The Brief

At a rally in February, the mayor of West Hollywood said he’s advocated for direct rail access to the city for years. Each time a new line was built, Mayor John Heilman said he was told it wasn’t the city’s time.

“Now is our time,” he said at the rally.

L.A. Metro’s Board is set to vote on Thursday on the staff-recommended route for the northern extension of the K Line, which would place three much sought-after rail stations in West Hollywood.

The decision over the train route is a political test for the board. West Hollywood has established itself as a powerfully pro-transit city and has for years studied the feasibility of fronting billions of dollars to kickstart the project without raising taxes.

At the same time, a small contingent of homeowners in an historic Mid City neighborhood continue to reject Metro staff’s assurances, backed by years of studies and history, that the train and its construction will have minimal, if any, effect on their daily lives.

The homeowners have met with L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who has a seat on the board of the countywide transportation agency, as recently as March 16. Metro Board Director Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, who lives in the neighborhood where residents are concerned, was also at the meeting despite recusing herself from public meetings about the project.

L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who has held positions as mayor and City Council member of West Hollywood and has a seat on the Metro Board, characterized the decision on Thursday as an existential one for Metro.

“Are they interested in being serious partners in building infrastructure when people come to the table with billions of dollars to invest?” Horvath said to LAist on Wednesday after a Metro committee declined to take a position on the rail extension. “Or are we going to move in a different direction?”

L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath has worked with and alongside West Hollywood to bring Metro rail to the city. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass has engaged privately with Lafayette Square residents who are opposed to the route for the K Line Northern extension,

(

Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

Primer on the extension

The K Line currently runs from Redondo Beach to Crenshaw and stops at the LAX/Metro Transit Center. Earlier in March, Metro officials recommended a route for the train to continue north through Mid City and West Hollywood and terminate at the Hollywood Bowl.

L.A. Metro staff recommended the San Vicente-Fairfax alignment for the K Line Northern extension. The alignment the Metro Board is approving is mostly shown in this map in a dotted green line. The section going through Mid-City has been altered slightly in an attempt to appease residents' concerns. The pink line represents the current K Line.

(

L.A. Metro

)

The recommended route would attract 60,000 daily trips, the most of the routes studied by Metro. It would also reach a higher number of residents and jobs within a half-mile of the nine proposed stations, according to Metro staff estimates.

Committee meeting lays bare the politics at play 

During the public comment period at Metro’s Planning and Programming committee meeting on March 18, supporters celebrated the transformational potential of the route.

The route would connect to the D Line in Wilshire and the B Line in Hollywood, closing a north-south gap that currently exists in Metro’s rail network. The extension would link to cultural hubs, including the Museum District and Hollywood Bowl, major employers such as Cedars Sinai Medical Center and queer nightlife along Santa Monica and Sunset boulevards.

Also at the meeting, Lafayette Square residents expressed concerns, which have persisted for years, over the effects of tunneling on property values, noise and vibration, as well as the planned demolition of a nearby grocery store.

Based on the concerns, the Metro Board directed agency staff in October 2024 to do additional analysis and community outreach. That work, which cost an additional $2.3 million, filtered into the recommendation Metro staff will present to its board on Thursday. The presentation includes a modified route that minimizes underground easements under residential neighborhoods and assurances that tunneling will be deep enough to zero out any surface-level disruptions.

“They still want to tear down our only grocery store and our only drugstore,” Wade Eck, a 25-year resident of Lafayette Square, said to LAist. “That’s where people should really question what’s going on.”

Metro said it’s committed to relocating the Ralph’s that would be demolished before construction.

The fissure in public opinion about the train was enough for acting director of the committee, Ara Najarian, to suggest the discussion continue at the full board meeting Thursday, which he termed a “more august forum,” rather than issuing a recommendation.

Najarian said he supports the route as proposed by Metro staff, but he wants to ensure Bass can weigh in. The mayor could still share her thoughts on Thursday even if the committee recommended the item for approval.

The mayor’s meetings

Bass’ office told LAist she participated in meetings on March 11 and 16 about the K Line Northern Extension. The March 16 meeting involved members of the Lafayette Square neighborhood.

Bass supports the extension, her office said, but didn’t specify if that meant she supports the Metro staff-recommended route, would like to see a modification or wants to delay the vote entirely.

“Mayor Bass supports the K Line Northern extension because it will ease congestion, create jobs and expand access to culture, education, opportunity and housing,” her office said in a statement. “Mayor Bass regularly meets with community members and believes residents should have their voices heard at Metro headquarters.”

Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, who is one of the mayor’s appointees to the Metro Board, was present for both meetings, Bass’ office said.

The founding member of a faith-based development group in South L.A., Dupont-Walker’s current residence is in Lafayette Square, according to an LAist review of public records.

