Search Results

Another major battle over builder’s remedy is brewing in Redondo Beach, where developer Leo Pustilnikov has proposed a major residential project on the beachfront site of the former AES power plant even though local land-use and zoning ordinances do not permit residential development on the site.

As California enters a new world of renewable energy, local governments are struggling to make sure their plans and zoning ordinances are keeping up with changes in technology – and that’s likely to lead to growing controversy and litigation over renewable energy generation facilities in non-urban areas. In particular, advances in battery storage technology is likely to create debates over whether land is rural or industrial.

After a one-year hiatus, the Land Use Law and Planning Conference , sponsored for over 30 years by UCLA and now by the W. P. Carey Center for Real Estate and Finance at Arizona State Unviersity and the California Planning & Development Report, is returning to downtown Los Angeles Friday, January 23.   For its long history, the conference has served a crucial purpose for California’s land-use professionals: explain and discuss the myriad of new laws and legal cases that arise each year to govern planning and development in the state. ASU will host the conference at its traditional home, the Biltmore Hotel, which is blocks away from its satellite campus. For a preview of the conference and an account of its evolution, CP&DR's Josh Stephens spoke with conference organizers: Matthew Burris , principal at Burris Planning Group and former deputy city manager in Rancho Cucamonga; Tricia Dunlavey Hilbun , partnership and portfolio manager at the ASU Center for Real Estate and Finance; David Smith , principal at the Law Offices of David C. Smith; and Alisha Winterswyk , partner at Best, Best, & Krieger.  This conference was a long-time institution of UCLA, it went offline for a few years, now it's back with ASU. How did it get revived? Alicia Winterswyk: Last year, as we were working toward the 2025 conference to be hosted by UCLA, it became clear to us that priorities had shifted, and that UCLA would be unable to host the conference in 2025. We tried mightily to identify another sponsor so we could hold the annual event in January of 2025. We were very disappointed by having to cancel it, because we know that so many of our attendees look forward to this conference each year. We spent the beginning of 2025 trying to identify a new partner. It became known to us, through Bill Fulton, that ASU was very interested in supporting the conference, given their real estate practice and expansion in Southern California. It seemed like a nice way to transition the conference and maintain its integrity. ASU was very open to allowing us co-chairs to maintain the structure, content, and cadence of the conference. That's a long way of saying that David, Matt, and I have stuck around. We didn't give up on the conference. We know that folks in our industry want the conference to continue, so we were trying to find a way to make that happen. David Smith: I would add that UCLA had concerns about our conference in particular. It seemed to be a systematic evolution of how they were approaching such conferences, and the intent was to no longer be in person, do virtual, and cut it down on size. With no disrespect to UCLA, the conference has a long legacy, and we feel a pretty heavy burden to make sure it lives up to what the consistent attendees expect from the conference. The strength of the conference is not only the premier content and timeliness but also the opportunity for professionals to interact in person, on-site. For some, this is the only time they get to interact with folks from other parts of the state. I think I'm not off in saying we all felt that that was just not an acceptable substitution to abandon the in-person all day-long event. Especially for those who might be confused, what is Arizona State University's interest in a decidedly California event? Tricia Dunlavey Hilburn: ASU has a major focus on expanding our reach to California, primarily to align with the Charter of Arizona State University, which is all about who we include, not who we exclude. Knowing that some students in California have a hard time getting into California institutions, we wanted to have a footprint there to say, "if you want to go to college, we have an opportunity for you." We have a lot of California students come to ASU on our Tempe campus, and we know that not everyone has the ability or affordability to be able to come out of state, despite it being significantly cheaper than staying in-state in California. We've opened a campus at the Herald-Examiner building in 2021, so we have a California presence; we call it ASU Local. Everyone here at ASU has been tasked to figure out how to do some programming in Southern California. The law school's doing some stuff out there, the Herberger Institute of Design and the Arts are doing a bunch. There's a lot of communications from the Cronkite School out there. We've also recently acquired the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising (FIDM) right next door. We recently received a very large gift to name the W.P. Carey Center for Real Estate and Finance, and as part of that, we want to become one of the most sought-after real estate education institutions. The conference expands our footprint, provides opportunity to engage our alumni and potential students out in that area, and so we were willing and excited to partner with this group. How important is it for you and your counterparts to hear this material live and in person? Winterswyk: It gives us an opportunity to talk at a higher level—not at a 101 level—about new legislation, about cases from the past year, about trends that we're seeing in the law and how it affects the practice. But it also allows us to talk about the policy behind these bills and cases that have on-the-ground impact and figure out ways that