Foreshadowing a major legal battle, housing advocates have filed four SB 79 lawsuits around the state, including two in San Diego.

The other day I was speaking to a local official who works for a city in California that is contemplating changing around a project that’s already got a certified environmental impact report. When I asked how they might do that, he said, “Well, we’re thinking of just SB-344-ing it.”

In 1997, the suburban dream was strong in the Sacramento areas. The capital city drew various measures of pity and indifference from coastal urbanities while places such as Elk Grove, Folsom, and Roseville grew as quickly as tract-home developers could build them. That's the year that Tom Pace joined the City of Sacramento's Planning Division. In the years since then, Sacramento and Pace -- who took over long-range planning in 2006 and became planning director in 2017 (after a brief stint in Stockton) and community development director in 2020 -- embraced an enthusiastically pro-housing ethos, with policies to match. Pace either oversaw or contributed to policies that drove the rise of high-density housing in neighborhoods like Midtown and the planing of the redevelopment of the Sacramento Railyards. Perhaps most notably, he led one of the most dramatic upzoning efforts in state history when the city effectively made development of small multifamily dwellings in all residential areas. Having retired in May (succeeded by assistant Community Development Director Matt Hertel), Pace spoke with CP&DR's Josh Stephens about his service to the state's capital city--which is, arguably, much more of a city than it was 29 years ago. Let’s start with the most important question: What do you think of the baseball stadium proposal for West Sacramento? I'm no sports buff, but it appears — at least from our experience with the Kings — that sports-related investments can have positive dividends for economic development for a community. They can bring investment and interest to an area, and done right, the physical venues can bring people to an area, which can enliven it and really help promote urban revitalization if it's done in an urban area, which I think is the intention here. As you think about your career, what are one or two projects that were particularly challenging or that you're particularly proud of? Rather than any specific development project, I would point to the general plan update — the 2030 General Plan, adopted in 2009 — which changed the course of planning policy for the City of Sacramento. It took us from a city that had emphasized outward suburban development and had effectively neglected existing older neighborhoods and depressed development opportunity in infill areas, to a city focused on bringing vitality back to the central city and to the older neighborhoods surrounding it. It encouraged mixed-use, transit-supportive, and walkable development patterns. Because of that work, and subsequent work to update the city's zoning regulations, hundreds — maybe thousands — of projects became possible that have been built since then. There's a consensus that Sacramento is very pro-housing these days, both in its policies and among stakeholders. Did the 2009 plan capture the desire of stakeholders, or did it mold attitudes? That's one of the fundamental questions of planning: does a plan lead people in a new direction, or does it follow the preferences that have been expressed in its formation? I think it's always probably a bit of both. There were changing winds in the Sacramento region in the late 1990s and early 2000s as people saw sprawl taking over much of the beautiful landscape around our communities, leading to increased traffic congestion and air quality problems. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments articulated a vision called the Blueprint — which became a model for similar efforts in other regional planning areas of the state — that attempted to, and I think had some success in, change direction. That work within the regional sphere had been happening before we started on that general plan update. People were beginning to think differently about infill development and the idea that environmentalism wasn't truly about opposing development, especially in existing neighborhoods — maybe out in pristine wild areas or fertile farmland, but certainly not in existing urban neighborhoods. I think it was a realization that gradually spread throughout the community: if we want our existing investments and planned investments in transit to be fruitful, and if we want a community where people aren't forced to drive everywhere, then we need to change the pattern of growth and development. That means welcoming more people into our existing neighborhoods. Sacramento famously upzoned most of the city a few years ago. What's happened to the naysayers? What has actually been built, and how do you feel about those results? One of the big shifts we made in the way we approach planning is to engage people at the policy level and not at the construction project level. I think this is one of the big mistakes of many communities — they neglect their general plans, specific plans, and zoning ordinances, and all planning activity becomes focused on project-by-project review. San Francisco springs to mind, where every single room addition and remodel can be appealed to the planning commission. We said: let's get consensus on the policy we want to have in our community and then reward projects that fit within that vision with a predictable and reasonably speedy approval process. If someone wants to deviate from that, that's a different question. We changed our approval and review process — we don't hold public hearings for projects that meet all the required standards and guidelines. We do post applications publicly, so it's not a secret, but we don't invite people to come to a meeting and express all of their concerns about such projects. That was a somewhat scary change to make — can we really do this? But we did it, and I think it's been