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. Shortly after the election of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, he nominated Sarah Dennis Phillips to succeed Rich Hillis as planning director. Dennis Phillips was both a conventional choice and an offbeat. Offbeat, because she was coming from over a decade in the private sector, working for mega-developer Tishman Speyer. Conventional because she had previously spent a similar amount of time in San Francisco city government, in planning and community development. Her appointment complemented Lurie's dedication to development and increasing the city's housing supply. A year later, Dennis Phillips has presided over the implementation of the city's "Family Zoning Plan" and is attempting to reform the department amid renewed public enthusiasm--or at least tolerance--for new housing. She spoke with CP&DR's Josh Stephens. You've been on the job for about a year now. What are your overall impressions so far? I think there are two overriding impressions. One, how amazing and evolved the San Francisco planning staff is. I left planning in 2013, for other career opportunities. We've always had really qualified staff, but the way staff practice their jobs now, that staff has really risen to the moment. They understand the challenges facing us. They understand how time impacts housing in our public realm projects, and they understand what the city wants. They're not just here regulating, they're looking at how they get to yes, to build, to get to the exciting outcomes that San Franciscans want. As we understand the affordability crisis, they've really taken that to heart. They've seen that themselves, not just because their boss told them to and not just because they just got out of college. There are plenty of people who started the same year I started here in 2005 and are still here — over 20 years — and those same humans have evolved in a really strong way. I think it's emblematic in some ways of our city And then the other one is, I forgot how brutal the politics are here. That's real, and it's a bit daunting. What lessons do you draw from Tishman-Speyer and bring into your current job? It was an incredible opportunity. I don't think everyone who works in the development sector has the opportunity to work with a firm that prioritizes design almost as much as planners do — that's endemic with Tishman Speyer and that's fabulous. What I brought back here is an understanding of the myriad ways that a project can get impacted and go south. There is not just "oh, the rents aren't high enough" — there are a hundred different ways that a project can go sideways, some of which are in the city's control: capital priorities shifting, capital partners going south, different ways you structure a joint development agreement. So many pieces along the financing and the construction side of things have made me understand the vulnerability of development, which definitely shapes my attitudes here as we regulate it moving forward. Tell us about the mayor's agenda. Which aspects are you most excited about, which are proving to be the most challenging? I came in last July, almost a year ago, with the number-one priority being we need to get the Family Zoning Plan over the finish line before we hit the deadlines mandated by the state housing element law. I'm proud of what the team built — they built it long before I got here, it had been in development for about two years before I arrived. What we brought over the finish line was largely baked by the time I arrived, but the politics of getting it approved, and the outreach needed so that the public really understood what we were doing, was a big part of those final six months. The family zoning plan wasn't the priority — that is the vehicle. The priority is housing. We need more housing for all San Franciscans, and the family zoning plan is a big part of that. There are other initiatives happening that I'm really excited about, including an expanded housing trust fund that'll create $125 million annually out of the city's budget for permanently affordable housing, and adjusted inclusionary housing percentages that allow regular market rate housing to move forward at the same time that we're financing affordable housing through that trust fund. Another priority is downtown revitalization — not recovery. I think we are past downtown recovery, but we still can make our downtown a lot better. Not just filling vacancies, but creating an amazing public realm, making it a place that people come to 24 hours a day for entertainment, for art. The third priority, which came straight from the mayor, is improving our permitting process, improving our permitting technology, and creating permitting that is oriented towards customer service. How much of that feels in your grasp versus technically challenging, or needing buy-in from staff, the supervisors, or the public? Under this mayor, there's a big chunk of it that is within our grasp. One of the things we are working on now is unifying our planning department and our building department. The people who issue rules and the people who issue building