67 tions—which, paradoxically Livermore 163 1.63 have the most on- and off- Petaluma 160 1.60 street space for parking—also usually have the toughest Oakland 150 1.50 parking requirements. Many Emeryville 145 1.45 suburbs require two spaces Benicia 125 1.25 per unit or more, even if new San Francisco 100 1.00 homes are centrally located Berkeley 100 1.00 and near transit. Commercial Source: Ryan Russo, 2001. Planning for Residential Parking: A Guide for requirements are often three Housing Developers and Planners. San Francisco: Nonproft Housing to five spaces per 1,000 Association of Northern California. square feet, with certain uses

32 / SMART INFILL ers to adopt space-efficient 5. Allow infill developers to methods such as tandem use stacked parking and Cities are not flexible on parking and stacked parking, tandem parking spaces to and use market pricing to save space. parking requirements. reduce parking need. We have built 4,500 6. For mixed-use units of housing, and so By encouraging projects that development, allow Won't Reducing attract a pedestrian-oriented parking to be shared Parking have a good database market, cities can increase where appropriate, Requirements on actual parking needs. housing and provide better with residents using Increase Traffic and But you almost never retail amenities for both new it at night and office Nuisance to get a break on parking and existing residents with workers or shoppers Neighbors? smaller increases in automo- during the day. Reducing parking requirements requirements. bile traffic and wasteful park- 7. Allow or require can actually reduce traffic. Park- ing lots. —Fran Wagstaff more on-street parking spaces at both retail and Executive Director More specifically, cities can ing, and institute residential locations are mag- Mid-Peninsula take the following actions: permit or metered nets for cars. According to a parking limiting visi- study by John Edwards of the Housing Coalition 1. Reduce parking require- tors to two or three National Main Street Center, a ments to one space per hours in order to 100-unit apartment building unit maximum in infill loca- help keep on-street with one parking space per unit generates 500 tions well-served by transit. spaces available to car trips a day, while a 100-unit building with For larger unit sizes, allow residents. In new two spaces per unit generates 800 car trips. residents to rent a second infill neighborhoods, space if needed in an over- Competition for street parking is a different limiting curb-cuts flow lot. question. Inadequate parking throughout a along the street and neighborhood or poor management of exist- 2. Reduce parking require- placing resident ing parking can indeed lead to spillover into ments for special needs parking off alleys adjacent neighborhoods or drivers circling populations who will be less behind houses can blocks looking for spaces. likely to own cars, such as help increase the students, the elderly, and number of on-street Many solutions exist. Attracting pedestrian- persons with disabilities. spaces. oriented consumers to infill housing and stores—and designing for such consumers— 3. Encourage or require infill 8. “Unbundle” parking can help. Permit parking can guarantee street developers, building man- from units, develop- parking for existing neighborhood residents. agement companies, and ing strategies to Better public information about available condominium associations ensure that suffi- parking in local garages can help reduce the to charge residents for cient parking is number of drivers circling. Steps to encour- each parking space, reduc- available in the age local employees to take transit, carpool, ing demand while allowing neighborhood bike, or walk can free up spaces for shoppers those who really need generally rather or residents. Cities can actively develop “trans- multiple spaces to than requiring that portation demand management” programs purchase them. a certain number of to implement such policies. spaces be next to 4. Support “car-sharing” each unit. organizations and encourage developers of large infill projects to provide shared cars that residents or workers can reserve and use for an hourly fee.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 33 9. Allow “car-free” housing in mobile ownership among • Developer Patrick Kennedy infill locations near transit. residents. has provided several Berke- Residents would not be ley projects with stacked • Unlike most suburban proj- provided parking and parking using German-made ects, the Classics develop- would not be issued on- hydraulic lifts. Cars are ment at McNear Landing in street parking permits by stored in two or three lev- Petaluma, built by Masma cities (assuming a permit els, and can be retrieved Construction Inc., has only parking system exists). within a few moments by single car garages but has pushing a button. At his sold well. Smaller garages Gaia Building Kennedy also also allow front porches on EXAMPLES charges $150 per month for many units. • In San Francisco’s Mission each parking space. The Bay development, the city • Palo Alto allows its planning result has been few applica- has set maximum parking director discretion to defer tions for parking despite standards of one space per up to 50 percent of the healthy demand for the unit (many individual proj- parking requirement if building’s rental units. ects may build less than there is reason to believe it this). Coupled with good might not be needed and transit and plentiful neigh- could be added later. At the RESOURCES Russo, Ryan. 2001. Planning for Resi- borhood amenities, these city’s California Park Apart- dential Parking: A Guide For Housing standards are expected to ments, adjacent to a Cal- Developers and Planners. San Fran- produce low rates of auto- train station, a reduction of cisco: Nonprofit Housing Association of 22 parking Northern California. Available at www.nonprofithousing.org. PARKING STANDARD CHANGES TO PROMOTE INFILL DEVELOPMENT spaces Reducing Housing Costs by Rethinking allowed a Typical current practice Smart growth alternative Parking Requirements. 1998. San Fran- playground, cisco Planning and Urban Research Downtown or transit- 1–2 spaces per unit minimum 1 space per unit maximum; lawn, and Association. Available at oriented locations car-free housing allowed in www.spur.org/spurhsgpkg.html. certain transit-oriented loca- barbeque tions; car-sharing encouraged area to be Litman, Todd. 1999. Parking Require- in large projects ment Impacts on Housing Affordability. created. Residential 2 off-street spaces per 1 off-street space per unit Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transport Policy neighborhood locations unit minimum minimum; 1 additional on- Institute. Available at www.vtpi.org. street space required for larger Shoup, Donald C. 1995. An Opportunity unit sizes; consider parking to Reduce Minimum Parking Require- maximums ments. Journal of the American Plan- Parking charges None mandated Mandate a monthly fee per ning Association. 61 (1). space for rental and condo Wilson, Richard W. 1995. Suburban units to reduce demand Parking Requirements: A Tacit Policy Retail 3–4 spaces per 1000 1 space per 1000 square feet for Automobile Use and Sprawl. Journal square feet minimum minimum in downtown, tran- of the American Planning Association. sit-oriented, or neighborhood 61 (1). center locations; businesses allowed to contribute in-lieu fee instead of providing parking on-site; 2–3 spaces per 1000 square feet in other locations Office 3 spaces per 1000 No minimum in downtown, square feet minimum transit-oriented, or neighborhood center locations; 1–2 spaces per 1000 square feet in other locations; employers required to charge for parking and provide incentives for alternate travel modes; local hiring policies encouraged

34 / SMART INFILL 6. IMPROVING 4. Convene a roundtable of • To make possible the Del FINANCING infill developers and local Norte Place development at lenders to identify prob- the El Cerrito Del Norte OPTIONS lems and opportunities BART station, the city’s around financing infill Redevelopment agency THE PROBLEM development. made $3 million in bond funds available for land At certain times financing has 5. Pressure banks to increase acquisition, and Contra been the biggest obstacle to their lending to inner cites, Costa County contributed infill development—in particu- under the Community $11 million in permanent lar for affordable housing or Reinvestment Act or other financing. mixed-use projects. Sources legislation. interviewed for this report • A team from several depart- State, federal, and regional indicate that financing prob- ments in the City of Vacav- action is also needed to lems have eased somewhat in ille worked with Vacaville improve financing options for recent years. Yet it is still chal- Community infill. One of the main financ- lenging for nonprofit builders Housing to reha- ing sources for affordable infill to find subsidy financing bilitate housing housing is the state’s tax It has been hard just allowing them to create afford- units and add credit program. Although able infill housing. Bankers are amenities to the getting financiers to look recently increased this fund- also still wary of mixed-use city’s Acacia at new areas without a ing pool is still oversubscribed projects and tend to finance neighborhood, and needs to be expanded fur- lot of market com- them conservatively. combining fund- ther on a permanent basis. parables. It’s still difficult. ing from redevel- SOLUTIONS opment set-aside —Patrick Lane funds, bond Cities can help address financ- EXAMPLES Project Manager monies, HOME ing problems through the fol- • In 1996 voters in San Fran- 10K Initiative program funds, lowing means: cisco passed a $100 million City of Oakland bond measure to provide community devel- 1. Create or expand a Hous- funds for affordable hous- opment block ing Trust Fund to provide ing and loans for low- grant funds, and loans for predevelopment, income homebuyers. The private sources. site acquisition, or con- money is intended to help struction of infill projects build 3,000 housing units in RESOURCES with an affordable housing infill locations. component. Urban Ecology. 2000. Infill Developers Portfolio. Oakland. Available at • A consortium of public and www.urbanecology.org. 2. Initiate or expand project private organizations estab- lending for infill projects Cervero, Robert, Michael Bernick and lished the Housing Trust of Jill Gilbert. 1994. Market Opportunities with an affordable housing Santa Clara County in 1997 and Barriers to Transit-Based Develop- component, using Commu- to provide low interest ment in California. Berkeley: Institute for Urban and Regional Development nity Development Block loans to first time homebuy- Working Paper 621. Grant funds or other ers, gap financing for resources. Brooks, Mary E. 1999. A Workbook for affordable rental housing Creating a Housing Trust Fund. Fra- 3. Lower fees for infill as projects, and funds for zier, CA: Housing Trust Fund Project, opposed to greenfield homeless assistance. The Center for Community Change. development, and create a Trust raised some $20 mil- Section 4, Financial Resources, of Blue- lion in initial funding. print 2001: Housing Elements Ideas two-tiered fee structure or and Solutions for a Sustainable and a sliding scale based on Affordable Future. 2001. Association for proximity to the downtown Bay Area Governments et al. Oakland. or transit.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 35 7. ESTABLISHING Urbanism have also developed 3. Ensure that building URBAN DESIGN useful guidelines for designing facades have variety and livable, walkable communities. interest. Avoid blank walls GUIDELINES or long, uniform building Municipalities can adopt urban fronts. Even if projects are design guidelines for infill THE PROBLEM large, break up the facades development in particular so that they give the In the past infill development areas or citywide. It is possible impression of smaller- has frequently not been de- to require good design without scaled buildings. signed in ways that enhance necessarily increasing costs to overall neighbor- developers, especially those 4. Place parking out of sight, hood or commu- providing more affordable behind or underneath infill Design really starts to nity quality. New housing. These guidelines can buildings, not in front. matter as density goes up. buildings have at clarify for developers, plan- 5. Require infill developers to times ignored the ners, and design review com- Some of it is as simple as add wide sidewalks, street local architectural mittees characteristics that the using lots of colors and trees, benches, mini-parks, and historical con- city would like to see in infill or plazas to help create a paints, breaking up the text, blocked sun development. Cities should pedestrian-friendly massing, pushing certain and views, or fea- include easy-to-understand tured boring, environment. building elements forward graphics and photographs monotonous showing desirable building 6. Provide a range of outdoor and backwards. Land- facades. Landscap- types and site planning goals. spaces for residents of scaping is also incredibly ing has sometimes higher-density infill hous- Design principles might been poor or non- ing. Some areas should be important." include the following: existent. Inwardly entirely private, such as —Tom Jones facing apartment 1. Relate buildings to the small patios or balconies. Executive Director or office com- street. Infill projects should Other spaces should be California Futures plexes have turned try to create an attractive semi-private, such as their backs on the Network street frontage that will be courtyards, gardens, pools, street, reducing pleasant for pedestrians or rooftop decks. And still the quality of the and neighbors. Having other outdoor spaces can pedestrian envi- entrances directly on the be public, such as pocket The quality of infill has ronment. Too often street is one main strategy. parks, plazas, playgrounds, definitely gotten better. little effort has Having restaurants, cafes, or community gardens. been made to pro- or shops along the street is Designers have gotten 7. Fit the building to the vide streetfront another, for locations that neighborhood context. better at making difficult retail, restaurants, can support this kind of New buildings don’t need sites work; contractors or pocket parks commercial activity. Infill to exactly match neighbor- that could meet development in residential have figured out how to ing buildings in terms of neighborhood areas should place porches size or design. But they can mobilize on difficult sites." needs. and entrances in front include design details that rather than large garages. —Joshua Simon help link them to the pre- Senior Project Manager SOLUTIONS 2. Keep front setbacks small existing context, and their East Bay Asian Local The past decade and building fronts close to height can be “stepped Development Corporation or two have seen the street to create a down” to match lower sur- a revolution in pedestrian-oriented street rounding development at knowledge about environment. Downtown one side of a lot. how to design successful infill infill buildings should help development. National move- create a solid streetfront. ments such as the New

