Key To Abbreviations In Chapter 1

The following symbols are used in this chapter to identify elements which might address a particular issue.

(LU) - Land Use

(CI) - Circulation

(H) - Housing

(CO) - Conservation

(OS) - Open Space

(N) - Noise

(S) - Safety

Basic General Plan Provisions

The following code sections represent the California Planning Law's basic general plan provisions:

Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning. Chartered cities shall adopt general plans which contain the mandatory elements specied in Section 65302.

(Government Code Section 65300)

In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.

(Government Code Section 65300.5)

The Legislature nds that the diversity of the state's communities and their residents requires planning agencies and legislative bodies to implement this article in ways that accommodate local conditions and circumstances, while meeting its minimum requirements.

(Government Code Section 65300.7)

The Legislature recognizes that the capacity of California cities and counties to respond to state planning laws varies due to the legal differences between cities and counties, both charter and general law, and to differences among them in physical size and characteristics, population size and density, scal and administrative capabilities, land use and development issues, and human needs. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to provide an opportunity for each city and county to coordinate its local budget planning and local planning for federal and state program activities, such as community development, with the local land use planning process, recognizing that each city and county is required to establish its own appropriate balance in the context of the local situation when allocating resources to meet these purposes.

(Government Code Section 65300.9)

The general plan shall be so prepared that all or individual elements of it may be adopted by the legislative body, and so that it may be adopted by the legislative body for all or part of the territory of the county or city and such other territory outside its boundaries which in its judgment bears relation to its planning. The general plan may be adopted in any format deemed appropriate or convenient by the legislative body, including the combining of elements. The legislative body may adopt all or part of a plan of another public agency in satisfaction of all or part of the requirements of Section 65302 if the plan of the other public agency is sufciently detailed and its contents are appropriate, as determined by the legislative body, for the adopting city or county.

(Government Code Section 65301(a))

The general plan may be adopted as a single document or as a group of documents relating to subjects or geographic segments of the planning area.

(Government Code Section 65301(b))

The general plan shall address each of the elements specied in Section 65302 to the extent that the subject of the element exists in the planning area. The degree of specicity and level of detail of the discussion of each such element shall reect local conditions and circumstances. However, this section shall not affect the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 65302, nor be construed to expand or limit the authority of the Department of Housing and Community Development to review housing elements pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code.

The requirements of this section shall apply to charter cities.

(Government Code Section 65301(c))

The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements:

(a) land use . . . ; (e) open-space . . . ;

(b) circulation . . . ; (f) noise . . . ; and,

(c) housing . . . ; (g) safety . . . .

(d) conservation . . . ;

(Government Code Section 65302)

The general plan may include any other elements or address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county or city.

(Government Code Section 65303)

Note: See Chapter III for a full description of the required elements' contents.

NATURE OF THE GENERAL PLAN

INTRODUCTION

An adequate general plan is one that serves as a useful guide for local decision making. It must meet the minimum requirements of state law: addressing each issue prescribed by state law as it applies to the community; addressing each issue through data and analysis, policy, and an implementation program; and maintaining internal consistency among its compo nents. The general plan is a comprehensive longterm document, covering all territory within the jurisdiction and any adjacent related lands, while reecting the needs of the regional population.

There is also a "common sense" standard of adequacy which requires that the general plan focus on the issues of greatest local concern. It must be organized and written so as to serve as a clear and useful guide for decision makers and citizens. Further, the general plan should be available to all those concerned with the community's development.

A general plan provides a basis for rational decision making regarding a city's or county's long-term physical development. A developing community is like an incomplete and evolving puzzle. A general plan serves as a generalized and dynamic picture of the puzzle. The plan directs decision makers in tting together numerous community development compo nents. This section of the General Plan Guidelines elaborates on the plan's role and its basic characteristics.

THE ROLE OF THE GENERAL PLAN

California state law requires each city and county (including chartered cities) to adopt a general plan "for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which . . . bears relation to its planning." The role of each community's general plan is to act as a "constitution" for development, the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based. It expresses community development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land use, both public and private.

At one time, the local general plan was looked upon as a set of broad policies that had little actual role in development decisions. In those days, general plans consisted of brightly colored maps or printed booklets that were carefully prepared and then set aside so as not to interfere with the job of decision making. Changes to the law occurring since 1971 have vastly boosted the importance of the plan. A general plan may no longer be merely a "wish list" or vague picture of the community's future; it must now provide concrete direction for decision making.

The general plan consistency requirements have enlarged the role of the general plan in the physical development of cities and counties. If inconsistency exists between the general plan and its implementing ordinances, land development may be impeded.

Preparing, adopting, implementing, and maintaining a general plan serves to:

· Identify the community's land use, circulation, environmental, economic, and social goals and policies as they relate to land use and development.

· Provide a basis for local government decision making, including a nexus to support development exactions as required by Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 107 S.Ct. 3141.

· Provide citizens with opportunities to participate in the planning and decision making processes of local government.

· Inform citizens, developers, decision makers, and other cities and counties of the ground rules that will guide development within the community.

The general plan bridges the gap between community values and actual physical decisions.

THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT

The adoption or amendment of a general plan is a legislative act (Government Code Section 65301.5 and Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561). As such, a general plan's provisions are subject to the initiative and referendum processes. The requirements for ndings, notice, and hearing for general plan adoption or amendment are those specically mandated by state statutes and regulations or by local ordinances. Other examples of legislative acts include the adoption of zoning ordinance amendments and specic plans.

THE GENERAL PLAN IS COMPREHENSIVE

Government Code Section 65300 requires that every city and county adopt a comprehensive general plan. What is meant by "comprehensive" plan?

A comprehensive plan has two major characteristics. The rst is geographic: it covers a local jurisdiction's entire planning area. Second, a comprehensive plan addresses the broad and evolving range of issues associated with a city's or county's development, including physical, social and economic concerns. These aspects of general plan comprehensiveness are discussed in detail in the following sections.

Geographic Comprehensiveness

The general plan must cover all territory within the boundaries of the adopting city or county as well as "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning" (Government Code Section 65300). For cities, this means all incorporated territory, both public and private. Counties must address all unincorporated areas.

In addition, since certain issues are not conned to political boundaries, the law provides for planning outside of the jurisdiction's territory. This is a means by which a local government can formally communicate its concerns for the future of lands under its neighbors' jurisdictions. Cooperative "extraterritorial" planning can be used to guide the orderly and efcient extension of services and utilities, ensure the preservation of open space, agricultural, and resource conservation lands, and establish consistent standards for development in the plans of adjoining jurisdictions.

NATURE OF THE GENERAL PLAN

Theoretical Relationship Between a City's

Planning Area and Sphere of Influence

Coordinating city and county actions in unincorporated urban fringe areas is a continuing problem for local governments. Cities and counties should work together to delineate planning areas and develop formal agreements for processing development proposals. As urbanization occurs and cities expand, the potential for conict between cities competing for the same lands increases. Intercity cooperation in establishing planning areas can mediate and avoid such disputes.

