Assembly Local Government informational hearing reviews general plan role, costs and state support

The Assembly Local Government Committee held an informational hearing on March 12 to examine how California jurisdictions prepare, update and implement general plans, and what state support local governments need to keep their plans current.

University of California Davis researcher Dr. Catherine Brinkley opened the hearing with an overview of general plans and presented PlanSearch, a publicly available database her team developed to catalogue adopted general plans across the state. Brinkley told the committee that all 482 California cities and 58 counties are required to adopt a general plan; many jurisdictions’ plans are more than 10 years old and some elements—she said—have not been updated since the 1970s. Her presentation described required elements (for example, housing, safety/hazard, conservation and land use) and optional elements jurisdictions frequently adopt, and noted state statutes such as Senate Bill 1000 (environmental justice) and statutes requiring coordination with metropolitan planning organization transportation plans.

Local elected officials and planning directors described practical constraints. Amanda Follendorf, a county supervisor from Calaveras County, said smaller and rural jurisdictions often rely on general‑fund revenue and sometimes must hire consultants to complete updates; she said one recent local general plan update in her county cost “just shy of a million dollars,” and that some jurisdictions face costs “upwards to $4,000,000.” Follendorf emphasized infrastructure constraints in rural areas—water, sewer and roads—that can prevent projects from moving forward even after a plan change, and urged more state assistance and pragmatic timelines for mandates.

Tom Pace, technical advisor for policy and legislation to the American Planning Association (APA) California chapter and director of Sacramento’s Community Development Department, told the committee that most jurisdictions rely heavily on consultants for long‑range planning because local staffing and fiscal resources are limited. Pace recommended the Legislature prioritize which statutory mandates are urgent, provide predictable planning grants, and host a technical clearinghouse of model ordinances and guidance that jurisdictions can use.

Jennifer Jolley, Community Development Director for San Joaquin County, described her county’s experience updating a general plan and related zoning code: the last county general plan update that began in 2008 took eight years and cost “well over $2,000,000”; the related zoning code update cost roughly three‑quarters of a million dollars; and San Joaquin’s housing element cost about $200,000. Jolley said the county maintains a building permit fee account of about $855,000 for general plan work but noted fees take many years to accumulate and cannot be set so high as to make development prohibitively expensive.

Omar Databoy, Community Development Director for the City of Fountain Valley, and other panelists described similar constraints: general plan updates commonly take five to six years or more; public engagement and required environmental review under CEQA add time and cost; consultant pools are competitive and procurement processes can delay work; and personnel turnover can lengthen projects because new directors or planners must be trained.

Natalie Kuffel, Deputy Director of Land Policy at the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), outlined the state office’s role. She noted LCI has statutory duties under Government Code section 65040 to prepare the General Plan Guidelines and technical advisory materials; LCI funds and is integrating the UC Davis PlanSearch tool; and LCI is updating the General Plan Guidelines in a comprehensive project scheduled for completion in 2027. Kuffel said LCI is preparing technical advisories on wildfire and fire hazard planning (in response to SB 901 and AB 2911 as discussed), wildland‑urban interface planning, open‑space element updates under SB 1425, downtown/main‑street revitalization tied to the governor’s executive order on infill housing, evacuation planning tied to recent safety element requirements, and updated guidance on local climate action plans.

Across panels the recurring themes were staffing shortages, constrained local funding, the rising cost of CEQA review and consultant work, and uneven capacity between large and small jurisdictions. Panelists urged more predictable state funding, practical implementation timelines for new statutory requirements, and state technical resources (data, model policies and a clearinghouse) to reduce duplicative local spending.

Committee members thanked presenters and noted the hearing material will inform future legislative and administrative steps; there were no public comments recorded at the end of the session.

Context and significance

General plans set a jurisdiction’s long‑range land use policies and are the basis for zoning, specific plans and many implementation tools. Panelists said updating plans is often slower and more expensive than legislators expect because updates can trigger related code changes, environmental review, capital improvement planning, and extensive public outreach. Panelists recommended the state consider policy and funding changes to help jurisdictions meet statutory obligations without undermining local priorities.