36 / SMART INFILL 8. Strive for flexible designs that can eventually accom- EXAMPLES RESOURCES • The City of Albany hired Congress for the New modate other uses. If store- Urbanism. 1996. Charter A high-amenity infill strategy front retail is not possible the consulting firm of of the New Urbanism. Part of the reason more Americans initially in downtown loca- Design, Community, and San Francisco. aren’t attracted to city living is a lack tions, buildings can be Environment to develop Congress for the New of amenities for residents. Residents designed with flexible urban design guidelines for Urbanism and North- east/Midwest Institute. often have not had porches, yards, or space so that it can be infill development along 2001. Strategies for Suc- garden space. Streets have been added later. Office build- Solano Avenue. The con- cessful Infill Develop- pedestrian-unfriendly and dominated ings can be designed to sultants developed easy-to- ment. San Francisco. by automobile traffic. Restaurants, facilitate conversion into understand graphics to Available through www.cnu.org. cafes, and shops have been lacking. lofts or other housing. illustrate these guidelines. The Local Government Too often unattractive apartment build- Commission. 2001. ings have been constructed without Building Livable Com- landscaping or common areas. munities: A Policy- maker’s Guide to Infill Schools, playgrounds, parks, and child Development. Available care facilities have been poor or non- from the Commission at existent. (Suburban areas also share (917) 448–1198 or many of these problems.) www.lgc.org. Jones, Tom, William One lesson learned in the last 50 years Pettus, and Michael is how much the right amenities can Pyatok. 1997. Good Neighbors: Affordable add to life in a city or town. Court- Family Housing. Mul- yards, private patios, porches, bal- grave, Australia: Images conies, garden space, rooftop decks, Publishing. U.S. Dept. of and neighborhood parks can all give HUD. www.design advisor.org. residents access to the outdoors in safe, pleasant surroundings. Child

Design, Community, and care facilities and playgrounds can Environment help make families feel at home. Bet- ter schools can help meet the needs 9. Preserve and restore Such guidelines can speed of parents. Laundry and storage facil- nature where possible. up the review process and ities can help meet the needs of daily Often there are opportuni- create greater certainty for life. Shops, restaurants, and cafes ties to restore nature in developers about what is along streetfronts can help add con- conjunction with infill expected. venience and pleasure in ways never development. Creeks can experienced by suburbanites in monot- be restored, heritage trees • The City of Mountain View’s onous tracts of single-family homes. preserved, and native vege- Precise Plans contain tation used in landscaping. design guidelines on a Cities can take steps to add or require Doing such things helps block-by-block basis. many of these elements in conjunc- connect urban residents These include recom- tion with infill development. Design with the native California mended ground-floor treat- review guidelines can help. In other landscape. ments, facade treatments, cases, regional, state, or federal action windows, building materi- will be needed to provide resources als, and building massing. for urban jurisdictions to improve schools and other services, or to equalize revenue across metropolitan areas so that similar levels of services can be provided by different cities.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 37 1. Set a time limit on permit 8. STREAMLINING EXAMPLES PERMITTING processing, requiring staffs to process applications • The City of San Jose has PROCESSES within a set period of time. established a Special Han- dling Process, which aims to THE PROBLEM 2. Assign specific staff to approve important develop- shepherd each infill project ment projects in less than Lengthy and often difficult through the approvals 180 days. For more infor- permitting processes can process. Conduct staff and mation, see the San Jose work against infill develop- commissioner training to case study on page 48. ment. These procedures can be sure everyone is up-to- require expensive studies or date on guidelines, require- • Cities such as Cupertino, project redesign, and related ments, and procedures. Fremont, Gilroy, Milpitas, delays can increase finance Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and costs for developers. Further, 3. Carry out pre-application San Carlos carry out pre- developers often face addi- reviews with developers application reviews of tional risk and cost associated concerning potential development projects to with unclear approval require- projects. determine potential obsta- ments. Timelines of a year and 4. Adopt clear procedures for cles and identify important a half or more are common for review, to eliminate uncer- stakeholders in the commu- Bay Area infill development tainty about what both the nity to be consulted. permitting. One study of Sili- city and developers should • Long a leader in permit con Valley communities by the expect. streamlining, Sunnyvale Housing Leadership Council instituted a One-Stop Per- of Silicon Valley found that 5. Establish “as-of-right” zon- mitting center in 1984, and approvals and construction ing under which developers has adopted an expedited often took up to three to four that meet zoning require- permitting process under years for typical 200–400 unit ments are allowed to build which the city gives apartment developments. without lengthy hearings to obtain a conditional use builders a firm schedule It is important for local resi- permit or a general plan and assurance of complete dents to have opportunity for amendment. review, including Planning input on infill development Commission and City Coun- projects. However, lengthy 6. Reduce environmental cil hearings, within about permitting processes help review requirements for two months. The city has political opposition emerge individual infill projects by also pioneered “e-permit- and give neighbors numerous preparing EIRs on Specific ting” for many minor build- opportunities to derail proj- Plans for infill areas. ing permits. ects. Meanwhile, the need to 7. Reduce design review attend repeated hearings uncertainties by establish- RESOURCES makes it difficult for advo- ing clear urban design cates to support good infill Towards More Affordable Homes: guidelines, again often in Streamlining the Entitlement Process in development. conjunction with Specific Silicon Valley. Housing Leadership Plans, that can let develop- Council in the Silicon Valley. Available at www.svmg.org/htm/entitlement_report.htm. ers, neighbors, planners, SOLUTIONS Landis, John, Mary Hill and Diana and design review commit- Cities can take a number of Marsh. 1996. No Vacancy: How to tees know what features actions to reduce permitting Increase the Supply and Reduce the are expected. Cost of Rental Housing in Silicon Val- delays and establish clear and ley. Berkeley: Fisher Center for Real reasonable requirements for Estate and Urban Economics Working developers: Paper Series #96–251.

38 / SMART INFILL dens, restored ecological 9. WORKING SOLUTIONS CONSTRUCTIVELY features, pedestrian- Cities can adopt a number of friendly street designs, and WITH strategies to reduce NIMBY attractive public spaces. NEIGHBORS opposition: Neighbors may then be less 1. Require developers to meet likely to oppose infill. THE PROBLEM with neighbors before sub- One of the preeminent obsta- mitting plans for a project. EXAMPLES cles to infill development— Often designs can be • In developing the award- and the single biggest concern changed to meet neighbor winning Hismen Hin-Nu of many developers—is com- concerns, and neighbors (“Sun Gate”) Terrace devel- munity opposition, which in later do not feel like opment on Oakland’s Inter- its worst forms is often known they’ve been “blindsided” national Boulevard, archi- as NIMBYism (the acronym with the development tects Pyatok Associates stands for “Not-In-My-Back- proposal. worked extensively with yard”). Neighbor opposition 2. Prepare Specific Plans in local residents and two local can kill projects directly by which residents have an community development turning zoning adjustments opportunity to prepare a corporations to develop boards or city councils against vision for their community agreement on project them. Or neighbors can drag and influence design guide- design. the permitting process out so lines for infill development. long that developers lose • The City of Oakland has money and projects no longer 3. Organize small meetings worked with one of the make financial sense. between developers and city’s largest CDCs, the key neighborhood leaders Spanish Speaking Unity Although neighbors may have to develop buy-in before Council, to facilitate the legitimate concerns, they may holding general public Fruitvale Transit Village also exhibit knee-jerk opposi- meetings or workshops. development, which will tion to development that place 67 affordable housing meets important municipal or 4. Encourage community units, office space, stores, a regional needs. Neighbors in development corporations clinic, a library branch, and particular often worry that (CDCs), which have a a parking garage adjacent to affordable housing projects strong neighborhood the Fruitvale BART station. will lower their property val- base, to undertake infill ues (many studies have shown development. • To cement ties with the they do not), that new devel- local community, Rubicon 5. Promote intensive infill opment will create parking Programs formed a Neigh- development on sites with and congestion problems borhood Advisory group few neighbors nearby, such (these can be mitigated in var- while constructing its con- as former industrial areas, ious ways), or that new devel- version of a former motel on downtown parcels, or along opment will be out of context San Pablo Avenue in El Cer- arterial strips. with the existing neighbor- rito into 29 supportive hood (this can often be 6. Ensure that infill develop- housing units for homeless addressed through design ment provides attractive individuals. review and negotiation with new amenities for a neigh- • Residents of the Doyle the developer). borhood, such as shops, Street CoHousing project cafes, restaurants, dry on an infill site in Emery- cleaners, child care cen- ville overcame neighbor- ters, parks, community gar- hood opposition by talking

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 39 personally with all neigh- • The City of San Jose’s bors and convincing 84 Strong Neighborhoods Ini- neighbors to sign a petition tiative is a process through supporting the project. which city planners work with neighborhoods to • After two years of acri- develop Improvement Plans monious debate, the City of for enhancing quality of life. Berkeley appointed a mediator who was able to achieve a compromise between neighbors oppos- ing development of a new synagogue on a vacant

creekside parcel and the Citizens in a public synagogue congregation. RESOURCES workshop look at Hester, Randolph T. 1990. Community alternative design Design Primer. Mendocino: Ridge Times proposals. • The City of San Francisco has worked extensively Press. with neighbors in the Nonprofit Housing Association of North- ern California. 2001. “Good Neighbors: Octavia and Market neigh- Affordable Housing in the Bay Area.” borhood to determine new San Francisco. (13–minute video fea- uses for lands where the turing three urban affordable housing Central Freeway was taken developments). down.

