A recent appellate case declaring that a lot-line adjustment was not ministerial has been published, meaning it can now be used as precedent in other cases.

An appellate court has upheld San Francisco’s decision to use streamlined environmental review for a proposed housing project that incorporates an historic library, essentially upholding the city’s use of tiering off of its housing element environmental impact report. The ruling is unpublished and therefore cannot be used as precedent in other cases.

The question posed in one panel at the California Chapter, American Planning Association, conference last week was whether the California Environmental Quality Act should live or die. Everybody had a paddle – not to swat each other, but to vote yes or no. And despite the fact that most of the people in the room make their living as CEQA practitioners, the vote was surprisingly close.

In a long and complicated ruling, an appellate court has ruled that UC Santa Cruz properly dealt with the question of student and faculty/staff housing in the environmental impact report for its 2021 Long-Range Development Plan.

This article is brought to you courtesy of the paying subscribers to California Planning & Development Report. You can subscribe to CP&DR by clicking here. You can sign up for CP&DR’s free weekly newsletter here. There are still some parts of California where an “infill summit” would be on par with a meeting of the Communist Party or the Puppy-Hater Society. Downtown Los Angeles is not one of those places, and, thanks in part to a decade of housing legislation, now is a pretty good time to promote missing middle, adaptive reuse, ground-up high-density, and all sorts of redevelopment designed to enable more Californians to occupy less of California. The recent California Infill Summit, sponsored by the Council of Infill Builders, entailed elements of celebration, anxiety, and optimism: celebration for legislative victories and increasing public support; anxiety for the lethargic pace of development today; and optimism for the new version of urban California that could emerge if at least a few stars align. Which stars? We’ll get to that. Here, in no particular order, are some of the summit’s highlights: Party Time: The official drink of the summit was a whisky-forward concoction called the “Builder’s Remedy” -- appropriate because the cocktail hour was sponsored by law firm Rand Paster Nelson, which has developed a robust practice of informing cities when they may have violated the Housing Accountability Act. Conference organizer Mott Smith described the drink as “a little like a Manhattan.” No place in California is going to resemble Gotham any time soon. But, high rise projects are being foisted upon Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and other reluctant jurisdictions (that nonetheless did not manage to produce certified housing elements in time)--all of which house plenty of existing residents who probably love visiting New York City. Beyond the implicit jab at those tardy jurisdictions, the more important point is that infill builders are capable of levity. Density equals fun: restaurants, bars, busy sidewalks, civic events, thriving businesses, and all sorts of people dancing the proverbial sidewalk ballet. That’s more than you can say for the slow-growth scolds at homeowners associations and certain statewide advocacy groups that fulminate about the slightest attempt to violate the sanctity of single-family neighborhoods. Many of them have been at it for a half-century or more. Maybe it’s time to lighten up? Power to the People: I don’t know how developers in other jurisdictions feel, but, in Los Angeles, developers’ Public Enemy No. 1 is the Department of Water and Power, the storied, clunky, and often overpriced city-owned utility. Developers frequently report that, even after the last faucet has been installed and lightbulb screwed in, DWP takes its sweet time getting the power connected. They also impose onerous regulations, such as requiring unsightly transformers to be placed in accessible locations, taking up precious real estate, to enable crews to make repairs every few decades. Granted, DWP isn’t in the development business. But, you get the sense that the agency has zero civic pride and zero sense of urgency. That might be changing. The most astonishing presentation came from David Hanson. Merely showing up was brave enough. Folksy and self-effacing -- in a way that you enjoy but don’t necessarily trust -- with a ringmaster mustache and a Louisiana twang, Hanson gave a rousing promise that DWP was going to change its ways and no longer be the enemy of development. If he makes good on it, Los Angeles’s developers will nominate him for next year’s Nobel Peace Prize. Mayoral Race: The Los Angeles mayoral race is down to two candidates, with the third left to his psychic crystals, grievances, and hotel bills. Both were invited to the summit. One showed up. That candidate spoke enthusiastically about development housing and the general YIMBY agenda. That candidate is, according to at least one poll, up five points on her opponent. Coincidence….? (This candidate’s