permits and inspect projects are different departments — that is not great. There are a lot of bumps in the handoff along that process. By putting us together — and we are midway through merging them — by early 2027 we hope we will be one unified department working towards housing and land use approvals together. The concept of a unified department has been talked about in San Francisco for a long time, but there hasn't been the leadership to pull it off, and the mayor has given myself and our director of the building department the authority to make that happen. A second example is our new technology permitting system. We are on a very old, disparate set of tech tools for permitting. this mayor has made it an imperative that we get on one unified system together. We started that system in March this year, we have about 10 permits up and running on it, and over the next two to three years we will fully migrate to a system that all permitting agencies in the city will be using together. You're obviously in the AI capital of the world. How has that affected the city itself in terms of rising rental rates and new influx of people? And how are you thinking about AI as a planning tool? It's a super interesting question. In terms of a business sector, AI has been the force driving our recovery. We're in a very good place from where we were in 2022, 2023, in large part due to not just the growth of AI firms and the leasing that they've done, but through the energy and ancillary support that's brought to other industries around San Francisco. At the same time, the fears that our entire country have around AI, particularly at a time of a tight and tightening job market, are even more acute here because it is so present at our front door. So there's some existential dread. We've regained our population losses, which is great. We are now seeing energy around developing new housing. We hadn't seen a lot of housing proposals in the city post-COVID, but that is starting to change because capital is following AI's impact on San Francisco, and they're starting to invest in housing projects to support the growing population. In our office, our staff are relatively nimble in figuring out ways AI can supplement their jobs. They've done some creative things in identifying and cataloging our historic resources, for example. As a city, we're a little creaky — like all bureaucracies. Executing AI in your work comes with union concerns, because people want to make sure it's supplementing their jobs, not replacing them. And we have privacy concerns, because we are stewards of public data and need to be careful about how we use it. The city is working on an emerging tech pool where we have prequalified technology partners, including AI partners, that we can develop smaller tools with — but it's a pilot and we haven't really started yet, so we'll see how that turns out. Let's get bigger and talk about the state. How do you feel about dealing with state laws? I probably can't parse out exactly which ones I like versus which ones are challenging because with so many in California, I sometimes still have to remind myself — wait, is that 2011 or 423, which one is it? By and large, I'm glad they exist and they are generally helpful. But they are most helpful when they push us towards an outcome while allowing us our own way of getting there. SB 79 describes what I was hoping for exactly — it said, “you are either going to have these types of heights and densities near your transit station, or you can show us your own way of getting there and we can tell you if we agree.” Our Family Zoning Plan basically qualified as our alternative plan under SB 79. It was one more tool we could use to explain to residents why it was important that we adopt the plan: “If we don't do it our own way, the state will do it for us.” There was some tension with some planning commissioners when you were appointed. How has that played out? That's been fine. I mentioned the politics here are kind of nasty — a knife fight in a phone booth, as our city attorney used to say. Our planning commissioners are lovely humans. Rich Hillis is my predecessor and he had a 4-3 vote on his appointment, and I joke that I was unanimous because those three recused themselves. We spoke pretty immediately after that outcome, particularly Catherine Moore, who's somebody I've worked with in a professional capacity for a long time and have a lot of respect for, and I think the respect goes both ways. Their challenge there was the process and not the person, and I'm comfortable with that. Process is, interestingly enough, one of the things we're trying to work through here in San Francisco — our planners are in favor of less process if it's the right outcome. And we've worked together swimmingly over the last nine months. San Francisco has had its share of contrverisal projects recently: the tower in the Outer Sunset; the Nordstrom's parking lot; and now the Safeway redevelopment in the Marina. What do those controversies mean to you? Are they a big deal or are they describing headlines but just part of the day-to-day for your office? Different meanings