40 / SMART INFILL Cities can take a number of 10. CLEANING UP EXAMPLES BROWNFIELDS steps to remove obstacles to infill associated with brown- • Emeryville has set up a fields cleanup: “one-stop shop” to provide THE PROBLEM information on contamina- 1. Set up a central office to “Brownfields” problems—hav- coordinate brownfields ing to do with toxic contami- cleanup. Direct staff to nation of previously used map toxics problems within sites—are common in most the city, provide informa- older Bay Area cities. Envi- tion to developers, help ronmental contamination can them deal with regulatory be caused by industrial facili- agencies, help them obtain ties, utility substations, paint cleanup funding, and shops, or leaky tanks at gas interface with other city stations. At their worst, such departments. problems require expensive cleanups and site restoration 2. Provide low-interest loans before development, making to developers for site infill projects financially infea- assessment and for toxic sible. Brownfield problems cleanup on key infill sites also raise litigation risks for that might not be devel- developers, since under fed- oped otherwise. eral law, liability for these 3. Conduct cleanup activities sites remains “strict, joint, and directly, especially in cases several”—meaning that any where city groundwater is past or present owner of the threatened. site can be compelled to pay for cleanup. Programs to assist infill developers with brownfields problems are beginning to make a Before SOLUTIONS difference in the Bay Area. tion at all sites within the : This brownfield site In recent years a variety of city. The city also acts as an was a former Chevron tank Contamination issues are no farm and Westinghouse programs has been put in longer as big a stumbling intermediary between transformer manufacturing place at state and federal lev- developers and regulatory facility that had been block to infill development as vacant for over 15 years. els to assist with brownfields a few years ago. As developers agencies, maintains an envi- It is now Emery Station, a cleanup. For example, the gain experience with brown- ronmental Geographic mixed-use transit-oriented Brownfields National Partner- Information Systems (GIS) development adjacent to field sites and amass a track the Emeryville Amtrak ship sponsored by the U.S. record of successful projects map of the city, and handles Station. Department of Housing and on them, banks and other some groundwater cleanup After: Emery Station North, Urban Development and other financial institutions gain con- tasks itself. an 80,000 sq. ft. office agencies offers financial and building, was completed in fidence in lending for future 2001. The Terraces, a technical assistance to agen- projects. One nonprofit devel- 100–unit residential project cies or developers doing RESOURCES under construction, is also oper interviewed for this California Center for Land Recycling. part of the development, brownfields cleanup. Also, the report was building housing 2000. Brownfield Redevelopment Case and more housing is U.S. Environmental Protec- projects on three former gas Studies. San Francisco. planned for the area. A tion Agency has funded cities pedestrian bridge connects station sites simultaneously, Simons, Robert A. 1997. Turning the development to the to run pilot programs demon- all of which had required Brownfields into Greenbacks. Washing- retail and entertainment ton, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. center across the tracks. strating creative brownfields cleanup. solutions. City of Emeryville

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 41 11. IMPROVING community. Sometimes the 5. Create an Infill Zoning CONSISTENCY members of these bodies are Overlay or District for areas reflecting their own prefer- of the city where high infill AND COM- ences rather than the inten- development potential PLETENESS tion of the General Plan or exists and a Specific Plan city policies. has been prepared. These THE PROBLEM districts might relax certain zoning requirements Often local plans, codes, and SOLUTIONS related to lot coverage, processes are not internally To make sure their plans, FAR, setbacks, density, or consistent regarding infill. codes, policies, and actions other subjects, and replace Some support infill, while oth- consistently support infill, them with urban design ers work against it. This cities can: guidelines prepared under occurs despite state require- Specific Plans. Planning ments that local General Plans 1. Direct planning staff to and public works staff be internally consistent, and review municipal plans, would be required to give that zoning, Specific Plans, zoning codes, and building special attention to devel- and other initiatives be consis- codes to ensure that poli- opment proposals located tent with the General Plan. cies related to infill are consistent with one there. Streamlined per- For example, even though another and to propose an mitting processes might be housing and land use ele- Infill Development Initia- adopted. Loans might be ments of a city’s General Plan tive to improve the consis- provided to developers. may call for infill develop- tency of codes and Parking standards might be ment, density and height lim- processes. reduced for buildings its in the downtown may be well-served by transit. The too low for infill to make eco- 2. Provide clear direction to effect would be a consistent nomic sense. Or height limits their staffs as well as and mutually reinforcing in the building code may con- appointed and election set of policies to make infill flict with those in the zoning commissions regarding the happen in these districts. code. Or high parking stan- need to carry out adopted dards may make dense infill city policies. and affordable housing impos- EXAMPLES 3. Periodically assess whether sible. Or the city’s planning • The City of San Rafael has planning commissions, zon- and public works departments worked hard to ensure the ing boards, design review may not have been directed to consistency and complete- commissions, and other give priority to infill, and may ness of its commitment to review bodies are acting move slowly to schedule per- affordable housing, prima- consistently with the Gen- mitting processes or provide rily in infill locations. The eral Plan and other city needed infrastructure. city has streamlined permit regulations and policies on procedures for housing, A particular problem is that infill development. provided financial support individual decisions or recom- 4. Convene a roundtable of for affordable housing, mendations of planning com- local infill developers, plan- facilitated community missions, design review com- ners, public works staff, involvement, and reduced mittees, and even city and others to determine parking requirements for councils are sometimes not obstacles to infill develop- downtown units. An consistent with policies in ment and strategize about inclusionary zoning policy General Plans regarding infill. ways to improve the con- requires that developers of Often this is the result of sistency of city policies residential projects with pressure exerted upon these relating to infill. more than 10 units make at bodies by segments of the

42 / SMART INFILL least 10 percent of those 12. REVITALIZING young professionals, sin- units affordable to moder- COMMUNITIES gles, artists, and couples ate income households for without children—while at least 40 years. Projects AND ADDING also providing new with at least 15 percent of AMENITIES affordable housing for their units affordable to low existing residents. income residents receive THE PROBLEM 3. Use redevelopment power density bonuses. These Infill development doesn’t actively to leverage com- inclusionary zoning policies take place in many Bay Area munity revitalization. have produced a total of locations because of systemic Redevelopment law allows 596 below-market rental problems with community units and 127 for-sale units decline. These cities have lost throughout the city. residents, businesses, and tax • The City of Oakland base to newer suburbs in One of the issues around infill is recently began a major ini- recent decades, and have tiative to revise its planning accumulated a host of prob- reinvigorating entire inner ring and zoning regulations to lems including poor schools, communities. You might witness make them consistent with crime, unemployment, pollu- many infill development oppor- tion, and deteriorated infra- the General Plan the City tunities in Richmond, but in order adopted in 1998. Previous structure. Neighborhoods zoning was a patchwork of offer few amenities to new to have those developed we need to codes, many of which had residents. Racial and class address a host of community not been updated in 35 bias frequently works against development concerns within the years. new investment in these communities. The region’s city. African-American neighbor- —Stephanie Forbes RESOURCES hoods in particular have been Blueprint 2001: Housing Elements isolated in a spiral of commu- Program Director Ideas and Solutions for a Sustainable Local Initiative and Affordable Future, prepared by the nity decline. Association for Bay Area Governments Support Corporation and other organizations, is an excellent resource to improve the consistency of SOLUTIONS city General Plans and other codes Systemic problems of commu- regarding infill and affordable housing. To obtain copies, contact Alex Amoroso, nity decline are not easy to cities to raise money up ABAG Senior Planner, at (510) 464- fix. However, a number of front for improvements 7955, or visit www.abag.ca.gov. approaches can help munici- based on the expected palities address these issues in future increase in tax rev- ways that can remove barriers enues from a particular to infill development: area. It is one of the most 1. Focus attention on specific powerful mechanisms to neighborhoods with high turn around distressed infill potential where the districts. city can add a broad range 4. Locate public buildings of amenities along with within infill opportunity new development. areas to catalyze other 2. Target initial infill projects development, and target at groups most likely to other public investments in thrive in an upcoming cen- these areas as well. tral city environment—

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 43 5. Get together with similar Federal Buildings, city office cities to work for tax EXAMPLES buildings, Jack London sharing that can spread the • Emeryville’s transformation Square, and a host of smaller benefits of new commercial from a decaying industrial projects. New amenities enclave into a leading high- include an “urban living room” tech community has been plaza in front of City Hall, a led by a very active Rede- redesign of Washington Park, velopment Agency. Virtually and extensive improvements the whole city has been at Jack London Square and declared a redevelopment along the waterfront. district. Improvements undertaken by this agency include street redesign, RESOURCES toxic cleanup, land assem- Gratz, Roberta Brandes with Norman bly, and development of Mintz. 1998. Cities Back from the Edge: New Life for Downtown. New York: parks and infrastructure. Wiley. • Revitalization and infill Gratz, Roberta Brandes. 1994. The Liv- ing City: How America’s Cities are development in down- being Revitalized by Thinking Small in town Oakland has a Big Way. Washington, D.C.: Preserva- been catalyzed by the tion Press. addition of public buildings and urban amenities. New buildings include the

development Historic building preservation, along with throughout the other public and private region, providing efforts, has helped revitalize downtown resources to im- Petaluma. prove declining Downtown Oakland communities. has blossomed with new office, commercial and Meanwhile, state residential development assistance or and public amenities. intervention by Greenbelt Alliance the courts may be required to ensure that less well-off Bay Area cities have school funding equal to more affluent suburbs. State action to promote tax base sharing may also be necessary to provide funding to revitalize older Bay Area cities.

44 / SMART INFILL OTHER PROBLEM cally. The city of Seattle has Market Development AREAS AND revised its code enforcement Whether infill development procedures to measure frame POTENTIAL makes financial sense for height from the platform, but developers depends in large STRATEGIES city building inspectors in Cal- part on whether a market Several additional sets of ifornia do not have that flexi- exists or whether they and problems frequently hamper bility. city governments infill development. Strategies Solutions: The UBC does allow working together to address them will be impor- developers to make an Alter- can create one. In A lot of things said by tant at local, regional, and native Methods Request for a the early 1990s neighbors that are state levels. recession, demand municipality to approve a dif- completely outrageous ferent, usually cheaper con- was sluggish for both Building Codes struction technology. But infill and greenfield or not in context aren’t Building codes are adopted by building inspectors are often development in the challenged. Decision- the state based on a national reluctant to approve such Bay Area. However, set of standards known as the makers have an requests. Cities can instruct since about 1996 the Uniform Building Code obligation to put them their building inspectors to market for infill (UBC). Local jurisdictions facilitate Alternative Methods housing in particular in context. For example, inspect buildings and enforce Requests and to work with has been very that affordable housing the state codes with minor infill developers to identify strong. The Bay modifications, often related to reduces property values. cost-effective alternative con- Area’s pent-up need local geography and seismic struction methods whenever for housing seems Dozens of studies show safety. appropriate. likely to sustain infill otherwise. Unfortunately the UBC has demand even in the The State Building Code Com- —Tim Iglesias become increasingly volumi- face of mild eco- mission should also review nous and unwieldy in recent nomic slowdowns. Deputy Director California’s building code to decades, and local building Nonprofit Housing determine whether it discour- Solutions: The mar- inspectors are often unwilling Association of ages infill development, dis- ket for infill will be to exercise the flexibility the criminates against alternative enhanced further as Northern California code gives them out of fear of methods, and unnecessarily more municipalities litigation. Rigid adherence to raises building costs. The adopt Urban Growth code standards can increase state should revise the build- Boundaries—constraining project costs and make some ing code to specifically greenfield development—and infill developments less finan- encourage “performance as cities work with developers cially viable. codes” in which building con- to add urban amenities that For example, the code construction has to meet certain make downtowns, transit cor- tains a 50’ height limit for performance specifications as ridors, and other infill oppor- wood frame construction (five certified by a trained engi- tunity sites more attractive to floors). However, if the wood neer, rather than follow a rigid a wider range of potential resi- frame is erected on top of one prescription of building com- dents. Singles, young people, or two floors of concrete plat- ponents. City engineers have empty nesters, the elderly, form (often used for parking), some flexibility to follow per- and couples without children the height limit still applies formance specifications cur- form large demographic from the ground rather than rently, but usually take a con- blocks likely to favor urban, from the platform. The result servative approach of high-amenity living. Develop- is that only three or four requiring projects to meet ers who can take advantage of floors of housing are possible, rigid code specifications. these markets are likely to do meaning fewer units and a well with infill. Cities that less viable project economi- aggressively improve and

