The civic centers of the mid-20th century, at least in Southern California, were decidedly single-use institutions. Even in unassuming suburbs, new or rapidly expanding cities built stark plazas, city halls and generally soulless administrative buildings in which to attend to city business. They oversaw bedroom communities but housed no residents of their own.

A Los Angeles judge has called out the City of Pasadena for not processing a builders remedy application even though the California Department of Housing and Community Development had not certified the city’s housing element at the time.

Regarded by pro-housing advocates as a potentially transformational law, SB 79 went into effect on July 1, essentially forcing midrise zoning for housing projects near major transit stations.

Developer Proposes Building Data Centers on Fairgrounds Statewide Global Stack LLC, a California infrastructure company, has proposed building data centers, multilevel parking garages, and helicopter landing pads on state land generally used as fairgrounds. The company has expressed a desire to utilize the substantial swaths of public land in partnership with private interests to generate revenue year round. Public records reveal discussions with eight fairgrounds so far: Cow Palace Arena & Event Center, San Mateo County Event Center, the Calistoga Fairgrounds, the Solano County Fairgrounds & Event Center, the Tulare County Fairgrounds, the Kings County Fairgrounds, the Antelope Valley Fair and Event Center in Lancaster (Los Angeles County), and the Southern California Fair in Perris (Riverside County). The plan envisions rolling the model out to as many as 70 of California's roughly 80 fairgrounds by 2030, offering site operators 100-year land leases in exchange for a stable revenue stream many fairgrounds sorely need. The proposal for Daly City’s Cow Palace, which is still in early discussions, includes an 8- to 10-megawatt data center, multilevel parking garage, and a helicopter landing pad for emergency response. Critics of the projects across communities cite concerns about noise, pollution, water and power demands. (See related CP&DR coverage.) SANDAG Says San Diego Skimped on SB 79 Upzoning The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) determined last week that more than five times the four stops city officials had recognized are eligible for upzoning under Senate Bill 79, opening the city to allow even more new homes than the 367,000 that city officials predicted this spring. On July 1 SB 79 took effect, allowing buildings up to 85 feet tall in areas zoned for single-family housing near qualifying transit stops, with height and density allowances scaling down farther from the stop. It has been unclear which bus stops qualify until this dispute; city officials had counted only stops with bus lanes inaccessible to cars or bikes, while the YIMBY Democrats of San Diego County argued the law's criteria were broader and pushed for as many as 26 stops. Housing advocates estimate the change will push the city's required housing capacity increase from 367,000 units to roughly 467,000, though city planners say they're still calculating a revised figure. Elsewhere in the region, the Oceanside City Council has voted, 4-0, to defer implementation of SB 79 and will seek to “exempt and/or defer all sites that could potentially be exempted or deferred” and “reduce SB 79’s impact to the greatest extent possible.” The city is working on an Alternative Plan, but the deferral of full implementation could extend as late as 2032. The city has a transit center and several rail stations, bringing its full SB 79 capacity to over 50,000. (See related CP&DR coverage.) Environmental Group Sues CARB to Prevent Cuts to Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Communities for a Better Environment, an environmental justice nonprofit, is suing the California Air Resources Board over an update to the cap-and-invest program, alleging the agency skirted required environmental review under CEQA. The suit is the first major legal challenge to the program since lawmakers extended its expiration date from 2030 to 2045 last year. The suit addresses a manufacturing decarbonization incentive that lets polluters claim up to 118 million new emissions allowances in exchange for decarbonization investments, a move regulators say is meant to keep industry from leaving the state. The lawsuit contends CARB introduced the mechanism roughly six weeks before the vote without updating its environmental impact analysis, and posted the final assessment just two days before the hearing. It also alleges that the change threatens up to $2 billion annually that would otherwise be funneled into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which finances housing, transit and clean-air programs, with the heaviest impact falling on low-income communities and communities of color. Lafayette May Upzone to Settle Dispute over Housing Development Lafayette, an East Bay city of about 25,000, has agreed to consider upzoning 130 acres of land as part of a June settlement with the Housing Action Coalition, possibly bringing an end to a notorious yearslong battle over the Terraces of Lafayette, a proposed office space and multifamily housing complex. Since 2011, the project has been downsized, rescinded by voter referendum in 2018, restored, approved by the city