When determining its planning area, each city should consider its sphere of inuence. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in every county adopts a sphere of inuence for each city to represent "the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area" of that city. Although there is no direct statutory link between the sphere and the planning area, the former provides a convenient measure of the city's region of interest. Sometimes cities may need to extend their planning areas beyond their spheres when they are coordinating their plans with those of other jurisdictions.

Counties should include incorporated cities within their planning areas. Because the activities of cities affect many county concerns, a county cannot and must not disregard city general plans. Ideally, a county's planning area should include all incorporated cities. The provisions of the cities' plans should be integrated into the county plan to the extent possible and county objectives, policies, and implementation programs should reect the projected impacts of city planning. In addition, each city plan should be represented in generalized form on the county's general plan diagram.

It is important to view the local general plan in its regional context. Traditionally, the concept of "community" encompassed only a local entity the city or county. With increasing urbanization and the growing interdependence of local governments, particularly in metro politan areas, the concept has developed a regional perspective. Each local planning agency carries a responsibility to coordinate its general plan with regional planning efforts as much as possible. A regional perspective involves both issues and geography.

Issues of regional importance may include transportation, housing, schools, commerce, employment, growth management, public utility service, communications, infrastructure, solid and hazardous waste management, water and air quality, open space, and coordination of emergency services. Many of these items are identical to those that routinely appear in local general plans. For this reason, a local government must remain conscious of its policies' impacts upon the regional scene.

Regional planning efforts are typically splintered into single issues or have weak links to the local planning process. Plans prepared by councils of governments and other designated regional agencies provide the basis for allocating federal and state funds used for specic items such as transportation facilities. Other regional plans, such as those for air or water quality, spell out measures which local governments must institute in order to meet federal or state standards for the region. Still others, such as regional housing allocation plans, measure each local government's responsibility for satisfying a specic share of regional needs.

The regional impacts of local planning policies and actions have been addressed by both the Legislature and the courts. For example, if a city or county adopts or amends a mandatory general plan element limiting the number of residential units which may be constructed on an annual basis, it must support that action. The city or county must make specic ndings concerning: 1) the efforts it has made to implement its housing element, and 2) the public health, safety, and welfare considerations that justify reducing housing opportunities in the region (Government Code Section 65302.8). Further, cities and counties must balance the housing needs of the region against the needs of their residents for public services and the available scal and environmental resources (Government Code Sections 65863.6 and 66412.3). In addition, the airport land use commission law requires that local general plans be coordinated with the county airport land use plan (Public Utilities Code Section 21676).

The courts have become increasingly concerned about the effect of local land use regulations on the welfare of the regional community. In exercising the police power, local government must use its regulatory power to further the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. The courts in recent years have expanded the concept of the community's general welfare to include the welfare of the region. In the 1976 landmark case Associated

NATURE OF THE GENERAL PLAN

Homebuilders of the Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore 18 Cal.3d 582, 601, the California Supreme Court examined the effect of the city's growth control ordinance on the welfare of the region and held that local actions must be tested for constitutionality based on their impact "not only upon the welfare of the enacting community but upon the welfare of the surrounding region."

Relying upon Livermore, the California Court of Appeal overturned a rezoning by initiative as an invalid exercise of the police power because it did not "effect a reasonable accommo dation of the competing regional interests" ( Arnel Development v. City of Costa Mesa (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 330, 340). The same court also held that citizens residing outside a city have standing to sue that city if they allege that the city's zoning practices have excluded them from residing there or raised their housing costs outside the city by adversely affecting the regional housing market (Stocks v. City of Irvine (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 520).

Two other cases examining regional impacts are: Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 546 and Committee of Seven Thousand v. City of Irvine (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 275. The Scott decision held that owners of land near a project being proposed within the city must be afforded notice and their testimony considered even though their land is located outside the city limits. The city must take into account the effects of projects upon nonresidents who have standing to contest the city's actions. In the Irvine case, the court of appeal found that the electorate's right to initiative was not invoked when the subject of the initiative, freeway funding, was of statewide concern.

While not generally required by state law, cities and counties should carefully analyze the implications for their planning area of both regional plans and the general plans of other cities and counties in the region. If regional needs are to be satised, federal and state standards met, and coordination achieved in the location of public facilities, local general plans must recognize the city's or county's regional role. Accordingly, general plans should include an analysis of the extent to which the general plan's policies, standards, and proposals conform to regional plans and the plans of adjoining communities.

Issue Comprehensiveness

A general plan is comprehensive in another way. It is allinclusive in its approach to planning issues. At a minimum, a plan must address the issues that planning law requires. A truly comprehensive general plan covers all locally relevant physical, social and economic planning issues.

A general plan must address the issues associated with a jurisdiction's physical development. Such issues concern the general locations, appropriate mixtures, timing and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure. They pertain to the physical nature of a jurisdiction's environment. The broad scope of physical development issues ranges from appropriate areas for building factories to open space for preserving scenic vistas. See Chapter III for examples of physical development issues.

In the 1960s, planners began to assert that land use decisions have not only immediate and future physical environmental impacts, but have social and economic impacts, as well. Concerted efforts to reorient the profession's attentions led to the recognition of social and economic concerns as bona de policy considerations. Planners eventually came to view those land use decisions made without attention to these concerns as lacking comprehensiveness. After all, since a general plan represents the most comprehensive local expression of the general welfare as it relates to land use regulation, recognizing social and economic concerns in the general plan is not only appropriate, but necessary.

THE GENERAL PLAN IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT

The concept of internal consistency, as used in California Planning Law, means that no policy conicts exist, either textual or diagrammatic, between the components of an otherwise complete and adequate general plan.

In 1975, the Legislature reafrmed the unitary nature of the general plan by instituting the internal consistency doctrine as part of basic general plan law:

In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.

(Government Code Section 65300.5)

This planning law amendment was supposed to have given legislative legitimacy to internal consistency, but it received varying degrees of attention in the general plan process. Some considered it only a powerless guideline that aimed at achieving an ideal desirable state for a general plan, while others considered it to be a statutory obligation. Not until 1981 did the internal consistency requirement reach its long due full acceptance in California, when the court of appeal ruled in Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors of Kern County (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698.

This case involved two county general plan elements, land use and openspace, which designated conicting land uses for the same property. Although the county corrected the map inconsistency before the trial court ruled on the case, it nevertheless retained a provision in its general plan text that the land use element would take precedence over the openspace element in the event of any inconsistencies. The trial court upheld the precedence clause, but the court of appeal reversed the decision, striking down the clause because it violated Government Code Section 65300.5's internal consistency requirement. Through this case, the doctrine of internal consistency was granted judicial legitimacy to accompany the legislative legitimacy it obtained in 1975.

The internal consistency requirement has ve dimensions of paramount importance to the structure and content of the general plan.