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 45 market infill districts can help Solutions: Action by the state Solutions: There has been build interest among potential legislature will be required to much talk of amending CEQA residents and businesses. address this problem. Accord- to make infill development ing to Tom Jones, Executive easier. Many observers believe Litigation Director of the California that the law should contain a One problem with infill devel- Futures Network, “The ulti- presumption of environmental opment frequently cited by mate approach is something benefit for infill projects, since for-profit builders but also like an automobile warrantee: these help reduce traffic and no fault, if something goes improve air quality through- wrong within five years we out the region. However, come in and fix it.” CEQA exists for a good rea- Many for-profit developers shy son—to help protect the envi- CEQA ronment—and if used well away from inner-city housing The California Environmental does not need to impede infill Quality Act (CEQA) requires development projects. One development because they do not Environmental Impact Reports way cities can help defuse the to be prepared on public- and risk of CEQA lawsuits is to perceive a market there. In fact private-sector projects with prepare “tiered EIRs” on Spe- significant effects on the envi- cific Area Plans. Such an EIR markets often do exist and may ronment. Many affordable infill anticipates the problems that housing projects are also sub- would result from certain even be stronger than in outlying ject to the National Environ- types and intensities of devel- mental Quality Act (NEPA) opment, lifts the burden of areas. Or a market can be because they use federal environmental review from money in the form of federal individual projects, and helps created. or state tax credits. address the cumulative effects of multiple projects in geo- Environmental review is —Diane R. Suchman graphic proximity. Developing Infill Housing in important but isn’t appropriate when used solely to delay a Inner-City Neighborhoods Historic project that isn’t causing Urban Land Institute Preservation Issues undue environmental impact. Since the 1970s there has NIMBY opponents often use been a much-needed empha- these pieces of environmental sis throughout the U.S. on legislation to slow or stop preserving historic buildings, development. For example, affecting nonprofits is con- along with federal legislation neighbors sued BRIDGE Hous- struction defect litigation. protecting buildings in certain ing over the adequacy of envi- Under state legislation passed cases. However, not all old ronmental review for its in the 1990s, property owners buildings are of sufficient award-winning Strobridge in multifamily condominium quality to be worth preserv- Court project at the Castro buildings can sue builders and ing. Unfortunately, NIMBY Valley BART station. The architects for damages for up groups have often used his- court backed BRIDGE, and to 10 years. Says Carol toric preservation processes then the opponents appealed Galante, President of BRIDGE as a way to block good infill to the State Supreme Court, Housing, “Some of our great projects. For example, for its where BRIDGE also won. architects and contractors will affordable Church Street However, the delay had raised not touch condominiums Apartments near the old U.S. costs greatly for the developer. because there’s a 100 percent Mint in San Francisco, chance of being sued.” BRIDGE eventually had to go to Washington to get a ruling

46 / SMART INFILL from the Secretary of the Inte- Solutions: There is no magic Political Resistance rior that a pre-existing build- way to reduce to high con- One of the biggest single ing had no historic signifi- struction costs. However, obstacles to infill development cance. This step delayed the zoning and building code that includes housing, particu- project for a year. changes can help eliminate larly affordable housing, is the unnecessary expenses, while Any building over 45 years old unwillingness of local city gov- providing builders with more is potentially eligible for the ernments to accept it. Many flexibility to configure the national register of historic Bay Area cities actively resist form and unit count of their buildings. Any infill project efforts to increase the supply project to make it “pencil using federal funds—such as of affordable housing on the out.” Meanwhile, expanded most affordable housing proj- mistaken belief that lower subsidies for affordable hous- ects—faces a range of historic income residents will lower ing providers can help reduce preservation requirements. property values and won’t the gap between what units support local businesses. Solutions: Local landmarks cost to build and what many commissions, city councils, people can afford. The City of Alameda, for and courts all should be sensi- example, fought vigorously Virtually all Bay Area munici- tive to the need to balance against proposals for afford- palities charge high permitting historic preservation with able housing at the former fees to new development as a infill development. In the long Alameda Naval Air Station, way of funding needed infra- run, federal standards for and wanted to tear down 600 structure and public services. evaluating historic resources units of existing housing that These fees typically range need to be altered, with short- could have been made avail- from $20,000 to $40,000 per ened periods for review, able to low-income residents. unit. Partly the result of cities’ streamlined processes, and The City wanted to see a mar- need for revenue in the post- better standards for evalua- ket-rate project built instead. Proposition 13 environment, tion of marginal historic Only through litigation against such fees combine with high resources. the city was the affordable land and construction costs to housing preserved. Production Costs drive up housing prices for Bay Area residents. Since Solutions: Strategies for over- One significant problem with local governments depend on coming political resistance are any sort of development in the these fees to fund daily opera- hard to come by. A state man- Bay Area in recent years has tions, the main way to reduce date that cities accept afford- been high construction costs. this impediment to housing able housing is one potential Great demand for construction development would be approach. Tying state infra- of all sorts has swamped con- through state fiscal reform structure funding to a local tractors, raised labor wages, that makes it possible for commitment to housing, as and increased per-square-foot cities to raise the money envisioned by a bill introduced building costs. This means through more usual taxes. in 2001, S.B. 910 (Dunn), is that market-rate developers Also, cities could set higher another strategy. Strong fed- have often only been able to fees for greenfield develop- eral, state, or regional incen- build for the high end of the ment than infill construction tives for cities to accept hous- market. It has also caused as a way to discourage sprawl ing offer a third method. enormous headaches for and promote reinvestment in affordable housing providers existing areas. who must find ever larger subsidies to keep rents low.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 47 examples of bay area infill

In recent years many cities 1. SAN JOSE: tion of nearly 30,000 dwelling throughout the Bay Area have A CITY-WIDE units between 1990 and 1999. taken steps to more actively For their continuing efforts to coordinate infill development. STRATEGY BEARS manage growth and revitalize Most of these efforts are in RESULTS existing neighborhoods, San the early stages, but momen- The poster child of Bay Area Jose’s planners have received tum is growing. sprawl in the middle of the a Distinguished Leadership 20th century, by the 1990s The following pages profile Award from the American San Jose had come full circle some leading examples of Planning Association’s North- to embrace a set of policies local government action. Each ern California Chapter. designed to promote infill of these examples is a work in development instead. A limit progress. But all promise to San Jose’s infill to outward expansion was the bear fruit in the long run in initiatives include: first step—the city council terms of creating dynamic The 2020 General Plan: The first adopted an Urban Service infill neighborhoods that can city’s 1994 General Plan lays Area Boundary in 1970—and offer an alternative to subur- out goals of supporting com- a subsequent version of this ban sprawl. pact, infill, and transit-ori- greenline was reaffirmed by ented development. The city an astounding 81 percent of has changed its zoning to help the city’s voters in the 2000 implement these strategies,

Ryland Mews is a 131–unit condominium project downtown at 57 units per acre, with underground parking. election. Meanwhile, the city and in some cases has adopted has taken a remarkable num- minimum rather than maxi- ber of steps to promote infill, mum zoned densities for infill including General Plan poli- development. For example, cies, Specific Plans, zoning areas near transit stations are changes, permit streamlining, zoned for a minimum density and financial incentives to of 25 units per acre and often developers. These measures have no maximum density. helped facilitate the construc-

48 / SMART INFILL Specific Plans: The city has Loans to Nonprofit Developers: San Jose still has a long way to completed seven Specific The City provides loans to go to leave its suburban roots Plans designed to accommo- nonprofit housing developers behind and become a more date some 10,831 units of for predevelopment, site vibrant, urban place. However, housing primarily in infill acquisition, construction, and its progress shows that a large locations. rehabilitation. San Jose’s rede- city can do a 180-degree turn- velopment agency has been around in its attitude toward “Discretionary Alternate Use” very active in assembling sites development, moving away Policies: Thirteen “Discre- for developers of all sorts. from greenfield sprawl to tionary Alternate Use” policies become a pioneer of infill. allow increased densities for Tax Exemptions: To encourage infill development under cer- infill projects in certain areas, For more information, visit tain circumstances, such as San Jose has also offered the San Jose Planning Depart- for small sites, sites near tran- exemptions from construction ment website at www.ci.san- sit stations, or affordable taxes. These exemptions have jose.ca.us/planning/sjplan/, housing. For example, any been available for infill hous- or contact Laurel Prevetti, parcel of less than two acres ing in the city’s Central Incen- Principal Planner, at with a nonresidential designa- tive Zone program, and any (408) 277-4576. tion can be developed resi- dentially if that is compatible with the neighborhood.

The Housing Opportunities Study: Launched in 1999, this three-year study identi- fies vacant or underutilized sites along transit corridors.

Permit Streamlining: San Jose has taken a number of steps to reduce the time it takes to get a development permitted, and like a number of other Bay Area cities has put zoning information and permit application forms on the city’s web site. Important development projects benefit from a Spe- cial Handling Process that aims to process 80 percent of type of building in the city’s Ohlone-Chynoweth Commons, developed in partnership with the Planned Development applica- Expanded Enterprise Zone Valley Transportation Authority, created an affordable mixed-use living environment. Designed to make better use of underutilized tions in less than 180 days. (including downtown) and land at park-and-ride lots and rail stations, the development three redevelopment areas. features 192 affordable townhouse apartments at a density of 27 units per acre, 4,400 sq. ft. of retail, and a childcare center. Since taxes amount to 4.5 percent of construction costs, this financial incentive for reuse of urban land is very significant.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 49 2. EMERYVILLE: has also adopted inclusionary developers, residents, and LARGE SCALE zoning requiring that 20 per- other interested parties to cent of units in new projects of access land use zoning, prop- USE OF 30 units or more be affordable. erty ownership, and environ- REDEVELOPMENT mental information on any Emeryville also illustrates the parcel within the city. POWERS extensive use of redevelop- The City of Emeryville offers ment powers—granted by the Recent projects in the city one of the Bay Area’s most state to help cities rebuild include 66 units of affordable blighted areas—to clean up rental apartments for seniors at and rebuild on urban land. 3850 San Pablo Avenue, a 17- Emeryville is lucky in that unit live/work and townhouse about 95 percent of the city is project at 4800 San Pablo included in its redevelopment Avenue, and 138 units of loft areas (other cities have not housing in the old Emeryville been able to designate their Warehouse Company Building downtowns or other areas for at the corner of Park Avenue redevelopment, since these and Huggard Street. The latter are not considered “blighted”). building also provides 7,000 Following the original square feet of retail space and Emeryville Redevelopment a 4,500-square-foot landscaped Plan adopted in 1976, the courtyard. An additional 3.6 Emeryville Redevelopment million square feet of office Agency has had power to buy space, 488 hotel rooms, and small properties and assemble 830,000 square feet of retail larger buildable lots, using the space are permitted or under device of tax-increment construction. These projects financing to raise money. Spe- are expected to add more than cial to the redevelopment 8,400 jobs over 20 years. process, this tool allows agen- For more information or to Above: Reconstruction dramatic examples of how a cies to raise capital by issuing of the Emeryville visit the city’s One-Stop Shop municipality can transform bonds based on the expected Warehouse building, with online environmental built in the 1930s for a itself through infill develop- increase in property tax fruit-drying company, data for city parcels, visit the ment. Although sometimes receipts, which for Emeryville created 141 residential city’s website at and commercial criticized for embracing “big is about $5.4 million per year. lofts in 2000. box” retail, Emeryville’s entre- www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/. Holliday Development preneurial approach has The U.S. Environmental Pro- worked with the City tection Agency of Emeryville and helped turn a city of decaying North Bay Ecumenical industrial buildings into one of has also Housing to make selected some of the units the Bay Area’s redevelopment affordable. success stories. Emeryville to

Holliday Development participate in a The city’s infill development pilot program has mixed new stores and for brownfields Right: The Avalon office buildings with housing. redevelopment project cleanup. This on San Pablo Avenue Some 561 apartments, lofts, program has created 60 senior units townhouses, and condos were helped create above retail. built between 1995 and 2000 an on-line “One City of Emeryville alone, of which 224 are afford- Stop Shop” able to those with low and that allows moderate incomes. The city landowners,

