by CP&DR Staff Vol. 40 No. 1 January 30, 2025 Report

By CP&DR Staff on February 27, 2025

by CP&DR Staff Vol. 40 No. 4 April 24, 2025 Report

by CP&DR Staff Vol. 40 No. 5 May 29, 2025

by CP&DR Staff Vol. 40 No. 6 June 26, 2025

by CP&DR Staff Vol. 40 No. 7 July 31, 2025 Report

CP&DR Vol. 38 No. 6 June 2023

by CP&DR Staff on April 27, 2016

CP&DR Vol. 32 No. 2 February 2017

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 Francisco to Upzone Least-Dense Neighborhoods through "Family Zoning" Plan The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 7-4 to adopt the Family Zoning Plan, which will allow taller and more dense buildings particularly in the residential north and west sides of the city. The plan, which aims to create capacity for over 36,000 new units, comes in response to state mandates for new homes to keep up with population and affordability challenges. The first-term mayor Daniel Lurie touts the program as a response to rising housing costs, while critics including neighborhood groups and tenant-rights advocates warn that the rezoning may spur real-estate speculation, displace low-income tenants or small businesses, and erode the character of long-standing communities. Analyses suggest mixed results on the actual amount of housing the plan will produce, and supervisors acknowledge that the number of units is not only dependent on zoning but also on funding and enhanced financing mechanisms. The new plan changes zoning rules for about 96,000 parcels, enabling moderate height increases of two to four additional stories primarily near transit lines or other commercial corridors on the west side. The plan was approved in the wake of a state mandate to pass a rezoning plan by Jan. 31, 2026 at the risk of losing funding for housing and other public services and local control over development projects. Dodger Stadium Gondola Wins Key Approval from L.A. Metro The Los Angeles Metro board of directors certified the revised environmental impact report for the Dodger Stadium gondola project despite protests that temporarily shut down the meeting for over an hour. Hundreds of community members gathered either in support or opposition of the project, which at its last projection in 2023 was set to cost between $385 million and $500 million. When it was announced that public comment would be held until after the vote, chants began on both sides and prompted board members to retreat to a private meeting for 75 minutes until directors eventually agreed to provide one hour for public comment before. Of 52 public speakers, 42 spoke against the gondola project, including three members of the Los Angeles City Council. After public comment, the gondola was approved, but the project still requires approval of several state agencies and the Los Angeles City Council, which last month voted 12-1 to approve a resolution urging Metro to abandon the gondola project. Final decisions on whether or not to approve the gondola are set to take toward the end of next year. Los Angeles County Sustainability Plan Seeks to Improve Air Quality, Increase Affordable Housing The LA County Board of Supervisors adopted the 2025 OurCounty Sustainability Plan, an update of 2019's comprehensive sustainability roadmap that outlines 179 action items under 12 main goals. In a press release, the Board of Supervisors said more than half the original 2019 action items have been achieved or are on track for completion by the target dates. The board cited notable achievements including adopting a plan to phase out oil and gas extraction in unincorporated LA County, developing 110 acres of new parkland in unincorporated LA County, reducing County operations greenhouse gas emissions by 40% since 2009, and investing nearly $1 billion in multi-benefit stormwater capture projects. Community engagement surveys for the 2025 update found that air quality to be residents' number one concern, followed by water pollution, affordable housing, utility costs, and clean energy. New and expanded focus areas for the 2025 update include wildfire risk management, community resilience, tribal and Indigenous partnership, marine ecosystems, and green goods movement. Assembly Forms Committee on Construction Innovation The California State Assembly has established the Select Committee on Housing Construction Innovation, charged with advancing modern construction techniques in the state in order to help bring down construction costs and ease the housing shortage. Advancements like prefabrication and modular design, as well as new materials and construction methods have reduced housing costs in many countries worldwide, but have not seen widespread application in California. The committee, to be chaired