Assembly committee holds informational hearing on general plans, updates and new tools including UC Davis PlanSearch

The California State Assembly Local Government Committee held an informational hearing on March 12 to review how local general plans are prepared, updated and implemented, and to discuss technical support and funding needs for jurisdictions across the state. Panelists from academia, local government and the Governor’s Office described costly update cycles, staffing shortfalls, and new tools intended to help local planners.

Dr. Catherine Brinkley, associate professor at the University of California, Davis, opened the hearing with an overview of the general plan’s role and a demonstration of PlanSearch, a searchable statewide database of adopted general plans. “General plans are often called comprehensive plans,” Brinkley said, noting that every California jurisdiction—482 cities and 58 counties—must adopt one. She reported that more than half of California’s general plans are more than 10 years old, with roughly 13% older than 15 years, and that some plan elements have not been updated since the 1970s.

Brinkley outlined the standard plan elements—transportation, safety and hazard, environmental justice, housing, land use, conservation, open space and noise—and described recent state laws that have added or clarified requirements for elements such as environmental justice and safety. She showed how PlanSearch can be used to find policy language across jurisdictions and highlighted that nearly half of cities now mention “environmental justice” in their plans. Brinkley said the database is public and that she and partners made the code available to other states.

The second panel brought local officials who described update costs, staffing constraints and public‑engagement burdens on municipalities and counties. Amanda Follendorf, a county supervisor who represents a rural jurisdiction, said her county’s last plan update cost “just shy of a million dollars” and that other jurisdictions have spent up to $4 million. “For small rural counties and cities, we want to evolve, but our evolution looks different than some of the larger cities and counties in this state,” she said, urging more flexible timelines and state support.

Tom Pace, director of community development for the City of Sacramento and technical advisor to APA California, summarized that local planning capacity is constrained because most planning funding comes from general funds and permit fees, and those funds are often consumed by public safety and day‑to‑day permit processing. He urged the Legislature to prioritize mandates and provide predictable, ongoing planning grants; he also recommended distinguishing high‑level plan policy from implementing ordinances so the general plan remains a “general” document.

Jennifer Jolley, San Joaquin County community development director, said her county’s last general plan update began in 2008, took eight years to adopt and cost more than $2 million; the accompanying zoning code rewrite cost about $750,000 and the county’s housing element cost about $200,000. Jolley described difficulty securing consultants—her agency’s procurement drew only one respondent—and emphasized the heavy staff time required to shepherd long‑range updates.

Omar Databoy, community development director for Fountain Valley, recounted similar points for medium‑sized cities: multi‑year timelines (often 5–6 years or longer), rising consultant and CEQA costs, detailed public outreach requirements, and the loss of institutional memory when multiple directors or staff turnover occur during long projects.

In the third panel, Natalie Kessel, deputy director for land policy at the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI), reviewed LCI’s statutory role and resources. She said LCI prepares the General Plan Guidelines (last comprehensively updated in 2017), operates the State Clearinghouse for CEQA documents, issues technical advisories and provides assistance to local governments. LCI is undertaking a comprehensive guidelines update for 2025–2027 to incorporate recent legislation, provide implementation tools and add new optional elements; Kessel said the update will include an interactive website and that LCI plans to incorporate PlanSearch.

Kessel also listed technical advisories under development, including guidance on open space element changes (SB 1425), wildfire and evacuation planning (SB 990/AB 2747/AB 1409 as referenced), downtown/main‑street revitalization and updated guidance on climate action plans. She noted that several LCI limited‑term staff positions expire in summer 2026 and that ongoing funding and staffing will be required to complete the guidelines update and provide technical assistance.

Committee members and panelists discussed possible state actions to help local jurisdictions: predictable planning grants, a centralized clearinghouse of data and model ordinances, longer or staggered timelines for rural jurisdictions, and targeted exemptions to reduce CEQA costs for planning documents. Several witnesses recommended reconsidering the number and scope of required general plan elements or making some elements optional to focus resources.

The hearing closed with an invitation to public comment and no formal votes on the informational topic. Panel materials and PlanSearch were noted as resources for committee members and staff as the Legislature considers future bills affecting general plan practice.