The Brief

A San Diego Superior Court judge has ruled that the city of Huntington Beach violated California’s Housing Element Law. The law sets housing targets for local governments to meet, including units for affordable housing.

The city has 120 days to comply with the ruling and establish a plan that allows developers to build more units in the city.

"Huntington Beach is not above the law,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta about the ruling. "We are facing a housing crisis of epic proportions, and my office will continue to act with great urgency, working with cities and counties that genuinely want to be part of the solution and holding accountable those that do not."

However, Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates said they will mount an appeal.

“There's this systematic sidestepping of CEQA, which is the California Environmental Quality Act,” Gates said. “Regardless of the impact high density housing has to the environment, the state is going to ignore CEQA, and force cities to build high density housing.”

Huntington Beach conducted an environmental review of the state’s housing mandates. According to Gates, it revealed that Huntington Beach would see a depletion in its water supply, pose a threat to wildlife and wetlands, and increase pollution “into perpetuity.”

About the state law

The Housing Element Law allows the state to intervene every eight years to let cities know how much housing they must plan for including affordable housing. It also requires cities to put together a housing element showcasing how they will achieve the state’s plan. The state then approves of the element or sends it back to cities to reconfigure according to the requirements.

“We can't solve the decades-in-the-making crisis around housing without everyone doing their part, and this result makes clear the state is serious about enforcing the law,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said about yesterday’s ruling.

But, Gates said, the state has presented “no empirical data” that “high density housing” can make housing affordable.

State vs. Huntington Beach

California’s Democratic majority leadership continues to tussle with Huntington Beach’s Republican-leaning city council. In 2019, Huntington Beach lost a lawsuit when the state sued the city for failing to set aside land for new housing.

In 2023, the city also filed a lawsuit against the state in federal court alleging that the state’s housing laws violate the city’s zoning requirements. Late last year, U.S. District Judge Fred Slaughter ruled against the city but they filed an appeal earlier this year in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We're fighting on multiple fronts and we're going to continue to fight,” Gates said. “We've been made an example of not wanting to be friendly to housing development and doing our share for regional housing needs and the facts of the matter is that's completely untrue.”

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two bills Sunday designed to help his mental health court reach more vulnerable Californians.

But two other bills that would have made much bigger, and more controversial, changes to the program died without ever making it to his desk.

Newsom’s CARE Court launched in 2023 with the intention of getting the sickest Californians off the streets and into mental health care. Family members, first responders, mental health professionals and others can refer people suffering from psychosis into the court-based program, where a judge then sets up a treatment plan through the county.

But the program has struggled with lower-than-expected utilization since its launch, and every year legislators attempt to fix that by passing new bills that change the program in different ways. This year, Newsom signed bills by Senators Catherine Blakespear, a Democrat from Encinitas, and Steven Choi, a Republican from Irvine, which make it make it easier for first responders to get people into CARE Court, and for the loved ones of a CARE Court participant to provide information to their care team that might be relevant to their treatment.

Blakespear called it “incremental improvement.”

“I don't want to make it seem like these things are accomplishing more than they are,” she said. “But they are doing something. We are improving the system for people who need help the most.”

The bills that would have made bigger changes to CARE Court ended up left on the cutting room floor:

• Senate bill 1016, also by Blakespear, would have created a path for people who are too sick for CARE Court, which is a voluntary program, to potentially be referred to a conservatorship, which is an involuntary program. 
• SB 28, by Orange County Democrat Sen. Tom Umberg and Blakespear, also would have strengthened the link between CARE Court and conservatorships. 

The idea was to prevent people from falling out of treatment entirely if they are too sick to accept voluntary care.

Both died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee in August. It was a relief for their long lists of opponents, including Disability Rights California, who argued that the bills would have made CARE Court more coercive, and that forcing treatment is harmful and ineffective. But the bills’ deaths were a letdown for some families of people with severe mental illness, who are fed up with their loved ones languishing on the streets because they are too sick to consent to care.

In addition, SB 1242 – one of the two CARE Court bills Newsom signed into law – was watered down at the behest of activists before it hit his desk.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland and chair of the Appropriations Committee, blamed the price tag of the two bills that died for their failure. She also said the Legislature didn’t have enough details yet on what is and is not working about CARE Court.

"Those bills were very expensive and I think a little bit premature, because we don't know exactly what the challenge or issue is,” she told reporters in August. CalMatters has reported extensively about the challenges facing CARE Court, its participants, and affected families, for over a year.