by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (San Diego) plans to hold several public hearings during winter 2025-2026 to assess opportunities for cost-reduction, timeline acceleration, and environmental benefits, as well as regulatory, labor, and financial factors, and the risks, benefits, and barriers to scaling up industrialized construction. The committee plans to release a white paper summarizing its findings in early 2026, followed by a raft of legislative proposals. Study Finds Modest Successes for Los Angeles Transit-Oriented Development Program A recent paper examines the impact of Los Angeles’s Transit-Oriented Communities (TOC) Incentive Program, which was implemented in 2017 to encourage construction of denser housing near transit by raising the threshold for discretionary review and granting density bonuses and reduced parking requirements in exchange for income-restricted units. According to this analysis, by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, the number of units proposed annually has more than doubled, but despite a surge in applications and locations of approved projects the TOC program had little impact on the housing supply, with fewer than 560 units being added to housing stock over the past six years. However, projects using TOC initiatives were found to be more likely to include income-restricted units and to be in lower-income neighborhoods, suggesting that the program increased the number of income-restricted units by decreasing the number of market-rate units. This study also found that TOC aided in the approval of projects that would previously have faced low approval chances, especially in areas where community opposition was predicted to be high. CP&DR Coverage: Measures to Comply with Housing Law Pass in Santa Cruz, Sausalito Voters resoundingly favored new housing in Santa Cruz and Sausalito, two cities that have historically had strong anti-growth movements. In Sausalito, a pair of complementary measures designed to help the city comply with state Housing Element law passed easily. Measure J, which received over 75% of the vote, adopts a range of housing overlay zones. Measure K was less popular (54% Yes), presumably because it involved the conversion of land that is currently part of a public park, though the parcel does not include any recreational space. In Santa Cruz, a competition between two measures to promote affordable housing proved to be a snooze, as the more aggressive measure won by a comfortable margin whereas a watered-down measure barely broke double-digit percentages. Santa Cruz's Measure C, a parcel tax to raise up to $4 million for affordable housing, was squeaking by at 54% percent as of publication time. Quick Hits & Updates Berkeley City Council unanimously asked city staff to review the city's landmark designation process, citing concerns that "frivolous" landmarking attempts are delaying and even preventing affordable housing development. A San Diego Superior Court ruled that Cal Fire must amend its statewide vegetation-management program because clearing native chaparral can cause highly flammable invasive grasses to spread, potentially worsening wildfire risk. The case highlights a deep divide between ecologists, who want to protect native ecosystems, and fire officials, who view vegetation as fuel to be removed. Until Cal Fire revises the program to address these risks, many projects can no longer rely on its blanket environmental review under CEQA. The Oceanside City Council voted to advance the Oceanside Transit Center Redevelopment Project, a nearly $100 million plan that will transform the station into a mixed-use hub with 547 new apartments, 15% of which will be designated affordable. The plan also includes a boutique hotel, retail space, public plaza, a redesigned bus-to-rail layout, and relocated headquarters for North County Transit District. The Trump administration intends to open federal waters in the Pacific, Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico to new oil and gas leases for the first time in decades, replacing the more limited leasing plan under President Biden. The proposal could include as many as 34 offshore lease sales across 1.27 billion acres, though it has sparked strong opposition from environmental groups and coastal states like California, citing risks of spills and ecological damage. Public input will be considered during a 60-day comment period before finalizing the program. Hard Rock Casino Tejon , the new $600 million casino and entertainment resort, opened in November in Kern County. The casino, a joint bet by Hard Rock International and the Tejon Indian Tribe, promises 1,100 regional jobs, with future plans for a 400-room hotel and a concert venue.

