After a one-year hiatus, the Land Use Law and Planning Conference, sponsored for over 30 years by UCLA and now by the W. P. Carey Center for Real Estate and Finance at Arizona State Unviersity and the California Planning & Development Report, is returning to downtown Los Angeles Friday, January 23. 

For its long history, the conference has served a crucial purpose for California’s land-use professionals: explain and discuss the myriad of new laws and legal cases that arise each year to govern planning and development in the state. ASU will host the conference at its traditional home, the Biltmore Hotel, which is blocks away from its satellite campus. 

For a preview of the conference and an account of its evolution, CP&DR's Josh Stephens spoke with conference organizers: Matthew Burris, principal at Burris Planning Group and former deputy city manager in Rancho Cucamonga; Tricia Dunlavey Hilbun, partnership and portfolio manager at the ASU Center for Real Estate and Finance; David Smith, principal at the Law Offices of David C. Smith; and Alisha Winterswyk, partner at Best, Best, & Krieger. 

This conference was a long-time institution of UCLA, it went offline for a few years, now it's back with ASU. How did it get revived?

Alicia Winterswyk: Last year, as we were working toward the 2025 conference to be hosted by UCLA, it became clear to us that priorities had shifted, and that UCLA would be unable to host the conference in 2025. We tried mightily to identify another sponsor so we could hold the annual event in January of 2025. We were very disappointed by having to cancel it, because we know that so many of our attendees look forward to this conference each year.

We spent the beginning of 2025 trying to identify a new partner. It became known to us, through Bill Fulton, that ASU was very interested in supporting the conference, given their real estate practice and expansion in Southern California. It seemed like a nice way to transition the conference and maintain its integrity. ASU was very open to allowing us co-chairs to maintain the structure, content, and cadence of the conference.

That's a long way of saying that David, Matt, and I have stuck around. We didn't give up on the conference. We know that folks in our industry want the conference to continue, so we were trying to find a way to make that happen.

David Smith: I would add that UCLA had concerns about our conference in particular. It seemed to be a systematic evolution of how they were approaching such conferences, and the intent was to no longer be in person, do virtual, and cut it down on size. With no disrespect to UCLA, the conference has a long legacy, and we feel a pretty heavy burden to make sure it lives up to what the consistent attendees expect from the conference. The strength of the conference is not only the premier content and timeliness but also the opportunity for professionals to interact in person, on-site. For some, this is the only time they get to interact with folks from other parts of the state. I think I'm not off in saying we all felt that that was just not an acceptable substitution to abandon the in-person all day-long event.

Especially for those who might be confused, what is Arizona State University's interest in a decidedly California event?

Tricia Dunlavey Hilburn: ASU has a major focus on expanding our reach to California, primarily to align with the Charter of Arizona State University, which is all about who we include, not who we exclude. Knowing that some students in California have a hard time getting into California institutions, we wanted to have a footprint there to say, "if you want to go to college, we have an opportunity for you." We have a lot of California students come to ASU on our Tempe campus, and we know that not everyone has the ability or affordability to be able to come out of state, despite it being significantly cheaper than staying in-state in California.

We've opened a campus at the Herald-Examiner building in 2021, so we have a California presence; we call it ASU Local. Everyone here at ASU has been tasked to figure out how to do some programming in Southern California. The law school's doing some stuff out there, the Herberger Institute of Design and the Arts are doing a bunch. There's a lot of communications from the Cronkite School out there. We've also recently acquired the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising (FIDM) right next door.

We recently received a very large gift to name the W.P. Carey Center for Real Estate and Finance, and as part of that, we want to become one of the most sought-after real estate education institutions. The conference expands our footprint, provides opportunity to engage our alumni and potential students out in that area, and so we were willing and excited to partner with this group.

How important is it for you and your counterparts to hear this material live and in person?

Winterswyk: It gives us an opportunity to talk at a higher level—not at a 101 level—about new legislation, about cases from the past year, about trends that we're seeing in the law and how it affects the practice. But it also allows us to talk about the policy behind these bills and cases that have on-the-ground impact and figure out ways that we can help our clients issue-spot or develop creative ways to approach perennial issues.

Smith: I feel a responsibility for what we bring, and that starts from the moment the last conference ends. What we try to do is get out our crystal balls and project what will be relevant in January of the following year, based on the legislative session, based on elections, whatever the election cycle is.