Blakespear said the issue is a belief that people can’t be helped until they are ready to accept help: something she’s trying to chip away at. She’ll try again next year to strengthen the connection between CARE Court and conservatorships, she said.

“Just because of the way Sacramento works,” she said, “these philosophical shifts can be hard to accomplish.”

The California Public Defenders Association disagreed that CARE Court should be linked to coercive treatment, and opposed SB 28.

“Our experience has taught us that CARE works best when people have buy-in and choose to participate,” Stephanie Regular, assistant public defender for Alameda County and chair of the CPDA mental health and civil commitment committee, said in an emailed statement. “That voluntary engagement is not a weakness; it is part of why CARE works. Efforts like SB 28 that impose harsh consequences for inadequate participation risk undermining that success.”

How the new laws change CARE Court

A CalMatters investigation of CARE Court found the program has reached far fewer people than Newsom’s administration initially anticipated. After the program was watered down to remove its ability to compel people into treatment, many family members of people in the program are disappointed by its limited ability to help their loved ones. The latest state data, which goes through June 2025, found that of 2,216 petitions filed, 517 resulted in CARE agreements or plans, while another 984 were dismissed.

One of the new laws attempts to bring more people into the program by allowing firefighters, ETMs and other first responders to ask their county to refer someone into CARE Court. The idea is that first responders often encounter people who have a serious mental illness and need help, but they rarely have the time to go through the complicated, time-consuming process of filing a CARE Court petition themselves. Instead, they now can refer that person to the county, which then has 30 days to decide whether to file a CARE Court petition.

The other new law addresses a common concern from families of people in CARE Court: Once they refer their loved one into the program, they often are cut out of the loop, unable to give or receive information about their family member’s care. The original bill would have allowed whoever files a CARE Court petition to have more involvement in the process as treatment progresses. But it was amended after concerns about patient privacy.

Now, the law allows for one-way communication only – the petitioner can submit information about their family member’s location, condition, status or anything else that might aid in their treatment, but they can’t receive any information about their family member without that person’s consent.

That’s important, because someone with a severe mental illness participating in CARE Court might not be able to articulate in that moment how they are doing, said Suzanne Fidler, a delegate for the Conference of California Bar Associations, which sponsored the bill. But the person who filed the CARE Court petition, such as a family member, likely has close access to them and can give their treatment team important information, she said.

Paul Boden, director of the Western Regional Advocacy Project, which opposed the bill, disagrees.

“Families can say whatever they want to say and it will be taken in court as if it’s a diagnostic assessment,” he said. “And that’s dangerous.”

Another new law doesn’t directly relate to CARE Court, but instead seeks to improve the state’s conservatorship process. Also by Blakespear, SB 16 requires counties to develop procedures to train the people (such as clinicians or law enforcement) who place patients on involuntary mental health holds.

This year’s death of Umberg’s CARE Court clean-up bill — SB 28 — signals a shift in the tide, said Samuel Jain, a senior attorney with Disability Rights California, which opposed the bill. Umberg has introduced a follow-up bill to expand or change the law annually since he initially authored the CARE Court legislation in 2022. In past years, those bills have generally sailed through the legislature with near unanimous support.

Last year, Umberg expanded who qualifies for CARE Court by adding people who experience psychosis as a result of bipolar disorder.

At times, his CARE Court bills have been significantly changed late in the session, in a process known as “gut and amend.”

A legislative analysis submitted to the Assembly Judiciary Committee this summer said that the opponents of this year’s bill, SB 28, complained it had been substantially amended in June “after advancing through much of the legislative process as a different bill.” It continued: “This late-stage gut-and-amend approach continues a troubling pattern of advancing major CARE Court expansions without adequate opportunity for public input.”

“The Legislature is starting to do more of their own analysis of this and starting to stand on their own two feet and not just defer to the governor,” Jain said.

June Dudas, who has first-hand experience with CARE Court, said SB 28 and SB 1016 would have been game-changers if they had passed. Dudas helped her 85-year-old aunt submit CARE Court petitions in San Diego County for Dudas’ cousin, who was homeless and became violent when in the grip of psychosis.

Her cousin doesn’t realize he’s sick – a common symptom of schizophrenia known as anosognosia. That means he’ll never consent to treatment, Dudas said. As a result, his CARE Court case was officially dismissed twice. He was offered a place in CARE Court a third time, but turned it down and instead opted to go to jail for violating a restraining order against his mother.

“And it’s not just that his case is dismissed, he is dismissed as a human being,” Dudas said. “There are no other services offered to him if he doesn’t volunteer.”