50 / SMART INFILL 3. REDWOOD CITY: development includes 20,000 ADDING HOUSING square feet of retail space, a child care center, a computer AND AMENITIES education facility, college TO AN HISTORIC classrooms, and an attractive DOWNTOWN mid-block pedestrian plaza. If Like many cities on the a little more funding had been Peninsula and throughout the available, the City would prob- Bay Area, Redwood City has ably have purchased a run- an historic downtown with a down hotel next door, relo- compact street grid and many cated existing tenants, and late 19th century and early created a small downtown 20th century buildings. This park. However, the city did central area has declined in not have sufficient resources Above: City Center Plaza 4. MOUNTAIN VIEW: required assembling recent decades, but offers and this project had to be left TRANSIT- seven different parcels enormous potential for infill for another day. next to the new City development, especially near ORIENTED Hall. It includes 81 units According to former mayor of affordable housing the city’s Caltrain station. Diane Howard, developers DEVELOPMENT over shops and a originally wanted to build Mountain View has been a community college Redwood City has taken the extension. office space downtown. But leader in locating new infill first steps toward downtown Greenbelt Alliance revitalization and infill by the City recognized the need development near public completing a new city hall in for housing, and put in place transportation, in particular 1997, coordinating develop- an “urgency ordinance” the Caltrain line. The city’s ment of affordable housing increasing the allowed floor- main tool to facilitate infill has next door, brokering a deal to area-ratio for projects that been the creation of 30 Spe- bring a new cinema and retail included housing. Builders cific Plans, which the city calls complex downtown, and then scrapped their original Precise Plans. Sometimes pre- preparing a Franklin Street plans and came back in with pared by city staff and some- Specific Plan that established residential proposals. Says times by consultants, these a framework for 500 apart- Howard, “We were being documents have created a ment and condominium units reactive instead of proactive vision for development at spe- now under construction because it had been quiet for cific areas within the city, and so long.... it’s turning out to have often included EIRs paid nearby. Seventy-five of these Below: be the smartest thing we for by developers. Townhouses units will be affordable to low help create a compact, and moderate income resi- ever did.” walkable new neighborhood at The Crossings in dents. A neighborhood park is For more informa- Mountain View. included in the plan. tion, contact Mike For the 81–unit affordable Church, Planning and housing project next to City Redevelopment Hall, the City’s Redevelop- Manager, at ment Agency assembled seven (650) 780-7235. different parcels into one large site. In the process the City and its partners, the Mid- Peninsula Housing Coalition and the Raiser Organization, cleaned up contamination from an old gas station. The

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 51 Among the best-known of built 363 townhouses and 213 programs, including restora- Mountain View’s infill projects single family detached homes tion of Charleston Slough and are The Crossings and Whis- on a 45-acre site which had Stevens Creek. man Station. At the Crossings, been part of a GTE office park. A remaining challenge for the the urban design firm of A second phase includes 73 city is to put more infill Calthorpe Associates turned a units on four acres.

Completed in 1998, The Crossings in Mountain View housing in its down- placed 359 housing units town. Revitalization of down- next to a Caltrain station town Mountain View began on a 18 acre site formerly occupied by a defunct with an award-winning 1960s shopping center. The streetscape project in the new neighborhood includes townhouses, apartments, early 1990s, and continues cottages, and single family with creation of a multi-modal detached homes. The City transit center for Caltrain, of Mountain View has worked aggressively with buses, and Santa Clara Light several developers to make Rail’s new Tasman line. Fol- such transit-oriented infill development happen. lowing completion of a Down-

Stephen Wheeler town Precise Plan, seven residential projects totaling 200

Park Place, in downtown units have been approved Mountain View, is close to or are under construction. City Hall and the Other challenges include Performing Arts Center. reusing industrial land for Tom Jones The city has a housing, and potentially help- TOD rezoning program to add ing to convert Moffitt airfield defunct additional housing near tran- into mixed-use development. 1960s shopping center into a sit. The city has increased new neighborhood with 359 A number of Mountain densities to at least 30 units townhouses, condominiums, View’s Precise Plans are per acre in many areas, with a and single family detached available online at maximum of 53 units per acre homes on 18 acres near a Cal- www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/. near transit facilities. In addi- train station. At the Whisman The city website also includes tion, Mountain View has Station neighborhood, devel- other planning and code engaged in award-winning opers Kaufman & Broad, Shea information. ecological restoration Homes, and the Castle Group

52 / SMART INFILL 5. SAN FRANCISCO: Meanwhile, the single largest This enormous redevelopment THE BETTER infill project in the Bay Area is of Southern Pacific’s former San Francisco’s Mission Bay San Francisco railyards is a NEIGHBORHOODS development. The result of coordinated effort between 2002 PROGRAM decades of planning, Mission the City, Catellus Corporation, AND MISSION BAY Bay will provide about 6,000 and other landowners. In response to citizen units of hous- It will also include up to activism seeking more 450,000 square feet of housing in San Fran- city-serving and neigh- cisco, the City of San borhood-serving retail Francisco launched its space, a 500-room Better Neighborhoods hotel, and 45 acres Program 2002 to prepare of parks. A Marina plans for three neighbor- Green-style open hoods with substantial space will be infill potential. This pro- created along the gram emphasizes neigh- waterfront. borhood livability—in particular the creation of Map of Mission Bay. safe streets, local shops, attractive public gathering places, architectural character, a variety of transportation Catellus Corporation Located one block from the Giant’s ballpark, Orland Cepeda Place (under modes, and housing choices construction) will provide affordable apartment units for residents. Like area plan- and ground floor retail. ning elsewhere in the Bay Mission Housing Development Corp. Area, the program aims to promote infill by developing neighborhood consensus around development directions.

In 2000 the city began work on neighborhood plans for the Balboa Park BART station area, the Central Waterfront south of Mission Bay, and the ing—including more Market and Octavia neighbor- than 25 percent affordable to hood where the Central Free- low-income families, seniors, way was taken down. The City and others—as well as over Council has allocated a budget five million square feet of For more information on the of $1.3 million to complete space for office, research and Better Neighborhoods 2002 each specific plan and EIR, development, multimedia, and program, contact David with outside consultants other uses, including a UCSF Alumbaugh, Plan Manager, assisting city staff. Reducing research campus. at (415) 558-6601. automobile usage is a major goal, as is adding a broad range of housing options.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 53 6. OAKLAND: THE within a specific 10K INITIATIVE district to end a cycle of decline. ADDS TO DOWN- TOWN INFILL Even before Brown’s 10K Under Mayor Jerry Brown, the Initiative a City of Oakland has pursued a wide variety campaign to bring 10,000 new of infill proj- residents to the downtown. ects and new amenities had begun to revive Oakland’s moribund center. The 12th Street City Center BART plaza and Jack London Square redevelopment proj- Recent infill developments in ects in the 1980s began to downtown Oakland include create a “there there” in the Swan’s Market, a mixed-use city’s downtown. The dis- project which transformed an tinctive towers of the fed- 80-year-old Italian market eral building brought hun- building into a block contain- dreds of office workers to the ing 20 “cohousing” condomini- area in the early 1990s. The But downtown infill and revi- ums, 18 subsidized apart- mid-1990s City Hall renova- talization efforts were under- ments, 42,000 square feet of Lively public spaces tion restored a landmark along with infill housing, way well before his adminis- retail and office space, and the offices and restaurants, architectural jewel and cre- tration. Taken together, Museum of Children’s Art. have all contributed to ated an attractive public plaza the revitalization of Oakland’s downtown initia- This $20 million project was in the heart of downtown. downtown Oakland. tives illustrate the strategy of supported by a variety of fed- Greenbelt Alliance focusing infill and amenities eral, state, city, and private funding sources. A nearby Housewives Market project will soon offer another 200 market-rate and affordable apartments. Some 53 units are to be created in a former Sears building. A number of other projects are on the drawing board, including a potential Uptown development of up to 3,000 housing units.

54 / SMART INFILL For more information, visit the city’s Community & Economic Development Agency website at www.ci.oakland.ca.us/government/ceda/, or contact Patrick Lane, Project Manager, 10K Project, (510) 238-7362.

Much emphasizing affordable hous- more needs to be done ing sufficiently, and additional to revitalize downtown Oak- efforts are needed to ensure land. In particular, the 10K that current low-income resi- program has been sharply dents are not dis- criticized for not placed. Nevertheless, recent infill development efforts in this long-struggling urban center

are beginning to create a critical mass of downtown residents and cultural facilities.

Oakland’s Tribune Tower, visible in the distance, has recently been renovated as loft housing.

Greenbelt Alliance.

Swan’s Market was transformed into cohousing condominiums, subsidized apartments, retail and offices, and a children’s art museum.

Credit: Russell Abraham

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 55 7. SAN RAFAEL: place, and have it be more Most of the downtown has A DOWNTOWN walkable with varied architec- been designated a redevelop- ture and cultural activities. ment district, and the city’s STRATEGY Citizens recognized that Redevelopment Agency Blessed with the largest his- bringing more housing to the actively coordinates infill toric downtown in Marin downtown was one strategy to development and helps fund County, San Rafael is using meet these goals. The Down- affordable housing projects. infill development to add town Plan also contains spe- To help infill development housing and otherwise cific recommendations on happen in the downtown, the enhance this important streetscape and pedestrian city reduced the amount of resource. The city has used a improvements, parking required for most Specific Plan, locations for differ- projects by about one-third. It ent types of devel- also adopted a density bonus opments, and for affordable housing over height transi- downtown commercial proj- tions to sur- ects, and exempted such The City of San rounding neigh- housing from floor-area-ratio Rafael Downtown borhoods. limits. To increase the supply Community Plan of affordable units, San Rafael helped generate consensus on design adopted an inclusionary zon- concepts such as this ing requirement that sidewalk seating. 10 to 15 percent of units in any sizeable residential project be

below–market–rate. The city is currently zoning changes, reduced park- considering increasing requirements, redevelop- ing that level. ment, and extensive public For more information, involvement to help infill visit the Community come about. Municipal efforts Development Depart- have helped add 800 residen- ment website at tial units in the last six years, about two-thirds of them in The 1920s Pacific the downtown area. Telephone building in downtown San Rafael was converted in 1994 into 38 www.cityofsanrafael.org/co A 1993 Downtown Community residential apartments and 4.740 square mmdev/, or contact Bob Plan helped facilitate much of feet of retail space. In addition to relaxing parking requirements, the city granted Brown, Community Develop- San Rafael’s downtown revital- builders a 45 percent density bonus since ment Director, at (415) ization. For this plan city staff 20 units 485–3090. are affordable to those making 50–80 coordinated three community percent of area median income. workshops with 250 partici- Greenbelt Alliance pants and nine children’s ses- sions with 270 children and their parents. Participants agreed they wanted to upgrade the downtown’s image and identity, make it a more interesting and exciting

56 / SMART INFILL 8. HAYWARD: Many specific infill initiatives General Plan designations, PLANNING FOR are also underway in Hay- and other standards are being ward. In 1998 the municipal- changed in conjunction with INFILL AND A NEW ity completed an attractive this Plan. CIVIC CENTER new city hall after swapping For more information, The City of Hayward has land with BART to acquire contact the Hayward begun to add new housing, the present site. The Olsen Community and Economic retail, and civic facilities near Company is constructing 77 Development Department its BART station, and through townhouses across the street. at (510) 583–4200. its new General Plan process The city has required a new is involving the public in parking garage nearby to be deciding how additional infill built with retail on the ground housing can be built citywide. floor to promote a pedestrian–friendly streetfront. Like many Bay Area cities, Hayward has a huge housing challenge ahead of it. Between 2000 and 2020, jobs in Hay- ward are projected to increase by 21,810, and housing units by only 4,180. If the city is to avoid a growing imbalance between jobs and housing, it must act quickly to promote infill housing development.

