Lot line adjustments are ministerial. Except when they’re not.

Laguna Beach’s decision to eliminate all references to a 45-year-old historic resources inventory from its general plan required analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act, an appellate court has ruled in an unpublished decision.

SLO County Can’t Approve Subdivision Map If Conditions Aren’t Met

In 1997, the suburban dream was strong in the Sacramento areas. The capital city drew various measures of pity and indifference from coastal urbanities while places such as Elk Grove, Folsom, and Roseville grew as quickly as tract-home developers could build them. That's the year that Tom Pace joined the City of Sacramento's Planning Division. In the years since then, Sacramento and Pace -- who took over long-range planning in 2006 and became planning director in 2017 (after a brief stint in Stockton) and community development director in 2020 -- embraced an enthusiastically pro-housing ethos, with policies to match. Pace either oversaw or contributed to policies that drove the rise of high-density housing in neighborhoods like Midtown and the planing of the redevelopment of the Sacramento Railyards. Perhaps most notably, he led one of the most dramatic upzoning efforts in state history when the city effectively made development of small multifamily dwellings in all residential areas. Having retired in May (succeeded by assistant Community Development Director Matt Hertel), Pace spoke with CP&DR's Josh Stephens about his service to the state's capital city--which is, arguably, much more of a city than it was 29 years ago. So a little over 26 years in total. I started in 1997 as an assistant planner and was promoted to an associate planner and then a senior planner, where I supervised current development application project review for the south area of the city. I was promoted to principal planner in 2006 and oversaw long-range planning there. That was probably my longest stint in one position. I served in that role until 2015, and then I took a position with the City of Stockton as deputy community development director and worked there for two years. Then I came back to the City of Sacramento and was hired as planning director. I was in charge of the planning division. Then the community development director took a position with another city and that position became available, so I was made interim community development director in 2019 and permanent community development director in 2020, when I retired. Let’s start with the most important question: What do you think of the baseball stadium proposal for West Sacramento? I'm no sports buff, but it appears — at least from our experience with the Kings — that sports-related investments can have positive dividends for economic development for a community. They can bring investment and interest to an area, and done right, the physical venues can bring people to an area, which can enliven it and really help promote urban revitalization if it's done in an urban area, which I think is the intention here. As you think about your career, what are one or two projects that were particularly challenging or that you're particularly proud of? Rather than any specific development project, I would point to the general plan update — the 2030 General Plan, adopted in 2009 — which changed the course of planning policy for the City of Sacramento. It took us from a city that had emphasized outward suburban development and had effectively neglected existing older neighborhoods and depressed development opportunity in infill areas, to a city focused on bringing vitality back to the central city and to the older neighborhoods surrounding it. It encouraged mixed-use, transit-supportive, and walkable development patterns. Because of that work, and subsequent work to update the city's zoning regulations, hundreds — maybe thousands — of projects became possible that have been built since then. There's a consensus that Sacramento is very pro-housing these days, both in its policies and among stakeholders. Did the 2009 plan capture the desire of stakeholders, or did it mold attitudes? That's one of the fundamental questions of planning: does a plan lead people in a new direction, or does it follow the preferences that have been expressed in its formation? I think it's always probably a bit of both. There were changing winds in the Sacramento region in the late 1990s and early 2000s as people saw sprawl taking over much of the beautiful landscape around our communities, leading to increased traffic congestion and air quality problems. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments articulated a vision called the Blueprint — which became a model for similar efforts in other regional planning areas of the state — that attempted to, and I think had some success in, change direction. That work within the regional sphere had been happening before we started on that general plan update. People were beginning to think differently about infill development and the idea that environmentalism wasn't truly about opposing development, especially in existing neighborhoods — maybe out in pristine wild areas or fertile farmland, but certainly not in existing urban neighborhoods. I think it was a realization that gradually spread throughout the community: if we want our existing investments and planned investments in transit to be fruitful, and if we want a community where people aren't forced to drive everywhere, then we need to change the pattern of growth and development. That means welcoming more people into our existing neighborhoods. Sacramento famously upzoned most of the city a few years ago. What's happened to the naysayers? What has actually been built, and how do you feel about those results? One of the big shifts we made in the way we approach planning is to engage people at the policy level and not at the construction project level. I think this is one of the big mistakes of many communities — they neglect their general plans, specific plans, and zoning ordinances, and all planning activity becomes focused on project-by-project review. San Francisco springs to mind, where every single room addition and remodel can be appealed to the planning commission. We said: let's get consensus on the policy we want to have in our community and then reward projects that fit within that vision with a predictable and reasonably speedy approval process. If someone wants to deviate from that, that's a different question. We changed our approval and review process — we don't hold public hearings for projects that meet all the required standards and guidelines. We do post applications publicly, so it's not a secret, but we don't invite people to come to a meeting and express all of their concerns about such projects. That was a somewhat scary change to make — can we really do this? But we did it, and I think it's been successful. It has resulted in hundreds of projects being approved with nary a peep from anyone. Not to say there probably aren't people out there unhappy with those projects, but it hasn't resulted in a big outcry. And we do see that when a project involves the full public hearing process at the planning commission, we still sometimes get community opposition — such as a recent large apartment complex in Sacramento that went to the planning commission and was very contentious. But the commission recommended approval, it was appealed to council, and council approved it. The political consensus is pretty firm, even when there are those who argue that new buildings bigger than the existing ones in the neighborhood are inconsistent, or that more people bring more traffic or make parking less convenient. Those arguments just don't win the day anymore the way they used to. At the same time Sacramento has implemented these progressive policies, the state legislature has enacted many pro-housing laws. What do you feel like you understand about the legislature, just by virtue of proximity, that other planners might not? The proximity kept us on our toes. Even apart from what the legislature is doing, the people who are also our constituents — our neighbors, the people who read public notices and go to council meetings — they're there. We have to be up on all the latest policy and legislative changes and follow the correct procedures. There are a lot of eyes on planning in Sacramento, and I think that has actually been good for us. It's forced us to really be on top of our game. Are there particular laws you'd like to highlight as being especially effective, or laws that need to be reconsidered? I don't think there's any argument that the laws that have opened up accessory dwelling units throughout the state have been remarkably successful. The numbers show that — the number of ADUs built since those laws were passed is phenomenal compared to the numbers prior to enactment. One of the challenges in our political environment is creating laws that make it easier to build all kinds of housing — maybe not everywhere, but at least in all urban areas of the state — without adding extra strings attached that make them of limited interest, particularly outside the big cities. I'm thinking specifically of inclusionary housing mandates that may work well economically in a place like San Francisco or Los Angeles, but have been challenging to make work in Sacramento or other Central Valley communities. Similarly, union labor requirements for projects that don't naturally lend themselves to union labor. Many of those laws with those strings attached simply aren't attractive to developers in places like Sacramento and other Central Valley and non-Bay Area, non-core Southern California urban areas. Is there any assistance you feel California cities need — from the state, the federal government, or other sources — that they're not getting? If you had one wish for California cities, what would it be? I may express two wishes. Given the huge volume of planning-related legislation and the need for planners throughout the 550-plus city and county jurisdictions in the state to keep track of, implement, and understand the implications of new state laws, resources for planning itself would be really helpful. There have been some — REAP and LEAP planning grant programs — but of