HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.3 Dublin Ranch Potential Expansion o
• CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 26, 1987
SUBJECT Potential expansion of Dublin Ranch General Plan
Amendment Study and Specific Plan Study.
EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1. Diagram of Property Owners' Responses
2. Dublin General Plan Extended Planning Area
Map
3. March 9, 1987, City Council Agenda Statement
RECOMMENDATION (See below. )
FINANCIAL STATEMENT Undetermined. The Dublin Ranch Applicant to pay
for studies and consultant costs related to his
particular request. Five (5) other property
owners are willing to discuss sharing in the
costs.
DESCRIPTION
I. Background
On March 9, 1987, the City Council authorized the Dublin Ranch General
Plan Amendment Study and Specific Plan Study as requested by Mr. Ted Fairfield
on behalf of Chang Su-0 Lin et al. to:
1. Contact surrounding property owners regarding their interest in
participating in the studies and sharing in the costs, and what
general types of land use they would like studied.
2. Bring the item back to the City Council to:
a. Review the input from surrounding property owners.
b. Define the size of the study area.
C. Determine the general scope of land uses to be studied.
d. Authorize Staff to select a consultant team.
Staff sent letters with postage paid return envelopes to the 40+ property
owners listed in the Alameda County Assessment Roll for the eastern Extended
Planning Area. The letter stated that a lack of response would be considered
an indication that the property owners were not interested in including their
property in the studies and in sharing in the costs. The deadline for
responses was April 30, 1987.
To date, 13 property owners in addition to the Lins have responded in the
following manner:
5 m willing to further discuss participation in the studies and
sharing in the costs
3 — not interested at this time
5 a want more information or to be kept informed
13 total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Ted Fairfield
Responding Property Owners .
ITEM NO. /.. File PA 87-031
The property owners who expressed interest and their proposed general
land uses are:
- Dublin Land Company (John Di Manto) : residential, retail, office
- TMI, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enerson: residential, commercial,
industrial
- Alameda County (Charlotte Lundberg) : business park/industrial
- Redgwick Construction (Don Redgwick) : land uses not indicated
- Louis Pappas: business park, residential
II. Issues
A. Study Area
The General Plan Amendment study area should be contiguous with the
City to provide for the logical growth and expansion of urban development
and urban services. The study area might also include some or all of the
Business Park/Industrial: Low Coverage properties along I-580 to help
achieve the fiscal balance called for by the existing General Plan
policies.
The City Council should consider the input from the property owners
when defining the General Plan Amendment Study area. If the study area
includes some property where the owner is unwilling or unable to share in
the costs, the other property owners who are willing to pay should share
in the additional study costs.
The Specific Plan study area does not need to be contiguous to the
City. It can include properties that are not contiguous to each other.
If the Specific Plan study area includes property where the owner is
unwilling or unable to share in the costs, the other property owners
should initially fund the study and then recover the costs when the
property is developed. As with the General Plan Amendment, the City
Council should consider the input from the property owners when defining
the Specific Plan study area.
B. General Scope of Land Uses
The general scope of land uses which the property owners have
expressed interest in studying include:
- residential (high, medium and low density; estate lots)
- retail/commercial
- office/commercial
- industrial
- business park/industrial
- open space
If the City Council feels it would not be appropriate to study a
particular land use, it should so indicate.
C. Consultant Services
To meet legal requirements, the General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan will need to address land use and planning issues, infrastructure
and facilities, development and environmental management standards, and
implementation and financing measures. Staff will need the assistance of
various consultants to prepare adequate land use and urban service plans
(such as for fire service) , to review the civil and traffic engineering,
and to evaluate the environmental, geologic, and fiscal impacts. The
City Council should authorize Staff to select a consultant team, obtain
proposals and cost estimates, and develop an equitable method for
spreading the costs among the willing property owners.
-2-
III. Recommendations
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Define the General Plan Amendment Study Area.
2. Define the Specific Plan study area and direct Staff to establish
funding mechanism.
3. Determine the general land uses to be studied.
4. Authorize Staff to obtain proposals and cost estimates for
consultants' services, develop the method of sharing the costs, and
report back to the City Council with recommended consulting team.