(1) Equal Status Among General Plan Elements

All elements of the general plan have equal legal status. For example, as noted above, the land use and openspace elements cannot contain different land use intensity standards rational ized by statements such as "if in any instance there is a conict between the land use element and the openspace element, the land use element controls" ( Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors of Kern County , supra). Because no element is legally subordinate to another, the general plan must resolve potential conicts between or among the elements through clear language and policy consistency.

NATURE OF THE GENERAL PLAN

(2) Consistency Among the Elements (Interelement Consistency)

All general plan elements, whether mandatory or optional, must be consistent with each other. As noted in the previous example, the land use and openspace elements should not designate different future land uses for the same site ( Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors of Kern County, supra).

As another example of inter-element consistency, a circulation element must address circulation problems resulting from land use element proposals. In Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 90, a county land use element contained proposals that were expected to result in population gains. The county's circulation element failed to make adequate proposals for addressing the resulting trafc impacts. Rather, the element said that funds were unavailable for needed highway improve ments.

The element's only proposed remedy showed no reasonable prospect for success. The court found this unacceptable. "To sanction such a device would be to provide counties with an abracadabra.... Indeed, all conicts between the various elements of a general plan no matter how obvious, severe or dramatic could be made magically to disappear by inclusion in the plan of the incantation, 'We will lobby for funds to solve the problems causing the conicts.' " Consequently, the county's land use and circulation elements were inconsistent, insufciently correlated with each other, and thereby in violation of Government Code Section 65300.5.

In keeping with Calaveras, a general plan's assumptions, projections, and standards should be uniform and consistent. For example, if the land use and housing elements are based on two separate population projections prepared at different times, their policies may easily conict. Further, if the land use element's residential designations use "persons per acre" as a standard of density, while the housing element presents an uncorrelated or unreconciled dwelling unit per acre density standard, obvious inconsistencies exist.

Whenever a jurisdiction adopts a new element or amends part of a plan, it should update the rest of the plan at the same time, or immediately thereafter. It must eliminate any inconsistencies that the new element or amendment creates.

Housing element law requires local agencies to adopt programs to achieve housing element goals and implement the policies of the housing element. Such programs must identify the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements. (Government Code Section 65583(c))

Last, whenever a planning agency considers adopting a portion of the plan by reference, it should determine that no inherent inconsistencies are present before its adoption, rather than afterward.

(3) Consistency Within an Element (Intra-element Consistency)

Each element's data, analyses, goals, policies, and implementation programs, must be consistent with and complement one another. Established goals, data, and analysis form the foundation for any ensuing policies. For example, if one portion of a circulation element indicates that county roads are sufcient to accommodate the projected level of trafc, while another section of the same element describes a worsening trafc situation aggravated by continued subdivision activity, the element cannot be internally consistent ( Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors of Calaveras County (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 90).

In turn, policies must form a logical basis for a general plan's implementation programs. For example, a general plan implementation program to create a regional commercial zone district in the zoning ordinance cannot be justied as consistent unless the plan also provides underlying policies for the district.

(4) Area Plan Consistency

Internal consistency also means that all principles, goals, objectives, policies, and plan proposals set forth in an area or community plan must be consistent with the overall general plan. Planning agencies prepare area plans when necessary renements in policy cause decision makers to reduce the general plan's scope to focus on a smaller geographic area or special topics. Because general plans are by denition general in their geographic scope, their designations and delineations are by necessity less precise than those of area plans.

The general plan must contain a discussion of the role of area plans and their relationship to the general plan. Similarly, each area plan should discuss its specic relationship to the general plan. In 1986 the court of appeal ruled on an area plan that was alleged to be inconsistent with the larger general plan. The court upheld both the area plan and general plan when it found that the general plan's "nonurban/rural" designation, by the plan's own description, was not intended to be interpreted literally or precisely, especially with regard to small areas within larger areas. The court noted that the area plan's "urban residential" designation was pertinent and that there was no inconsistency between the countywide general plan and the area plan (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 300). However, the court also noted that in this particular case the geographic area of alleged inconsistency was quite small.

(5) Text and Diagram Consistency

Internal consistency means that the general plan text and diagrams must be consistent with one another since both are integral parts of the plan. A general plan with written policies and programs that conict with its corresponding diagrams is internally inconsistent. For example, if a general plan's land use element diagram designates extensive low density residential development in an area where the text describes the presence of prime agricultural land, and further contains written policies to preserve agricultural land or open space in this area, a conict exists. The plan's text and diagrams must be reconciled, for "internal consistency requires that general plan diagrams of land use, circulation systems, open-space and natural resources areas reect written policies and programs in the text for each element." (Curtin, California Land-Use and Planning Law , 1990 edition, p. 26.)

Without consistency in all ve of these areas, the general plan cannot effectively serve as a clear guide to future development. Decision makers will face conicting directives; citizens will be confused about the policies and standards the community has selected; and land owners, business, and industry will be unable to rely on the general plan's stated priorities and standards for their own individual decision making. Beyond this, inconsistencies in the general plan expose the jurisdiction to expensive and lengthy litigation to resolve what already should have been settled.

NATURE OF THE GENERAL PLAN

Internal consistency is best achieved when general plan elements are correlated from the beginning. At least three statutes require some form of consistency and correlation between the land use element and other elements:

· Government Code 65302(b) correlation with the circulation element,

· Government Code Section 65302(f)(6) noise element provisions used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses to minimize excessive noise exposure; and

· Government Code Section 65583(c) Housing element programs must identify the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements.

More mention of correlation will follow in Chapter III's discussion of circulation and noise elements.

THE GENERAL PLAN IS A LONG-TERM DOCUMENT

Since the general plan affects the welfare of current and future generations, state law requires that the plan take a "longterm" perspective (Government Code Section 65300). It is long term in two senses: (1) it establishes goals and projects conditions and needs into the future as a basis for determining objectives; and (2) it establishes longterm policy for daytoday decision making based upon those objectives.

The time frames for effective planning vary among issues. The housing element, for example, specically involves time increments of ve years. Geologic hazards, on the other hand, persist for hundreds of thousands of years. Sewer, water, and road systems are generally designed with a 30 to 50year lifespan. Capital improvement planning is typically based upon a ve year term. Economic trends may change rapidly in response to outside forces.

Differences in time frame also exist in the formulation of general plan goals, policies, and implementation measures. Goals are often long term, slowly evolving to suit changing community values or to reect the success of action programs. Specic policies tend to be shorter term, shifting with the political climate or self-imposed time limits. Implementation programs tend to have the shortest span because they must quickly respond to the demands of new funding sources, the results of their own activities, and the jurisdiction's immediate needs and problems.

Most jurisdictions select 15 to 25 years as the longterm horizon for the general plan. The horizon does not mark an end point, but provides a general context in which to make shorter term decisions. The local jurisdiction may choose a time horizon that serves its particular needs. It is important to remember that planning is a continuous process. The general plan should be reviewed regularly regardless of its horizon, and revised as new information becomes available and as community needs and values change. Unless it is periodically updated, a plan will become obsolete in the face of community change. A general plan based upon outdated information and projections is not a sound basis for daytoday decision making and may be legally inadequate. It will be more susceptible to successful legal challenge.