successful. It has resulted in hundreds of projects being approved with nary a peep from anyone. Not to say there probably aren't people out there unhappy with those projects, but it hasn't resulted in a big outcry. And we do see that when a project involves the full public hearing process at the planning commission, we still sometimes get community opposition — such as a recent large apartment complex in Sacramento that went to the planning commission and was very contentious. But the commission recommended approval, it was appealed to council, and council approved it. The political consensus is pretty firm, even when there are those who argue that new buildings bigger than the existing ones in the neighborhood are inconsistent, or that more people bring more traffic or make parking less convenient. Those arguments just don't win the day anymore the way they used to. At the same time Sacramento has implemented these progressive policies, the state legislature has enacted many pro-housing laws. What do you feel like you understand about the legislature, just by virtue of proximity, that other planners might not? The proximity kept us on our toes. Even apart from what the legislature is doing, the people who are also our constituents — our neighbors, the people who read public notices and go to council meetings — they're there. We have to be up on all the latest policy and legislative changes and follow the correct procedures. There are a lot of eyes on planning in Sacramento, and I think that has actually been good for us. It's forced us to really be on top of our game. Are there particular laws you'd like to highlight as being especially effective, or laws that need to be reconsidered? I don't think there's any argument that the laws that have opened up accessory dwelling units throughout the state have been remarkably successful. The numbers show that — the number of ADUs built since those laws were passed is phenomenal compared to the numbers prior to enactment. One of the challenges in our political environment is creating laws that make it easier to build all kinds of housing — maybe not everywhere, but at least in all urban areas of the state — without adding extra strings attached that make them of limited interest, particularly outside the big cities. I'm thinking specifically of inclusionary housing mandates that may work well economically in a place like San Francisco or Los Angeles, but have been challenging to make work in Sacramento or other Central Valley communities. Similarly, union labor requirements for projects that don't naturally lend themselves to union labor. Many of those laws with those strings attached simply aren't attractive to developers in places like Sacramento and other Central Valley and non-Bay Area, non-core Southern California urban areas. Is there any assistance you feel California cities need — from the state, the federal government, or other sources — that they're not getting? If you had one wish for California cities, what would it be? I may express two wishes. Given the huge volume of planning-related legislation and the need for planners throughout the 540-plus city and county jurisdictions in the state to keep track of, implement, and understand the implications of new state laws, resources for planning itself would be really helpful. There have been some — REAP and LEAP planning grant programs — but of limited duration and scope. A more dependable source of funding for planning would be really valuable. But, bigger picture, beyond that somewhat self-interested ask as a professional planner: infrastructure improvement funding for urban areas. We're seeing more urban development in our existing core cities and older neighborhoods, and infrastructure has to be upgraded. Passing those costs on to developers in the form of impact fees or other exactions makes it infeasible in many cases for projects to get built. What changes have you seen in the planning profession over the years? How do the young planners coming out of school today differ from a previous generation? In some ways the nature of the problem we're trying to solve for has evolved over the decades. Many people look at sprawling communities and say, "This is a failure of planning — there's no planning here." But in actuality, they were very well planned, very intentionally. Keeping housing away from anything and everything other than housing, making cities extremely friendly for driving as fast and conveniently as possible, having plentiful free parking at the end of every trip — those are objectives we set out to create and have very effectively achieved. But they need to be revised. We need to think about how we can change our communities to be more vital, more vibrant, more resilient — both economically and environmentally — and more equitable. Segregation was also very intentional; a whole set of policy objectives were set up to segregate our residential communities. Now we have to think about policy objectives to reverse that course. Now that you have more time on your hands, are there certain cities you're looking forward to visiting and enjoying? I love the coast — the climate and the scenery. I like to spend time all up and down the coast. I love Mendocino and San Diego and everywhere in between. Globally, I was just in London and Porto this year, and Lisbon last year. I'm planning to go to Spain next year and spend some time in Madrid and Seville. I like to learn from these other places — particularly European cities that have had such a great head start on solving many of the problems we're trying to solve now. Do you intend to stay involved in planning in any official capacity? Yes. I am a technical advisor to the vice president for policy and legislation with the California Chapter of the American Planning Association. I work as part of a team on legislative advocacy, providing advice to state legislators and legislative staffers, and working with other legislative advocates to help shape planning policy in California. Image Credit: APA California