limited duration and scope. A more dependable source of funding for planning would be really valuable. But, bigger picture, beyond that somewhat self-interested ask as a professional planner: infrastructure improvement funding for urban areas. We're seeing more urban development in our existing core cities and older neighborhoods, and infrastructure has to be upgraded. Passing those costs on to developers in the form of impact fees or other exactions makes it infeasible in many cases for projects to get built. What changes have you seen in the planning profession over the years? How do the young planners coming out of school today differ from a previous generation? In some ways the nature of the problem we're trying to solve for has evolved over the decades. Many people look at sprawling communities and say, "This is a failure of planning — there's no planning here." But in actuality, they were very well planned, very intentionally. Keeping housing away from anything and everything other than housing, making cities extremely friendly for driving as fast and conveniently as possible, having plentiful free parking at the end of every trip — those are objectives we set out to create and have very effectively achieved. But they need to be revised. We need to think about how we can change our communities to be more vital, more vibrant, more resilient — both economically and environmentally — and more equitable. Segregation was also very intentional; a whole set of policy objectives were set up to segregate our residential communities. Now we have to think about policy objectives to reverse that course. Now that you have more time on your hands, are there certain cities you're looking forward to visiting and enjoying? I love the coast — the climate and the scenery. I like to spend time all up and down the coast. I love Mendocino and San Diego and everywhere in between. Globally, I was just in London and Porto this year, and Lisbon last year. I'm planning to go to Spain next year and spend some time in Madrid and Seville. I like to learn from these other places — particularly European cities that have had such a great head start on solving many of the problems we're trying to solve now. Do you intend to stay involved in planning in any official capacity? Yes. I am a technical advisor to the vice president for policy and legislation with the California Chapter of the American Planning Association. I work as part of a team on legislative advocacy, providing advice to state legislators and legislative staffers, and working with other legislative advocates to help shape planning policy in California. Image Credit: APA California

The Legislature wrapped up its work on Monday, August 31, and sent hundreds of bills to Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign or veto. Though no planning bill captured widespread public attention as SB 79 did last year, a number of important bills were passed – including bills that further erode CEQA’s provisions and bills that seek to cleanup post-entitlement permitting process. Here is CP&DR’s rundown of the most important bills.

Subscribers -Log In to read the CP&DR Vol. 41 No. 8 August 2026 Report

The City of Burlingame (pop. 32,348) is a thriving suburban city on the San Francisco Peninsula, offering an exceptional quality of life and a dynamic development environment. The City is a stable, fiscally strong, well-managed organization known for its collaborative culture, supportive leadership, and exceptional public service. Burlingame seeks an experienced planning professional to serve as ACDD, lead the Planning Division, and collaborate on cross-organizational projects. This hands-on manager will oversee current and advanced planning, serve as staff liaison to the Planning Commission, and manage complex projects. The ideal candidate will be a knowledgeable, credible planning professional with strong leadership, communication, and interpersonal skills. This collaborative leader will bring expertise in contemporary urban planning practices and California’s evolving legal framework, along with the political acumen to work effectively with the community and elected and appointed officials. Successful candidates will have seven years of progressively responsible municipal planning experience, including three years in a supervisory role, and a Bachelor’s degree in a related field. The salary range is $176,170 - $214,102 DOQE, supplemented by a competitive benefits package including a telework program allowing up to 50% remote work. Visit www.tbcrecruiting.com for a brochure and to apply. Closes: Sunday, September 27, 2026. Suzanne Mason ● 562.631.2500 Jennifer Curtis ● 661.510.0076 TERI BLACK & COMPANY, LLC www.tbcrecruiting.com

The City of Concord is currently seeking to fill one Principal Planner vacancy in the Community Development Department. Ideal candidates possess extensive experience in current development and long range planning projects,both as project managers and as supervisors or team leaders. Closing Date: Sept 14, 2026