In 2000 and 2001 Hayward held at least nine public workshops in which several hun- dred citizens turned out to contribute to preparation of a new General Plan. Much dis- cussion focused on placing new housing along major arte- rials and within mixed–use developments in existing neighborhoods. The over- New transit-oriented development next to City whelming majority of partici- Albertson’s has built a new Hall and the BART station pants at a June 2001 summary supermarket on Watkins in Hayward. workshop supported requiring between A and B Streets in Greenbelt Alliance affordable housing to be inte- the downtown to serve down- grated into each new develop- town residents. To save ment. A strong majority also space, much of the parking supported opening school dis- for this supermarket is on the trict lands for mixed–use store’s roof. And the city has development. This new Gen- drawn up a Cannery Area eral Plan is likely to set the Design Plan intended to facili- stage for more systematic tate mixed-use infill on a 120- infill development citywide. acre older industrial area just west of downtown. Zoning,

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 57 9. BERKELEY: University Avenue corridor The city has added urban INCREMENTAL became a haven for seedy amenities to help leverage motels and liquor stores. How- downtown infill. With a grant ADDITIONS ever, in the past decade infill of federal transportation ADD UP development projects have enhancement funds the city The City of Berkeley provides helped revitalize both areas. widened sidewalks along Cen- an example of how an In the downtown at least ten ter Street in the mid 1990s to older, major new mixed–use build- create an attractive outdoor ings have added housing, seating area for restaurants. cafes, restaurants, shops, A comprehensive streetscape and offices. Existing build- improvement plan is now ings have been being implemented to make the entire downtown more pedestrian- friendly.

Several Specific Plans, a Downtown Plan in the early 1990s, a University Avenue plan in the mid 1990s, and a South Shat- tuck Specific Plan in the late 1990s have helped coor- first-ring Bay Left: dinate infill in these key Shattuck Senior Area suburb Homes provides affordable areas. The city has can gradually and convenient living in assisted many afford- downtown Berkeley improve its for low and very-low able housing infill proj- downtown and income seniors. ects through its housing key corridors Cesar Rubio trust fund, established through incre- Top Right: University in 1990. Berkeley also mental infill. Lofts, on University has some of the lowest Avenue, provides 29 loft To make infill condominiums, a café, parking requirements in happen, the retail space, off-street the Bay Area, one space parking, and an attractive city has used strategies such retrofitted or had façade per unit in many locations. 4,000-square-foot above- as reduced parking require- improvements. Between Shat- ground patio space for residents. ments, density bonuses, Spe- tuck and Kittredge Streets, For more information, contact

Panoramic Interests cific Plans, financial assistance Trumpetvine Court has cre- Steve Barton, Housing Direc- Lower: Manville Hall, to developers, and public ated an attractive mid–block tor, at (510) 981-5400. located in the downtown addition of urban amenities. courtyard and walkway with area near UC Berkeley, outdoor seating for the features a studio residence Largely built in the early 20th hall arranged around an Jupiter pub. New theatre century along streetcar lines, inner courtyard, with retail buildings are creating an arts on the ground floor. the city’s downtown declined district along Addison Street. David Baker Architects after World War II and the

58 / SMART INFILL 10. PLEASANT HILL: Agency then assembled irreg- For more A TRANSIT ular parcels into developable information, land, invested in infrastruc- contact Jim VILLAGE ture, and issued tax-exempt Kennedy, TAKES SHAPE bonds to fund improvements. Redevelop- Although infill development By the mid 1990s private ment has been underway near the developers had built 1,600 Director, Pleasant Hill BART station for housing units and 1.5 million Contra square feet of Class A Costa office space within a County, quarter mile of the sta- (925) tion. Contra Costa 335- County supervisor 1275. Sunne McPeak was a driving force behind these developments.

However, until recently Top to bottom: the Pleasant Hill BART The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Community plan envisions five distinct blocks, forming a network station development of pedestrian streets that connect the district with the lacked a core. Large park- surrounding neighborhoods. ing lots and pedestrian- unfriendly arterial streets Map of Station Square. dominated the area.

This situation is being twenty years, a new planning A drawing of townhomes overlooking a median process aims at creating a addressed by a second major within the boulevard connecting the station to the community-based Specific planning exercise, aimed at Iron Horse Trail. Plan for a more pedestrian- producing a more urban vision Contra Costa County Redevelopment Brochure oriented district immediately for the core area. As this around the station itself.

Over two decades the Bay Area’s largest assort- ment of transit- oriented infill housing and office development has gradually grown up around Pleasant Hill BART. Planning consultants Sedway Cooke vision is pursued over the created a Station Area Plan in coming years, the Pleasant the early 1980s for a consor- Hill BART Transit Village tium of the cities of Pleasant should begin to reach its Hill and Walnut Creek, Contra potential. Costa County, and BART. The Contra Costa Redevelopment

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 59 Near Pleasant Hill BART: Treat Boulevard now and as envisioned afterward

Existing conditions along Treat Boulevard are bleak and unfriendly to pedestrians. Adding street trees, planters, broad sidewalks and street-level retail helps to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment.

Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency

60 / SMART INFILL 11. MILLBRAE: Along with this initial concept 400–600 new housing units, PROACTIVE and a subsequent 1998 Sta- one million square feet of new tion Specific Plan, Millbrae office space, and one or two STATION AREA rezoned 116 acres of commer- new hotels. PLANNING cial and industrial land for Through Specific Plans, When BART was first begin- high-density residential, rezoning, and an aggressive ning to plan its extension office, and hotel development. economic development strat- down the Peninsula to the The city kept the amount of egy, Millbrae is poised to see area around San Francisco retail in the zoning scheme intensive transit-oriented infill International Airport, the City small so as not to compete development that can improve of Millbrae didn’t like what it with stores in the existing the city’s tax base as well as saw. BART was not thinking at downtown next door. An EIR its urban vitality. all about development possi- on the Station Plan means bilities around a future Mill- that individual projects do not For more information, contact brae BART station. Instead of have to undergo extensive Ralph Petty, Community passively sitting by, Millbrae environmental review. The Development Director, went out and hired the ROMA city has been actively market- (650) 259-2341. urban design firm to put ing 14 sites near the station to together a visionary station developers, and envisions area concept, completed in 1994. This plan forced BART to make a number of changes, such as moving the station closer to downtown and reorienting the parking garage to improve development opportunities.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 61 ALSO NOTEWORTHY: El Cerrito Transit-Oriented Walnut Creek Downtown Retail. Development. One of the early While many cities have allowed A number of other notable infill pioneers of transit-oriented large retailers to build traffic- projects are underway in the development in the Bay Area generating “big box” outlets off Bay Area. In many cases these was Del Norte Place at the El freeway exits in suburban loca- are still in the early stages: Cerrito Del Norte BART stations, Walnut Creek has chan- Fruitvale Transit Village. For tion. This project provided neled retail development several years the Spanish 135 units of housing and downtown. Upscale stores Speaking Unity Council, a 21,000 square feet of retail such as Macy’s and Nord- large community-based non- space. Unfortunately, due to strom’s anchor a pedestrian profit organization based in neighbor opposition further mall next to the city’s restau- rant-lined main street. Now the city’s challenge is to get additional housing downtown as well. One new project is adding 116 apartments and 46 condominiums with a small city park. Forty of these units will be affordable to low- income residents. The City supplied a $1.6 million loan for this project, issued bonds, and purchased two land parcels included in the site.

Richmond Transit Village. The City of Richmond’s Redevelop- ment Agency has been coordinating development of a transit village around the Richmond BART station, where AMTRAK Illustration of townhomes and BART stations join. In an proposed for The area now covered by parking development plans at this Richmond Transit Village. Oakland’s Fruitvale neighbor- lots and vacant property, the BART station were put on Calthorpe Associates hood, has been developing new infill community will hold. Attempts to bring about plans for intensive develop- include 231 affordable town- mixed-use development at a ment around the Fruitvale homes and small-lot single declining shopping center at BART station. The transit vil- family detached homes at a El Cerrito’s other BART sta- lage is to include 67 units of density of 22 units per acre, tion did not receive municipal affordable family housing, a facing onto new small parks at backing, and traditional shop- child care center, a public the center of each neighbor- ping mall development is tak- library branch, a health clinic hood. The project will also ing place. serving Latinos, retail space, a include some 25,000 square cultural center, and a public feet of retail, a pedestrian plaza near the transit facility. plaza, and a new station build- Construction on the project ing. Calthorpe Associates won began in 2001. a city-sponsored competition for the site design, and the Olsen Company will build the housing.

62 / SMART INFILL recommendations for regional and state action

Leadership at regional and for Smart Growth planning Build infrastructure that sup- state levels as well as by local and incentive grants. ports infill. Regional agencies governments is necessary to and utilities should channel Provide incentive funding for help bring about increased investments, particularly for infill housing. Along with a amounts of better-designed transportation, water, and planning grant fund, a second infill. The following initiatives sewer infrastructure, into incentive pool should be are particularly important existing urban areas as established to provide incen- given current challenges and opposed to greenfield tives for infill housing near opportunities: locations. downtowns and transit. Such a fund would expand MTC’s Tie infrastructure investment to AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL existing HIP program, provid- local efforts to promote infill Establish a regional Smart ing larger incentives of $5,000 development and accommodate Growth Planning Fund to pro- to $10,000 per bedroom for a fair share of regional afford- vide incentives for infill develop- transit-accessible infill. Local able housing. It makes no ment planning. One of the governments could use the sense for the region to invest most effective actions regional money to help developers its transportation dollars in agencies could take to pro- make the units more afford- those jurisdictions whose poor mote infill would be to estab- able or to provide amenities land use planning will just cre- lish a regional Smart Growth for infill development, such ate more regional congestion. Planning Grant Fund, similar as neighborhood parks, Part or all of regionally allo- to the MTC’s existing Trans- streetscape improvements, or cated infrastructure funding portation for Livable Commu- child care centers. should be withheld from cities that fail to develop and imple- nities program but offering Create a regional revolving ment a state-approved housing larger grants to local public loan fund to get infill projects element and engage in smart agencies for area planning in moving. A revolving loan fund growth planning. designated infill or smart would be extremely useful at growth zones. Existing state the regional level as well as Keep regional statistics on the and federal transportation the state level in assisting amount of infill development. money could be used for this public agencies and infill The Association of Bay Area purpose. developers with site acquisi- Governments should develop Another related idea is sug- tion and pre-development information necessary to track gested by Gary Binger of the costs. Often these developers infill development and guide Urban Land Institute. He sug- and agencies must move local and regional policy. This gests amending Proposition quickly to secure desirable information would include 13 to keep residential tax sites but lack the capital with vacant land (on a parcel-by- rates the same but to increase which to do it. parcel basis), redevelopable commercial property tax rates land, actual built densities, by a small fraction, maybe .25 and annual percentages of percent, and devoting that infill versus greenfield revenue to a Smart Growth development. fund. Such a process might raise on the order of $50–100 million in the first few years

