The second Trump Administration is likely to back off of zoning reform, environmental protection, and transit funding. Will the state's own laws and policies serve as a firewall against these changes?
Yes, the rooftop deck near the University of Southern California doesn't create a significant impact under CEQA, as per the People's Park case. But the City of Los Angeles still must find that the project conforms with an old redevelopment plan.
The small North Coast city is seeing an expensive battle over whether to develop downtown parking lots are required by the Housing Element and try to shift housing elsewhere and retain current downtown parking.
Altogether the governor signed more than 40 planning and development bills, vetoing only one bill designed to encourage conversion of old office buildings to housing, apparently because off the labor standards contained in the bill.
Legislation includes everything expanding SB 9 to guardrails on builders remedy to clarifying how a housing element can be deemed compliant. About 15 planning and development bills remain on the governor's desk.
The city was already allowing a controversial project to move forward and paying $2.3 millino to the developer in attorneys fees. Now it must subject itself to five years of HCD monitoring and pay $150,000 in attorneys fees to teh state.
San Diego judge rules that Santee couldn't end-run a voter referendum by repealing approval and then passing an emergency ordinance moving the project forward. SB 330 was no help.
Nevada officials want Las Vegas to expand even further, by opening federal land to development. As too many places in California illustrate, that's a recipe for sprawl, but not for a better city.