major sticking point with the real estate crowd is her support for aggressive renter protections.) The candidate may find inspiration in a sitting mayor, San Diego’s Todd Gloria, who received an award. Despite its traditional conservatism, San Diego is arguably the most pro-housing big city in the state, with new policies and upbeat rhetoric contributing to some 31,000 permits issued during his tenure. In this case, it’s the free-market, pro-business form of conservatism that seems to be winning over the “let’s go back to the 1950s” version. Missing in (In)action: The Infill Summit was in Los Angeles, but it was not of Los Angeles. Los Angeles, the largest city in its region. Los Angeles, considered, in more than one era, the most ambitious, dynamic city in the world. Los Angeles, the archetypal city of the 20th century. It barely registered. Not a single elected official, commissioner, or city staff member spoke. Not a single Los Angeles project was highlighted. The city’s in-progress “Missing Middle L.A.” program got nary a word. At best, Los Angeles was the void against which the stars shined: Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Culver City. The nation’s second-largest city thus fades into irrelevance, at least as far as housing development is concerned. Shoupiest Idea: Parking reformers and infill developers are kindred spirits. From the university and school that brought us the late Donald Shoup comes a new approach to parking: parking impact fees. Devised by UCLA Prof. Adam Millard-Bell, it encourages cities to stop messing around with imperfect and sometimes arbitrary parking minimums and maximums and instead simply make developers pay impact fees for each parking space. Millard-Bell suggests that the fee could be revenue- and-expense neutral if it replaces transportation impact fees. Developers would thereby be discouraged from providing excessive parking but still allowed to provide it as needed. Biggest Dud: Several of the biggest names in the YIMBY movement, including Brian Hanlon, declared Senate Bill 9, which facilitates lot splits and development of duplexes, to be essentially dead in the water. That’s a surprise, since legislators fought hard for it, and many supporters declared that the Age of the Duplex, and even the double-duplex, was upon us. But, it’s proving hard to use, and neighbors in single-family areas hate it. Brian Hanlon admitted, “we knew SB 9 wouldn’t do anything. We fought like hell (to pass it) so the NIMBYs wouldn’t win.” Housing is a blood sport. Hanlon basically said that homeowners should build ADUs and call it a day. The other big dud is SB 35, mainly because, speakers claimed, its union requirements do not pencil out for mid-rise buildings. But, the infill crowd is bullish on the Starter Home Revitalization Act of 2021 (updated in 2024 via AB 130 and SB 1123), which streamlines permitting for developments up to 10 units -- prime missing middle. Wish List: Having gotten much of what they wanted, the infill developers still have a wish list for the next governor. Needless to say, they want construction defect reform so that development of condos -- the quintessential form of infill housing -- can resume. They want to reduce transfer taxes and impact fees, especially on ADU’s. The theory goes: if you want more of something, you shouldn’t charge for it. My optimistic read on these wishes -- were Gov. Becerra or Gov. Hilton -- is that hope is not lost. Every developer understands that the state’s economic conditions, particularly the cost of labor and materials, will continue to be challenging. But, with some legislative relief, some of them may see enough daylight in their pro formas to break ground. Indeed, for many infill developers, building and, particularly, city-building, is a labor of love. They want to build, and breaking even might just be enough. Aesthetics: Were the infill revolution to really gain momentum, my biggest concern centers on something the summit did not discuss: aesthetics. Much of the infill housing that has been developed since at least the Great Recession has been, if not ugly, then, at least, not enlightened. They are designed for economy rather than beauty or placemaking. That usually translates to hulking six-story lumps that occupy half a city block. There are a million ways to achieve the same densities with more inventive design -- or, indeed, less inventive design. Developers can look to Europe and call it a day. My fear is that we’ll get an explosion of these buildings and squander the chance to create more pleasant, liveable streetscapes while, at the same time, giving opponents even more ammunition. (I’m optimistic about single-stair reform, which will give architects much more leeway, especially in smaller buildings.) Let’s face it: no place in California -- not even Santa Monica, which has a new pro-development city manager and a slew of proposed projects, or Beverly Hills, which can somehow support $10 billion ultraluxury projects but barely a unit of affordable housing -- is going to turn into Manhattan any time soon. At least we can comfort ourselves with some Builder’s Remedies in the meantime.