-3-
--,S j
.5' 7
NIV
v - - 'n'" --; o k .*.!. — '-� I
iv
7T
M wlm-vlli�
r i
ma
V
Y.
AU
'W/ 7
VA!
'7
_Z k! A
'WI
:: ;..+a 4,
14
;Wl
V'A' wt
I E1T!IW,","fit G S 1t1..�;%/!.�. ;'. ( ,l.• :J..'�{ASriaAK4 crCF1Y.�;�. _ -� __ } ,,.V .� �"..'�' ti 1' R` .r'` ��.r<'.'7`�'- -f ar — - �3��l
pr-
IT,
tL
1 )�� /V G 0�?d ,�f" - /'•.ll r � 'i / :..^.1 �'r �L__ .i�� ;r. �1. L �a .a r� - �- �� jp. :/.•
j7ZI k�1.—1
dill mi i .
orp - - , ---)l" _ - .f
I i0e �l i
"p;7
ell
V
:r muf�. AIRM.'.
F4
.................. .... .. .... ................ --- .......
. ........
hS,
To 'S 51+Ak(?,?6 tOSI-S
KM mi m
WAI,.)TS MOPP- WFVRMA-T(Ot`
ATTAu'&Im H melamEm m
H" ------
' Dublin Genera
i Plan -•
GUIDING POLICY
Consider residential development
proposals(including support facilities)
on moderate slopes,with multifamily
densities typically considered on flatter
land and next to business park areas.
X.:
Tessajara Creek IMPLEMENTATION POLICY
Regional Park*: The location,extent and density
of residential development will be
determined when municipal services
.:.Parks eserve . %
can be provided and through General
. :�. - *�.-< ro
. , :� Plan refinement studies.
Ali >: -Forces Training Area
U)
GUIDING POLICY
-:- Santa Rita
Kit X
Consider residential development a. Rehabilitation Center.
proposals(including support facilities) 13 ul
with multi-family Z
on moderate slopes, •0
densities typically considered on flatter
land. Z
Q9.
IMPLEMENTATION POLICY
The location,extent *,X;
t and density X.'.
of residential development will be
determined when municipal services
General- :X
can be provided and through G
FREEWAY 580 Plan refinement studies.
'N"
gal
STONERIDGE OR
Extended Planning Area
0 1mile
Residential/Open Space(see note)
a . ® Business Park/Industrial:Low Coverage
Business Park/industrial
Public Lands
�TT
ACHMENT,
Z:1; CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
t'
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 9, 1987
i SUBJECT PA 87-031 Dublin Ranch General Plan Amendment/
Specific Plan Study Request
EXHIBITS ATTACHED 1. Letter from Ted Fairfield dated
February 23, 1987, requesting General Plan
Amendment/Specific Plan Studies and
Associated Studies
' 2. Dublin Ranch Specific Plan (Administrative
Draft) : (Under Separate Cover)
3. Attachment re: Existing General Plan
Policies
4. Excerpts re: General Plans and Specific
Plans from League of CA Cities' PC Handbook
RECOMMENDATION . (See Below) .
FINANCIAL STATEMENT Undetermined. Applicant to pay for studies and
consultant costs related to the request.
DESCRIPTION
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Ted C. Fairfield, on behalf of Chang Su-0 Lin et al, Property Owners,'
is requesting the Dublin City Council to authorize a General Plan Amendment
and Specific Plan Study.
The request involves approximately 930 acres in unincorporated Alameda
County along both sides of Tassajara Road. The area is within the Dublin
Sphere of Influence and General Plan planning area. The portion of the
property west of Tassajara Road is contiguous to the eastern City limit.
The Applicant 'would like the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan to
provide for primarily residential uses, with support land uses and public
facilities. The Applicant's initial proposal has a maximum housing capacity
of 5,200 dwelling units within a density range from estate lots up to 25
dwelling units per acre with a majority of the area proposed for multi-family
dwelling units. The Applicant estimates that build-out will take more than 10
years.
The proposed site is located in the Extended Planning Area of the Dublin
General Plan.