for each of them. The Nordstrom parking lot, dare I say, was a catalyst for much of the state laws that you asked me about. While it didn't turn state legislation on its head alone, the disapproval of that project and the grounds the appeal was upheld on, and just the utter shock that we could be that worried about growth on such a likely and positive development site, really helped catalyze a lot of the change at the state level that has been, as I've noted, generally helpful. The Outer Sunset tower has died. But even the noise around that one did bring to the fore a whole lot of housing supporters who were quiet before. It was just so loud that folks were like, wait, do I really care if there's a tower there? I know that's a crazy tower, but maybe I want more housing. Marina Safeway is challenging for us because we worked with the community in the Marina and the broader San Francisco community on the family zoning plan for what we felt was the right kind of density for that site. This project was filed just after that plan was adopted but before it became effective. We had been coming off a multi-year process, working with communities, telling them that yes, we need more housing, but we'll work with you on the shape and form of that housing. And then a project came in that was dramatically different. So that's a hard one. How do you characterize attitudes towards housing and development in the city today — what is the vibe? I think we are smack in the middle of an evolution. San Francisco has been for a very long time — certainly when I moved here in 2000 — a town with a lot of conflicted feelings about growth, even as it was an economic powerhouse through the first tech boom. “Manhattan” has always been a dirty word here in San Francisco. That's a long-standing attitude that is evolving. I don't think we're through the evolution — I think we're smack in the middle of it. The surveys around the family zoning plan showed that a strong majority, somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of residents, support that plan. And it was hard-fought — even though many people supported it, it was an incredibly tough approval process. So you can see that tension between high support but still those no-growth attitudes fighting against each other. The number of people who identify as pro-housing is incredibly large and well recognized. And attitudes towards growth are somewhat affected by what we saw post-COVID in our downtown — people realized they didn't want an empty downtown, and that if growth and more intensity is what it takes to get it back to activity, they can be in support of that. Where do you draw intellectual inspiration from — books, histories, people, mentors? I'm an economics geek. he overlay of the economy with the city is fascinating, not just because money has driven cities — through transfer of capital and growth — but because the other part of economics is humans and how humans want to see those things move. I'm a big fan of Edward Glaeser's books. I read The Economist weekly because it helps me understand what's going on throughout the world. I've had the benefit of some amazing mentors. Dean Macris, the planning director when I came here, who let me walk in as a very green planner and walk up to the podium and launch some exciting initiatives right from the get-go. John Rahaim, an incredibly thoughtful, design-focused planning director who I still consult with regularly. And Carl Shannon, who was my boss at Tishman Speyer, who showed me how you can be a capitalist with heart — Carl cared about affordability and design probably more than making money. And I would also say, given the brutality of land use politics, my inspiration for getting through challenging and thorny topics is running with my dog and playing my violin. I'm terrible at the violin — I only started a year ago — but there's nothing like being terrible at something when you've got a really hard job to get your head out of it. This interview has been edited and condensed.

The right combination of zoning changes and decreased parking requirements can make infill projects feasible in some of the state’s most urban settings. That is the conclusion of Solimar Research Group, which continues to investigate land use options for crowded urban areas. Recently, we explored how regulatory changes affect the financial feasibility of infill projects, and then applied our models to the land use surrounding a major rail extension in Los Angeles. The results should prove interesting to any agency that is approaching the issue of rapid growth with a strategy of high density, transit-oriented development. We sought to calculate the degree to which changes in parking and density policy, as well to zoning, will shrink the notoriously stubborn gap between planning ideal and development reality. Our comprehensive pro-forma analyses revealed that while parking policy affects feasibility more than density allowance, reliance on one or the other is politically unrealistic. A combined strategy is essential. On the other hand, key zone changes may prove a powerful, singular tool in getting infill development off