In the latest dispatch from the world of speculative California urbanism, a dude named James recently announced his vision for “Frontier Valley,” an AI-focused “city” on the former naval base in Alameda. It would be independently governed by “America’s most badass deep tech founders.” Despite getting coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle , this proposal demonstrates only that he has a YouTube account -- not that he is a serious developer or social entrepreneur. He appears to have little funding or credentials, and the City of Alameda has never heard of him. (Editorial comment: I can think of nothing less “badass” than being a “deep tech founder.”) Our bro James seems to be inspired by the idea of “Freedom Cities,” which our real estate developer president has been pushing since 2023. An invaluable rule of thumb is that when something has the word freedom in its name, it is probably ghastly. And ghastly Freedom Cities are. They would essentially be business and industrial parks where tax burdens and regulations would be limited in order to promote commerce and some bizarre version of the good life. The former Alameda Naval Air Station sits at the northern tip of Alameda Island. Not pictured, to the west: an actual economic powerhouse. “ Freedom Cities ” is a domestic rebranding of  charter cities , the controversial, but extensively thought-out concept popularized by economist Paul Romer. What Romer proposed some 20 years ago--inspired in part by colonial Hong Kong--was the establishment of new cities in less developed countries that would be administered, regulated, and funded by developed countries. The point of this voluntary imperialism would be to establish commercial centers that could boost the economies of the host countries while avoiding corruption. Here in the homeland, the American Enterprise Institute’s “ Homesteading 2.0 ” vision for urban development and housing calls for Freedom Cities to cluster in the West, on the outskirts of existing cities. What initially seemed like pseudointellectual blather has become much more realistic with the recent (stalled) effort to put millions of acres--or potentially hundreds of millions, depending how you read the bill-- of Forest Service and BLM land up for sale. According to a 2023 announcement, the president envisions ten Freedom Cities nationwide. Who knows whether that’s a serious proposal or just a round number that flopped out of his mouth. The flaw in the Freedom Cities concept, is that--unlike, say, Honduras, where the first version of a charter city is being developed--the United States is already supposed to be free and functional. The United States has thus far proven itself to be the most muscular capitalistic enterprise in the history of the world. Doubtlessly, any Freedom City would be woefully homogeneous. Judging by the administration's recent behavior, people of Hispanic descent, women, and the other hardworking, competent, intelligent people who traditionally make cities great would likely not enjoy Freedom Cities. Instead, we can instead imagine a population that is wealthy, white, and probably male, given the rise of crypto-bros and tech-bros. I’m imagining a municipal-scale frat party dominated by discussions about blockchain rendered with the earnestness that we ought to be assigning to things like world peace, clean energy, world hunger, and actual freedom. I suppose Freedom Cities seem pretty free when they don’t have children to educate, elders to care for, crime to fight, and marginalized people to lift up. Freedom Cities would funnel capital and talent away from the cities we already have, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. They could do to the United States what colonists of previous eras did to their host nations: plunder. They invoke the perverse idea that “building something from scratch” or “innovating” is better than the status quo. This is, of course, how American cities were once destroyed, replaced by the “innovation” of freeways and the disgrace of slums. Freedom Cities probably will not be built in our lifetimes, or ever. Instead, they exist as a concept to make existing cities look bad. Of course, it’s easy for reality to look bad when its foil is a combination of conjecture, sophistry, and pure fantasy. The one thing for which Freedom Cities are useful is to put real cities on notice. Even if Freedom Cities don't happen, existing cities can be sure that they're going to get no help from D.C. anytime soon. We are on our own. As I  wrote last year, the California Forever proposal -- which is light-years more mature than “Frontier Valley” or any other version of Freedom Cities -- makes a nominally progressive case for a new city, imagining a walkable, medium density, Italianate real estate development that can add to the state’s housing stock and might actually be pleasant. Freedom Cities, though, are not appealing so much as they are menacing. But, we should not look away. Per the recent “abundance” discussions, we need to consider what will actually make cities function more effectively. We need to rewrite codes. We need to delete obsolete regulations. We need to recognize that culture and technology have changed and that our cities, difficult as it may seem, can adapt, especially when the federal government is bulldozing them, defunding them, or otherwise telling them to drop dead. We need to help the vulnerable thrive, and we need to figure out how unions and capitalists can find common ground. Freedom Cities also remind us that cities need to invest . They should invest in infrastructure and private development, of course. But that’s not all. They must invest in people. That partly means raising municipal salaries and adopting hiring practices to get better people to work for the cities and not for, say, finance firms. Of course, there are incredibly smart, dedicated people in every city. But when public salaries cannot compete with those of the private sector, and when hiring practices are so rigorously objective that they leave little room for brilliance, ambition, or creativity, then top talent will go elsewhere--even though governments are, arguably, much more complex than even the largest companies. (Side-note: The success of Zohran Mamdani in New York City doesn’t mean that Democrats are all socialists. It means that, rather than running for office, many of the capitalists are off doing capitalist things.) I’m not saying “government should be run like a business.” That’s nonsense. But, government should have the ambition of a business. If California’s civic sector expressed a fraction of the confidence in the abilities of government as technolibertarians do in its failure, we’d all be at brunch right now. We must get this right. City dysfunction is partly responsible for electing MAGA. Cities became a punching bag and a punch line in the campaign. Real estate costs have driven people out, diminishing cities’ electoral and economic influence. Many of the qualities that make cities great are the very qualities that MAGA demonizes. The residents of urban America can tap into their MAGA resentment and make their places better through elbow grease, new thinking, smart voting, and a sense of solidarity--all of which is readily available to them, from the ballot box to the community meeting to the vacant lot and everywhere in between. We don’t need new cities; we need better cities. As for “Frontier Valley”: it, and the rest of Alameda, could be underwater in 50 years anyway. It would be nice if MAGA would do something about climate change. Image Source: Dicklyon , via Wikipedia.