Within the Extended Planning Area, the General Plan Map and Land Use
Element contain the following general land use policies:
1) Residential/Open Space designation (pg. ii)
2) Consider residential development proposals (including support
facilities such as neighborhood shopping centers, schools and parks)
on moderate slopes, with multi-family densities typically considered
on flatter land and next to business-park areas (pg. 11) .
---------------------------
COP
ITEM NO. S,01 ATTACHMENT \3
w. �. 'n.� ^.`V'. �•nt, ii: }'�L`1:i ��, ja+cgT;s'.�'tt ;,r Tom! r 3`tfT•TYy+Xyx�iE`�t°.'N"r,'va �:LYOS'�. 'M���ct! �R.t`.+'�I."r s��•`t••'jZ'!�,".�5���.I���it`C;.;�:�5::,R:"�..-•
•l.. .7�, .`b�\%: .:d:.N,r.�� vj! :�1 •�, �l � � .`h '� t :7. ♦•:,.:� �Z'�' r•`.L;.:l..b�'. ��.�(,•1���nlJ( w:..d;��`•�..r,. �•:,:nA:.i•'1:",`�
�..4h,r:J•k•iS,'•�:fit.. .'{te}�,.lY;�i�`°��?.i�% r•F`P r"� h� :^`�{' ,.}�;', i:{)�.w,�v' ..c:.,"1.;=�i ! i� '-,•'�'�'..t<L KA,,.n l••- -\��^�".. ,h.
' �:i n' .\•;..��:•�.i:!:'�ii, t'':^. 1•:::.�.�1�j^'..:�''4�i�t•fw«;�Ki�..L� "+:::` . ., 1,r.Iv.tii:..:':: .... .• ..
,:�y,,..•a:-tc..y�..r.•..a i nC:P,�,AF i�"Y�tjc`T1rn7 T.e:°T;:a-t,'y+a.:�F.�?\ Cnr T"'Fl"t'1�$> r '• .' 'N nGr � .F�"f }'4=5�,:'? i'"�hF.,i. NS.^' li• a"'p—^�f.d� "'',rTY: �,.c
.� :R "• ._!is:l_ it :�.;� T.. ,T..�i a.,:"' v j#!.fn�`i.L .�. �'�,r ,�' ,ti:t..� ,:;',,.:h'.. ..r. T `';. n• `^fihi_.a.>,x"�.e�:: c� r+5 :�? w
' l
3) The loca extent and density of reside i1 development will be
' determin. nen municipal services can be provided and through
General Plan refinement studies (pg. 11).
4) Approval of residential development in the extended planning area
will require determination that:
I
Utilities and public safety services will be provided at urban
standards without financial burden to Dublin residents and
businesses.
- Proposed site grading and means of access will not disfigure
the ridgelands.
Timing of development will not result in premature termination
of viable agricultural operations on adjoining lands.
s
The fiscal impact of new residential development in the
extended planning area supports itself and does not draw upon
and dilute the fiscal base of the remainder of the City (pp.
11-12) .
State law limits General Plan Amendments to a maximum of four (4) per
calendar year. The limit applies to actual amendments to the General Plan.
The City Council authorizes the number and extent of studies and actual
amendments.
The City Council has previously authorized or initiated two (2) General
Plan Amendment Studies:
1) Hansen Ranch and its expansion to include the adjoining Blaylock -
Gleason - Fletcher property.
2) The Dublin Downtown Specific Plan has associated General Plan
Amendments.
The Dublin Ranch request would be a third amendment, but would probably
be completed after this calendar year.
State law does not limit the number of Specific Plans that can be pre-
" pared. It does, however, call out the contents of a Specific Plan. A
Specific Plan has much more detailed requirements than a General Plan. A
Specific Plan must include:
1) Land Uses
2) Infrastructure and Facilities
3) Development and Environmental Management Standards
i 4) Implementation and Financing Measures
Since a Specific Plan typically requires more planning, architectural and
y engineering detail and expertise than a General Plan Amendment, it is usually
more costly to prepare.
ry
II. ISSUES
The first step in the process is for the City Council to determine
' whether or not to authorize a General Plan Amendment Study to consider
clarifying or changing land use policies, in the Extended Planning Areas. If
the City Council decides to not authorize an Amendment Study, all of the
existing policies will remain in effect. In essence, residential development
in the Extended Planning Area would be subject to future study when the City
Council finds it appropriate. A Specific Plan for residential development
would not be studied. No further direction would be needed.