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 63 housing projects if the local AT THE STATE LEVEL Reduce the “fiscalization of land use” by reforming the state Housing Element had not Adopt a statewide land use tax structure. The single most been approved by the state planning goal of promoting important and difficult step to Department of Housing and infill development. Leadership support infill development Community Development. from the state government is and smart growth in California Increase funding for affordable essential. The state should would be to revise the tax housing. State tax credits have adopt broad planning goals framework established by been extremely useful to sup- promoting infill development, Proposition 13, which pro- port the creation of affordable compact urban form, trans- motes the fiscalization of land infill housing, and the supply portation and land use coordi- use by limiting the ability of of these should be increased. nation, and affordable housing local governments to raise A revolving loan fund to assist production. It should then money through traditional affordable infill developers develop incentives and man- means of taxation. Most local with site acquisition and pre- dates for regional and local officials acknowledge that development costs would also governments to Proposition 13 has been a dis- be extremely useful, since implement these aster for cities. While it may these builders must move rap- goals, including not be possible to repeal this The state should say, if idly to acquire sites in a hot mandates that cities measure directly, other state you have crucial transit real estate market. approve affordable actions can help lessen the corridors with more than infill housing proj- ongoing harm. Steps in this Expand flexibility of local rede- 45,000 cars a day, you ects that meet local direction include equalizing velopment agencies and zoning and planning get an automatic five funding for schools and infra- increase housing requirements. goals, or that cities structure across jurisdictions, Redevelopment agencies have stories as of right within provide density replacing locally levied sales been the vehicle most often 100 feet. The state bonuses for afford- taxes with other forms of used by Bay Area local gov- should require cities to able infill housing. revenue, allowing local governments to promote infill create a dense core next Provide incentive ernments to share tax rev- development. These agencies enue, mandating revenue acquire sites, assemble devel- to transit. funding. The state should provide spe- sharing at a county or regional opable parcels, put infrastruc- —Patrick Kennedy cific incentives for level, and repealing limits on ture in place, and sell or lease Owner regional planning, property tax rates or tax lots to infill developers. But increases in general. recent changes in state law Panoramic Interests development of area plans by local gov- have restricted the extent to Enforce current mandates that ernments, and which redevelopment areas cities accept affordable housing. can be created or expanded. approval of new infill If local governments refuse to Allowing redevelopment to be housing by local governments. accept their fair share of used not just in “blighted” One bill introduced in the leg- regional housing needs by areas, but in station areas and islature in 2001, AB 291 (Cor- adopting state-approved wherever else infill opportuni- bett), proposed to provide $10 Housing Elements and imple- ties exist would greatly million statewide for such menting them, the state increase local flexibility to planning grants. Additional should withhold funding for promote infill. One bill intro- infrastructure or general use infrastructure. One bill to this duced in 2001, SB 600 (Tor- funding for municipalities effect, SB 910 (Dunn), was lakson) attempts to expand adopting good infill or afford- introduced in the legislature redevelopment powers to able housing plans would be a in 2001. Another bill, AB 369 implement transit village strong incentive. (Dutra), sought to authorize plans. Increasing the percent- courts to order local govern- age of funds that redevelop- ments to approve affordable ment agencies spend on

64 / SMART INFILL affordable housing from 20 to 25 percent would also help ensure that a substantial supply of infill housing is created. Recent State and Regional Initiatives

Review the building code. The The State of California’s Multifamily Housing Program state code committee should received $188 million in the 2001 budget to provide review the state’s version of low-interest loans to developers of rental apartment the Uniform Building Code to buildings who agree to reserve units for low-income simplify it and ensure that it households. However, the future of this pilot program provides maximum flexibility is in doubt. to builders and does not work against infill development. AB 2864, authored by Rep. Tom Torlakson, established a statewide incentive pool of $100 million in 2001, giving Require “as-of-right” approval unrestricted grants to communities that in any given for infill housing that meets year approve 112 percent or more of average develop- planning and zoning requirement in the last three years. ments. If projects meet carefully established municipal San Mateo County’s Housing Incentive Program policy, code standards, and provides $1,000 to $2,000 per bedroom to local design review guidelines, the governments as an incentive for housing near transit. state should require that cities approve them quickly through The MTC’s Transportation for Livable Communities an administrative process, (TLC) program provides planning grants of up to without extensive hearings for $50,000 and construction grants of up to $1,000,000 a conditional use permit. for land use projects that promote transportation alternatives. Require infill development to be The state could provide considered an environmental The MTC’s Housing Incentive Program (HIP) benefit within CEQA-related program, modeled on San Mateo’s, provides cover for local jurisdictions, environmental analysis. In incentive grants to local governments of $1,000 for example by requiring CEQA analysis, currently infill to $2,000 per bedroom for housing projects near density bonuses for projects are compared with a transit. “no project” alternative, which affordable infill housing …. naturally has less impacts. In The state’s Transit Village Planning Development you need to have big sticks reality, the likely alternative is Act of 1994 encourages cities and counties to as well as big carrots. sprawl development some- concentrate development around rail stations, where else. In comparison but provides no funds or land use authority for —Vivian Kahn with this, infill produces many local agencies to do this. Principal environmental advantages. Kahn/Mortimer State law also requires that cities give density bonuses of up to 25 percent for projects provid- and Associates ing affordable housing or more than 50 percent of units for seniors.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 65 recommendations for citizen action

In the past couple of decades stepping down the heights of Advocacy of affordable housing. citizens and nongovernmental infill buildings where they Although neighbors often fear organizations (NGOs) have adjoin lower-density existing that affordable infill housing played a crucial role in promot- homes can help reduce visual will bring undesirable new resi- ing infill development in the impacts and ensure light to dents to their neighborhood, Bay Area. Nonprofit housing existing residences. To com- such units in fact create hous- developers, for example, have pensate, increased height ing opportunities for teachers, stepped in to build affordable might be appropriate along the nurses, firefighters, and many housing in infill locations when sides of buildings facing com- other existing members of the the for-profit housing sector mercial streets. community. It is crucially was unable to do this. Individ- important that local leaders, Participation in planning ual citizens have also stepped planners, residents, and com- processes. Citizens and NGOs forward to support many local munity groups actively support can advocate for Specific Plans projects, often despite opposi- affordable infill housing by to be prepared for neighbor- tion from other neighbors. attending approval hearings, hoods with infill potential, and writing letters, and working Such efforts can be expanded then can actively participate in constructively with developers much further in coming years. those planning processes. to ensure that projects are Given the NIMBY opposition Instead of rejecting any well-designed and respond to that often emerges in response increase of housing in the community concerns. to infill projects, constructive neighborhoods, citizens can collaboration between local work with planners and Organizing for long-term residents, community groups, elected leaders to envision improvement. Ultimately, many planners, developers, and how new infill development of the Bay Area’s urban growth elected leaders is particularly could add needed amenities problems are systemic in important to proactively estab- and improve quality of life for nature and will require long- lish a context in which infill everyone. term, strategic action. Adding can occur. needed services and amenities Support for good projects. A within a city or town may Main opportunities for citizen continuing problem is that require changes to the General action include the following: opponents of infill attend pub- Plan, new Specific Plans, zon- lic hearings far more often Review of project designs. Infill ing and parking code changes, than advocates. It is crucially housing developers often seek and many other actions. important that citizens let local to meet with neighbors and Regional actions such as new officials and planners know of other citizens groups while investment in transportation their support for infill develop- developing plans for new proj- infrastructure or regional tax- ment by sending letters, ects, and cities and towns sharing may be necessary as emails, and faxes as well as increasingly require them to do well. Even while focusing many attending hearings of relevant so. Local residents can efforts on near-term local proj- decision-making bodies, which respond by suggesting con- ects, citizens and local leaders may include City Councils, structive modifications to proj- can keep the big picture in Zoning Boards, Planning Com- ect designs that will meet mind and work for longer-term missions, and Design Review neighborhood concerns with- municipal or regional improve- Boards. out making projects economi- ments that can help infill cally infeasible. For example, development succeed.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 67 interviewees

The following individuals were Sean Herron, Executive Director, Betty Padgett, Director of interviewed for this report: East Bay Housing Education and Advocacy, Organizations Ecumenical Housing Associates David Alumbaugh, Plan Manager, City of San Francisco Diane Howard, City Council Alison Pernell, Land Use Member and Former Mayor, Coordinator, Local Government Alex Amoroso, Senior Regional Redwood City Commission Planner, Association of Bay Area Governments Tim Iglesias, Deputy Director, Ralph Petty, Community Nonprofit Housing Association Development Director, City of Shiloh Ballard, Associate of Northern California Millbrae Director, Transportation and Land Use, Silicon Valley Tom Jones, Executive Director, Laurel Prevetti, Principal Manufacturing Group California Futures Network Planner, City of San Jose

Steve Barton, Housing Debbi M. Jones-Thomas, Kevin Roberts, Community Director, City of Berkeley Housing Coordinator, Development Director, City of Redwood City Walnut Creek Gary Binger, Director of California Smart Growth Vivian Kahn, Principal, Dan Sawislak, Executive Initiative, Urban Land Institute Kahn/Mortimer and Associates Director, Resources for Community Development Bob Brown, Community Patrick Kennedy, Owner, Development Director, City of Panoramic Interests Matthew Schwartz, Senior San Rafael Development Specialist, City of Mark Kroll, President, Sares- San Francisco Redevelopment John Chapman, President, East Regis Group of Northern Agency Bay Community Foundation California Stephanie Shakofsky, Executive Mike Church, Planning and Steven Kuklin, Senior Project Director, California Center for Redevelopment Manager, Manager, A.F. Evans Company Land Recycling Redwood City John Landis, Professor, Doug Shoemaker, Policy and Judy Corbett, Executive Director, Department of City and Program Director, Nonprofit Local Government Commission Regional Planning, University Housing of Northern California of California at Berkeley Ignacio Dayrit, Projects Joshua Simon, Senior Project Coordinator, City of Emeryville Patrick Lane, Project Manager, Manager, East Bay Asian Local Redevelopment Agency 10K Initiative, City of Oakland Development Corporation Stephanie Forbes, Program Dan Marks, Planning Manager, Fran Wagstaff, Executive Director, Local Initiative City of Fremont Director, Mid-Peninsula Support Corporation Jim Mather, Vice President, Housing Coalition Karen Frick, Project Manager, Community Development Alan Wolken, Project Manager, Metropolitan Transportation Lending, Bank of America City of Richmond Commission Lynnie Melena, Senior Planner, Redevelopment Agency Carol Galante, President and City of Mountain View Kate White, Co-founder, CEO, BRIDGE Housing Val Menotti, Senior Planner, San Francisco Housing Corporation Station Area Planning, Bay Action Coalition Bonnie Gaebler, Housing Area Rapid Transit (BART) Administrator, City of Petaluma