State law provides that each mandatory general plan element may be amended as often as four times per year. However, except for the housing element, state law does not establish a mandatory time schedule for comprehensive updates. A jurisdiction is expected to make running changes to its general plan as they are necessary. As a general rule, major general plan revisions should occur at least every four to ve years.

THE GENERAL PLAN IS A STATEMENT OF

DEVELOPMENT POLICIES

Government Code Section 65302 states that, "The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals." The following two sections elaborate on the meanings of these terms. The section entitled "Additional Examples of Development Policies" shows the relationships among goals, objectives, policies and implementation measures.

Development Policy Statements

The nature of a general plan depends heavily on how a local government denes and applies the plan's development policies. The following paragraphs contain suggested denitions and examples of development policies, including goals. Implementation measures, which carry out development policies, are also discussed below.

Development Policy

A development policy is a general plan statement that guides action. Development policies include goals, objectives, principles, policies, plan proposals and standards. Therefore, with regard to general plans, "policy" has both a specic (as noted below) and general meaning.

Diagram

A diagram is a graphic expression of a general plan's development policies, particularly its plan proposals. Many types of development policies lend themselves well to graphic treatment, such as urban design concepts, infrastructure proposals, geologic hazards and the distribution of land uses.

A diagram must be consistent with the general plan text (Government Code Section 65300.5) and should have the same long-term planning perspective as the rest of the general plan. Typically, a diagram is not regulatory in nature as is a zoning ordinance map. Rather, it, along with the general plan text, provides a rational basis for planningrelated regulations.

The California Attorney General included the following denition of a diagram in a 1984 opinion (67 Cal.Ops.Atty.Gen. 75, 77):

A "diagram" is commonly dened as "a graphic design that explains rather than represents: a drawing that shows arrangement and relations." (Webster's New World Internat. Dict. (3d ed. 1966) p. 622.) "'A diagram is simply an illustrative outline of a tract of land.... At best, it is but an approximation.'" ( Burton v. State (Ala. 1897) 22 So. 585, 586.)

There is a debate over how detailed the provisions of a general plan should be. The 1984 California Attorney General's opinion argues that the Government Code does not require a land use element diagram to be a parcel-specic map, "...rather a diagram of general locations illustrating the policies of the plan is sufcient" (67 Cal.Ops.Atty.Gen. 75 and 76). The Attorney General based his conclusion in part on legislative history. He noted that in 1965 when the Legislature recodied the statutory requirements for general plans, it substituted the word "diagram" for the term "map." He cited a Hastings Law Journal article entitled " Selby Realty Co. v. City of Buenaventura: How General is the General Plan?" that states:

Note that while the earlier statutes used the term "map," implying an exactness and rigidity, the modern code uses the term "diagram," no doubt persuaded by Professor Haar's analysis of the master plan as a compilation of objectives and illustrative materials. Haar recommended the term diagram because maps import location. (26 Hastings L.J. 614, 619, fn. 33 (1974))

Professor Haar's analysis appeared in a 1955 Law and Contemporary Problems article entitled "The Master Plan: An Impermanent Constitution." (20 L. & Contemp. Prob. 353). The Attorney General lists salient points from Professor Haar's analysis which are summarized as follows:

· One should not mix planning and implementation measures or else the broad view will tend to be lost in the day-to-day handling of details.

· The master plan should express goals and relationships. It should discuss appropriate relationships among land uses rather than pinpoint the sites of various activities.

· Thus the identication of the plan with maps is undesirable, for maps import location.

The Attorney General also noted that in interpreting the language of a statute such as Government Code Section 65302, "'Words must be construed in context, and statutes must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible' ( California Mfgrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com . (1979) 24 Cal.3d 836, 844)." The Attorney General observed that "...when the Legislature has used the term 'map,' it has required preciseness, exact location, and detailed boundaries...." as in the case of the Subdivision Map Act.

Despite the 1965 legislative changes and the Attorney General's opinion, there are no state limitations on a diagram's level of detail and precision. Certain diagrams such as those recognizing and proposing the continuation of existing land uses or arterial street patterns might be rather precise. Additionally, should a local government choose to impose fees for constructing bridges or major thoroughfares pursuant to Government Code Section 66484, the diagram should contain details made necessary by that section.

But how specic should a diagram be for an area where changes in land use patterns are proposed? As a general rule, a diagram or diagrams along with the general plan's text should be detailed enough so that the users of the plan staff, elected and appointed ofcials, and the public can reach the same general conclusion on the appropriate use of any parcel of land at a particular phase of a city's or county's physical development. Decision makers should also be able to use a general plan, including its diagram or diagrams, in coordinating day-to-day land use and infrastructure decisions with the city's or county's future physical development scheme.

At the same time, given the long-term nature of a general plan, its diagram or diagrams and text should be general enough to allow a degree of exibility in decision making as times change. For example, a general plan may recognize the need for and desirability of a community park in a proposed residential area, but the precise location of the park may not be known when the plan is adopted. The plan does not need to pinpoint the location, but it should have a generalized diagram designation along with policies saying the park site will be selected and openspace zoning applied at the time the area is subdivided. In this sense, while zoning must be consistent with a general plan, the plan's diagram or diagrams and the zoning map are not required to be absolutely identical.

The California Supreme Court, in United Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (1988) 44 Cal.3d 242, briey discussed the degree of precision which can be expected of a general plan. The high court held that when San Bernardino County used a circle to distinguish the community of Baker as a "Desert Special Service Center" the county did not delineate a well dened geographic area. According to the opinion of the court, "the circle on the general plan no more represents the precise boundaries of a present or future commercial area than the dot or square on a map of California represents the exact size and shape of Baker or any other community."

Goal

A goal is a direction-setter. It is an ideal future end, condition or state related to the public health, safety or general welfare toward which planning and planning implementation measures are directed. A goal is a general expression of community values and, therefore, is abstract in nature. Consequently, a goal is generally not quantiable, timedependent or suggestive of specic actions for its achievement.

Examples of Goals

· Quiet residential streets.

· A diversied economic base for the city.

· An aesthetically pleasing community.

Goals by denition should be expressed as ends, conditions or states and not as actions. For instance, the rst goal example above expresses an end, namely, "quiet residential streets." It does not say, "Establish quiet residential streets" or "To establish quiet residential streets." The same is true for general plan objectives.

Implementation Measure

An implementation measure is an action, procedure, program or technique that carries out general plan policy. Each policy must have at least one corresponding implementation measure.

Examples of Implementation Measures

· The city shall use tax increment nancing to pay the costs of replacing old sidewalks in the redevelopment area.

· The city shall adopt a specic plan for the industrial park.

· Areas designated by the land use element for agriculture shall be placed in the agricultural zone.

Objective

An objective is a specic end, condition or state that is an intermediate step toward attaining a goal. It should be achievable and, when possible, measurable and timespecic. An objective may only pertain to one particular aspect of a goal or it may be one of several successive steps toward goal achievement. Consequently, there may be more than one objective for each goal.