council in 2020, and challenged in a lawsuit by the group Save Lafayette that reached the California Supreme Court before the city prevailed in 2023. The development includes 63 below-market-rate units, though eligibility requires household income under 80% of Contra Costa County's area median of $135,750 for a family of four. Save Lafayette, led by resident Michael Griffiths, opposes the project on wildfire and traffic-pollution grounds and is considering further legal action. (See related CP&DR coverage.) State Offers $55 Million in Resilience Planning Grants Applications have opened for Round 2 of California's Community Resilience Centers (CRC) Program, which provides approximately $55 million in grants funded by the 2024 Climate Bond (Proposition 4). The program supports the planning, construction, and renovation of neighborhood resilience centers that provide shelter, cooling, emergency resources, and year-round community services to help communities prepare for climate-related disasters such as extreme heat and wildfires. Round 2 is open to lead applicants that are a public or local agency, nonprofit organization, special district, joint powers authority, Tribe, public utility, local publicly owned utility, or mutual water company, prioritizing communities most impacted by environmental, socioeconomic, and health inequality. Applications opened July 2, with grant applications due in September for review. CP&DR Coverage: Ugly Mayoral Race Highlights Importance of Civic Beauty At one point during his ill-fated campaign for mayor of Los Angeles, former reality TV star Spencer Pratt declared, “ we're going to have L.A. so beautiful. No more of these high-density, SB-79, prison-like structures.” He called out Art Deco in particular as the hallmark of a more attractive city. Pratt was angry and, arguably, loony. But, for a city beset by bad news, we can still take a cue from his optimistic vision. Conventional politicians rarely discuss aesthetics because they are likely afraid of the specters of gentrification or elitism, or they’re wonky enough to know how hard it is to regulate aesthetics. Or -- quite likely -- they simply have no taste and consider aesthetics to be frivolous. Except, writes CP&DR’s Josh Stephens, aesthetics matter. Not as much as poverty, homelessness, or housing--but they still matter a lot. Good plans warrant good design -- and vice-versa. Quick Hits & Updates Modesto will prepare an environmental study to measure the impact of a proposed development and population increase in compliance with their 2050 general plan. The City Council adopted a land use option that would add thousands of acres to the city and potentially grow its population from 220,000 to 324,000 over the next 24 years, bringing up to 38,500 new housing units and 57,300 jobs. While the plan will include mitigation policies to lessen environmental impacts, the city retains the option to approve overriding considerations for impacts deemed too significant to fully mitigate, citing economic or social benefits. San Francisco will introduce the Affordable Grocery Act in November, aimed at combating the city's food deserts and so-called "zombie stores", vacant grocery and pharmacy buildings that corporate chains keep empty to block competitors. The measure would pair tax credits and expedited permitting for businesses that reopen vacant storefronts as groceries or pharmacies with a new tax on corporations that deliberately leave such properties empty, though new stores after January 2027 and housing-conversion sites would be exempt. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted a new inclusionary housing ordinance that requires most new residential developments in unincorporated areas with at least 10 units to reserve 5% of homes for very low-income households or comply through alternatives such as fees or land donations. Other local jurisdictions like Chula Vista and Carlsbad have long required affordable housing set-asides, and San Diego county has met only 28% of its state housing target so far. The county has invested more than $334 million in affordable housing since 2017, but officials noted that limited transit, wildfire risks, and slower homebuilding pose a challenge in unincorporated communities. The Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority has sued the Trump administration over withheld funds the agency says will put more than 11,000 at risk of losing housing and other services. LAHSA is seeking a temporary restraining order in order to stop the Housing and Urban Development Department from suspending the funds. The lawsuit comes three weeks after HUD suspended LAHSA over allegations of financial mismanagement, fraud and inadequate conflict-of-interest safeguards, to which the agency argues HUD has produced no formal investigative findings. The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation released a Notice of Funding Availability for Round 2 of California's Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, offering $27.5 million total in competitive infrastructure grants. Funding for the program is provided by the Climate Bond and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support projects that reduce the impacts of extreme heat and build community resilience. Funding is split into two tracks: Early Infrastructure Projects and Advanced Infrastructure Projects.