This article is brought to you courtesy of the paying subscribers to California Planning & Development Report. You can subscribe to CP&DR by clicking here. You can sign up for CP&DR’s free weekly newsletter here. Rural Jurisdictions Take Steps to Limit Development of Data CentersTulare County, Hanford, Visalia, San Joaquin County and Coachella are among the California communities taking steps to restrict or ban data center development amid growing concerns about conservation and public health. Hanford has publicly opposed data centers, while Visalia is considering a moratorium. In San Joaquin County, Supervisor Robert Rickman is seeking a temporary moratorium that would give officials time to develop regulations or consider prohibiting large-scale AI and other high-intensity data centers in unincorporated areas. Coachella has gone further, becoming the second city in California after Monterey Park to ban data centers completely. The debate has intensified in Tulare County around a proposed partnership with Global Stack LLC and the Tulare and Kings county fairgrounds to install small, shipping-container-sized edge computing systems. Residents have raised particular concerns about groundwater use as the Central Valley faces ongoing water challenges and agricultural pumping restrictions. Officials across the region say existing land-use rules often do not account for the significant water, power, wastewater, noise and emergency-service demands associated with modern data centers. (See related CP&DR coverage.) California Forever Shipyard Must Wait; Company Embarks on Revitalization of Downtown Suisun City Solano County supervisors voted to oppose, 3-2, a proposed state law to streamline approvals for a shipyard on the Sacramento River at Collinsville to be developed by California Forever, the company proposing a new city and industrial zone in Solano County. The shipyard promised to be the first major element of California Forever’s master plan to be implemented. The supervisors’ vote essentially doomed the project for this legislative year. It would have exempted California Forever from having to draft a new environmental impact report and instead would have allowed the company to use an EIR from 2008. Meanwhile, California Forever has acquired property in downtown Suisun City for $1 million, with the intent of redeveloping and revitalizing the property and leasing its parking lots back to the city for $1 per year. The project will conform with the city’s Downtown Specific Plan, which envisions a mix of commercial and residential uses. California Forever’s partnership with cities in Solano County are part of its strategy to rally support for the proposed new city. (See related CP&DR coverage.) This brief has been updated since its original publication to reflect California Forever's purchase price of the Suisun City property. Gutting of Roadless Rule Could Reduce Protections on 4.4 Million Acres in California The Trump administration is proposing to rescind the federal “Roadless Area Conservation Rule,” a 2001 regulation that bans the development of roads and attempts to keep pristine roughly 44 million acres of federal land nationwide -- ten percent of which is in California. Backers of the plan intend to give discretion to local agencies, arguing in part that it will give states more flexibility to fight and prevent wildfires. The proposal comes at the same time the federal government is attempting to increase logging on federal lands. A statement from the Department of Agriculture calls the rule, “a one-size-fits-all restriction that has frustrated land managers and served as a barrier to wildfire risk reduction work across large swaths of America’s national forests.” Roadless areas in California span 21 national forests. “These are some of the last truly wild forests left in the country, places that shelter endangered wildlife and protect our drinking water,” said Randi Spivak, public lands policy director at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, in the Los Angeles Times. “Once you start bulldozing roads for commercial logging and industrial development, there’s no getting them back.” The proposal is in the midst of a 30-day public comment period. Report Credits ADU's for Bulk of New Housing In L.A. County USC's Lusk Center for Real Estate published its second annual State of Los Angeles County Housing and Neighborhoods report. ADU construction hit a record high in 2025, the share of new rental units affordable to low-income households nearly doubled, and homelessness appears to be leveling off after more than a decade of steady growth. While housing production dipped from 2024 to 2025, ADU production reached its peak; despite this growth, the county is far behind state-mandated housing construction goals. Meanwhile, 19% of new rental units affordable to low-income households nearly doubled over the last seven years, rising from 10% to 19% of new stock. More than half of renters in Los Angeles are now considered rent-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent. Among middle income households who make between $50,000 and $100,000 per year, severe rent burden has nearly doubled, meaning this demographic is increasingly spending over 50% of their income on rent. The report also introduces a new method for identifying naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), defined as older, unsubsidized units that remain relatively affordable, and emphasizes the importance of maintaining this stock. Even in the most affordable NOAH buildings the typical renter spends 35% of their income on rent. CP&DR Coverage: Sonoma Co. Development Hopes to Break California’s New Urbanist Drought Since the adoption of the Charter of the New Urbanism, California has been a hotbed of New Urbanist thought, yet development has been scarce. This trend might be shifting, namely in Sonoma County, where the community of Esmeralda is working its way through the planning process in Cloverdale. It is envisioned as a holistic community full of walkable streets, dense mixed-use structures, roughly 600 housing units, and community amenities. Esmeralda is the brainchild of Devon Zuegel, an entrepreneur who is attempting to establish California’s first large-scale New Urbanist Development built on the principle of human-scale streets and an emphasis on public space. So far, there has been no friction with city planning departments; however, Esmeralda faces challenges in financing the project and in meeting community demands for a full environmental impact report. Quick Hits & Updates The Newport Beach city council voted 5-0 to approve a decrease in low-income housing requirements for for-sale homes near John Wayne Airport, dropping the requirement from 15% to 6% of units in a development to be designated as low-income. An additional 8% will now be designated for moderate-income households, a change city officials argued was necessary because Newport Beach's home values run nearly three times the Orange County median. On a 6-1 vote, the Fresno Planning Commission has endorsed the Southeast Development Area, a 9,000-acre annexation that would permit development in what is now largely farmland. The plan had been considered by the city council last year butas sent back to the Planning Department for modifications. Opponents, including the school district, are concerned about the financial plan for providing infrastructure in the annexed area. Developer Wellpointe has unveiled plans for Viva, a $2-billion senior housing high-rise complex in Warner Center that would become the largest affordable housing development in Los Angeles. The 2.2-million-square-foot project would comprise four towers ranging from 34 to 42 stories, creating 3,192 income-restricted senior units. The proposal leverages the Warner Center 2035 specific plan, joining the LA Rams’ separate $10-billion headquarters and practice facility as one of two major high-rises now proposed for the area. (See related CP&DR coverage.) New York-based Yellowstone Real Estate Investments has taken over four parcels at San Francisco's Parkmerced complex through foreclosure. The previous developer Maximus Real Estate defaulted on a construction loan that had grown to over $199 million, surrendering the 152-acre property containing more than 3,200 homes next to San Francisco State University. Oakland's City Council has advanced a November ballot measure that would extend the city's real estate transfer tax to foreclosure-related transactions, which are currently exempt. The measure could generate $4 million to $13 million annually as downtown office vacancy sits at 30% and landlords default on loans. A study from UC Berkeley and UCLA found that building more homes can eliminate up to 1 percent of miles driven statewide, a small step toward the state's goal of a 25% reduction by 2030. The study recommends the state prioritize housing goals to help local governments better align new construction with locations that naturally reduce car dependency, as while regional housing agencies are effectively directing growth toward car-light areas with good transit access, individual cities aren't strategically placing new housing to maximize driving reductions. Research suggests that closing this gap could push per-capita vehicle miles traveled down by as much as 6%.