we can help our clients issue-spot or develop creative ways to approach perennial issues. Smith: I feel a responsibility for what we bring, and that starts from the moment the last conference ends. What we try to do is get out our crystal balls and project what will be relevant in January of the following year, based on the legislative session, based on elections, whatever the election cycle is. We don't try to guess outcomes, but what are the trends? In CEQA, what's likely to be playing out on major cases that are pending and making their way up through the courts? On legislation, what have we seen coming in terms of proactive activity or backlash that the legislature's likely to grapple with? In elections, for example, this year, the Cal Chamber has a comprehensive CEQA ballot measure, which will be a topic for next year, because it's not going to be on the ballot until November. We always tackle CEQA, and we assume some level of basic sophistication so that the practitioners can hit the ground running and hear the latest and greatest in the evolution, to what we call PZDL, which is the latest legislative developments in planning and zoning. It's the subject matter we know matters over and over and over again, but with the latest and greatest developments brought to you by the people who are forging policy. Matt, the conference obviously draws a lot of lawyers. What's the value for a municipal planner such as yourself? Matthew Burris: I think that's a particularly interesting question right now. 2026 marks the 100-year anniversary of the landmark Euclid v. Ambler case, and it was one of those things that was foundational to moving forward and shaping this year's conference, in part because it was 100 years ago when the Supreme Court laid it out that planning and law are inextricably connected. I think it's especially important as municipal planners, as city planners, to have a foundation of what is happening with the law, what are the new laws that are in place, how are they being interpreted, how are they being applied, because so much of our work has to be shaped through that legislative lens. Does this material scare some planners? Burris: Probably, but, again, planning is deeply entrenched in land use law. You have to have a really good command of the legislation, and, as David said, it's really helpful to understand the trends and where things are going, help anticipate what might be coming in future years. And maybe that helps reduce some of the fear. How does the subject matter this year compare to previous years? Smith: We're doing a panel focused on AB130 and SB131. It will include some CEQA issues, but I think it's going to be notable because they were passed through the budget process, which means they never went through committees. We are planning an extra-special session. The three of us took over the conference, as Alisha and Matt noted, several years ago from three icons in the industry: Margaret Sohagi, Susan Hori, and Steve Preston. A little spoiler alert: they're going to have a focused period of reflection where they will share how the conference has been emblematic of the major trends and transitions of land use and planning in California. What happens in California if conferences like this don't happen? Like, what does that mean for planning and development and cases, new cases that come up? Winterswyk: Planning and development's going to continue in California regardless of whether the conference occurs. But I do think that if the conference were to go away, it would eliminate a key point in time, an annual point in time, for practitioners to get together and exchange ideas about these topics that are relevant to what we do. I think that by limiting those opportunities, we stymie our ability to think more creatively. We may miss synergies that otherwise bubble up to the top when you are talking with other experts in the area and sharing ideas. There is a lot of good that comes with getting together and putting minds on the same topic to think about them. Our hope is that we can continue to meet and talk in influential ways. Folks that attend this conference go up to Sacramento, and they may influence legislative consultants who write legislation for legislators, or they may be judicial clerks, or they may be land use planners who are working on major specific or general plans for their particular city or jurisdiction. We want to make sure that we're all keeping the edges of our practice sharp. Smith: There are iconic conferences in the state for lawyers. I would include the Yosemite Environmental Law Conference, and then there's the APA conference on the planning side. I'm unaware of another conference that, by design, brings together, on each and every panel, the perspective of both the legal consequence as well as the on-the-ground planning community and local electeds and staff. And the networking, discussion, questions from audiences in real time—I just think it's pretty invaluable. What do you envision for future conferences? Are there new features you'd like to develop? Smith: To be blunt, my immediate answer is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's why we're so appreciative of ASU. Let's be honest, we all had a little hesitation about an out-of-state host for this preeminent and singularly focused California conference. And from the first calls, they were just outright, look, we know its legacy, we know its purpose, we have no intention whatsoever of altering or curtailing that. We want to see it prosper and grow. Contacts Matthew Burris, Principal, Burris Planning Group (former Deputy City Manager, Rancho Cucamonga) matthew@burrisplanninggroup.com Tricia Dunlavey Hilbun, Partnership and Portfolio Manager, ASU Center for Real Estate and Finance Tricia.Hilbun@asu.edu David Smith , Principal, Law Offices of David C. Smith dcsmith@dcsmith-law.com Alisha Winterswyk, Partner, Best Best & Krieger Alisha.Winterswyk@bbklaw.com This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