The state has sued five jurisdictions for housing element violations, including three of the 15 that were issued warning letters back in March. Meanwhile, however, most of the other 12 jurisdictions that got letters have adopted housing elements and gotten them approved by the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

The San Diego Association of Governments has run into resistance on its SB 79 map, in large part because it has used a methodology that deviated from the guidance provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The 21st Century Road to Housing Act – hailed as a major bipartisan accomplishment – took effect on July 11 over President Trump’s objections but not his veto. Because the federal government plays a limited role in housing production, it’s not likely to have a transformational effect. But several provisions could be important to the planning and development community in Californiaas the state and its cities continue to grapple with the state’s housing affordability crisis. Among the major provisions are: -- Funding for jurisdictions that have increased their housing supply; -- Guidelines and best practices for zoning reform; and -- Provisions designed to streamline project approval under the National Environmental Policy Act. -- A 10% penalty in Community Development Block Grant funding if minimum housing production numbers are not met. NEPA, of course, plays a less important role than the California Environmental Quality Act in California because it applies only to projects undertaken by the federal government or including federal funding. The law is long and complicated, with many provisions. (You can find the text here.) And the actual impact will be a while coming for two reasons. First, in future years Congress has to actually appropriate the funding called for in the bill. And second, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has to go through a lengthy rulemaking process for virtually every provision. (As the Urban Institute has pointed out, funding cuts have left HUD with limited capacity to engage in rulemaking.) Here’s a rundown of provisions of interest to the California planning and development community. To avoid confusion, these provisions are listed in the order they appear in the bill – not based on the significance of the provisions to California planners. Section 102: Guidelines For Single-Stairway Apartment Buildings This provision calls for “federal guidelines for point-access block buildings”. But don’t get confused – that’s just a fancy term for single-stairway apartment buildings, a major Yimby policy goal. Advocates say it will make building smaller apartment buildings more feasible. Within 18 months, HUD must issue “model code language, best practices, and technical guidelines” to facilitate permitting of single-stairway apartment buildings. A bill to allow single-stairway apartment buildings (AB 2252) stalled in the California Legislature this year, but some cities such as Culver City have adopted their own single-stairway ordinances. A model ordinance could make it less complicated for other cities to do the same. Section 103: NEPA Exemption for Rural Infill Housing This provision exempts some Rural Housing Service projects from NEPA, especially if they are in infill locations. But it is likely to have limited impact in California, as the state has seen almost no Rural Housing Service projects since the early 2010s. Section 104: Database of Publicly Owned Land This provision could have some significance for California jurisdictions, especially as housing advocates seek to use public land to “unlock” housing opportunity. Section 104 requires jurisdictions receiving Community Development Block Grant funds – that’s basically everybody – to put a list of vacant sites owned by the jurisdiction on the web. This means California cities and counties will have to daylight the vacant land they own so housing advocates and developers can see the parcels and perhaps put pressure on the jurisdiction to do something with them. Of course, in California, much of the land owned by cities is underutilized land, not vacant land, and therefore is not covered by this requirement. It will be interesting to see, even in areas closer to the coast, whether counties own significant pieces of vacant land. And, in any event, in California unlocking this land for housing means going through the Surplus Land Act, which comes critics say actually discourages housing production on public land. (See CP&DR’s recent coverage of this controversy here.) Section 107: Guidelines For Land-Use Policy Because the federal government does not control local land use decisions, a major effort by both the Biden and Trump Administrations has been focused on finding ways to encourage zoning reform at the local level. For example, the Biden Administration had a major grant program to provide funds for zoning reform. This section continues the effort along those lines. It requires HUD to prepare best practicers