When the item came up at the committee meeting on Wednesday, Dupont-Walker recused herself, citing a “perceived conflict.”

When reached by email and phone, Dupont-Walker declined to comment on the nature and terms of her recusal and in what capacity she attended the meetings with the mayor.

“Unfortunately while deliberations are in process this month, I am not engaging [regarding] this matter,” Dupont-Walker said in an email to LAist.

Metro Board Member Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, a Lafayette Square resident, as recused herself from public meetings about the extension but has participated in private meetings with the L.A. mayor about the project.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

LAist

)

West Hollywood isn’t shaken

West Hollywood City Councilmember Chelsea Byers grew up in Phoenix, Arizona, and told her parents she wanted to move to a city that was walkable and had a train.

“ My parents now live in that city in Arizona, while I am waiting for a train here,” Byers said to LAist.

Byers said she’s hoping the politics and behind-the-scenes maneuvering doesn’t jeopardize the opportunity the train extension presents for West Hollywood.

In 2018, the West Hollywood City Council initiated the process of studying how the city could, in coordination with L.A. County, capture a certain proportion of future property tax growth in a defined area near the project and funnel it towards construction. Critically, this plan wouldn’t involve raising taxes.

“Every time a property is redeveloped or sold, it adds to that increment, which adds to the amount of money that you can raise,” Eli Lipmen, head of transit advocacy group Move LA and supporter of the Metro-recommended route for the extension, said to LAist.

The Metro-staff recommended route is the most expensive of the options studied, with an estimated capital cost of nearly $15 billion. That cost far exceeds the $2.2 billion allocated toward the project in the expenditure plan for Measure M, the half-cent sales tax for transit projects county voters approved in 2016.

Byers said a swift decision on Thursday is critical to the success of the financial plan, known as an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, since the city has a “huge list” of redevelopment projects on the horizon.

If the Metro staff-recommended route is approved on Thursday, West Hollywood City Council and the L.A. County Board of Supervisors would separately pursue creating the district within which property tax growth could be captured.

Though she was “disappointed” that the vote on Thursday will happen without the recommendation from the committee, Horvath ultimately struck an optimistic tone.

“ I believe that this agency is committed to a future that connects our region …  and I think this alignment really is an important component of that regional conversation,” she said.

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

Companies backing data center construction are flooding Sacramento with cash, hoping to stop or defang seven bills that would regulate the facilities as they head toward approval in the California Legislature this week.

The pro-data-center spenders include Big Tech companies like Amazon and AI titan Anthropic. But they are led, dollar-wise, by old school utility giant Pacific Gas & Electric, which earlier this year clocked its second biggest lobbying quarter since 1999.

The financial push comes a year after four bills that attempted to regulate data centers died or were diluted after lobbying from the industry. But as artificial intelligence fuels an unprecedented facility buildout, public backlash is transforming data center construction into a major issue for candidates in upcoming elections.

A May Gallup poll found seven in 10 Americans oppose data center construction in their communities, while a Public Policy Institute of California poll in July found similar opposition statewide. Rising public anxiety over utility costs, water use, and grid strain has driven California lawmakers to propose strict new data center rules — igniting a high-stakes lobbying push by the industry.

Hundreds of cities have considered or passed project bans this year, including in Monterey Park, where voters passed a ballot measure to permanently ban data centers, and Bay Area cities like Pittsburg, which backtracked on approvals following public outcry.

State law requires businesses and groups that engage in lobbying to report their overall quarterly spending, but does not require a breakdown of exactly how much is being spent on each bill. An analysis by CalMatters of lobbying activity for the first six months of 2026 found that utilities, tech companies and their proxies have spent millions of dollars lobbying state lawmakers, with data center bills emerging as a primary focus.

By Monday, it will be clear which bills made it out of the Legislature and onto Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for signature or veto by the end of September.

The fate of the measures could have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only data center development but environmental regulation, utility rates, and how freely California’s tech giants can operate in the state. Nationally, advocates and lawmakers agree that California’s regulation around data centers could be an important bellwether for how similar fights will play out elsewhere.

“The level of awareness is through the roof, and the level of concern and sensitivity is through the roof — it's bipartisan, it's national, and it's across the board,” California Sen. Steve Padilla, a Democrat from Chula Vista who is author of two pending data center bills, told CalMatters.

Who is lobbying on data centers?

During the first half of 2026, Amazon paid more than $500,000 to lobby lawmakers on 33 pieces of legislation, including several data center bills and matters related to antitrust and artificial intelligence. Amazon spent more than $1.7 million lobbying in California last year.

Meanwhile, AI company Anthropic, which sent its first lobbyists to Sacramento last year, has spent nearly $90,000 to influence decisions made by the California Legislature so far this year and, according to the Financial Times, nearly tripled its federal lobbying spend in the same time period. Last year, Anthropic spent over $200,000 lobbying in the state.