We don't try to guess outcomes, but what are the trends? In CEQA, what's likely to be playing out on major cases that are pending and making their way up through the courts? On legislation, what have we seen coming in terms of proactive activity or backlash that the legislature's likely to grapple with? In elections, for example, this year, the Cal Chamber has a comprehensive CEQA ballot measure, which will be a topic for next year, because it's not going to be on the ballot until November.

We always tackle CEQA, and we assume some level of basic sophistication so that the practitioners can hit the ground running and hear the latest and greatest in the evolution, to what we call PZDL, which is the latest legislative developments in planning and zoning. It's the subject matter we know matters over and over and over again, but with the latest and greatest developments brought to you by the people who are forging policy.

Matt, the conference obviously draws a lot of lawyers. What's the value for a municipal planner such as yourself?

Matthew Burris: I think that's a particularly interesting question right now. 2026 marks the 100-year anniversary of the landmark Euclid v. Ambler case, and it was one of those things that was foundational to moving forward and shaping this year's conference, in part because it was 100 years ago when the Supreme Court laid it out that planning and law are inextricably connected.

I think it's especially important as municipal planners, as city planners, to have a foundation of what is happening with the law, what are the new laws that are in place, how are they being interpreted, how are they being applied, because so much of our work has to be shaped through that legislative lens.

Does this material scare some planners?

Burris: Probably, but, again, planning is deeply entrenched in land use law. You have to have a really good command of the legislation, and, as David said, it's really helpful to understand the trends and where things are going, help anticipate what might be coming in future years. And maybe that helps reduce some of the fear.

How does the subject matter this year compare to previous years?

Smith: We're doing a panel focused on AB130 and SB131. It will include some CEQA issues, but I think it's going to be notable because they were passed through the budget process, which means they never went through committees.

We are planning an extra-special session. The three of us took over the conference, as Alisha and Matt noted, several years ago from three icons in the industry: Margaret Sohagi, Susan Hori, and Steve Preston. A little spoiler alert: they're going to have a focused period of reflection where they will share how the conference has been emblematic of the major trends and transitions of land use and planning in California.

What happens in California if conferences like this don't happen? Like, what does that mean for planning and development and cases, new cases that come up?

Winterswyk: Planning and development's going to continue in California regardless of whether the conference occurs. But I do think that if the conference were to go away, it would eliminate a key point in time, an annual point in time, for practitioners to get together and exchange ideas about these topics that are relevant to what we do.

I think that by limiting those opportunities, we stymie our ability to think more creatively. We may miss synergies that otherwise bubble up to the top when you are talking with other experts in the area and sharing ideas. There is a lot of good that comes with getting together and putting minds on the same topic to think about them.

Our hope is that we can continue to meet and talk in influential ways. Folks that attend this conference go up to Sacramento, and they may influence legislative consultants who write legislation for legislators, or they may be judicial clerks, or they may be land use planners who are working on major specific or general plans for their particular city or jurisdiction. We want to make sure that we're all keeping the edges of our practice sharp.

Smith: There are iconic conferences in the state for lawyers. I would include the Yosemite Environmental Law Conference, and then there's the APA conference on the planning side.

I'm unaware of another conference that, by design, brings together, on each and every panel, the perspective of both the legal consequence as well as the on-the-ground planning community and local electeds and staff. And the networking, discussion, questions from audiences in real time—I just think it's pretty invaluable.

What do you envision for future conferences? Are there new features you'd like to develop?

Smith: To be blunt, my immediate answer is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's why we're so appreciative of ASU. Let's be honest, we all had a little hesitation about an out-of-state host for this preeminent and singularly focused California conference. And from the first calls, they were just outright, look, we know its legacy, we know its purpose, we have no intention whatsoever of altering or curtailing that. We want to see it prosper and grow.

Contacts

Matthew Burris, Principal, Burris Planning Group (former Deputy City Manager, Rancho Cucamonga) matthew@burrisplanninggroup.com

Tricia Dunlavey Hilbun, Partnership and Portfolio Manager, ASU Center for Real Estate and Finance Tricia.Hilbun@asu.edu

David Smith, Principal, Law Offices of David C. Smith dcsmith@dcsmith-law.com

Alisha Winterswyk, Partner, Best Best & Krieger Alisha.Winterswyk@bbklaw.com

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.