and guidelines for what the law calls zoning “frameworks” – state and local zoning policy regimes that hold the potential to increase housing production. The law calls out many specific policies, such as eliminating parking minimums, reducing setbacks and lot sizes, increasingly by-right approval of “plex” buildings, and encouraging transit-oriented development. Section 201: Increasing Housing in Opportunity Zones This provision allows HUD to give extra points for Opportunity Zone projects that include housing. Section 205: Streamlined NEPA And Environmental Review For Multifamily Projects This provision allows HUD to downshift environmental review for some federally funded multifamily projects to local governments. But which projects would be included and what the local environmental review would look like won’t be determined under HUD undertakes the rulemaking. So it’s not clear at this point whether CEQA review would suffice – or, for example, whether the “essential project” designation under the Chamber of Commerce CEQA initial would also suffice if that initiative passes. Section 206: NEPA Streamlining For Small Projects This provision allows streamlined NEPA review (no environmental assessment – the equivalent of an initial study – and no environmental impact reports) for small projects. The projects include rehabilitation of 1–4 unit buildings, new construction of 5–15 units (and larger scattered-site projects capped at 15 units per site), acquisition or disposition of existing structures, office-to-residential conversions that don't increase the building footprint by more than about 20%, and infill projects generally. But again, this only applies to NEPA, meaning when federal funds are involved. Section 207: GrantsFor Housing Plans And Zoning Reform This is a potentially important grant program that California jurisdictions – including regional planning agencies – might be interested in. The law does not specify an amount of funding for this project. Activities permitted under this project include things like updating zoning codes and updating and improving housing plans and strategies at the state, regional, or local level. Surely some California jurisdictions will seek to obtain funds to update their housing elements. Regional planning agencies are specifically called out as potential recipients of the funds – so it will be interesting to see whether California’s councils of governments seek to use funds to undertake their Regional Housing Needs Allocation process. States are also eligible. Section 208: $1 Billion For Housing Innovation Grants To Prohousing Jurisdictions In addition to the grants in Section 207, the law has a section calling on HUD to create a $1 mbillion grant program to jurisdictions that have increased their housing supply in order to support innovation in housing production. It authorizes $200 million a year for five years, though the money still must be appropriated by Congress in the budget each year. But the law calls on HUD to give priority to jurisdictions that have both implementing innovative programs and increased housing production. Among other things, the law specifies that jurisdictions seeking grants must submit data proving that housing production has gone up. In that sense, the prohousing “rich” will get “richer” under this program. There may be a match with California’s prohousing program, since jurisdictions have already had to prove to the state that they have adopted prohousing policies. The list of eligible activities is similar to Section 107 (eliminating parking minimums, by-right plex approval, smaller lot size etc.). But activities also include streamlining environmental regulations (would shifting CEQA review to the plan level and facilitating ministerial review of individual projects, a la San Diego, qualify here?) and “minimizing the impact of overburdensome energy and water efficiency standards on housing costs,” which could knock out California jurisdictions that must comply with state law. Section 213: Penalties and Bonuses for Housing Production The law also contains penalties and bonuses for housing production. Jursidictions that don't a median housing production target determined by HUD will receive a 10% cut in Community Development Block Grant funds. Jurisdictions that over-produce housing will be eligible for a bonus to be determined by HUD. Community Scale has created a map showing the likely impact of this provision -- which areas will benefit and which will be penalized -- that suggests California's coastal communities are likely to be penalized.

The Coastal Commission’s powers trump the state’ builders remedy law, an appellate court has ruled in yet another case from Redondo Beach. The case is potentially very important becauaes the appellate court published the ruling, meaning it can be used as precedent.

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

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

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