Dudas’ cousin finally entered into a conservatorship in May — almost a year after his family first tried to get him into CARE Court.

Jocelyn Wiener and Yue Stella Yu contributed to this reporting.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

A community-led effort that tested water runoff from the burned Lineage cold-storage facility found that elevated levels of metals made their way to the Los Angeles River.

The findings of increased concentrations of iron, zinc, chromium and lead are highlighted in a Sept. 22 report published by researchers and scientists from UCLA, UC Irvine and East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. 

According to the report, members of East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice noticed that the water firefighters sent to the flames — an estimated 12,000 gallons of water per minute — was draining into the LA River. 

That’s what spurred Emmanuel Carrera Ruedas, a member of East Yard, and Casey Cooper, a community scientist, to gather water samples and test the runoff for metals from building materials after the fire ignited June 17. The fire was knocked down June 24.

Carrera Ruedas and Cooper took samples from puddles outside Lineage, from an L.A. River drainage spout and from a containment boom before the water runoff went into the river. Samples were also taken about 150 meters upstream and 100 meters downstream from the L.A. River drainage line and near Cudahy Park, which sits alongside the lower L.A. River. A total of 42 samples were sent to a lab at Columbia University in New York. 

Major findings from downstream samples retrieved between June 19 and 24 show that average concentrations of iron, zinc, chromium and lead were higher compared to “previously measured maximum concentrations” in 2018-24 data from the Los Angeles River Watershed Monitoring Program.

Here’s what the report found:

• Iron concentrations were 23 times higher than previously measured
• Zinc concentrations were 11 times higher than previously measured
• Chromium concentrations were 2.4 times higher than previously measured
• Lead concentrations were 2.4 times higher than previously measured

A community-led effort that tested water runoff from the burned Lineage cold-storage facility found that elevated levels of metals made their way to the Los Angeles River.

Zinc concentrations from downstream samples were also found to exceed dry weather standards set by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Metals such as lead have been found to affect human health and are known to contribute to brain damage, stunted growth and learning and behavioral problems, according to the report. Chromium, iron and zinc are of concern because they could affect aquatic life, such as fish, the report noted. 

Yoshira “Yoshi” Ornelas Van Horne, an exposure scientist and assistant professor with the UCLA Fielding School’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences, could not clearly say how exposure to these metals could have impacted people long-term “because we don’t know how often they may be going [to the river],” either to cool down or engage in other recreational activities like fishing.

Carrera Ruedas and Ornelas Van Horne presented their findings at a meeting of the Los Angeles Regional Water Board on Thursday. 

The meeting appears to be the first public forum where water quality issues related to the Lineage fire have been discussed.

“We need to stop river erasure,” Carrera Ruedas told the board. He also said he observed oil in the LA River long after cleanup of the estimated 25,000 gallons of crude oil spilled during a May 22 drilling incident in East L.A.

“We must include the river as part of our narrative … as part of our ecosystem because the river is alive and it deserves protection,” Carrera Ruedas said. “I hope together we can figure out how to make our river safer and cleaner for not just us, but for aquatic life.”

A community-led effort that tested water runoff from the burned Lineage cold-storage facility found that elevated levels of metals made their way to the Los Angeles River.

Jenny Newman, assistant executive officer of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, presented a summary of water quality data collected during and after the fire by the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, which found elevated but “not alarming” concentrations of copper, lead and zinc were detected between June 17 and 26. 

Newman also summarized water quality findings from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and Lineage.

Annelisa Moe, who oversees Heal the Bay’s water quality efforts, presented data showing a sharp increase in bacteria levels on June 24 and 25, compared to the pre-fire samples taken on June 11.

At the meeting, Laisha Angeline Atjun, of East L.A., urged that water quality findings be made accessible in one public space, in English and Spanish, “so that it can be digested by every member of our community.”

She told board members that word of mouth, instead of standard data, is how her community has been informed about the Lineage fire. Atjun said the river should be monitored during the rainy season. “The storms may flush out what’s still in the drains,” she said. 

Atjun asked for prevention and response, “so drains are contained and downstream communities are notified within hours.”

“Boyle Heights and my home East L.A. have already carried more than their share of pollution,” she said of the oil spill and Lineage fire. “Residents shouldn’t have to organize our own testing to know what’s in the river.”

Fatima Carrera, of Southeast L.A., lamented the river being treated as a dumping ground for natural disasters and what many see as an “appropriate way of getting rid of all our contaminants.”