Examples of Objectives

· A 50 percent increase in downtown ofce space by 1990.

· By 1995 a new 50 acre research and development park in the southeastern portion of the city's redevelopment area.

· A 150 percent increase in the industrial waste treatment capacity of the city's sewage treatment plant by 2000.

Plan Proposal

A plan proposal is a description of how development policies affect an area. Local governments often express plan proposals in the form of a general plan diagram.

Examples of Plan Proposals

· First Street and Harbor Avenue are designated as arterials.

· The proposed downtown shopping center will be located somewhere within the area bound by D and G Avenues and James and Fourth Streets.

· A new parking structure shall be located in the vicinities of each of the following downtown intersections: First Street and A Avenue, and Fifth Street and D Avenue.

Policy

A policy is a specic statement that guides decision making. It indicates a clear commitment of the local legislative body. A policy is based on a general plan's goals and objectives as well as the analysis of data.

A policy is effectuated by implementation measures. Consequently, a realistic policy is one that is adopted by local legislators who are mindful of a general plan's implementation.

For a policy to be useful as a guide to action it must be clear and unambiguous. The practice of adopting broadly drawn and vague policies is unacceptable. Clear policies are particularly important when it comes to judging whether or not zoning decisions, subdivisions, public works projects, etc., are consistent with a general plan.

When writing policies, local ofcials need to be aware of the difference between "shall" and "should." "Shall" indicates an unequivocal directive. "Should" signies a less rigid directive, to be honored in the absence of compelling or contravening considerations. Use of the word "should" to give the impression of more commitment than actually intended is a common, but unacceptable practice. It is better to adopt no policy than to adopt a policy with no backbone.

Solid policy is based on solid information. The analysis of data collected in Step 3 of the eight -step planning process (see Chapter II) provides local ofcials with a knowledge of trends, existing conditions and projections they need to formulate policy. If projected community conditions are not in line with a general plan's goals and objectives, local legislative bodies may adopt policies that will help bring about a more desirable future.

Examples of Policies

· The city shall not approve a parking ordinance variance unless the variance pertains to the rebuilding of an unintentionally destroyed non-conforming use.

· The city shall not approve plans for the downtown shopping center until an indepen dently conducted market study indicates that the center would be economically feasible.

· The city shall give favorable consideration to conditional use permit proposals involving adaptive reuse of buildings that are designated as "architecturally signicant" by the Cultural Resources Element.

Principle

An assumption, fundamental rule or doctrine guiding general plan policies, proposals, standards and implementation measures. Principles are based on community values, generally accepted planning doctrine, current technology and the general plan's goals and objectives.

Examples of Principles

· Land uses should be compatible with one another.

· Each residential neighborhood within a city should be within a convenient and safe walking distance of an elementary school.

· People need the benets provided by open space.

Standard

A rule or measure establishing a level of quality or quantity that must be complied with or satised (Encyclopedia of Community Planning and Environmental Management ). Standards dene the abstract terms of goals, objectives and policies with concrete specications.

The California Government Code makes various references to general plan standards. For example, Government Code Section 65302(a) states in part that the land use element must "...include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan" (emphasis added). See the discussion of population density and building intensity standards in the land use element section of Chapter III. Other examples of statutory references to general plan standards include those found in Government Code Sections 66477 (the Quimby Act) and 66479 (reservations of land within subdivisions). Of course, a local legislature may adopt any other general plan standards it deems desirable.

Examples of Standards

· A minimally acceptable peak hour level of service for an arterial street is level of service C.

· The minimum acreage required for a regional shopping center is from 40 to 50 acres.

· High-density residential: 15 to 30 dwelling units per acre and up to 42 dwelling units per acre with a density bonus.

Additional Examples of Development Policy Statements

The following examples show the relationships among goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures. The examples are arranged according to a hierarchy from the general to the specic from goals to implementation measures. In an actual general plan, there might be more than one objective under each goal, more than one policy under each objective, etc.

Goal: No motor vehicle trafc congestion on city streets.

Objective: An acceptable peak-hour level of service at all arterial intersections with trafc signals within the next ten years.

Policy: The city shall install left-turn lanes at arterial intersections with peak hour levels of service worse than C.

Policy: For arterial intersections with peak hour levels of service of D, E, or F, the city shall install left turn signals whenever left turn lanes alone will not bring about a peak hour level of service C.

Implementation

Measure: Left turn land improvements and signals shall be funded by means of exactions imposed in conjunction with the city's approval of conditional use permits, building permits or tentative tract or parcel maps.

Objective: A 100 percent increase in downtown offstreet parking spaces within the next eight years.

Policy: The city shall promote the development of two new downtown parking structures.

Implementation

Measure: The city shall fund its downtown parking structures by means of the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1979.

Goal: A thriving downtown that is the center of the city's retail and service commercial activities.

Objective: A 40 to 50 acre parcel available in east downtown for a new regional shopping center mall by 1990.

Policy: The city shall not approve discretionary projects or building permits that could impede development of the downtown regional shopping center mall.

Implementation

Measure: The city shall adopt an interim zoning ordinance restricting further devel opment in the general vicinity of the proposed downtown shopping center until a study has been completed which determines the exact location of the mall.

During the interim zoning period the city shall adopt a special regional shopping center zoning classication that permits the development of the proposed mall, but restricts land uses that may conict with mall develop ment plans.

Upon completion of the study, the city council shall select a site for the mall and shall apply the shopping center zone to the property.

Goal: Affordable, decent and sanitary housing for all city households.

Objective: Add 500 dwelling units to the supply of housing for low income households by 1992.

Policy: When a developer of housing within the high-density residential designation agrees to construct at least 30 percent of the total units of a housing development for low-income households, the city shall grant a 40 percent density bonus for the housing project.

Implementation

Measure: The city shall amend its zoning ordinance to allow for 40 percent density bonus in the multiple-family residential zone.

COMMUNITY PLANS, AREA PLANS AND SPECIFIC PLANS

There is a certain amount of confusion regarding the differences among area, community and specic plans. Area and community plans are focused planning policy documents that are part of a general plan. By contrast, a specic plan is a general plan implementation tool; it is not part of the general plan. Unlike an area or community plan, the minimum contents of a specic plan prepared by a county or general law city are stipulated by state law (See Government Code Section 65451).

"Area plan" and "community plan" are terms for specialized plans that address a particular region or community within the overall planning area. An area or community plan is adopted in the same manner as a general plan amendment. It renes the policies of the general plan as they apply to a smaller area and is implemented by local ordinances such as those regulating land use and subdivision. Area or community plans also provide forums for resolving local conicts among competing interests. They are extremely useful in large cities (such as San Diego) and counties (such as Los Angeles) where there are a variety of distinct communities or regions deserving special attention.

An area or community plan must be internally consistent with the general plan of which it is a part. To facilitate such consistency, the general plan should incorporate policies addressing all areawide issues and setting guidelines for the detailed treatment of issues in the various specialized plans. Ideally, to simplify implementation, land use categories, terminol ogy, format, and diagrams should be uniform among the area or community plans.