If the City Council decides to authorize a General Plan Amendment Study,
' the City Council should also determine whether or not to authorize a Specific
Plan Study. The Specific Plan Study area could include all or part of the
General Plan Amendment Study area. -
,b
-2-
ra r• ��.�. y.,�r�r• .rs,�Zbr�.,..p.^4+- ��,wa'^l-�pya;.i,.. �,...�.,p... �._.,,, ,•�a' +S�"+'' "F:�c'A'?T-:P iL''..R`.�.�:+r_ ���e,..�
i1••.:v•�� :.i;r.1 ri Cizr�•iA..e �' ..�p..�,VY.. -�,i i�A• ( l rr � Iy+ ! � + '� '�1.^: � ••'
1•;` 2^ ..t,- !-;`::�� w. � '.n _,�'ti n. z-�< :,.f�7:`.y:y. ,' � .}� 1.T�.;y.
£ ""-tea: ,.y, F":},...+.J ��;1.5 FwN.•n�-.ws].7n j 5 P,,�, Yw+ ,.qr �` •r'7 -4:;•c-. ,a^t il+ r •'` r U ,es.; $' f"' K�„h tT" C-'�r
It would be ap- riate for surrounding propert; Zers to provide input
and participate in , neral Plan Amendment and Specl Plan Study. They may
be interested and willing to share in the cost of either 1) a General Plan
Amendment Study only, or 2) a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Study.
Their input may help define the size of the study area and the general scope P
of land uses to be studied.
In recognition of the existing General Plan policy regarding the fiscal
impact of new residential development, including the Business Park/Industrial:
Low Coverage properties into the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan
Study may help achieve the fiscal balance called for by the General Plan.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Determine whether or not to authorize a General Plan Amendment Study
at the time. If the study is not authorized, no other action is
needed.
2. Determine whether or not to authorize a Specific Plan Study.
3. Direct Staff to contact surrounding property owners regarding their
interest and willingness to share in the cost of 1) a General Plan
Amendment Study only, or 2) a General Plan Amendment and Specific
Plan Study, or 3) other application processing.
4. Direct Staff to bring the item back to the City Council at a future
meeting to 1) review input from surrounding property owners,
2) define size of study area, 3) determine general scope of land
uses to be studied, and 4) authorize Staff to select consultant
team.
7
Y
t
-3-
,1 •
., .pv. .�; i�t^' .,n„p. .r.,• rr+1•}•.a' •C't�:a;�: -r•�•�'�Y`t�;:.0�^:_YN�.K°•"t'�:�-R'�'.'irw�;2'��r'tr.�i1%�7i��:,x-t����T.,r.....,;ti:+76w�.J.;��^—.�.��. ..,�.,�.....
t, �, tt •\.•`.,� .f '.P �:r:�l" •;?� t ea rt .l t' l 1
,� `:t t. \vim+ir�.'�ty n.„ �Y ... .� r' tre. k, ^tt�::l*>`PJ 't.a'�'1'j�"t��-, 4.. ;y �-aa�sai±w.�;-;C"��cf�..crsr�.�.w�dmk' 1_ .�.-qr, i•?r�s.Cc, .0 ;nY 1�"aixT;...'•r.o,:ey Ya4.c�-;r
�1 " °'7+�tKj"i , .i5 'R'`�a,""�a�t '"'�',$ 'Z-fY ..y a \; �".�11t n. .c t + 'Sf '+'1'�ir� "�., ` '�'" ti � r+ a,:`• -"Ry+ ,_
� � t s.i.•.-{ � �f It l t,- t,.,. �, � � ..sx ' t...,S �t• NtR .{�r � n,:.yr�: jr .1:.,•. ff �; ,f ,�y'� -ev�,y,M,-7.14F d+C•� � � ty 3 \
a:_:..
ti ry TED C. FAIRFIELD
Consulting Ciuil Engineer R E C E 1 Y E D
FEB x, 51987
' February 23, 1987
D!]BUiV PLANNING
Y
Mr. Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Mr. Tong:
i
This letter and the accompanying documents will constitute an application
on behalf of Chang Su-0 Lin et al for approval of both a Specific Plan
and a General Plan amendment on the Lin's 930± acre Dublin Ranch property
i on Tassajara Road, in the Eastern Extended Planning area.