the ground. We further explored how these proposed policy strategies would play out in the very real built environment of the planned Exposition Line extension of the Los Angeles Metro Rail system. Our parcel-by-parcel GIS analysis of infill opportunities surrounding proposed rail stations highlights the infill potential of underutilized industrial land along transit corridors. Grounded Analyses To ensure the “real-time” relevancy of our calculations, we consulted local developers to identify actual development models. Five infill prototypes were selected, and examples of each — from an 8-10 unit townhouse to a 100-200 unit mixed-use project — are currently under construction. We then applied an “as is” pro-forma feasibility model to each, one based on current zoning standards and the industry’s minimum expected 15% net margin. With our feasibility baselines established, we analyzed the fiscal impact of incremental increases or decreases in density and parking requirements. The selection of these two policies as regulatory variables was straightforward: one is a powerful determinant of gross revenue, the other a huge booster of project costs. We also calculated the impact on each prototype of building in either industrial or commercial zones. Combined Regulation Our pro-forma for development prototype 2A exemplifies the political near-impossibility of relying on a single regulation to promote infill in Los Angeles. Prototype 2A is a small, mixed-use project of 54 units, with a current feasibility gap of $1.2 million. A 50% density bonus reduces that gap to only $900,000; a 100% density bonus to only $700,000. While feasibility may arrive with 150% bonus, attendant density, height and FAR changes to the C-1 and C-M zones in which this project would be built are unlikely. Construction of prototype 2A also is unlikely without a change in parking requirements. We found that only a 50% decrease in the number of required parking spaces reduces the $1.2 million gap down to $400,000. That is still too much. But a synergy of more modest changes produces a viable alternative. Our study indicates that a 75% density bonus combined with a 25-50% parking reduction provide enough incentive for developers to pursue projects of this size. This outcome repeated itself in our calculations for prototype developments of various sizes. EXPO Application After calculating needed regulatory and zoning incentives, we took our prototypes to a built environment of high infill potential. The Exposition Line is scheduled for completion in 2010. It will serve an almost entirely developed area. We drew circular study zones around the planned La Brea, La Cienega, Crenshaw, Western and Vermont stations. Our GIS “screening” of parcels around the La Cienega stop reveals a repeated pattern of industrial under-use that, as our pro-formas indicate, should be targeted for infill. Nearly 25% of the half-mile area surrounding the station is zoned industrial/light manufacturing, much of that characterized by large parcels. In addition, many parcels are underutilized and ideal for infill redevelopment. Finally, we identified parcels along the La Cienega Boulevard commercial strip that could be assembled into spaces that would increase the feasibility of projects the scale of Prototype 2A. These projects become even more realistic with the regulatory changes identified above. Solimar’s complete fiscal and land-use analysis of infill potential along the Expo line is available at: http://www.solimar.org/pdfs/Expo_Final_3-30.pdf.

We are reviving the CP&DR podcast! Bill Fulton and Josh Stephens discuss the latest planning news, including the statewide battle over transfer taxes (including Los Angeles Measure ULA), the uneven implementation of Senate Bill 79, and the November ballot measure that could upend the California Environmental Quality Act.

Take Our Reader Survey And Get A Chance To Win A $100 Gift Card

Take Our Reader Survey And Get A Chance To Win A $100 Gift Card

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. American Canyon Annexation Spurs Lawsuit from Developer A Watson Ranch project developer has sued in Napa Superior Court to block a proposed 281-acre expansion of American Canyon's city boundary, arguing it violates a 2008 voter-approved measure barring urban limit line expansion without voter approval through 2030. The disputed annexation, sought by landowners the Hess and Laird families rather than the city, would add to a separate 86-acre expansion already approved on June 1. Although the larger expansion still needs approval from the Napa County LAFCO, the lawsuit seeks to address already approved county and city related tax-sharing and housing-allocation agreements. This dispute follows an earlier, ongoing lawsuit filed by Watson Ranch entities in October accusing the city of breaching development agreements, particularly over delays in extending Newell Drive as a relief route for Highway 29. Budget Trailer Bill Goes After Impact Fees The big budget news on housing was a trailer bill (AB 179) that created a new Cabinet-level housing agency as well as the Housing Development and Finance Committee, which is designed to consolidate consideration of affordable housing funding from different state programs. But the bill also contains a kicker involving impact fees: If a city or county is applying for funding for an affordable housing funding but doesn’t wait impact fees, then the state will reduce the funding by the amount of the fees. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the trailer bill on June 30. State Releases Guidelines to Promote Transit-Oriented Development The Department of Housing and Community Development and the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation has released the 2026 Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines to implement the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Program created by AB 130. The guidelines establish a framework for funding affordable housing and related infrastructure in transit-accessible locations while giving local agencies a new option to mitigate transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act. Under the new program, CEQA lead agencies may contribute to the Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Fund, a statewide Vehicle Miles Traveled mitigation bank administered by HCD, instead of pursuing project-specific VMT mitigation measures. HCD will use those contributions to fund affordable housing projects in locations that promote lower driving rates and greater transit use. Fresno Streamlines Approvals for 20% Affordable Developments The Fresno City Council adopted a policy that will allow housing developments that set aside at least 20% of units for low-income renters to enjoy a streamlined approval process, even bypassing review by the Planning Commission and City Council in certain areas. The measure will keep the city in compliance with its state-mandated Housing Element, which outlines how the city will address a housing shortage. Mike Karbassi cast the lone dissenting vote, citing concerns that ministerial approval reduces opportunities for public input and appeals. Failing to adopt the policy, however, would have meant risking losing state funding eligibility or facing litigation from the California Attorney General. Downtown Los Angeles, San Jose Score Poorly on Survey of Global Downtowns A new 2026 survey found that downtown Los Angeles ranks among the least vibrant urban centers in the world, with only about 65% of residents describing it as vibrant compared with more than 80% in cities such as New York City, Chicago, Sydney, and Shanghai. In the same survey, San Francisco ranked seventh for vibrancy nationwide. The Gensler Research Institute City Pulse report highlighted several shared qualities between successful downtowns, including a mix of housing, jobs, shops, and entertainment, walkable streets, attractive public spaces, strong after-hours activity, good lighting, and a sense of personal safety. Researchers also found that thriving downtowns encourage visitors to stay and socialize rather than simply arrive for errands or events and leave. On three aesthetic measures--”beautful,” “memorable,” and “iconic”--downtown San Jose finished dead last among major U.S. cities. Downtown Los Angeles continues to struggle with post-pandemic office vacancies, business closures, and declining foot traffic, with nearly 40% of office space in the Financial District and 30% of retail space sitting vacant. Concerns about safety, along with parking costs and availability, have further discouraged visitors, even as crime is down 10% from last year. For Los Angeles, the report suggests that restoring a critical mass of residents, workers, and businesses will be essential to rebuilding the downtown’s vibrancy. CP&DR Coverage: Fulton on CEQA-Busting Ballot Measure The California Chamber of Commerce initiative revising the California Environmental Quality Act has qualified for the November. If it passes – which in my view is likely – it will fundamentally alter the CEQA process for certain types of projects, including apparently all housing projects. But even if it doesn’t pass, it’s the end of an era. It probably means that the importance of “significance” – and the judgment of lead agencies and their environmental scientists about what’s significant and what’s not – goes away. In fact the whole idea of impact analysis – the crux of both CEQA and NEPA – will go away. In that sense, CEQA as we know it will be dead. Quick Hits & Updates The Trump administration suspended federal funding for Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, citing concerns about financial mismanagement. Federal funding accounts for about 7% of LAHSA’s budget and primarily supports permanent housing subsidies through HUD’s Continuum of Care program, which promotes community solutions to homelessness. The agency warned that losing federal support could jeopardize housing assistance for thousands of formerly homeless residents and increase the risk of people returning to homelessness. A feasibility study found that redevelopment of Alameda Point's 31-acre Main Street Neighborhood North could be financially viable if the city secures between $164 million and $240 million for