It is unnecessary for an area plan to address all the issues identied in Government Code Section 65302 if the general plan already satises these requirements. For example, an area plan need not discuss urban res if the general plan's safety element adequately covers the subject and if the area plan does not conict with the safety element's policies.

By contrast, a community plan, for the purpose of Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, must include or reference each of the general plan's seven mandatory elements. It must also: 1) apply "to a dened geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan," 2) contain specic development policies, and 3) identify measures that implement the policies.

The reader of a community plan must be able to determine how the plan's policies apply to each affected parcel.

While an area or community plan is an integral part of a general plan, a specic plan is not. The latter, like zoning, implements a general plan. When adopted it does not amend a general plan, but instead is an entirely separate document that must be consistent with all facets of the general plan (including any area and community plans).

A specic plan is a hybrid policy statement and/or regulatory tool that is often used to address a single project such as an urban inll development or a planned community. As a result, its emphasis is on concrete standards and development criteria to supplement those of the general plan. Its text and diagrams address land use (including open space), infrastructure, standards for development and natural resource conservation, and implementation mea sures. Perhaps because of its dual policy/regulatory nature, a specic plan may be adopted either by resolution (like a general plan) or by ordinance (like zoning). All zoning, subdivision, and public works projects must be consistent with an adopted specic plan.

PLAN ELEMENTS AND ISSUES ADDRESSED

Traditionally, the general plan has been organized as a collection of "elements" or subject categories such as land use, circulation, and open space. However, it is crucial to realize that it is not the number of distinct elements that the general plan contains that is important, but instead the integral nature of the subject matter and the content of the general plan as a whole.

State law provides that the general plan must address seven elements (Government Code Section 65302). These and the issues each embodies are briey summarized below:

· The land use element designates the general distribution and intensity of uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses.

· The circulation element is correlated with the land use element and identies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities.

· The housing element is a comprehensive assessment of current and projected housing needs for all segments of the community and all economic groups. In addition, it embodies policy for providing adequate housing and includes action programs for this purpose.

· The conservation element addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural resources including water, forests, soils, rivers, and mineral deposits.

· The open-space element details plans and measures for preserving open space for natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, public health and safety, and the identication of agricultural land.

· The noise element identies and appraises noise problems within the community and forms the basis for land use distribution.

· The safety element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with seismic, geologic, ood, and re hazards.

The detail that each issue is afforded in the local plan depends upon local conditions and the relative local importance of that issue. It is important that the plan clearly identify the issues. When a city or county determines that an issue specied in the law does not apply to local conditions, the general plan should document the reason for that decision.

In addition to the general plan elements listed in Government Code Section 65302, local governments may adopt "any other elements or address any other subjects which...relate to the physical development of the county or city" (Government Code Section 65303). Upon adoption, an optional element becomes an integral part of the general plan. It has the same force and effect as the mandatory elements and must be consistent with the other elements of the plan. In turn, zoning, subdivisions, public works, and specic plans must be consistent with all optional elements.

An optional element may expand local government authority. Here are some examples. The California Energy Commission may delegate geothermal power plant licensing authority to counties with certied geothermal elements (see Appendix B). A historic preservation element may lay the foundation for historic district regulations and design standards. A strategic re prevention planning element may identify wildre hazard areas, control new development within those areas, and provide the basis for strict zoning, subdivision, and brush clearance ordinances.

Common themes for optional elements include recreation and parks, air quality, public facilities, historic preservation, community design, and energy. The subjects and contents of optional elements are chosen by the adopting city or county.

The content of a local general plan is not limited to the issues listed in section 65302. Local general plans may also address optional topics of local interest within the context of the mandatory elements. For instance, a city may choose to describe a detailed program for nancing infrastructure and timing capital improvements as part of its land use element. The safety element of a city or county that suffers from wildre hazard may contain a strategic re protection planning program that establishes policies to mitigate such hazards.

There are also a number of special requirements which may affect the content of the general plan. These are discussed in Chapter VI.

ADOPTION OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION'S GENERAL PLAN

AND JOINT ADOPTION

A city or county may adopt all or a portion of the general plan of another public agency (Government Code Section 65301(a)). Additionally, Government Code Section 65302(g) specically provides that a city may adopt the county's safety element if the county's element "is sufciently detailed containing appropriate policies and programs for adoption by a city." One of the benets of this approach is that it eliminates duplication of effort in collecting data for the more technical elements.

GENERAL PLAN FORMAT

A county may adopt portions of a city's plan to provide more detailed guidance for land use within the city's planning area. A city and county may jointly prepare and adopt a general plan or individual elements, as Del Norte County and Crescent City have done. A city or county may adopt a functional plan prepared by a special district, regional planning agency, or some other public agency. Glenn and Mendocino Counties, for example, have done this by adopting regional transportation plans, with some modications, as their circulation elements.

Although joint adoption of another jurisdiction's plan may be advantageous, a city or county remains solely responsible for the legal adequacy of its general plan. The other jurisdiction's plan or the jointly prepared plan must be sufciently detailed to address the concerns of the adopting agency and to provide adequate coverage of the issues required in the Government Code. A plan which is jointly prepared or adopted from another jurisdiction's plan has the same legal standing as the rest of the adopting agency's plan. Internal consistency require ments continue to apply. Zoning, subdivision, and capital improvement project consistency must be maintained.

While state law species the basic content of the general plan, it leaves the format to local discretion. Government Code Section 65301(a) provides that the general plan may be adopted in any format deemed appropriate or convenient by the legislative body.

The general plan may be adopted as a single document, as a group of elements covering separate subjects, or as a group of territorial plans. It is a good idea to have all general plan goals, objectives, policies, principles, plan proposals (including diagrams), and standards (but not necessarily the technical appendices) under one cover.

Regardless of its format, however, a general plan must address all required issues to the extent they are locally relevant. In Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 (as modied 222 Cal.App.3d 516a) the California Court of Appeal recently drove this point home. After considering a challenge to a general plan supposedly consisting of multiple documents, the court ruled:

If missing information critical to an adequate discussion of statutory criteria is to be supplied through documents outside the general plan, a clear reference to the outside documents must appear in the challenged elements. Otherwise, it is difcult, at best, to identify standards essential to evaluate proposed uses and conditions which should be imposed upon such uses. We conclude a decient element cannot be saved by consideration of documents which are not relied upon in the discussion of the element.

In addition to addressing all the mandatory issues, a general plan should be formatted to facilitate internal consistency among its provisions. "[A] general plan must be reasonably consistent and integrated on its face. A document that, on its face, displays substantial contradictions and inconsistencies cannot serve as an effective plan because those subject to the plan cannot tell what it says should happen or not happen." ( Kings at pp. 743-44, citing Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 90, 97) Furthermore, the plan should be logically organized and easy to use.