This article is brought to you courtesy of the paying subscribers to California Planning & Development Report. You can subscribe to CP&DR by clicking here. You can sign up for CP&DR’s free weekly newsletter here. San Diego County, Bay Area Contemplate Transit Service Cuts if Funding Dries Up San Diego's Metropolitan Transit System released a draft proposal that would eliminate 33 of its 95 bus routes, ending service to SeaWorld, Cabrillo National Monument, Tierrasanta and parts of Mission Hills. Another 29 routes would see notable reductions, and all four trolley lines would run less frequently than the current 15-minute intervals. The plan is meant to close annual deficits of $100 million to $150 million starting in 2030, paired with fare hikes which took effect on October 1. About 36% of riders would face reduced frequency and 21% would lose service entirely, though officials say only about 3% would have no transit option within a quarter-mile. Rush-hour delays on San Francisco’s Bay Bridge could more than double if voters reject a Regional Transit Measure and San Francisco’s Proposition H, a separate parcel tax to fund Muni, a recent study found. Conducted by San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR), the study projects peak delays rising by 33 minutes westbound in the morning and 43 minutes eastbound in the evening. Eastbound afternoon delays at the Caldecott Tunnel would grow from 13 to 40 minutes, and analysis also projects worsening congestion along Interstate 580, Interstate 680 and U.S. 101. If Bay Area transit agencies cannot secure additional funding beyond 2027, contingency plans include BART closing up to 15 stations and ending service at 9 p.m., AC Transit potentially losing 200 workers and cutting hours, and Caltrain closing more than one-third of its stations. State Progresses Toward “30 x 30” Conservation Goals A new progress report shows California is on track to exceed its “30 x 30” goal of conserving 30% of its land by 2030. When the state began tracking conservation four years ago, conserved lands totaled about 23.8% and coastal waters 16.2%. In the past year over 1 million acres of land were added, however, the state has been slower to conserve coastal waters. As of the most recent report, the state conserves about 27.1% of lands but only 21.9% of coastal waters. The state has invested nearly $1.3 billion in nature-based solutions over four years, and the $10 billion Climate Bond approved by voters in 2024 has already directed $5.8 billion toward priorities including parks, coastal resilience and wildfire resilience. Still about 78% of conserved land is federal, while the state manages roughly 10%. The conservation efforts come at a time of federal assault on public lands including efforts to sell off public lands to developers, challenges to endangered species law and public lands management. Other recent victories include fast-tracking more than 500 projects, restoring 400,000 acres of habitat, improving 1,300 miles of streams and saving around $12 million in permitting costs. Los Angeles Disburses Funds from “Mansion Tax” The City of Los Angeles will spend $466.6 million in affordable housing funding largely sourced from Measure ULA, which imposes a 4% or 5.5% tax on L.A. property sales above $5.4 million. This funding is the largest single pool in the city housing department’s history, topping last year’s $387 million. Applications for the funds open in Oct to developers, nonprofits, land trusts and other organizations, and recipients will be announced in February. Last year $360.9 million went to 80 projects including 1,288 new affordable units and preservation of 3,713 units around downtown L.A., South L.A. and Koreatown. This year, $123 million will go toward multifamily affordable housing with 40+ units, and $115 million will be devoted toward low-income housing tax credits. The remainder of the money will be distributed toward other housing efforts, including $104 million for alternative models of new construction, $38 million toward stabilizing existing affordable housing, $32 million for purchase and restoration of affordable units, $27 million for preserving existing units and $25 million for preserving units facing financial challenges. (See related CP&DR coverage.) CP&DR Coverage: State Sues Five Cities Over Housing Elements, While Others Fall In Line Fifteen jurisdictions were issued warning letters back in March, most of which adopted housing elements and got them approved by the state Department of Housing and Community Development. However, the state has sued five jurisdictions for housing element violations, three of which received warning letters but failed to comply. Of these jurisdictions, two (Ridgecrest, Calexico) do not have approved housing elements, while the other three (Half Moon Bay, Costa Mesa, Turlock) have not finished the required rezoning. In all five lawsuits, the state is asking the courts to give the cities a 120-day timeframe to complete their housing element work and suspend their non-residential permitting authority. In addition, a judge could fine the cities for non-compliance. Some