The City of Ventura is seeking a dynamic and visionary leader to serve as its next Community Development Director. As a key member of the City’s strategic management team, the Director will lead a high-performing department and help shape the future of Ventura through strong leadership, collaboration, and meaningful community engagement. This high-profile role requires a leader who can build trusted relationships, navigate complex community issues, and bring people together around a shared vision for a well-planned, well-designed, accessible, and prosperous community. To apply, please visit our website at: City of Ventura https://cityofventura.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/CityofVentura/job/Ventura-CA/Community-Development-Director_R26-229 Filing Deadline: Sept 25, 2026

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. Pasadena, Malibu Agree to Repeal Bans on Lot Splits in Burn Areas Malibu and Pasadena have settled a lawsuit brought by YIMBY Law, agreeing to repeal their pause on lot splits, per Senate Bill 9, and allowing homeowners to build up to four units on single-family parcels in the Eaton and Palisades fire areas. The settlements come one year after Governor Newsom signed an executive orders allowing recently burned jurisdictions to at least temporarily opt out ( Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass did the same for burned Los Angeles neighborhoods). Pasadena's city council voted unanimously in July to accept all pending and future duplex applications, while Malibu has until Sept. 29 to repeal their local ordinances and accept all pending and future applications filed under SB9. Many fire survivors object to denser building due to concerns about neighborhood character, housing density in high-risk burn areas, and increased traffic, while YIMBY Law and other pro-development groups present SB9 as an option for homeowners to recuperate losses amid rising labor and materials costs in the wake of the fire. Los Angeles County, the city of Los Angeles, Newsom and Bass are still fighting the suit though most of the destroyed structures were in the city and in unincorporated Altadena. Separately, state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez of Altadena has introduced legislation to temporarily exempt the town from SB 9. (See related CP&DR coverage.) Newsom Signs Bill Limiting Impact Fees In one of the first major housing bills to come out of this year’s session, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 179 limiting local development impact fees in an effort to encourage affordable housing construction. Newsom argued the state's housing shortage was the result of deliberate policy choice, and that impact fees in certain areas have grown so steep they can make building affordable housing impossible. Originally intended to help local governments offset the costs of new development, impact fees have increasingly been criticized by developers as a revenue source funding unrelated city priorities like parks and street maintenance. Critics have raised concerns about the resulting loss of fee revenue for local governments. Officials acknowledged the law alone won't trigger a construction boom given other market headwinds, but framed it as a necessary first step toward reversing the state's housing deficit. Lawsuit Threatens 464-Acre Project in Folsom A lawsuit filed last week in Sacramento County Superior Court is challenging the City of Folsom's approval of the Toll Brothers at Alder Creek development, a 1,424-home master-planned community. The Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA) Local 185 argues the city relied on an outdated 2011 environmental impact report. The suit argues the project should use "no added formaldehyde resins" building materials for the project as recommended by the California Air Resources Board, as the outdated review never analyzed indoor air quality risks from formaldehyde-emitting engineered wood products. The approximately 464-acre project is planned for western Folsom between Alder Creek and Mangini parkways, including 18 residential villages along with a school site, fire station, parks and open space. City staff fielded objections from LiUNA's attorneys before the vote covering indoor air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and biological resources, but concluded the existing environmental analysis was still adequate and recommended approval. The lawsuit asks the court to rescind the city's approval and require a new environmental review before construction can proceed. CP&DR Coverage: Supreme Court Closes Case on Sheetz; Huntington Beach Approves Housing Element The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear a followup to the Sheetz ruling – essentially choosing not to weigh in on one of the most important issues the justices left hanging as a result of their 2024 decision: whether a broad, mathematical calculation, rather than a project-specific calculation, can be used in determining impact fees. The decision not to take the case essentially leaves in place a ruling by the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento that “individualized determinations” of a project’s impact are not required. However, the California Supreme