We request that the City Council authorize the preparation of the
requisite General Plan Amendment Study, Specific Plan Study and
associated environmental , fiscal , traffic and other studies.
Enclosed with this letter are:
' 1 . Executed Planning Application Form '
2. Executed Environmental Assessment Form '
3. Executed Processing Fee Agreement Form
4. $1 ,000 check (initial deposit) '
5. Assessors parcel maps plus composite exhibit, showing the requisite,
peripheral 300 ft. strip.
6. Mailing labels in conjunction with the previous item./
7. Twenty additional copies of the Dublin Ranch Specific Plan documents.
{
t 8. Letter of authorization signed by the Lins. -*
C Please be aware that TJKM's detailed traffic reports are nearing
completion, and have been promised by March 2nd, after which copies will
be furnished to your office.
i
E
i
I P.O. Box 1148 • 5510 Sunol Blvd. Pleasanton Califor
- •,�R ��x
R
I
' Page Two
Mr. Laurence L. Tong
February 23, 1987
It is hoped that this application ication will be
p pp presented to the City Council ,
j for initial action at its March 9th meeting. :,f:�•
Thanks for your continuing cooperation.
Very truly yours,
TED C. FAIRFI
TCF:ch
Enc.
cc: Chris Kinzel
Marc Seeley
cc/w-enc: Jim Tong
Martin Inderbitzen
Richard Frisbie
Rod Andrade
r
s
i
s .
r
i
I -
Existi— General Plan Policies Regardin- °A 87-031
in Ranch General Plan Amendmei :udy
In addition to those identified in the Agenda Statement, the following
list contains the existing policies for either the Primary Planning Area or
Extended Planning Area that could have a significiant effect on the residen-
tial development proposal and overall amendment study.
Neighborhood Diversity
- Avoid economic segregation by City sector.
- Require a mixture of dwelling types in large projects. [pg. 7]
Residential Compatibility
Avoid abrupt transitions between single-family development and higher
density development on adjoining sites.
i
- Require a planned development zoning process for all development proposals
over 6.0 units per gross residential acre. [pg. 11]
Open Space: Natural Resources, Public Health and Safety
Preserve oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and natural creeks as open
space for their natural resource value.
Maintain slopes predominately over 30 percent (disregarding minor surface
humps or hollows) as permanent open space for public health and safety.
Continue requiring reservation of steep slopes and ridges as open space as
a condition of subdivision map approval. [pg. 15]
Open Space: Agricultural
Maintain lands currently in the Williamson Act agricultural preserve as
rangeland, provided that specific proposals for conversion to urban use
consistent with the General Plan may be considered not sooner than two
'j
years prior to contract expiration.
] Approval of development of agricultural land not under contract shall
' require findings that the land is suitable for the intended use and will
have adequate urban services and that conversion to urban use will not
have significant adverse effects on adjoining lands remaining under
contract.
Open Space: Outdoor Recreation, Appearance
- Expand park area to serve new development.
- Restrict structures on the hillsides that appear to project above major
ridgelines.
;i
Use subdivision design and site design review process to preserve or
enhance the ridgelines that form. the skyline as viewed from freeways
(I-580 or I-680) or major arterial streets (Dublin Blvd. , Amador Valley
Blvd. , San Ramon Road, Village Parkway, Dougherty Road) . [pg. 16]
Public Lands
- Negotiate reservation of an alignment for Dublin Boulevard extension
across Parks RFTA and Santa Rita land- 18]
ieasz zriction.
•j - Improve freewa: :cess.
Reserve right-of-way and construct improvements necessary to allow
i arterial and collector streets to accommodate projected traffic with the
least friction.
Develop a plan line for a six-lane divided extension of Dublin Boulevard
from Dougherty Road to Parks RFTA boundary. [pg. 19]
1
Scenic Highways
Incorporate previously designated scenic routes in the General Plan and
work to enhance a positive image of Dublin as seen by through travelers.