local officials were critical of the state’s action, saying it blindsided them as they are working through housing element issues with HCD. Quick Hits & Updates The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Monterey County has unanimously approved a 3,500-home development in Gonzales. The Vista Lucia project will add 771 acres to the city including 79 acres of parks, three news schools, and 3,498 homes over a 30-year period in four phases, doubling the number of homes in the city. Nonprofit housing developer CHISPA is named as the developer of 211 affordable housing units included in Vista Lucia’s first phase. The city of Eureka is asking property owners to volunteer sites for housing as part of its 2027-2035 Housing Element Update, since the city must show the state it can accommodate 1,740 new homes and has little undeveloped land to point to. Owners of any type of project, from an ADU to a lot split to a full development, can sign up for free with no obligation to build, and enrolled sites get CEQA review coverage under SB 131, GIS-based permitting streamlining, and a designated city liaison to ensure a smooth process. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority will remain as LA’s chief authority on its homelessness response, with access to millions in federal dollars to disburse among service providers after the Ninth Circuit largely denied a Trump administration appeal. The preliminary injunction that blocks HUD's June suspension of federal funding will be kept in place. LAHSA has said it will stop serving as lead agency next year, with the city and county both seeking to take over its roles. A new report from the Board of Supervisors Budget and Legislative Analyst's Office identified 147 of San Francisco's vacant lots, parking garages, and underused buildings that could potentially be redeveloped for housing. The publicly owned properties list is preliminary and has yet to screen zoning, environmental, or historic restrictions. Many of the sites are also still in active city use. A Land Use and Transportation Committee hearing has been called for early November to explore how departments can use their real estate to help close the gap with the state's 82,000-home by 2031 mandate. The state has purchased over 600 acres near Pionteertown in what climate projections describe as one of Southern California’s most promising future habitats for Joshua trees. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is currently working with the Native American Land Conservancy (NALC) and California Native American tribes to develop plans for the property’s long-term protection and conservancy. The purchase is the second funded by the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Fund, which aims to protect the tree as state research projects that much of the tree’s habitat will become unsuitable by the end of the 21st century due to changes in climate conditions. The agency’s total conserved habitat has now surpassed 900 acres, with another 2,500 acres under consideration. Nine community organizations in California's Central Valley have sent a cease-and-desist letter to the High-Speed Rail Authority opposing a plan to move the Merced station about four miles southeast of downtown to an undeveloped, unincorporated area near Highway 99. Supporters of the move say it would speed construction, potentially save at least $1 billion, and offer easier access to Yosemite. The letter's signers argue it would violate a state law requiring the station to be in Merced's population center, and suggest sprawl and harm to downtown businesses that invested based on the original plan. The head of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Napa County, which oversees jurisdictional boundaries for local governments, was removed from his position after being previously placed on administrative leave following a performance evaluation on Aug. 27. The agency has not provided a reason for the removal from a position which Freeman served in since 2015, after joining the agency in 2008 as an analyst. The move comes as LAFCO weighs two annexations of unincorporated land into American Canyon totaling nearly 400 acres. San Bernardino County supervisors approved the Bloomington Park Specific Plan, which would add 2.1 million square feet of warehouses to the rural community, over the objections of many residents. The project calls for three warehouses ranging from 383,000 square feet to 1 million square feet, plus a truck trailer lot. Supervisors originally approved it in 2022, but a judge ordered the environmental study set aside in 2024 after critics sued over issues such as air quality.

Gov. Gavin has signed almost all of the important planning and development bills the Legislature sent him a month ago – and vetoing the one that would have rolled back part of last year’s CEQA reform.

The battle over redevelopment of the Sunset Magazine headquarters in Menlo Pack has reached fever pitch, with the city refusing to back down in its resistance to the project and the developer filing a lawsuit asking that the city be hit with at least $6.6 million in fines.