68 / SMART INFILL organizational resources

The following organizations can Land Recycling (CCLR). East Bay Community Foun- provide information related to infill 455 Market Street, Suite 1100, San dation Livable Communities development, housing, and com- Francisco, CA 94105. (415) 820- Initiative. 200 Frank Ogawa munity design, especially in the 2080. www.cclr.org. Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612. (510) Bay Area: 836-3223. California Chapter Ameri- The Affordable Housing can Planning Association. Network of Santa Clara 1333 36th Street, Sacramento, CA County. (408) 265-1554. 95816. (916) 736-2434. www.calapa.org/. The American Planning Association. 122 South Michigan California Department of Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. Housing & Community (312) 431-9100. www.planning.org. Development (HCD). www.hcd.ca.gov/. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 101 The California Futures 8th Street, Oakland, CA 94607. Network. 1414 “K” Street, Suite (510) 464-7900. www.abag.ca.gov. 305, Sacramento, CA 95814. (916) 325-2533 ext. 313. The Bay Area Council. 200 www.calfutures.org. Pine Street, Suite 300, San Fran- cisco, CA 94104. (415) 981-6600. California Housing Finance www.bayareacouncil.org. Authority (CHFA). (916) 322- 3991. www.chfa.ca.gov/. Bay Area Rapid Transit Sta- tion Area Planning Division California Main Street Pro- and Real Estate Division. gram. (916) 322-3236. www.com- (510) 464-7502. merce.ca.gov/mainstreet. www.bart.gov/about/planning/ The California Planning stationArea.asp. Roundtable. The Bay Area Transporta- www.cmcaplans.com/cpr.html. tion and Land Use Coalition Center for Community (BATLUC). 414 13th Street, 5th Change. (415) 982-0346. Floor, Oakland, CA 94612. (510) www.communitychange.org. 740-3150. www.transcoalition.org. The Congress for the New Bridge Housing Corpora- East Bay Housing Organiza- Affordable housing Urbanism (CNU). 5 Third tion. One Hawthorne Street, Suite tions (EBHO). (510) 663-3830. developments, such as Street, Suite 725, San Francisco, CA Pickering Place in 400, San Francisco, CA 94105. (415) 94103. (415) Fair Housing of Marin. Fremeont, have provided 989-1111. www.bridgehousing.com. compact infill housing for 495-2255. www.cnu.org. (415) 457-5025. working families. The Brownfields Non-Profits California Futures Network Greenbelt Alliance. 530 Bush Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition Network. (CFN). 1414 K Street, Suite 305, Street, Suite 303, San Francisco, www.brownfieldsnet.org. Sacramento, CA 95814. (916) 325- CA 94108. (415) 398-3730. California Affordable Hous- 2533 ext. 313. www.calfutures.org. www.greenbelt.org. ing Law Project. (510) 891- California Housing Partner- 9794 ext. 145. ship Corporation. (415) 433- The California Center for 6804. www.chpc.net.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 69 Housing California. (916) Northern California Com- The Urban Land Institute. 447-0503. www.housingca.com. munity Loan Fund. 870 Market (800) 321-5011. www.uli.org. Street, Suite 677, San Francisco, CA Housing and Community U.S. Department of Housing 94102. (415) 392-8215. Development Department, and Urban Development www.ncclf.org. State of California. (916) 445-4782. (HUD), San Francisco office. www.hcd.ca.gov. San Francisco Coalition for (415) 436-6550. Low-Income Housing. www.hud.gov/local/sfc/. The International (415) 487-3933. City/County Management U.S. HUD Affordable Association. www.icma.org/. The Silicon Valley Manufac- Housing Design turing Group (SVMG)/ Advisory Service. The Local Government Santa Clara Housing Action www.designadvisor.org. Commission (LGC). 1414 K St, Coalition. 226 Airport Parkway, Suite 600, Sacramento, CA 95814. U.S. Environmental Suite 190, San Jose CA 95110. (916) 448-1198. www.lgc.org. Protection Agency Brown- (408) 501-7864. www.svmg.org. fields Program. The Low Income Housing Spanish Speaking Unity www.epa.gov/brownfields. Fund (LIHF). 1330 Broadway, Council. 1900 Fruitvale Ave., Suite 600, Oakland, CA 94612. Suite 2A, Oakland, CA 94601. (510) (510) 893-3811. www.lihf.org. 535-6900. www.unitycouncil.org. The Local Initiatives Sup- The Smart Growth Network. port Corporation (LISC). www.smartgrowth.org. 369 Pine Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA 94104. (415) Transportation for Livable 397-7322. www.liscnet.org. Communities (TLC) Program, Metropolitan Marin Housing Council. Transportation Commission. 2169 E. Francisco Blvd., Suite B, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA San Rafael, CA 94901. 94607. (510) 464-7700. (415) 258-1800 x30. www.mtc.ca.gov/projects/livable_co www.housingcouncil.marin.org/. mmunities/lcindex.htm. National Trust for Historic Urban Ecology (UE). 414 13th Preservation. (800) 944-6847. St., Suite 500, Oakland CA 94612. www.nationaltrust.org. (510) 251-6330. Nonprofit Housing Associa- www.urbanecology.org. tion of Northern California (NPH). 369 Pine Street, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA 94104. (415) 989-8160. www.nonprofithousing.org.

70 / SMART INFILL bibliography

Association of Bay Area Governments. Cervero, Robert, Michael Bernick and Hoben, James E. 1982. Urban Infill: 2001. Blueprint for Bay Area Housing. Jill Gilbert. 1994. Market Opportuni- Findings from Canadian and United Oakland ties and Barriers to Transit-Based States Case Studies. Washington D.C. Association of Bay Area Governments. Development in California. Berkeley: and Ottawa: U.S. Department of Hous- 2000. Theory in Action: Smart Growth Institute for Urban and Regional ing and Urban Development and the Case Studies in the San Francisco Development Working Paper 621. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corpo- ration. Bay Area and Around the Nation. Cervero, Robert and Val Menotti. 1994. Oakland. Market Profiles of Rail-Based Housing Jones, Tom, William Pettus, and Bank of America, California Resources Projects in California. Berkeley: Insti- Michael Pyatok. 1997. Good Neigh- Agency, Greenbelt Alliance, and the tute for Urban and Regional Develop- bors: Affordable Family Housing. Low Income Housing Fund. 1995. ment Working Paper 622. Mulgrave, Australia: Images Publishing. Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Christensen, Karen. 2000. The Chal- Growth to Fit the New California. lenge of Affordable Housing in 21st Landis, John. 2000. Raising the Roof: Bay Area Council. 1983. Rental Housing Century California: Constraints and California Housing Development Pro- in California: Obstacles and Opportu- Opportunities in the Nonprofit Hous- jects and Constraints. Sacramento: nities. San Francisco. ing Sector. Berkeley: Institute of Department of Housing and Commu- Urban and Regional Development nity Development. Bernick, Michael and Michael Carroll. Working Paper 2000–04. 1991. A Study of Housing Built Near Landis, John, Mary Hill and Diana Rail Transit Stations: Northern Cali- Cole, Rick, et al. 1996. “Building Livable Marsh. 1996. No Vacancy: How to fornia. Berkeley: Institute of Urban Communities: New Strategies for Pro- Increase the Supply and Reduce the and Regional Development. moting Urban Infill,” Urban Land, Cost of Rental Housing in Silicon Val- September, pp. 37–40, 63. ley. Berkeley: Fisher Center for Real Bragado, Nancy, Judy Corbett, and Estate and Urban Economics Working Congress for the New Urbanism. 1999. Sharon Sprowls. 1995. Building Paper Series #96–251. Livable Communities: A Policy- Charter of the New Urbanism. New maker’s Guide to Infill Development. York: McGraw-Hill. Landis, John D., Michael Smith-Heimer, et al. 1999. More Better Housing: The Sacramento: Local Government Com- Connerly, Lloyd & Associates. 1981. Imperative of Meeting California’s mission. Urban Infill Development in Northern Future Housing Needs. Research California: Case Studies and Recom- California Air Resources Board. 1995. report prepared for the California mendations. Sacramento: California Transportation-Related Land Use Department of Housing and Commu- Office of Planning and Research and Strategies to Minimize Motor Vehicle nity Development. Berkeley: Institute the California Building Industry Asso- Emissions. Sacramento. of Urban and Regional Development. ciation. California Building Industry Associa- Lang, Robert E., James W. Hughes, and Deletetsky, Richard et al. 2001. tion. 2001. “Solving California’s Hous- Karen A. Danielsen. 1997. “Targeting Building Livable Communities: ing Crisis.” the Suburban Urbanites: Marketing A Policymaker’s Guide to Infill Devel- www.cbia.org/govsol.asp. Central-City Housing,” Housing Policy opment. Sacramento: Local Govern- Debate 8: 437–70. California Center for Land Recycling. ment Commission. 2000. Brownfield Redevelopment Case Lassar, Terry Jill. 1989. Carrots & Sticks- Edwards, John. 1994. The Parking Studies. San Francisco. New Zoning Downtown. Washington Handbook for Small Communities. DC: ULI–the Urban Land Institute. California Futures Network. 2001. Local Washington, D.C.: National Main Strategies for Increasing Housing Street Center. Meyer, Peter B. and Thomas S. Lyons. Supply and Housing Affordability: A 2000. “Lessons from Private Sector Fader, Steven. 2000. Density by Design. Primer for Housing Advocates. Oak- Brownfield Redevelopers: Planning Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Insti- land. Public Support for Urban Regenera- tute. California Planning Roundtable. 1993. tion,” Journal of the American Plan- Myths & Facts About Affordable and Greenbelt Alliance and Silicon Valley ning Association 66: 46–57. Manufacturing Group. 1999. Housing High Density Housing. Litman, Todd. 1999. Parking Require- Solutions for Silicon Valley: Housing ment Impacts on Housing Affordabil- Center for Environmental Design Solutions Report, 1999. Available at ity. Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transport Research. 1993. Evaluations of 30 www.svmg.org/htm/publi_f.htm. medium-density residential infill sites Policy Institute. Available at constructed in the Berkeley area Gyourko, Joseph E. and Witold Rybczyn- www.vtpi.org. ski. 2000. Financing New Urbanism between 1910–1990. Berkeley: Center Meyers, Dowell and Alicia Kitsuse. 1999. Projects: Obstacles and Solutions. for Urban Design Research. Development in Time: Planning the Housing Policy Debate 11: 733–750. Cervero, Robert. 1998. Transit Villages Future of California’s Housing. Cam- in California: Progress, Prospects, Hermanuz, Ghislaine. 1988. Reweaving bridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Pol- and Policy Reforms. Berkeley: Insti- the Urban Fabric: Approaches to Infill icy Working Paper. Housing: Essays by Ghislaine Her- tute for Urban and Regional Develop- Mitchell, Moss L. 1997. “Reinventing the manuz, Marta Gutman, and Richard ment Working Paper 1998–2008. Central City as a Place to Live and Plunz. New York: New York State Work,” Housing Policy Debate 8: Council on the Arts. 471–90.

A Guide for Bay Area Leaders / 71 Morris, Toby. 1995. San Francisco Bay San Francisco Planning and Urban Area’s Non-Profit Housing Develop- Research Association. 1998. Reducing ment Community: Production and Housing Costs by Rethinking Parking Constraints. San Francisco: Nonprofit Requirements. San Francisco. Avail- Housing Association of Northern Cali- able at fornia. www.spur.org/spurhsgpkg.html. Municipal Research & Services Center Shoup, Donald C. 1995. An Opportunity of Washington. 1997. Infill Develop- to Reduce Minimum Parking Require- ment: Strategies for Shaping Livable ments. Journal of the American Plan- Neighborhoods. Seattle. ning Association. 61. Nelessen, Anton. 1993. Visions for a New Sohmer, Rebecca R. and Robert E. Lang. American Dream: Process, Principles, 2001. “Downtown Rebound.” Washing- and an Ordinance to Plan and ton, D.C.: Fannie Mae Foundation and Design Small Communities. Chicago: Brookings Institution Census Note APA Planners Press. May 2001. Northeast-Midwest Institute and Con- Smart, Eric. 1985. Making Infill Projects gress for the New Urbanism. 2001. Work. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Strategies for Successful Infill Devel- Land Institute, 1985. opment. Washington, D.C. and San Suchman, Diane R. 1997. Developing Francisco. Infill Housing in Inner-City Neighbor- Pepper, Elizabeth. 1999. Strategies for hoods: Opportunities and Strategies. Promoting Brownfield Reuse in Cali- Washington, D.C.: ULI – the Urban fornia: A Blueprint for Policy Reform. Land Institute, 1997. San Francisco: California Center for Suchman, Diane R. et al. 1990. Public / Land Recycling. Private Housing Partnerships. Wash- Real Estate Research Corporation. 1982. ington, DC: ULI–the Urban Land Insti- Infill Development Strategies. Wash- tute, 1990. ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Hous- Urban Ecology. 1999. “Bay Area Infill ing and Urban Development; The Developers Portfolio.” Oakland. Urban Land Institute; and the Ameri- can Planning Association. —1998. Making Residential Density Work. “Realize the Vision” series, num- Roupe, Martine. 1997. “Planning for ber 1. Oakland. Downtown Housing,” PAS Memo, Jan- uary 1997, pp.1–4. Urban Land Institute. 2001. “National Smart Growth Policy and Practice Russo, Ryan. 2001. Planning for Resi- Roundtable: Infill Development.” dential Parking: A Guide for Housing www.uli.org/pub/pages/a_issues/a_s Developers and Planners. San Fran- ml5_nat3.htm. cisco: Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. White, Kate. 2000. “Specific Area Plans: Building Consensus for Infill Hous- Rybczynski, Witold. 2000. “Living Down- ing.” San Francisco Planning and town,” Wharton Real Estate Journal, Urban Research Association (SPUR). Spring 2000, pp.5–12. Available at www.spur.org/infill.html. Sandoval, Juan Onesimo and John Lan- Wilson, Richard W. 1995. Suburban dis. 2000. Estimating the Housing Parking Requirements: A Tacit Policy Infill Capacity of the Bay Area. for Automobile Use and Sprawl. Jour- Berkeley: Institute for Urban and nal of the American Planning Associ- Regional Development Working Paper ation. 61 (1). 2000–06.

72 / SMART INFILL