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 . Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to San Diego Coastal Height Limit San Diego’s 30-foot height limit west of I-5 will go back into effect now that the California Supreme Court has declined to take a case overturning a vote that eliminated the height limit. The height limit will block the so-called Midway Rising project on city-owned land around Pechanga Arena, but the developers plan to use the state Density Bonus Law to get around the height limit, apparently with city support. An appellate court has twice ruled that the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act, thus nullifying two different votes to lift the height limit. The appellate court had found that the city violated CEQA by placing the measure before voters without adequately informing them of the environmental impacts of taller buildings. City officials, including Mayor Todd Gloria, said the ruling will not slow efforts to redevelop the sports arena site through the Midway Rising project, which proposes thousands of housing units and a new arena.(Previous CP&DR  coverage can be found here .) Lawsuit Filed to Block 'Family Zoning' in San Francisco As had been anticipated, members of Neighborhoods United San Francisco and Small Business Forward filed a lawsuit challenging San Francisco’s newly passed rezoning plan known as the Family Zoning Plan, which allows for taller and denser buildings in much of the city. The plaintiffs argue that the resulting plan did not go through an appropriate review process to ensure more affordable housing and less impact on the existing communities. The lawsuit also alleges that the city did not go far enough to protect small business owners and tenants that may be displaced, and alleges that the city failed to conduct a proper environmental review as required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), instead relying on a 2022 environmental impact report. California state officials required that San Francisco update their housing plan to accommodate 82,000 new housing units in the next five years under threat of withheld funds. City officials have defended the plan, saying the plan underwent thorough review and is compliant with state law. The projections for how much new housing the zoning changes will produce are mixed, with some estimates falling closer to 14,000 new units. If the plan is revealed to be non-compliant with state law, YIMBY representatives warn that builders may be able to bypass zoning law to make up for the state not meeting housing requirements. Saratoga Attempts to Negotiate over Builder's Remedy Project The Saratoga City Council approved , on a unanimous vote, a tolling agreement with City Connect to downsize a project and persuade them to withdraw their Builder’s Remedy application, which would allow the developer to bypass certain zoning restrictions as the city falls short on state-mandated housing projections. City Connect’s 2023 project proposal contained 231 units within a nearly 12 acre site, while an updated 2025 submission called for 64 units comprising six very-low income units, six moderate-income units and 26 density bonus units. By entering this agreement, Saratoga aims to avoid litigation and create a development outcome more acceptable to residents and city leaders, though details about how the project will be altered or scaled back haven’t been fully disclosed. The agreement is intended to allow time for the city and developer to work on a plan that satisfies state housing obligations without resorting to aggressive builder’s remedy provisions. Many residents who spoke at the meeting were in favor of the agreement and downscaled project, with some questioning whether this could open the door for complaints regarding other builder’s remedy proposal projects in the area. Court Throws Out Challenge to Closure of San Francisco Great Highway San Francisco Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ross dismissed a lawsuit that sought to overturn Prop. K, the 2024 voter-approved ballot measure that closed the road and turned the Upper Great Highway into a park. The petitioners argued that the closure was illegal on several grounds such as the road’s “partial closure”, environmental review concerns, consistency with the city plan and particularly whether or not the project was compliant with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Petitioners argued that the project did not meet the requirements for CEQA because it was not subject to environmental review. Judge Ross determined that Prop. K is not a CEQA project because it was put on the ballot by a minority of supervisors, and projects under this law must be initiated by a “public agency”. The judge also suggested that even if the measure was considered a CEQA project, the petitioners should have appealed within 180 days of it being put on the ballot. Current District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong said that if the decision holds, the only way to reopen the Great Highway to cars on weekdays would be another ballot measure. District 4 Supervisor Alan Wong  announced that he would support an additional ballot measure to reopen the Upper Great Highway to cars on weekdays, putting the future of Sunset Dunes Park back in the hands of voters. CP&DR Coverage: Chamber Initiative Would Create CEQA Shot Clocks The California Chamber of Commerce is floating a ballot measure that would create a series of “shot clocks” for actions under the California Environmental Quality Act. Shot clocks have become increasingly common as the state has sought to accelerate housing production in recent years, but mostly those shot clocks have focused on the regular entitlement process, not CEQA. The Chamber initiative would change that in a dramatic way by creating, in essence, two different types of CEQA projects: essential projects and others. The proposed initiative, which would appear on the 2026 ballot, would not fundamentally alter how CEQA functions. Rather, it would seek to speed up CEQA actions for “essential projects” by creating strict deadlines for various actions.  Quick Hits & Updates  According to recent Redfin data, investors  purchased about 40% of the vacant land sold in Los Angeles County burn zones during mid-2025. For affected neighborhoods, the surge in vacant lots and investor purchases highlights ongoing struggles with recovery, insurance limitations, and the long timeline for reconstruction following the fires. Alameda County  launched a pilot program called the Scalable Housing Investment Funding Toolkit (SHIFT) aimed at lowering the cost of building affordable housing by streamlining the development process. The program uses pre-approved, generic designs and eliminates hurdles like environmental review and local planning commission approvals. SHIFT targets households earning 60–80% of area median income and aims to produce housing for about $600,000 per unit, roughly $250,000 less than the county’s average affordable housing cost. The Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center and more than half a dozen other environmental groups are suing U.S. Department of Transportation, PHMSA, and some key officials in regard to the controversial efforts to restart the Santa Barbara County oil pipeline. The pipeline ruptured in 2015, spilling 140,000 gallons of crude oil on the Gaviota Coast. State regulators from the California Fair Political Practices Commission ruled that Santa Monica Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Zwick must recuse himself from future City Council votes related to housing production because his employment with the Housing Action Coalition creates a potential conflict of interest. The FPPC’s determination found that decisions affecting housing policy could reasonably have a financial effect on Zwick’s employer, even with safeguards in place. A judge has temporarily halted the City of San Diego’ s processing of permits for a planned 136‑unit accessory dwelling unit development in Pacific Beach, saying the city must do more to assess the potential impact on traffic and the existing neighborhood before moving forward. The San Diego City Council fast-tracked new fire prevention rules that require all homeowners to abide by Zone Zero regulations that prohibit landscaping and other flammable items from within five feet of a home. About two-thirds of the city fall within a “high fire-hazard severity zone”, which requires compliance with Zone Zero regulations. President Trump will seek to ban large institutional investors from buying single‑family homes in the United States, arguing the move would help make homeownership more affordable for average Americans. California’s population growth has slowed with the state adding only about 19,200 people (0.05%) in the year ending last July, while Sacramento has seen one of the biggest jumps in the state. San Francisco’s population increased by fewer than 300 people, leaving it roughly 30,000 residents below its pre‑pandemic peak.