The following awards were announced October 4 at the conference of the California Chapter of the American Planning Association, held in Los Angeles. "Excellence" is the higher award; both awards were not given in all categories. Academic Excellence Building the Planning Pipeline - Long Beach City College Urban Planning Associate of Science Degree, Long Beach City College & Long Beach Community Design Center Merit Lost Hours, Lost Opportunities: The Toll of Extreme Travel on Lower Income Communities in the San Fernando Valley, Alejandra Rios Gutierrez Advancing Diversity and Social Change in Honor of Paul Davidoff Excellence Advancing Agricultural Land Equity in California, Recommendations of the California Agricultural Land Equity Task Force Merit Zone In: City Core, City of Long Beach and Team Communications Initiative and Outreach Excellence Ride, Walk, & Roll, Orange County, Latino Health Access Daniel Burnham Award for Comprehensive Plan Excellence Los Angeles New Zoning Code: A Dynamic, Digital-First Framework, City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning Merit City of Bellflower Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of Bellflower, KTUA Planning and Landscape Architecture Grassroots Initiative Excellence Safe Travels in Nyeland Acres, Nyeland Promise Implementation Excellence Los Angeles Legacy Business Program, City of Los Angeles Community Investment Department Merit Bakersfield Community Land Trust Planning Excellence Excellence Family Zoning Plan, San Francisco Planning Department Merit MEA Guidelines for Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources, City of Santa Barbara Resilience and Sustainability Excellence Big Basin Redwoods State Park Facilities Management Plan, California State Parks Merit Los Angeles County Heat Action Plan, Los Angeles County Chief Sustainability Office, Environmental Science Associates, AECOM, Paradigm Transportation Planning Excellence Cudahy Together: A Strategic Plan for a Thriving Community, City of Cudahy and Team Merit Freeway Ramp Active Mobility Enhancement Study, Caltrans District 12 Urban Design Excellence Citywide Corridors Plan, City of Jurupa Valley Merit Olympus Park, City of Encinitas and RRM Design Group Planning Pioneer Award James Rojas Planner Emeritus (PEN) Honor Awards Southern Margaret Moore SohagiAl Zelinka, FAICP, CMSM John Keho, AICPAnna Pehoushek, FAICP Northern Charles S. Bryant, AICP Laurel Prevetti Distinguished Service Award Michael P. Cass, APA California Northern Distinguished Contribution Award Geoffrey Danker, AICP Section Activity Award Central Coast Section

This year's edition of the conference of the California Chapter of the American Planning Association arrives in a subdued version of Los Angeles. In the past 20 months, it has faced devastating wildfires, contraction of the entertainment industry, immigration raids, a bruising (and ongoing) mayoral race, population stagnation, the closure of bars and restaurants, jitters about the 2028 Olympics, and, most recently, the threat of coastal erosion from El Nino. Through it all, development has slowed and planning remains... complicated. Los Angeles is not the supernova it once was--but it has yet to figure out how to make its comeback. The state's planners will convene against this backdrop, to discuss the future of Los Angeles and many of the state's other jurisdictions. Under the Hollywood-esque theme "Crafting Our Narrative: Planning as Storytelling," the conference runs from Saturday, Oct. 3 through Tuesday, Oct. 6 in downtown Los Angeles. CP&DR's Josh Stephens spoke with Los Angeles APA Section Director and conference co-chair Roderick Hall (also an analyst with the Los Angeles Housing Department) about what the estimated 2,100 attendees can expect. CP&DR is a media sponsor of the California APA Conference and will be present in the exhibit hall. We welcome readers to connect with us. The last time the APA conference was in the Los Angeles area was 2016 (in Pasadena). If you were around back then, do you feel like anything has changed in the ten years since planners last officially convened in L.A.? I got to LA in February 2020. So I can't necessarily speak to what has changed since the last conference, but I can talk about what has changed since I moved to Los Angeles. A lot of what was shared with me by people is that certainly the Los Angeles before COVID and the Los Angeles after COVID are not the same Los Angeles. In part, the city and the region are thinking about natural disasters, particularly fires. There's been a significant shift in how we think about housing in this region and across the state. There's now a huge need to rethink what the narrative is, not only of Los Angeles but of California, and how that takes into account a lot of the new changes coming into the region. I'm especially interested in getting planners to understand that not only is part of our role to think about and craft the narratives around people and places, but also a core part of our role is bringing the pages to life. That's why the logo has a city coming out of a book. Because as much as you can put on paper that you need (roughly) 450,000 units for the city, you need not only planners who can plan for it, but also planners who implement and make it happen. A lot of the sessions