[pg. 23]
Riparian Vegetation
Protect riparian vegetation as a protective buffer for stream quality and
for its value as a habitat and aesthetic resource.
Promote access to stream corridors for passive recreational use and to
allow stream maintenance and improvements as necessary, while respecting
the privacy of owners of property abutting stream corridors.
- Require open stream corridors of adequate width to protect all riparian
vegetation, improve access, and prevent flooding caused by blockage of
streams.
Require revegetation of creek banks with species characteristic of local
riparian vegetation, where construction requires creekbank alteration,
[pg. 28-291
Erosion/Siltation Control
- Maintain natural hydrologic system.
- Regulate grading and development on steep slopes.
Review development proposals to insure site design that minimizes soil
erosion and volume and velocity of surface runoff.
Restrict development on slopes of over 30 percent. [pg. 29]
Oak Woodlands
- Protect oak woodlands.
- Require preservation of oak woodlands. Where woodlands occupy slopes that
otherwise could be graded and developed, permit allowable density to be
transferred to another part of the site. Removal of an individual oak tree
may be considered through the project review process. [pg. 29]
Geotechnical Analyses
A preliminary geologic hazards report must be prepared for all sub-
divisions. Any other facility that could create a geologic hazard, such as
'> a road or a building on hillside terrain, must also have such a study.
"= Each of the hazards described in the Seismic Safety and Safety'Element must
be evaluated. This hazard analysis shall be prepared by a registered
' ' engineering geologist, [pg. 33]
approval in the Eastern txtenaea rianning Area.
- Enact a high h• :d ordinance specifying:
- Fire retardant roof materials, spark arrestors, water storage, and
vegetation clearance around structures.
Sprinklers for all habitable structures beyond five minutes response
time from a station. [pg. 34-351
Flooding
Regulate development in hill areas to minimize runoff by preserving
woodlands and riparian vegetation. Retain creek channels with ample right
of way for maintenance and for maximum anticipated flow.
Require dedication of broad stream corridors as a condition of subdivision
approval.
- Protect riparian vegetation and prohibit removal of woodlands. Removal of
an individual oak tree may be considered through the project review
process.
Require drainage studies of entire small watersheds and assurance that
appropriate mitigation measures will be completed as needed prior to
ro
approval of development in the extended planning area. [pg. 35]
(The study should focus on any water sheds on the property or that let
water through the property.)
a
�9
CA.aTr�
w o �
FLASN.COMM IS51 Qi J J Np500V�%
r IE-8 The General Plan 1 _
The General Plan ;
Before 1971, a city's general plan was usually considered just a guideline
for growth. In fact, prior to 1971, Government Code§65860 read:"No county„
or city shall be required to adopt a general plan prior to the adoption of a zoning
j ordinance
The major change in California planning law practice since 1971 Is the
:! growing importance of general plans.State laws now require that approvals be
consistent with city's general plan.
The general plan has taken on a very important legal meaning.As the
Attorney General stated in 58 Ops.Cal.Attny.Gen.21,23 (1975):
"A study of the 1971 and subsequent statutory changes makes it clear
j that the legislature intended that local government engage in the dis-
cipline of setting forth their development policies,objectives and stan-
dards in a general plan composed of various elements of land use.
§§65030,65302,65302.2.The general plans and their constituent ele-
ments are now the local constitutions to which all local development in
'! its many and varied phases shall repair.§§65302, 65303."..
In addition to the Attorney General's opinion, the appellate courts have
discussed the importance of the general plan.
In City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove[(1979) 100 Cal App.3d 521,
532]the Court of Appeal,in explaining the McCarthy legislation of 1971,stated
it has".. .transformed the general plan from just an'interesting study'to the
basic land use charter governing the direction of future land use in the local
jurisdiction....As a result,general plans now embody fundamental land use
decisions that guide the future growth and development of cities." '
In Friends of "B" Street, et al. v. City of Hayward, et al. [(1980) 106
Cal.App.3d 988], the court held that the construction of public improvements
i must be consistent with the general plan and stated the general plan is,in short,
a constitution for all future development within the city.
i
General Plan Elements
Under the state planning law,each city shall adopt a comprehensive,long-
'j term general plan for the physical development of a city and.of any land outside
its boundaries which,in its judgment,bears relation to its planning(Government .