“We’ve completely disconnected from the natural world around us,” Carrera added.

“I would like to see the development of a meaningful emergency response system that’s capable of protecting our communities during these disasters. … We’re not asking for special treatment. We’re asking for a basic right to have clean water,” Carrera told the board.

The post Community testing finds elevated levels of metals in LA River after the Lineage fire appeared first on LA Local.

The torch relay for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics will begin in Atlanta, home of the last U.S. Summer Games in 1996, and travel through all 50 states, organizers announced Tuesday.

The Olympic flame will be lit in Olympia, Greece, the birthplace of the Olympic Games, before beginning its journey around the United States in spring 2028. The full route for the torch relay will be announced in 2027.

LA28 organizers say the relay will be one of the largest in Olympic history, passing through iconic and internationally renowned landmarks, stopping at major cultural and sporting events and hosting festival celebrations in select cities nationwide.

“Every Olympic Games begins with a single flame, and carrying that flame to Los Angeles is an honor and privilege that we’ll share with every corner of the country, as Americans in all 50 states carry the flame on its path to our Opening Ceremony,” LA28 chair and president Casey Wasserman said in a statement.

Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens said the city will be proud to welcome the Olympic flame back 32 years after hosting the centennial Summer Games.

“Atlanta looks a little different. We are bigger. We are more connected to the world. So, when the flame returns to the U.S., Atlanta will be ready,” Dickens said in a statement. “Ready to welcome it from Greece. Ready to celebrate the spirit of the Games together as a community. And ready to send it forward toward Los Angeles and the next chapter of America’s Olympic story.”

The Paralympic torch relay will follow the end of the Olympics in August 2028, with the flame originating in Stoke Mandeville, England, the birthplace of the Paralympic movement. The relay’s U.S. starting location will be announced later.

Both torch relays will be sponsored by Coca-Cola, JPMorganChase, Allstate and Xfinity.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday banning local, state and federal law enforcement officers from using gloves that can deliver painful electric shocks to people.

The ban on shock gloves will take effect next year and remain in place until 2030. It comes weeks after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement moved to equip its officers with the gloves, which are designed to gain compliance from combative individuals. Last month, the agency awarded a nearly $17 million contract to buy 6,000 pairs.

“Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state.”

The law is the latest example of how Democratic-led states have been pushing back against President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts since he took office last year. In California, lawmakers passed at least two dozen bills this year seeking to fortify immigrants’ rights, restrict cooperation with federal immigration agents and tighten regulations on immigrant detention facilities, among other things.

Nationwide, 17 states with Democratic-led legislatures have passed a total of more than 100 pro-immigrant bills this year, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill tracking software Plural. The most common purpose is to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents.

Democratic California Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins said she introduced the shock-gloves legislation to “put a pause” on law enforcement’s use of the devices while the state examines their potential risks. The law requires the state’s Justice Department to study their safety and report to lawmakers by 2029.

“There’s a lot of unrest and a lot of uncertainty,” she said in an interview. “A lot of people are scared.”

The law will again test the state’s authority to restrict federal agents amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. A federal judge earlier this year blocked the state’s first-in-the-nation law barring federal officers from wearing face coverings, deeming it too selective because it applied to local and federal law enforcement but exempted state officers.

Lawmakers passed a new bill this year to make the ban apply to all officers. Newsom signed that legislation.

Kevin Johnson, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, said courts are likely to ultimately rule that the state cannot bar federal officers from wearing shock gloves or face coverings. The laws are well-intentioned, he said, but likely conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which generally sets federal law as supreme over conflicting state law.

“The state has very limited, if any, powers in dictating to the federal government how its officers are armed,” he said.

California law enforcement groups broadly opposed the ban.

Sacramento Sheriff Jim Cooper, a Democrat and former state lawmaker, said banning shock gloves “really makes no sense” because they are among the non-lethal tools officers can use if necessary.

“When the federal government does something, the state Legislature wants to ban it,” he said at a news conference. “They’re making our job harder.”

Sharp-Collins said ICE’s plan to use shock gloves was the catalyst for the ban. But she cited their use by other officers, including a case in which a Kentucky family alleges a man died after being tased and shocked with the gloves dozens of times while in law enforcement custody in 2024.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat who wrote last year’s mask ban, also authored this year’s measure to expand it to state officers.

“California must use every available tool to stand up for our communities under attack from ICE’s secret police terror campaign,” he said in a statement after it passed the Legislature.

Associated Press writer David A. Lieb contributed to this report from Jefferson City, Missouri.