we've chosen are about helping people have the conversations and think about the tools and the resources and the approaches to actually developing, not just planning, the community. What are some sessions you're excited about? Which ones capture the moment? Roderick Hall I don't want people to think I have a favorite session, so to speak. We were very intentional about making sure we covered all kinds of themes, from housing to transportation to climate and disaster to economic development. We did so in a way that takes into account what the profession needs, but also takes into account and how Los Angeles thinks about some of these topics. There are a few sessions on cultural districts and on recognizing a variety of cultures in a community. That excites me because I think so core to California's narrative is the fact that we have so many different ethnicities here that all contribute to the community and the economy. Myself and my fellow section directors have our own session that we will be focusing collaboration across the state, about helping people understand resiliency and showing up for work and navigating that. The diversity plenary, which we are calling “The Summit,” brings together three different community-based organizations in Los Angeles, as well as someone from APA National, to talk about what it means to develop communities, specifically communities that are viewed as marginalized, in a time of funding cuts and various perspectives on community development across different levels of government. A lot of planners right now, especially in California, are wrestling with the question: how do we continue to live out California values when some of the funding we receive, or the stipulations around the funding, may not align with those values? The opening and closing plenaries both excite me because they're fireside chats with an individual person. One is Los Angeles Planning Director Vince Bertoni, one is Brian Ulaszewski, executive director of City Fabrik. I think both of those conversations are going to be fruitful because they approach this from different perspectives: public sector and private sector. We're doing an activation this year, and this activation has so many moving components. We're going to have video games on site, and we're going to have some podcast interviews, and the ability to do some tactile workshops to think about place. There's also going to be a working room where people can just go and work.I don't want people to just come and be talked to. I want people to have an experience with this conference where they leave feeling they were able to learn, work, and play, all in one setting, because when we come out of the conference, we want to feel replenished. How would you describe the mood in your section these days? As you've collaborated with counterparts around the state to put the conference together, what sort of mood have you perceived from them? I would say the overall mood, both in the section and across the state, is eagerness. Not happy or sad, just that there's this eagerness to figure it out, whatever “it” is. People really want to understand: we live in California, we espouse certain values, and we go about planning in a very Californian way, so to speak. I think people are wrestling with staff retention or hiring. People are wrestling with how to provide services to their community, either because funding is cut or because the people who are allowed to benefit from programs, those eligibility [requirements], have changed. Even though that has changed, it does not mean that the need has changed. So there's this eagerness to figure out workarounds and solutions to continue to provide services at an adequate level. A lot of what we've heard is people trying to navigate the impact of ICE raids, not just on the people but also on the economy. People are also trying to understand: "I work in this community, but when there is a fire or another natural disaster, I'm also impacted, and I'm also having to get up and go to work and address it." There's a huge need to help planners develop resiliency and the tools needed for self-care to still get up and do the work. It's easy, especially for a lot of people to maybe not feel as happy or excited about the work, or even to be burned out about the work. I'm sure there are individuals who fall into their respective camps, but I would say the overall theme is eagerness to problem-solve and innovate. You're a veteran of housing in California. What do you expect from the housing discussions at the conference? For the most part, there seems to be an appetite for people to plan for more housing. At this point, those arguments are kind of moot. We all have to plan for it. I actually think the conversations around housing at the conference are going to start to advance toward, “well, I've done the planning. Unless someone is planning to take the market rate and use zoning or inclusionary zoning, whatever you want to call that program, there's not going to be a way in which the market alone is going to provide.” A lot of people are asking me, How do you think about finding an affordable housing developer, how do you work with them, how do you help them get financing? What's the role of local government in helping a project pencil? Or how do you work with them