Court depublished that ruling, meaning it cannot be used as precedent. Facing the possibility of more fines and more losses in court, the Huntington Beach City Council finally approved its 2021-2029 Housing Element. The City Council voted to approve the Housing Element 5-2 after it had been revised to meet changes sought by the Department of Housing and Community Development, especially regarding the city’s proposed overlay zones for housing. The use of overlay zones to meet a city’s housing targets under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment has been under attack in court lately, most recently in an appellate court case from Redondo Beach last fall. Quick Hits & Updates Redwood City Council voted 6-0-1 to formally oppose a November ballot measure that would cap annual rent increases at 5% for pre-1995 multifamily properties and add eviction protections, claiming the measure would hurt city income and potentially undermine ongoing existing tenant protections and affordable housing efforts. The Department of Housing and Community Development decided Grover Beach's Measure F-26, a citizen initiative capping building heights, will be unenforceable because it violates the state's Housing Crisis Act. The initiative would cap mixed-use buildings at 40 feet and industrial buildings at 33 feet, reducing allowed building height from five stories to three and potentially eliminating hundreds of housing units downtown. Los Angeles County rents fell 3.4% from last year and 9.6% below the mid-2022 peak, hovering around $2,603 per month, according to a report from Realtor.com. Analysts found that affording a typical rental within city limits still requires an annual household income of $109,680, more than 23% above the city's median household income of $88,730. East Palo Alto City Council approved the Temporary Housing Development Incentive Program, an ordinance allowing developers to skip the city's inclusionary housing requirements for projects with 20 units or fewer. The policy suspends the city's 1994 inclusionary housing ordinance, which normally requires developers to set aside 20% of rental units or pay an in-lieu fee for residents earning 35%, 50% and 60% of area median income, about $114,000. A new analysis from Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies finds that declining immigration is undermining U.S. population growth, making communities increasingly dependent on domestic migration and natural change to sustain growth. Large metro urban counties are most vulnerable due to steep domestic migration losses. Harris County, Texas lost about 8,000 people in 2025 as net domestic outflow of 43,000 exceeded natural growth of 35,000. While rural counties face risk from natural population decline, non-metro areas are seeing a natural loss of 95,000 barely offset by a domestic inflow of 119,000. SMART, the North Bay's commuter rail system, is exploring a new station in Geyserville after roughly 1,800 residents successfully lobbied state lawmakers to allow the stop. Local business owners say the station would boost tourism to the area's 100 wineries, outdoor recreation and historical sites including the River Rock Casino, which is being converted into the 100-room Caesars Republic Sonoma County. (See related CP&DR coverage.)

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. Sacramento County Approves Controversial Development of Up to 9,400 Homes; Draws Lawsuit from Environmental Groups, City of Sacramento The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to approve the Upper Westside development, clearing the way for a roughly 2,000-acre community near Natomas and Garden Highway that could eventually include nearly 9,400 homes and house about 25,000 people. In a surprising move, the City of Sacramento – which has facilitated a lot of development in the Natomas area over the last two decades – has sued Sacramento County over the approval. Those opposed to the project have claimed that it violates a 2002 agreement between the city and the county about how the Natomas area would grow. The Environmental Council of Sacramento has also sued Sacramento County over the project, which would encompass property in between the Sacramento River and I-80, just north of West Sacramento. Both lawsuits claim that the project’s environmental impact report did not disclose the potential impact on the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan. The ECOS lawsuit was filed in collaboration with the Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk. Banning Voters will Decide on Approval of 5 Million Square Feet of Warehouses Voters in Banning will decide whether to overturn the City Council's approval of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan, which could add nearly 5 million square feet of warehouses and industrial buildings to a 533-acre site south of the 10 Freeway. The council voted unanimously to put the measure on the ballot after grassroots opposition group San Gorgonio Pass Alliance gathered enough signatures to force either a repeal or a public vote. The council opted against rescinding its own approval in favor of letting