The Gili for nhi Surveyor - CLSA

Coming of Age ....
CONTINUED FROM PACE 24
and 1950s that comprehensive
long-term planning as envisioned by
Bettman gained acceptance. Factors
such as the increased involvement of
government in the redevelopment of
urban centers, significant growth of
suburban areas, and demand for housing
have contributed to this trend.
California has adopted the concept
of comprehensive statewide planning,
at least in principle. The Office of Plan-
Confusion
in terminology
commonly occurs
when lawyers,
planners, and
engineers
gather to discuss
the planning process.
ning and Research (OPR), operating
out of the Governor's office, is designated
as the comprehensive state planning
agency. Govt C §65040. It is responsible
for developing state land use
policies, coordinating planning of all
state agencies, and assisting and monitoring
local and regional planning activities.
Govt C §65035. In an effort to
link statewide policies to actual planning
activities performed by local government,
the legislature instructed
OPR to develop and adopt guidelines
for the preparation and content of general
plans. Govt C §65040.2. Each city
and county must report annually to
OPR on the degree to which its general
plan complies with these guidelines.
Govt C §65040.5. (The guidelines are
contained in an OPR publication, updated
regularly, entitled General Plan
Guidelines. A copy can be obtained for
$16 prepaid from General Services,
Publications Section, P.O. Box 1015,
North Highland, CA 95660 or call (916)
973-3700. Ask for Stock Number 7540-
931-1030-0.)
Although all of this may sound impressive,
the problem is that the OPR's
guidelines are wholly advisory and in
fact the law expressly provides that, in
creating OPR, the legislature did not intend
to vest in the Office any direct operating
or regulatory powers over land
use, public works, or other state, regional,
or local projects or programs.
Govt C §65035. The annual reporting
by cities and counties also leaves something
to be desired. Most simply report
the year in which each mandated element
was adopted, which does not provide
enough information to determine
the level of compliance. Nevertheless,
over the years OPR has provided a
valuable service in coordinating the
land use planning activities of local
government and providing technical
assistance to cities and counties in developing
their general and specific
plans. The OPR staff can draw from an
informational database that many local
agencies will find very helpful in drafting
and revising various plan elements.
In at least one area, OPR has been
given some authority. It can grant extensions
to cities and counties to bring
their general plans into compliance
with the law, thus allowing for project
approvals during this interim period.
This authority, and some limitations
on it, are discussed later in this article.
The statutory requirements for general
and specific plans are found in the
Planning and Zoning law (Govt C
§§65000-66403). The law affects both
cities and counties; for convenience,
however, we will speak of cities with the
understanding that the same rules apply
to counties unless otherwise noted.
As with general law cities, charter
cities must adopt general plans with all
mandatory elements. Govt C §65300.
Yet, rather peculiarly, the requirement
that zoning be consistent with the general
plan (Govt C §65860) does not apply
to charter cities (with the exception
of the city of Los Angeles), although
many city charters require this consistency.
Govt C §65803. This exemption is
based on the high degree of autonomy
traditionally afforded to charter cities
in the land use arena, but it seems illogical
today given the increasing emphasis
at the legislative and judicial levels
on comprehensive planning. In fact,
several courts have hinted that zoning
inconsistent with the general plan may
be an abuse of the police power — a
concept that would apply to charter as
well as general law cities. See Mira Dev.
Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205
CA3d 1201,1214,252, CR 825,832; City
of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133
CA3d 401, 414, 183 CR 898, 907, reported
at 5 CEB RPLR 131 (Oct. 1982).
Confusion in terminology commonly
occurs when lawyers, planners,
and engineers gather to discuss the
planning process. General plans and
specific plans have precise meanings
under the law (Govt C §§65302,65451),
but they are frequently confused with
such things as master plans, site specific
plans, development plans, and the
like. These latter terms may refer to a
type of plan processed under a city's
zoning ordinance, although more
often they are simply part of the planner's
jargon for a plan describing the
proposed development. Also, many
cities utilize community plans or area
plans which they call specific plans,
but are not specific plans under Govt C
§65451. Therefore, in discussing general
and specific plans, attorneys must
be aware of the technical meaning of
these terms and be sure that their clients
and consultants are communicating
on the same level.
THE GENERAL PLAN MANDATE
The concept of a "master" or general
plan was introduced in California
law as early as 1927, when cities and
counties were authorized to prepare
"master plans" showing streets, plazas,
open spaces, public easements,
parks, playgrounds and public rights
in lands. Stats 1927, ch 874. In fact, as
early as 1929, adoption of "master
plans" (changes to "general plans" in
1965) was made mandatory for those
cities and counties establishing planning
commissions. Stats 1929, ch 838.
This statute was based largely on U.S.
Department of Commerce, Advisory
Committee on City Planning and Zoning,
A Standard City Planning Enabling
Act (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1928). But it was a far
cry from comprehensive land use
planning as we think of it today. The
general plan and zoning were not
viewed as being integrally related.
Zoning was the separation of the municipality
into districts and the regulation
of uses within those districts.
Planning was characterized as policy
which served as a guide for land use
decisions but was not binding on a city.
In fact, the law provided that no city
could be required to adopt a general
plan before adopting a zoning ordinance.
Stats 1965, ch 1880, §6. This situation
did not change until 1971 when
the legislature, under the authorship of
Assemblyman McCarthy, enacted profound
changes in the Planning and
Zoning Law requiring that subdivision
26 The California Surveyor Winter/Spring 1992