to think about impact fees? What is a NOFA? What does it mean to talk about a capital stack? I've always wanted to be at a point where I saw more planners thinking about funding and financing and not just, "Oh, okay, well, we made this plan." That's great, but it can't get developed if there is no funding and financing to develop it. That's partially in housing, but I've, shockingly, seen this come up in a lot of other topical areas as well, including transportation and climate readiness planning. Financing and funding conversations across the board seem to be what I hear a lot of people talking about, and that's partially due to federal funding cuts. At the local level, different cities are facing their own deficits that may or may not be driven by funding cuts from the federal government or even from the state government. You mention the federal government. Certain members of the federal government like to dismiss or demean California these days. Is there an opportunity to be a pep rally or to assert California's vibrancy? What role can planners play in supporting the state as an entity on the national level? APA National has done a great job not only of taking California into account but of taking into account the broader states at the national level, and having their policy and advocacy team really work to enshrine the values not just of California but of the planning profession. Planning in general tends to be a much more inclusive profession, at least in today's time, where people are all trying to think about making communities work for all members. I say that to say, the whole point of this conference is exactly that. California has a narrative as a state, and jurisdictions within California have their own unique narratives. This conference is the opportunity for people to get together and ask: in this new era of work we find ourselves in, or this new era of the profession, how can we still do the work that's needed? Some of that, yeah, maybe that's federal, but I don't think all of it is. Some issues are specific to a local jurisdiction and are separate from what's happening at the federal level, even if they're happening concurrently.

This article is brought to you courtesy of the paying subscribers to California Planning & Development Report. You can subscribe to CP&DR by clicking here. You can sign up for CP&DR’s free weekly newsletter here. Canceled Light Rail Extension Draws Lawsuit from Montclair The Inland Empire suburb of Montclair is suing the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) after the agency withdrew funding for the planned A Line light-rail extension to Montclair. The city claims SBCTA broke its long-standing commitment to extend the rail line from Claremont to the Montclair Transit Center. In September 2025, SBCTA voted 15–11 to redirect its $37 million allocation, citing rising costs and concerns about limited input into project decisions. Montclair argues that abandoning the project could cost the city millions in planning expenses, property value increases, and future tax revenue. The lawsuit also alleges that SBCTA discriminated against Montclair, a lower-income community with a large Hispanic and immigrant population, by redirecting funds toward more affluent communities. Montclair is asking the court to enforce Measure I funding requirements, prevent unlawful discrimination, and award damages. Meanwhile, the A Line extension from Pomona to neighboring Claremont is moving forward, with construction expected to begin in late 2027 and finish in 2031. Data Center Update: Majority of Californians Opposed; L.A. County Moratorium A Politico poll found 51% of registered California voters oppose building new data centers in the state and opposition rises to 61% when a proposed data center would be in their own community. Most voters prefer local over state control, and there is a distinct split along party lines. The study found 45% of Republican-leaning voters support new centers, compared to about one eighth of Democrat voters. Recently, LA County's planning director ordered an immediate prohibition on large AI data centers in unincorporated areas, and El Monte, Baldwin Park, Oakley, Gilroy, and Richmond have passed bans or moratoriums. In San Francisco, Supervisor Shamann Walton proposed a 45-day moratorium, possibly extendable to two years, as a step toward a citywide ban, just as a little-known firm was reported to be eyeing a large waterfront site in the area. Meanwhile, the Dogpatch Power Station developer nearby plans to retract a data center amendment after community pushback. The Eureka City Council has moved forward in their effort to restrict data center construction, directing staff to create zoning regulations allowing data centers of 20,000 square feet or less to be built in industrial areas of the city, with a potential ban on large facilities. The decision comes two weeks after the city passed their 45-day moratorium on all data center planning until a decision could be reached. Navy Gives OK to Redevelopment of Concord Base The U.S. Navy approved a financial term sheet for redeveloping the Concord Naval Weapons Station, a 12,800 acre former munitions storage facility that fell out of use in 1999. The term sheet covers roughly 2,422 acres and is backed by master developer Brookfield