voters decide whether NorthPoint Development can proceed with the project, anchored by a Sam's Club with office and commercial space, a hotel, gas station, and 65 acres of open space, alongside a $16 million fire station. Critics argue the plan locks Banning into decades of industrial development regardless of future councils' priorities and could generate 1,700 daily truck trips. The project's environmental study acknowledged "significant and unavoidable" air quality impacts. Supporters point to nearly $1 billion in investment, 3,700 projected jobs, and revenue for a city that declared a fiscal emergency in June. El Segundo Residents Revolt Against Proposed Data Center Real estate firm Eight Form withdrew its proposal for a nearly 240,000-square-foot data center in the Los Angeles County city of El Segundo after facing overwhelming community opposition at a Planning Commission meeting. The project would have replaced the Hyatt Place hotel with a 169-foot five-story facility with a high-voltage substation and 16 diesel backup generators. Nearly 60 residents signed up to speak against the plan, citing concerns over power consumption, noise, pollution, and outdated environmental review. Critics argued that a 24-year-old environmental impact report from the site's original 2002 development plan was inadequate to assess a modern data center. City staff and consultants argued the center would actually use less water and have a smaller grid impact than the existing hotel, citing a closed-loop cooling system that would consume around 8,900 fewer gallons of water daily. Residents remained skeptical, questioning water recycling safety, energy prioritization during heatwaves, and the project's proximity to a school district and youth athletic fields. It was unclear what client would be leasing the center, since no operator had committed to the $600 million building. (See related CP&DR coverage.) HCD Publishes Online Dashboards Cataloging Jurisdictions’ Housing Status The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has launched two new online tools: the Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (SMAP) Dashboard and the Housing Element Implementation Dashboard. The dashboards allow users to track which cities and counties qualify for streamlined housing approvals under state law and monitor whether local governments are implementing the housing programs they committed to in their state-approved Housing Elements. HCD warned that jurisdictions failing to carry out required housing programs could face enforcement actions, including loss of Housing Element compliance, exposure to the Builder's Remedy, ineligibility for certain state funding, and potential penalties. As of June 30, 2026, 507 of California's 539 jurisdictions qualify for SMAP, with 329 jurisdictions eligible for streamlined approvals on projects containing at least 10% affordable housing. CP&DR Coverage: Legislative Update: Several Major Housing and CEQA Bills Advance Among the important bills that have made it out of the house of origin into the other house: SB 954, the bill boxing in the CEQA exemption for advanced manufacturing, made it out of the Senate and to the Assembly. Several bills focusing on shot clocks and postentitlement permits, which are gaining increasing attention in the Legislature this year. A bill aimed at a San Diego project that would declare that building heights are not a significant impact under CEQA. AB 1294, which would specify what information is required for a complete housing application and require HCD to come up with a standard application form. In addition, language for a budget trailer bill has been released that would forbid impact fees on affordable housing projects that a city is co-applicant for, and also incentivize elimination or deferral of fees. Budget trailer bills are adopted with the budget at the end of June and circumvent typical committee processes, as AB 130 and SB 131 did last year. Quick Hits & Updates San Diego County voters will decide in November whether to approve a half-cent sales tax increase projected to raise roughly $360 million annually for healthcare, child care, public safety, and Tijuana River sewage remediation efforts, after the coalition behind the San Diego County Health & Safety Act submitted enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Up to 60 percent of revenue would go toward child care and health services, nearly 23 percent toward still-unspecified sewage crisis solutions, and about 18 percent toward public safety and wildfire prevention. The labor and advocacy coalition plans to campaign by highlighting federal funding cuts, arguing the tax would help protect local services from cuts in Washington. Imperial County will extend its temporary moratorium on new data center approvals in unincorporated areas for an additional 10 months and 15 days, keeping the ban on permits in place until June 2027. Officials said the extension allows the county to evaluate potential updates to land use, zoning, and development regulations, and confirmed that no pending or future data center projects can move forward during the moratorium. The