infrastructure improvements. The estimated costs include about $176 million for backbone infrastructure and site improvements, plus $64 million for Main Street infrastructure, shoreline stabilization, and levee construction, although those costs could be reduced by up to $75 million through phased infrastructure work and grant funding. After talks of rolling back Los Angeles’ “mansion tax”, the Los Angeles City Council approved a $544.3 million spending plan funds, the largest single-year allocation since the measure took effect in April 2023. The plan is the largest single use of Measure ULA funds so far, calling for $381 million toward affordable housing programs and $163.3 million for homelessness prevention programs. A study Measure ULA finds that it creates a sizable hidden cost by suppressing property transactions. California reassesses property values only at the time of sale, so fewer transactions mean fewer reassessments slowing growth in the broader property tax base. The study, led by Daniel Green of Harvard Business School, estimates about 80 percent of Measure ULA revenue is offset by lower future property-tax collections. The California Water Commission approved $268.9 million in conditional supplemental funding for the proposed Sites Reservoir Project in Colusa County, bringing the project's potential state funding through the Water Storage Investment Program to nearly $1.4 billion. The reservoir would provide 1.5 million acre-feet of water storage by capturing excess Sacramento River flows during wet years for use during droughts, while also supporting flood protection, wildlife refuges, recreation, and up to 200,000 acre-feet of emergency drought water supplies. Los Angeles County Metro's $400 million Vermont Avenue bus lane project can proceed without bike lanes for now, denying a preliminary injunction sought by Streetsblog LA editor Joe Linton who argued the proposal triggers Measure HLA, the 2024 law requiring street safety upgrades whenever the city repaves qualifying stretches of road. Palo Alto has adopted zoning changes aimed at revitalizing commercial districts by allowing a broader range of businesses that previously faced zoning barriers to occupy storefronts. The reforms streamline permitting, ease parking requirements, and expand allowable ground-floor uses as the city works to reduce downtown vacancies and adapt to shifts in retail demand. City officials say the changes are helping attract new businesses while preserving restrictions on traditional medical offices and other non-retail uses. San Diego, which has maintained a place in the top ten most expensive cities in the U.S., has fallen to 12th place with median one-bedroom rents dropping 2.2% annually to $2,200 a month. Analysts attribute the slide primarily to a surge in apartment construction, as San Diego County built more multifamily housing per capita than any other California metro and ranked second nationally as a share of total construction, after New York. Oakland home values are at their lowest in a decade according to data from Zillow. Oakland has seen the starkest home value drop among U.S. cities with at least 100,000 residents, tied with Cape Coral, Florida, which was dubbed the worst housing market in America last year. In March the typical home value in Oakland was about $716,000, reflecting a drop of more than $90,000, or 11.4%, after adjusting for inflation. Larger such as emptying downtowns, crime rates and a shift toward the suburbs combined with high mortgage rates have hurt demand for homes in both San Francisco and Oakland. The Urban Institute published a new interactive tool which allows users to explore where and how effectively states and urban areas have invested in transit-oriented development. The study found that better transit leads to higher ridership, and residents of places like New York City, San Francisco, and DC travel on transit more than seven times as frequently as people living in those other regions. It also found that housing near frequent transit sites encourages better ridership, with areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco performing best, each providing transit service within a half mile of at least 90 percent of homes. Humboldt County residents have launched a ballot initiative to ban large industrial warehouses from the county's Coastal Zone, a direct response to a proposed Amazon distribution center in McKinleyville. The measure would cap new warehouse facilities at 20,000 square feet, effectively blocking Amazon's roughly 40,000-square-foot proposal, while exempting marine-dependent industries like fishing and aquaculture. Organizers submitted the measure through Indivisible Trinidad and must collect 4,874 verified signatures from registered county voters before the Board of Supervisors can adopt it or place it on the November ballot.

Take Our Reader Survey And Get A Chance To Win A $100 Gift Card

Huntington Beach Loses Anti-SLAPP Motion Against State

The original verson of this story incorrectly stated that the location in question is the site of the Bay Meadows racetrack. That was incorrect. Bay Meadows is in San Mateo.