Gov. Gavin Newsom released his last proposed budget Friday, with an emphasis on a the consolidated housing agency he promised to create.

The developer of the controversial proposed 50-story tower in the low-rise Sunset District of San Francisco has sued the city, saying that denial of the project violates the state’s Density Bonus Law. The proposed tower has the subject of enormous controversy since it was first proposed. The developer originally proposed a set of 12-story buildings, but when neighbors organized to oppose it , the developer responded with the 50-story proposal. In early July, the San Francisco Planning Department concluded that while the project fell within the state’s density bonus requirement, it did not comply with city codes. “T he building remains a 600-foot-tall tower in a 100-foot district,” a planning department spokesman said a the time. Later in July, the Board of Appeals denied the project.

The City of La Habra has won an important round in its litigation with Lennar Homes over denial of a housing project slated for property that has long been used as a golf course.

The City of La Cañada Flintridge has fired back against a developer trying to invoike builder’s remedy by taking square aim at the idea that the Department of Housing and Community Development has independent authority to determine whether a housing element is compliant or not.

The City of San Bernardino has update its housing element and density bonus ordinances as part of a settlement of a lawsuit with the Public Interest Law Project. The California Attorney General’s Office is also participating in the settlement.

A city doesn’t have to engage in additional analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act just because school districts don’t think they’ll ever raise the money necessary to build new schools.