Properties, which can now work with the city on a specific plan for construction and zoning. Planned features include 12,272 housing units, a 75-acre first responder training facility, a 4-acre veterans community center, a $5 million sports park, 5,038 acres for Thurgood Marshall Regional Park, 16 acres for permanently supportive housing and 10 acres for food bank expansion. Brookfield was chosen as master developer in 2023 after original developer Lennar withdrew in 2020 over a dispute with labor organizers. San Francisco Mayor & Supes Consider Raft of Housing Proposals San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie announced six proposals that protect tenants from eviction and provide other renter protections in an attempt to counter skyrocketing rents and increased housing insecurity amid the artificial intelligence boom. Median rent prices in San Francisco are up nearly 26% over last year, and eviction notices have increased 44%. The package includes increased payments tenants are owed if evicted by 25%, directing $3 million to free legal representation for tenants threatened with eviction, $27 million on rental subsidies to cover the loss of federal housing vouchers set to expire at the end of the year, a 10% cap on “banked” rent spikes, and $1 million toward a public awareness campaign for renters. Meanwhile, San Francisco Supervisor Myrna Melgar plans to introduce legislation creating a dedicated housing department to coordinate and streamline affordable and market-rate housing. The proposal comes as San Francisco falls behind its goal of building 82,000 homes by 2031, which Melgar blames on a current system fragmented across multiple agencies, slowing housing approvals and construction as rents and home prices rise. CP&DR Coverage: Coastal Commission Power Trumps Builders Remedy The Coastal Commission’s powers trump the state’s builders remedy law, an appellate court has ruled in yet another case from Redondo Beach. New Commune DTLA, developer Leo Pustilnikov’s company, attempted to use builders remedy to end-run Redondo Beach’s local coastal program (LCP) for a project that would include 30 condominiums (six affordable) and 141,000 square feet of commercial space. Pustilnikov has been aggressive in pursuing builders' remedy projects and associated litigation in both Redondo Beach and Beverly Hills, most recently winning a court battle over whether Redondo could use overlay zones to meet its housing element requirements. The coastal litigation involves potentially high stakes in affluent areas up and down the coast where cities must get Coastal Commission approval for their local plans and developers are seeking to end-run local processes with builders' remedy projects. Quick Hits & Updates Pacifica, a coastal city in San Mateo County, has resisted development at the site of a 90-acre former limestone quarry. Now Michigan-based developer Eenhoorn and Netherlands has filed an application with builder’s remedy for what may be the most likely plan yet, a 21-building development with 1,225 units that would cover about one third of the property. So far, the city has rejected the development, and the developer has appealed to the City Council. Roseville City Council has advanced plans for a $77 million civic campus. It will replace aging, overcrowded facilities, and add a license and passport center and a dance studio near Lexington Avenue and Woodhill Drive. The maintenance operations center is estimated to cost around $64.1 million, while the license, passport and dance studio portion is down to roughly $13 million from $14.5 million. The Costa Mesa City Council has approved a plan for 2,300 residences on the former Fairview Developmental Center, including 920 units set aside as affordable for low-income tenants. The vote advances a long effort to reuse the 80-acre property, which once housed more than 2,500 patients and closed in 2022 as the state moved care for people with developmental disabilities toward community-based settings. Though the city faces state pressure to add 11,760 homes by the end of the decade, council members scaled back a Planning Commission plan that would have allowed up to 4,000 units. California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the California Energy Commission filed a 54-page federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging what they call an unlawful buyout that removed a major floating wind project off Morro Bay from development. It is the state's second such suit against the Trump administration. The complaint targets a $765 million buyback of four wind leases held by Chicago-based Invenergy, announced in June. The deal included the $111 million Even Keel Wind project, whose lease covered more than 80,000 acres off the Central Coast. Incoming Angels owner Stan Kroenke has not finalized plans for a new ballpark, although a replacement for Angel Stadium remains a possibility under the $4 billion purchase agreement. The stadium sits on roughly 130 acres of land that could support a larger mixed-use development. The Angels’ current lease runs through 2032, with an extension possible to 2038, and the state’s new “Home Run for Anaheim Act” would allow the team to circumvent affordable housing requirements if the team reverts to their name as the Anaheim Angels.