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. Ballot Measure to Curb Local Special Taxes Pulled; Los Angeles ‘Mansion Tax’ Remains Intact After talks of rolling back Los Angeles’ “mansion tax”, the Los Angeles City Council pulled a plan to reform the measure from the November ballot -- which would have exempted new multifamily projects from the tax -- approved a $544.3 million spending plan funds, the largest single-year allocation since the measure took effect in April 2023. Measure ULA has generated more than $1.24 billion in the last three years for affordable housing and homelessness prevention programs. But, critics say it has backfired and discouraged developers from building, effectively reducing availability of apartments and general property tax revenues. In part to neutralize Measure ULA--and reduce local taxes generally--the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association had qualified an initiative for the November ballot that would have capped transfer taxes at 0.11% and retroactively overturned special taxes that passed with less than two-thirds support, which Measure ULA's 58% approval in 2022 would not have met. After negotiation with lawmakers, the Jarvis Association agreed to pull the measure. In exchange, lawmakers agreed to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot raising the voter threshold for future special taxes to two-thirds, while leaving existing taxes like Measure ULA intact. Some critics of Measure ULA have called the outcome the “worst possible scenario.” (See related CP&DR coverage.) Legislators to Place $11 Billion Housing Bond on November Ballot The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 will appear on the November ballot, pending formal approval by the legislature and the governor's signature. The $11.25 billion housing affordability measure includes $1.25 billion in self-supporting revenue bonds for the CalVet Home Loan Program and $10 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing construction, rehabilitation, and preservation. Only 17% of California households can currently afford a median-priced single-family home, and more than half of renters spend over 30% of their income on housing. The bond is projected to assist over 40,000 Californians with down payment assistance and affordable mortgage financing, while also funding the creation or preservation of affordable rental units and creating thousands of construction jobs. Targeted populations include veterans, seniors, farmworkers, college students, tribal communities, and people experiencing homelessness, and affordable units funded through the measure must remain affordable for at least 55 years. State officials estimate for every $1 invested by the state, an estimated $4 in federal tax credits, local funding, private financing, and resident rents will assist in financing and development. California Forever Seeks Expedited Approvals for Shipyard Project California Forever, the billionaire-backed venture seeking to build a new city on Solano County farmland, is pushing for legislation that would fast-track environmental reviews and ease regulatory hurdles for a planned shipbuilding facility and dense urban development. The legislative push is tied to efforts to land a lease with Saronic Technologies, an Austin-based defense contractor weighing a $3.2 billion autonomous vessel shipyard between California and Texas, where officials recently approved a $211 million tax-abatement package for a competing site. California Forever has hired former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg to pitch a package of concessions. The new legislation would cap CEQA challenges to 270 days and rely on a 2008 environmental impact report for the shipyard site, allowing Suisun City to annex California Forever's agricultural land if local governments fail to produce sufficient housing. (See related CP&DR coverage.) California Sues Feds to Maintain Vehicle Emissions Standards California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's attempt to roll back the state's vehicle emissions standards, calling the federal actions illegal and dangerous to public health. The Clean Air Act has allowed California to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than federal minimums since the 1970s through a waiver system that has been upheld by administrations of both parties for more than 50 years. The EPA has granted California more than 75 such waivers, and expressly reaffirmed the process under President George W. Bush in 2004 and 2008. Two weeks ago, however, Trump's EPA declared that each of those waivers is now a "rule" subject to congressional review, which the lawsuit argues has no legal basis. Among the specific standards are California's 2013 rules reducing emissions from new cars and light trucks, its 2008 greenhouse gas standards, and a 2024 waiver upholding the state's ban on most gas-powered lawn equipment. The lawsuit argues that overturning these protections would mean "more pollution, poorer air quality, more market uncertainty, and greater health risks" for communities already bearing a disproportionate emissions burden. The EPA declined to comment on the lawsuit. CP&DR Coverage: HCD Supports Midway Rising’s Proposal to Violate San Diego Coastal Height Limit In the wake of two court cases striking down voters’ decision to eliminate a coastal height limit in San Diego, developers of the city’s sports arena site have now taken the position that they can violate the height limit under the Density Bonus Law. And now the California Department of Housing and Community Development has issued a letter that