Although Anthropic paid a lobbyist to influence lawmakers decisionmaking on data centers, a spokesperson said the company does not support or oppose any specific bills in California. The company, the spokesperson said, is also interested in working with lawmakers “on AI safety and other relevant issues." Representatives for Amazon did not respond to a request for comment from CalMatters.

Utility giant PG&E’s latest filing shows that it spent $2.86 million lobbying in California between April and June — its second highest quarter since 1999 (only surpassed since then by 2018, the year of the deadliest wildfire in state history, later linked to its equipment). A spokesperson for PG&E said the company has engaged on a “broad scope” of issues facing the industry during this legislative session, adding that “less than 5% of our spending was on data-center related issues,” amounting to approximately $143,000.

Groups acting as proxies for data center operators and tech companies have been especially active this year in California’s capitol, critics say. Business interests say they are trying to ground policy conversations in reality.

(

Fred Greaves

/

CalMatters

)

Other utilities, like Southern California Edison, and unions representing utility workers, like the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, have also invested in lobbying efforts on the bills.

Utilities providers are particularly motivated to influence bills because the development of new data centers represents a historic opportunity for expansion and grid upgrades, according to Matthew Freedman, senior staff attorney for The Utility Reform Network. Under the current regulatory framework, he said, the cost of expanding transmission lines is spread across all grid users, which means everyday consumers foot the bill.

But several of this year’s data center bills would change that, shifting costs back toward data center operators. “The groups that have been the strongest opponents of the bills this year include the proxies for the data centers and the tech companies,” Freedman said, referring to industry groups such as the Data Center Coalition, Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the California Chamber of Commerce. “They serve as a mouthpiece for the tech industry.”

Filings do not show that tech giants like Google, OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft are lobbying lawmakers directly on data centers this session. Instead, the business groups Freedman referenced, which represent the Big Tech firms, carry the weight.

Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents companies including Apple and Amazon, has so far spent over $100,000 lobbying on bills including the various data center measures this year and is on track for its highest annual lobbying spend since tracking began in 2005.

The Data Center Coalition, which counts companies like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI among its members, has logged its second and third highest-ever spending quarters so far this year. It has spent roughly $60,000 lobbying state lawmakers and the governor’s office to voice opposition to nearly every bill that would regulate data centers.

The bills and the backlash 

The measures before the Legislature this session include:

• Bills to shift electric infrastructure costs toward data center operators and away from residential customers: SB 1168, SB 886 and AB 2383.
• Bills mandating disclosures or estimates of water usage (and sometimes usage of other resources): AB 2619 and two bills that cleared the Legislature Thursday, AB 1577 and AB 2469.
• SB 887, which would require all data center projects to undergo environmental reviews and offer fast-tracked approval for facilities that meet standards for water and energy conservation.

Business interests opposed to the bills argue they would stifle tech companies’ ability to innovate and compete, tie up critical infrastructure in red tape and unfairly burden the construction of data centers versus the construction of other types of projects.

Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Ahmad Thomas told CalMatters that he sees public debate over data centers as fueled by “strong anti-AI sentiment,” and that industry groups like his aim to “ground the conversation in reality” about the ways consumers rely on data center infrastructure for everyday services.

Advocacy groups counter that transparency is vital to protect the environment and public resources, and that everyday consumers should not be affected by increased infrastructure and utilities costs.

Britt Smith, who is part of a community group organizing against a controversial $2 billion Amazon data center project in Gilroy south of San Jose, said corporate opponents of the bills are “spending so much because there’s so much at stake,” adding, “Our future, our safety, is not for sale.”

This robust fight stands in stark contrast to last year, when the only bill signed into law was stripped down to just a requirement for state energy regulators to publish an environmental impact study on data centers’ electricity demand. Newsom also vetoed a water usage disclosure bill, citing concerns that regulation could stifle AI growth.

Whether this year's intensified lobbying will yield similar results remains uncertain, but lawmakers say shifting voter sentiment heading into the midterms has altered the political landscape.

“When you're looking down the barrel of public outcry that says we don't want [data centers] at all, and you've got localities that are saying they’re going to ban them, then you know the atmosphere has changed,” Assemblymember Diane Papan, a San Mateo Democrat who authored two of the bills, told CalMatters. “We are in a totally different environment this year.”

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

Topline:

Why oysters? Oysters filter and improve water quality … and can help prevent coastal erosion. Yet native species have been nearly wiped out since the Gold Rush era sparked overharvesting and coastal development. The nonprofit Orange County Coastkeeper has been working to restore oysterbeds along the OC coast for more than a decade.