Lot line adjustments are ministerial. Except when they’re not.

Laguna Beach’s decision to eliminate all references to a 45-year-old historic resources inventory from its general plan required analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act, an appellate court has ruled in an unpublished decision.

SLO County Can’t Approve Subdivision Map If Conditions Aren’t Met

The Legislature wrapped up its work on Monday, August 31, and sent hundreds of bills to Gov. Gavin Newsom to sign or veto. Though no planning bill captured widespread public attention as SB 79 did last year, a number of important bills were passed – including bills that further erode CEQA’s provisions and bills that seek to cleanup post-entitlement permitting process. Here is CP&DR’s rundown of the most important bills.

Subscribers -Log In to read the CP&DR Vol. 41 No. 8 August 2026 Report

The City of Burlingame (pop. 32,348) is a thriving suburban city on the San Francisco Peninsula, offering an exceptional quality of life and a dynamic development environment. The City is a stable, fiscally strong, well-managed organization known for its collaborative culture, supportive leadership, and exceptional public service. Burlingame seeks an experienced planning professional to serve as ACDD, lead the Planning Division, and collaborate on cross-organizational projects. This hands-on manager will oversee current and advanced planning, serve as staff liaison to the Planning Commission, and manage complex projects. The ideal candidate will be a knowledgeable, credible planning professional with strong leadership, communication, and interpersonal skills. This collaborative leader will bring expertise in contemporary urban planning practices and California’s evolving legal framework, along with the political acumen to work effectively with the community and elected and appointed officials. Successful candidates will have seven years of progressively responsible municipal planning experience, including three years in a supervisory role, and a Bachelor’s degree in a related field. The salary range is $176,170 - $214,102 DOQE, supplemented by a competitive benefits package including a telework program allowing up to 50% remote work. Visit www.tbcrecruiting.com for a brochure and to apply. Closes: Sunday, September 27, 2026. Suzanne Mason ● 562.631.2500 Jennifer Curtis ● 661.510.0076 TERI BLACK & COMPANY, LLC www.tbcrecruiting.com

The City of Concord is currently seeking to fill one Principal Planner vacancy in the Community Development Department. Ideal candidates possess extensive experience in current development and long range planning projects,both as project managers and as supervisors or team leaders. Closing Date: Sept 14, 2026

The City of Ventura is seeking a dynamic and visionary leader to serve as its next Community Development Director. As a key member of the City’s strategic management team, the Director will lead a high-performing department and help shape the future of Ventura through strong leadership, collaboration, and meaningful community engagement. This high-profile role requires a leader who can build trusted relationships, navigate complex community issues, and bring people together around a shared vision for a well-planned, well-designed, accessible, and prosperous community. To apply, please visit our website at: City of Ventura https://cityofventura.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/CityofVentura/job/Ventura-CA/Community-Development-Director_R26-229 Filing Deadline: Sept 25, 2026