would appear to validate that position. The Midway Rising project would include more than 4,000 new housing units as well as a new sports arena, hotels, and other amenities. The question San Diego posed to HCD was whether the Density Bonus Law, which deals with housing, could override the voter-approved 30-foot height limit even on the non-residential portions of the property, including the new sports arena. HCD responded in the affirmative. Quick Hits & Updates Humboldt County residents have launched a ballot initiative to ban large industrial warehouses from the county's Coastal Zone, a direct response to a proposed Amazon distribution center in McKinleyville. The measure would cap new warehouse facilities at 20,000 square feet, effectively blocking Amazon's roughly 40,000-square-foot proposal, while exempting marine-dependent industries like fishing and aquaculture. Organizers submitted the measure through Indivisible Trinidad and must collect 4,874 verified signatures from registered county voters before the Board of Supervisors can adopt it or place it on the November ballot. The Western Association of Wildlife & Fish Agencies released its Monarch Butterfly Conservation Plan, responding to a dramatic population collapse that has seen monarch numbers fall 86% since the 1980s and hit a record low in 2020. The updated plan spans nine western states, outlines population targets, incorporates new science, and proposes conservation actions aimed at stabilizing the population. The revision follows a December 2024 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to list the monarch butterfly as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Los Angeles County Superior Court rejected United Water Conservation District’s challenge to protections for Southern California steelhead trout. Judge Tiana Murillo upheld the California Fish and Game Commission's listing decision to protect the trout, which has been pushed to the brink of extinction by urban development, water diversions, climate change, and dams like those operated by Ventura-based United Water Conservation District. East Bay lawmakers are moving to block the Trump administration's plan to fund a long-contested coal export terminal in West Oakland. The moves follow President Trump's June 4 announcement directing $75 million toward the Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal. The proposed terminal would be able to export up to 10 million short tons of coal annually, with trains passing through West Oakland, a neighborhood that already ranks among the highest in the state for asthma-related emergency room visits and hospitalizations due to industrial pollution. L.A. County Metro and the city of Los Angeles are planning improvements to the Vermont Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) after at least a decade of planning. Plans include removing some on-street parking and omitting areas for bike lanes. Advocacy group Streets For All has submitted a letter and is considering legal action, claiming that the project does not comply with Los Angeles’ Measure HLA and Mobility Plan. Oakland home values are at their lowest in a decade according to data from Zillow. Oakland has seen the starkest home value drop among U.S. cities with at least 100,000 residents, tied with Cape Coral, Florida, which was dubbed the worst housing market in America last year. In March the typical home value in Oakland was about $716,000, reflecting a drop of more than $90,000, or 11.4%, after adjusting for inflation. Larger such as emptying downtowns, crime rates and a shift toward the suburbs combined with high mortgage rates have hurt demand for homes in both San Francisco and Oakland. San Diego, which has maintained a place in the top ten most expensive cities in the U.S., has fallen to 12th place with median one-bedroom rents dropping 2.2% annually to $2,200 a month. Analysts attribute the slide primarily to a surge in apartment construction, as San Diego County built more multifamily housing per capita than any other California metro and ranked second nationally as a share of total construction, after New York. The Trump administration has suspended federal funding for the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, citing concerns about financial mismanagement. Federal funding accounts for about 7% of LAHSA’s budget and primarily supports permanent housing subsidies through HUD’s Continuum of Care program, which promotes community solutions to homelessness. The agency warned that losing federal support could jeopardize housing assistance for thousands of formerly homeless residents and increase the risk of people returning to homelessness. The EPA announced more than $15.3 million in Brownfields Multipurpose, Assessment and Cleanup (MAC) grants, with funds split across four categories. Grants are intended to accelerate redevelopment of long-contaminated properties, and include $7 million for environmental assessments, $6.38 million for cleanup activities, $2 million for multipurpose grants, and $500,000 in supplemental revolving loan fund support for the City of Fresno. The Brownfields Program has awarded more than $3 billion in total grant funding since 1995, leveraging over $45 billion in cleanup and redevelopment investment and supporting more than 228,900 jobs.

In a ruling that could significantly broaden the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the decision to award a Class 1 categorical exemption to a project– the exemption permitted for “minor alterations” -- turns not on the risk of environmental harm but on the “nature or degree of a structure of facility’s use.”