FORMAT CONSIDERATIONS

Element Consolidation

Some local governments have adopted their elements individually. This practice may create a number of problems, particularly if the elements have been prepared and adopted over many years. At the very least, it makes internal consistency difcult to maintain. Further more, due to the nature of the state's general plan statutes, a number of issues (such as ooding) have to be addressed more than once. This results in needless duplication and bulk, and makes administration difcult.

Many jurisdictions have attempted to overcome these problems by combining two or more statemandated elements. The most popular combinations pair open space with conserva tion and land use with circulation. Other combinations are also possible, including ultimate consolidation the adoption of a single general plan document arranged by primary issue topics (rather than by elements). This latter format addresses all the mandatory general plan issues, but it is organized to eliminate redundancies. Where elements are combined or consolidated the resulting document should include an explicit statement of how its contents relate to state planning requirements.

The following list illustrates one example of how general plan issues can be consolidated to reduce redundancy. This method groups the issues identied in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560, 65583 and 65590 and Public Resources Code Sections 2762, 2764 and 5076 into four major categories.

This list is merely one of numerous possible approaches for completely consolidating general plan issues. It must be used in conjunction with pertinent state statutes. The listed issues are suggestions only. The reader may interpret the planning statutes in a way that results in a differing set of issues.

A planner who uses this list should remember other general plan provisions. For example, state law mandates data collection and action programs for the housing and noise elements. The planning statutes also require action programs for open space plans.

CHAPTER I: HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Distribution of Housing (H, LU)

· Proposed general distribution, location, and extent of housing areas (LU)

· Adequate sites for housing (H)

Housing Supply (H)

· Preservation of housing (H)

· Maintenance of housing (H)

· Improvement and conservation of housing, including affordable housing stock (H)

GENERAL PLAN FORMAT

· Development of housing (H)

· Adequate housing supply (H)

· Adequate provision of housing for existing and projected needs, including regional share, for all economic segments of the community (H)

· Promotion of housing opportunities for all persons (H)

· Coastal zone replacement housing (Gov.C. Section 65590) (H)

Distribution of Other Land Uses (LU)

· Proposed general distribution, location, and extent of:

- business areas (LU)

- industrial areas (LU)

- other uses of private lands (LU)

Standards (LU)

· Building intensity standards for the various districts (e.g., land use designations) and other territory covered by the housing and economic development chapter of the general plan (LU)

· Population density standards for residential areas (LU)

CHAPTER II: CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES

Beaches, Shores, Banks (CO, OS)

· Open space for preserving:

- coastal beaches (OS)*

- lake shores (OS)*

- river and stream banks (OS)*

· Prevention and control of erosion of:

- beaches (CO)

- shores (CO)

Reclamation (CO)

· Land reclamation (CO)

· Water reclamation (CO)

· Correction of:

- soil erosion (CO)

- beach erosion (CO)

- shore erosion (CO)

Soils (CO)

· Conservation of soils (CO)

· Prevention and control of soil erosion (CO)

· Development and utilization of soils (CO)

Agricultural Lands (LU, OS)

· Proposed general distribution, location, and extent of open space for agriculture (LU)

· Open Space for:

- rangeland management (OS)*

- the managed production of agricultural lands (OS) *

- economically important areas for food or ber production (OS) *

GENERAL PLAN FORMAT

Forest Lands and Timber (LU, CO, OS)

· Conservation of forests (CO)

· Timber production areas for timberland production zoning (LU)

· Development and utilization of forests (CO)

· Open space for forest land production management (OS) *

Watersheds (CO, OS)

· Watershed protection (CO)

· Open space for preserving watersheds (OS) *

Water Resources (CO, OS)

· Conservation of:

- rivers and other waters (CO)

- harbors (CO)

- water and its hydraulic force (CO)

· Open space for:

- recharging ground water basins (OS)*

- preserving rivers (OS)*

- preserving streams (OS)*

- preserving bays (OS)*

- preserving estuaries (OS)*

· Development and utilization of:

- rivers and other waters (CO)

- water and its hydraulic force (CO)

· Water program coordinated with other water agencies (CO)

Fisheries (CO, OS)

· Conservation of sheries (CO)

· Open space for waters important to commercial sheries management including:

- bays (OS)*

- estuaries (OS)*

- marshes (OS)*

- rivers (OS)*

- streams (OS)*

· Development and utilization of sheries (CO)

Wildlife and Plants (CO, OS)

· Conservation of wildlife (CO)

· Open space for preserving:

- animal life (OS)*

- habitats for wildlife species (OS)*

- sh habitats (OS)*

- plant life (OS)*

- scientic study areas (OS)*

· Development and utilization of wildlife (CO)

Minerals (CO, OS)

· Conservation of minerals (CO)

· Development and utilization of minerals (CO)

GENERAL PLAN FORMAT

· Open space for the managed production of:

- major mineral deposits (OS)*

- major deposits of minerals in short supply (OS) *

· Rock resources (location, quantity, and quality) (CO)

· Sand resources (location, quantity, and quality) (CO)

· Gravel resources (location, quantity, and quality) (CO)

· SMARA issues (Pub.Res.C. Sections 2712, 2762, and 2764) (CO)

Energy (H)

· Residential energy conservation opportunities (H)

Other Resources in the Planning Area (LU, CO, OS)

· Conservation of other natural resources (CO)

· Development and utilization of other natural resources (CO)

· Proposed general distribution, location, and extent of open space for natural resources (LU)

· Open space for:

- preserving other natural resources (OS) *

- the managed production of other resources (OS) *

Regulations

· Land use regulations to implement conservation planning for:

- stream channels (CO)

- other areas (CO)

Standards (LU)

· Building intensity standards for the various districts (e.g., land use designations) and other territory covered by the resource conservation and development chapter of the general plan (LU)

CHAPTER III: HEALTH AND SAFETY

Flooding (LU, CO, OS, S)

· Identication of ood-prone areas (LU)

· Protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with ooding (S)

· Flood control (CO)

· Flood plains in open space for public health and safety (OS) *

Water Quality (CO, OS)

· Prevention of pollution of streams and other waters (CO)

· Control of pollution of streams and other waters (CO)

· Open space for water quality protection (OS) *

· Open space for reservoir protection (OS) *

· Watersheds in open space for public health and safety (OS) *

Air Quality (OS)

· Open space for protecting and enhancing air quality (OS) *

GENERAL PLAN FORMAT

Noise (N)

· Noise problems in the community (N)

· Standards for acceptable and unacceptable noise levels (N)

· A pattern of land uses that minimizes exposure of residents to excessive noise (N)

· Possible solutions to:

- existing noise problems (N)

- foreseeable noise problems (N)

· Noise policy implementation measures (N)

· Compliance with the state's noise insulation standards (N)

Seismic Safety (OS, S)

· Protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with:

- seismically induced surface rupture (S)

- seismically induced ground shaking (S)

- seismically induced ground failure (S)

- seiches (S)

- tsunamis (S)

- seismically induced dam failure (S)

· Fault zones in open space for public health and safety (OS) *

Land Stability (OS, S)

· Protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with:

- slope instability (S)

- mudslides (S)

- landslides (S)

- subsidence (S)

· Unstable soil areas in open space for public health and safety (OS) *

Fire (OS, S)

· Protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with:

- wildland res (S)

- urban res (S)

· High re risk areas in open space for public health and safety (OS) *

Other Fire and Geologic Considerations (S)

· Issues related to re and geologic hazards:

- evacuation routes (S)

- minimum road widths (S)

- peakload water supply (S)

- minimum clearances around structures (S)

· Protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with other geologic hazards (S)

Open Space for Other Health and Safety Purposes (OS)

· Open space for other public health and safety purposes (OS) *

Standards (LU)

· Building intensity standards for the various districts (e.g., land use designations) and other territories covered by the health and safety chapter of the general plan (LU)

GENERAL PLAN FORMAT

CHAPTER IV: PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Transportation (CI, CO)

· Existing:

- major thoroughfares (CI)

- transportation routes (CI)

- terminals (CI)

· Proposed:

- major thoroughfares (CI)

- transportation routes (CI)

- terminals (CI)

· Development and utilization of harbors (CO)

Public Utilities (LU, CI)

· Existing local public utilities and facilities (CI)

· Proposed local public utilities and facilities (CI)

· Proposed general distribution, location, and extent of:

- solid waste disposal areas (LU)

- liquid waste disposal areas (LU)

Public or Quasi-Public Lands (LU, OS)

· Proposed general distribution, location, and extent of:

- land uses related to education (LU)

- public buildings and grounds (LU)

- other types of public land uses (LU)

· Recreational open space including:

- proposed general distribution, location, and extent of open space for recreation (LU)

- open space for outdoor recreation purposes including:

- lands particularly suited for parks and recreation (OS) *

- park and recreation areas that provide access to lake shores, beaches, rivers, and streams (OS)*

- areas that link major recreation and open space reservations including:

- utility easements (OS)*

- river and stream banks (OS)*

- trails (OS)*

- scenic highway corridors (OS)*

- areas of outstanding scenic value (OS)*

- areas of historic value (OS)*

- areas of cultural value (OS)*

- other outdoor recreation purposes (OS)*

Trails (OS)

· Demands for trail-oriented recreational use (Pub.Res.C. Section 5076) (OS)

· Integration of city and county trail routes with the California Recreational Trails System (Pub.Res.C. Section 5076) (OS)

Standards (LU)

· Building intensity standards for the various districts (e.g., land use designations) and other territory covered by the public/quasi-public chapter of the general plan (LU)

GENERAL PLAN FORMAT

Misuse of Jargon

Clarity

Appearance

and Size

Notes: * This issue is merely an example of the possible topics that could be addressed under one of the four major open space issue categories mentioned in Government Code section 65560. The four major issue categories are: 1) open space for the preservation of natural resources, 2) open space used for the managed production of resources, 3) open space for outdoor recreation, and 4) open space for public health and safety. A general plan must address at least one of these four major categories to satisfy the Government Code's open space planning requirements.

An optional issue identied in Government Code section 65302(d).

For more detailed information about element consolidation, see Element Consolidation, available from the Ofce of Planning and Research.

Appendices

Since general plans are primarily statements of development policy, supplemental planning information is often placed in a plan's appendices. Appendices might include pertinent state planning laws, a glossary, and a discussion of planning methodology and techniques.

A number of local governments also consign general plan data and analyses of data to the appendices. Such information must be part of the plan since it is the basis for planning policy. Nevertheless, it may be too technical, detailed or voluminous to include in the main body of the plan. It may actually obscure development policies if it is part of the main plan text.

Good plans summarize the most important data and analyses contained in the appendices. They also support their planning provisions with references to their technical appendices. This is especially important for the housing element since, by law, its development policies are closely tied to data and analyses.

STYLE SUGGESTIONS

A general plan is primarily a policy document for use by decision makers and the public. It should be written with this audience in mind. The text should be free of jargon, acronyms, and overly technical language. Technical terms, such as planned unit development and ambient noise, should be dened. Before releasing a general plan in draft or nal form, it should be edited with a non-planner in mind to ensure the public can understand it.

A clear, simple explanation of why the plan has been prepared, its major effects, and how the public can participate in its nal shaping should go with every plan document sent out for public review. The document should distinguish policy statements (i.e., goals, objectives, policies, plan proposals, etc.) from background information. Similarly, an executive sum mary prefacing the document can highlight major points. Where possible, charts and graphs should be used to condense information that would be overly long, boring, or confusing if presented in narrative form.

PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT

A successful general plan serves as a constant reference for local ofcials who make daily decisions regarding a community's physical development. The general plan therefore should be easy to use, in a form that encourages reading and ready reference. It should not be overwhelmingly bulky or highly technical in appearance (see the above discussion of technical appendices). Diagrams should be of a convenient size for easy reference and of sufcient scale and clarity to identify the relationships among plan proposals.

A working general plan should also be designed so that when amendments are made to text or diagrams, these amendments can be done inexpensively. Some communities accomplish this by preparing loose-leaf plans that allow the easy insertion of amended pages and removal of obsolete pages. Other communities have the stored the text and diagrams of their general plans on computer disc in order to take advantage of the exibility and benets of desk-top publishing. Another example ­ diagrams that consist of patterned blueprints are easier to amend and reproduce than slick, multi-colored pages that require a trip to the printer.

A document that is not readily up-dated will soon be obsolete. Amendments that cannot be integrated into the original booklet are invariably kept in le cabinets or cardboard boxes and are easily misplaced. A dated and incomplete document will be useless to decision makers and the public.

AVAILABILITY

If a general plan is to be effective, it must be available. Each member of the governing body of a city or county should possess or have ready access to an uptodate copy of the entire document. The plan should be a legislator's handy guide for day-to-day decision making. Each planner and planning commissioner, as advisors to and representatives of the governing body, should have access to a copy of an up-to-date general plan.

The plan must also be available to members of the public so they can anticipate or comment upon proposed community development decisions. The clerk of a local legislative body must make available to the public copies of the documents adopting or amending a general plan within one working day following the adoption date or within two working days after receipt of a request accompanied by payment (Government Code Section 65357(b)). A city or county may charge a fee for a copy of the general plan that is reasonably related to the cost of providing that document (Government Code Section 65357(c)).

General plans are public records. Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, planning agencies must make their general plans available for public inspection at all times during ofce hours. Cities and counties may adopt procedures for making these records available. Members of the public may also obtain copies of planning documents pursuant to the Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.).

There are several steps local jurisdictions can take to reduce the expense of making documents available to the public. For instance, general plan documents should be printed in sufcient quantities that there is always stock on hand. Printing in quantity lowers the per unit cost of production. The jurisdiction can also put uptodate copies of its plan on le at the local library. Such an arrangement is particularly appropriate when general plan documents, such as technical appendices, are bulky and expensive to reproduce. Revision Cost Factors

Obsolescence

Public Records Act