board also approved the formation of a Data Center Advisory Committee, made up of representatives from government, community groups, business, labor, environmental organizations, healthcare, education, and the energy sector, to develop recommendations on future policies and suitable locations for data center development. San Francisco will become the first Bay Area city to allow cannabis cafés after the Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance permitting licensed cannabis retailers to serve food and nonalcoholic beverages alongside on-site cannabis consumption. The measure implements California's 2024 AB 1775 and is intended to help the struggling legal cannabis industry compete with the illicit market while establishing a new cannabis café license category with health, safety, and age requirements. Existing cannabis retailers will have exclusive access to café licenses during the first year before new applicants become eligible. (See related CP&DR coverage.) ​​​​The High-Speed Rail Authority has applied for roughly $500 million in new federal funding from the Federal Railroad Administration, even after the Trump administration pulled $4 billion from the project last August under Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. The agency is seeking money from the FRA's Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program, which has set aside $532 million for rural projects, to help fund the 30-mile extension from Madera County to Merced. The segment is expected to begin construction late next year, with an estimated cost of $2.4 billion. A Menlo Park ballot initiative that opponents have dubbed the "anti-housing" measure would block the city's plan to build affordable housing above redeveloped downtown parking lots, require citywide votes for future changes to those lots, and restrict the city's ability to lease, sell or redevelop the publicly owned properties. Advocates warn the parking lots are the only viable site identified in the city's Housing Element for deeply affordable housing near Caltrain, jobs and high-performing schools after the city's Housing Element was rejected twice before being approved with a parking lot proposal included. Researchers developed a new approach to measuring urban walking by using large language models to analyze Twitter data from Los Angeles, classifying tweets that express walking behavior and building a neighborhood-level indicator of that activity. The study found that Walk Score, a widely used metric, only partially captures where walking actually happens, with natural amenities and socioeconomic conditions showing stronger and more consistent associations with walking expression than Walk Score itself. Oakland City Council voted to approve a $125 million sale of the city's 50% stake in the Oakland Coliseum complex to the Oakland Acquisition Company (OAC), an entity formed by Loop Capital and the African American Sports and Entertainment Group. Under the deal, OAC will pay $110 million plus 6% of future annual gross ticket sales from events at the site, along with an additional $15 million to be paid later as the company secures building permits for new construction. The city expects to receive $50 million from the arena parcel sale by early next year, with the stadium parcel sold for $60 million after crediting a $5 million deposit.(See related CP&DR coverage.) The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority has sued the Trump administration over withheld funds the agency says will put more than 11,000 at risk of losing housing and other services. LAHSA is seeking a temporary restraining order in order to stop the Housing and Urban Development Department from suspending the funds. The lawsuit comes three weeks after HUD suspended LAHSA over allegations of financial mismanagement, fraud and inadequate conflict-of-interest safeguards, to which the agency argues HUD has produced no formal investigative findings. The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation released a Notice of Funding Availability for Round 2 of California's Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, offering $27.5 million total in competitive infrastructure grants. Funding for the program is provided by the Climate Bond and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support projects that reduce the impacts of extreme heat and build community resilience. Funding is split into two tracks: Early Infrastructure Projects and Advanced Infrastructure Projects Eligible applicants include regional public entities, California Native American Tribes, community-based organizations, public higher academic institutions, and coalitions. In their latest request for bids, the Veterans Administration has scaled back its January pledge to build 800 tiny homes on its West Los Angeles campus, instead issuing a request for proposals for up to 260 larger and higher-quality units. The project represents the first concrete step toward President Trump's executive order establishing a National Center for Warrior Independence to house 6,000 veterans by January 2028, though it leaves unclear how that target will be met.