What to expect: Oysterpalooza will feature speakers highlighting the group’s restoration efforts, as well as local food, beer and sustainable product vendors. Of course, there will be oyster tasting too!

The details: You can join a beach cleanup beforehand at 9 a.m., or just get straight to the party, which starts Saturday at 11 a.m. and runs until 4 p.m. at Sunset Beach Community Center in Huntington Beach. Sign up for the beach cleanup and get full festival details here.

Go deeper: Your shucked oysters could help shore up the Orange County coast

After opening a modern Korean pub called Yi Cha in 2025, chef Debbie Lee decided to pay homage to her heritage with Mokja, this time serving Korean goods and convenience.

Lee sat down with AirTalk Friday host Austin Cross to talk about her vision for gourmet Korean style snacks in L.A.

Grab-and-go convenience with a twist

Lee says the idea behind Mokja was to take the model of American convenience stores and blend it with Korean flavors.

It’s a place for people who want to grab something for the road, stop by for a quick snack or even meal prep for the week. The store also partnered with Frank and Michele La, creators of Be Bright Coffee, to offer Korean-style coffee drinks to pair with the snacks.

Daru Yu, Frank La, Debbie Lee and Michelle La

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

The Korean word Mokja translates to "let's eat."

“If your mom or your grandma was calling you over the table, they'd say, ‘Bali Mokja,’ which means, ‘Hurry, let's eat’”

What you’ll find at Mokja

One of the quick, to-go items you’ll find is Lee’s northern style mandu dumplings, stuffed with fatty pork and shrimp and inspired by her grandmother’s recipe.

Build your own ramen tray

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Build your own Ramen station

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Grab n' Go Banchan

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

For optimal convenience, the king-sized dumplings are offered in the grab-and-go fridge. Lee recommends popping them in the microwave at the store and enjoying them with a coffee.

Mokja also features a make-your-own ramen station, which Lee says has become incredibly popular for families with kids.

Korean hand pies with southern flair

One of the highlights on the menu is the oxtail hand pie, which features a braised Korean-style oxtail known as kkori-jjim. It’s inspired by southern soul food influences her parents picked up on.

Braised Oxtail aka “Gori Jjim” Hand Pie

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

“My mom learned how to cook from the Black cooks in Jackson, Mississippi, and she learned good old soul Southern food.”

Kimchee Cheese Biscuits

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Yuja Cha Ice Box Pie

(

Stan Lee

/

Courtesy Mokja

)

Lee said Mokja is all about telling the story through food.

The restaurant also features other Korean/Southern fusion, including a Yuju cha ice box pie and Kimchi cheese biscuits.

State lawmakers have reached a deal that would provide school districts some relief from the costs of childhood sexual abuse lawsuits filed after a 2020 law allowed victims to sue for abuse by public employees going back decades, EdSource has learned.

It was not immediately clear Thursday afternoon whether the last-minute deal, brokered days before the legislative session is set to end on Aug. 31, has enough support to reach Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

At issue is Assembly Bill 218, a law that lifted the statute of limitations to sue for childhood sexual abuse and enabled a blitz of costly litigation against schools and public agencies. In some cases, victims have received tens of millions of dollars for sexual assaults and abuses they say took place decades ago at the hands of teachers and other public employees.

Details of the deal are included in amendments made to Senate Bill 577 co-authored by Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz. According to the amended bill text, the deal would raise the legal standard required for people who are 40 years or older to sue for sexual assaults that occurred before Jan. 1, 2024. It also calls for schools and other agencies to have sexual assault prevention plans and codes of conduct.

“California stands with survivors, whose voices have shaped this process every step of the way, and the Legislature is taking action to defend and preserve survivors’ path to justice — that is not negotiable,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said in a statement. “With this solution, the state is safeguarding schools and public services, while investing in prevention and protecting against future abuse. California is committed to the safety of every child.”

The amendments do not appear to address a limit or cap on jury awards or settlement amounts for childhood sexual abuse cases in the state. Caps were a major demand from public agencies, including schools, counties and obscure agencies called joint powers authorities that serve as insurance pools for school districts.

Laird, who had attempted to pass an AB 218 reform bill last year, said in a phone interview Thursday evening that the negotiations that led to the compromise were difficult. Putting a complete cap on settlement amounts “was a bridge too far” for many lawmakers, Laird said.

Troy Flint, spokesperson for the California School Boards Association, said the group was grateful for lawmakers’ efforts, but added that it’s “highly questionable” whether the deal would do enough to prevent school districts from getting slammed with seven-figure settlements.

“We’re grateful to Speaker Rivas and Pro Tem (Monique) Limón for their efforts to address this issue,” Ben Adler, director of public affairs for the California State Association of Counties, said in a statement. “It’s clear the status quo is broken, and the unintended consequences have grown out of control.”