For once, we at CP&DR kind of know how CNN feels. We have our slow news weeks at CP&DR. But, ever since Donald Trump got back into office, we have rarely lacked for material to put into our weekly news briefs. CP&DR doesn't generally cover federal politics. We do, though, when the federal government takes action directly involving California. In the 18 months since Trump took office, we have run over 30 items in our weekly news briefs referring to the Trump administration specifically (as opposed to more routine federal actions). That's an average of close to one per week. Needless to say, Trump does not hesitate to tell the world what he likes and dislikes. Likes: beautiful women; tariffs. Dislikes: vegetables; the post-World War II global order. But few things under or beyond Trump's jurisdiction raise his ire as like California does. It's a "disaster." It's "out of control." And it contains and promotes so many other things he hates: renewable energy, greenhouse gas reductions, electric vehicles, public transit, fire suppression, high-speed rail. And of course, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, California's federal legislators, and other public officials are protesting, suing, proposing legislation, and otherwise trying to protect the state's sovereignty and interests. The fruits of their efforts remain to be seen. Here are just a few of the ways in which the Trump administration has attacked California's environment, land uses, and related policies: Most Brazen: Restraining the Coastal Commission Currently the administration is exploring ways to pre-empt the Coastal Commission's authority over water- and land-side development along California's coast. We're talking about oil drilling, desalination plants, rocket bases, and other facilities in which the federal government has an interest. For more than half a century, the commission's authority and the state's right to regulate its coast (under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act as well as state law) has been unquestioned--for better or worse--and has preserved what is arguably the state's greatest asset (as well as a headache for some developers). In essence, the coast may be federalized. Most Expansive: Killing the EPA Waiver & Fossil Fuels The administration's efforts to reduce the use of clean energy and promote fossil fuels are nationwide but have hit California especially hard. Actions include attempts to nullify California's EPA waiver -- one of the most successful anti-pollution efforts in history -- and restrict the use of the state's cap-and-invest funds. For good measure, the feds are investing $75 million into a controversial coal terminal at the Port of Oakland. Most Nonsensical: Stopping Wind Farms The administration is nullifying around $2 billion worth of agreements for private companies -- capitalist enterprises! -- to develop large-scale wind farms off the coast. These are agreements that the state, which is nothing if not circumspect, had approved. California has lost investments, jobs, and clean energy all at once. Most Predictable: Selling or Leasing Open Spaces Here is a surely incomplete list of the public lands and other open spaces that the administration has tried to sell, denude, or otherwise alter: 18 national forests (for a goal of 25% increase in timber production); roughly 300 endangered species habitats, which will lose many protections under a new, narrow definition of "harm"; 3.3 million acres across 11 western states, including parcels near California National Parks and throughout the Sierra Nevada range; several federal office buildings in San Francisco, including one named after Trump's favorite person: the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building. Most Petty (tie): The Presidio and Eel River Dam Un-removal If Trump hates California, it's no wonder that he hates the most Californ-iest city: San Francisco. If there was a crisis at the Presidio--the former military facility in the northwest corner of the San Francisco Peninsula--San Franciscans didn't know about it. And yet, the Trump administration replaced the entire governing board and is threatening changes to what is currently a civic treasure and one of the country's best examples of civic-federal partnership. Further afield, it's a wonder that the Trump administration has even heard of the Eel River. But, somehow, the modest waterway in Humboldt and Mendocino counties has two decrepit, obsolete dams that the administration considers of the utmost importance. The dams have been scheduled for decommissioning and removal, per a longstanding, intricately negotiated agreement between Pacific Gas & Electric and tribal, state, and county entities. The administration is convinced that the dams, and the mountains of silt behind them, can be resurrected. Or, maybe, it just can't stand the idea of replacing industrial blight with a natural landscape. Most Chilling: Gilroy Detention Facility The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency has planned a detention facility near Gilroy where, if reports from other California ICE facilities are to be believed, unspeakable horrors may await detainees. ICE is claiming to be exempt from (or is simply ignoring) local land use regulation. The state and County of Santa Clara are suing. The Exception: High Speed Rail So far, the federal government has put around $3 billion into High Speed Rail …and gotten little but delays, cost overruns, and empty viaducts in return. The feds canceled $4 billion in funding for the program. The action may have been biased, but perhaps they did not want to throw good money after bad. California can count at least one blessing that the good people of Palm Beach, Fla., cannot: so far, Donald Trump has not renamed an airport after himself.