.] Code§65300). Under state law,each city's general plan must have nine man-
datory elements:
' 1. Land Use-designating proposed general location and distribution of land
uses;includes standards of population density and building intensity.
i 2. Circulation-the general location and extent of transportation facilities and
public utilities all correlated with the land use element.
3. Housing - provision for housing improvement and site adequacy for all
j economic segments of the community.
4. Conservation -of all natural resources.
5. Open Space - for preservation and managed production of natural re
sources,outdoor recreation and public health and safety.
6. Seismic Safety-identification and appraisal of all seismic and associated
geologic hazards.
7. Noise-in quantitative terms,Identifying noise levels and potential mitigation
measures associated with transportation facilities,industrial uses and other
stationary sources. Includes noise impacts on land use and the preparation
of a community noise exposure inventory.
8. Scenic Highways-Identification and protection of scenic highways,
9. Safety-protection of community from fires, and geological hazards - , „ z, ,�
t..
G..i Zi ib
1 e
2 11-B The General Plan
4
.t
Under the decisions in Camp v. Mendocino [(1981) 123 CA3d 334] and
Twain Harte Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Tuolumne [(1982) 138
Cal.App.3d 664] the elements must meet the requirements contained in state
law, or they will be deemed illegal and no subdivision approval, for example,
can be given. Thus it is imperative that a city make sure that statutory criteria
are contained in its local elements.
' For example, the court in the Camp case, in discussing the inadequacies
' of the county's noise element stated:
"The so-called'noise element'of the Mendocino County General Plan
is set out in a separate pamphlet which shows that it was adopted by
the Board in 1976 . . . It includes no'noise' exposure information . . .
required by Section 65302. It shows nothing "determined by monitor-
ing"with regard to"areas"deemed noise sensitive"as required by the
next paragraph of the statute. It does not include a"community noise
exposure inventory, current and projected," as required by the Para-
: graph after that.For these reasons and others,it does not substantially
comply with the requirements of Section 65302, subdivision (g). The
County asserts that it is "certainly adequate for a quiet rural county
such as Mendocino,"but the test is neither geographical nor subjective:
it is purely statutory, and the county has failed it."
In Twain Harte,the court ruled the housing element was adequate,but that
the land use and circulation elements were inadequate. It said the land use
element failed to include standards of population density and building intensity
as required by Government Code §65302(a).The court reasoned that popu-
lation density refers to numbers of people in a given area, and not to dwelling
units per acre,unless the basis for correlation between the measure of dwelling
units per acre and numbers of people is set forth in the plan.Tuolumne County's
plan contained no such correlation.The court further stated that the plan con-
tained no standards for building intensity for the nonresidential areas of the
county. Government Code §65302(b) requires the circulation element to be
correlated with the land use element.The court could not determine from the
evidence whether in fact the circulation element was correlated with the land
use element, and thus concluded that it was not.
Other permissive elements may be included in the general plan such as:
■ Recreation: mandatory if the city desires to adopt a parkland dedication
ordinance;
■ Transportation;
■ Transit;
■ Public services and facilities;
■ Public building;
'r ■ Community design;
■ Housing consisting of standards and plans for the elimination of substandard
dwelling conditions;
■ Redevelopment;
■ Historical preservation;
■ Such additional elements dealing with other subjects which,in the judgment
of the planning agency, relate to the physical development of the city.
The Nine Mandatory
Elements Of A General However, once a permissive element has been adopted, it is as important
and legally binding as a mandatory one.
Plan Some cities have adopted their elements individually, a practice that may
' 1. Land Use create a number of problems, particularly if the elements have been prepared
2. Circulation and adopted over many years.At the very least, it makes internal consistency
3. Housing difficult to maintain,results in needless duplication and bulk,and makes review
4. Conservation and use difficult.
5. Open Space Some cities have combined two or more state-mandated elements.Where
6. Seismic Safety elements are combined, the document ought to include an explicit statement
7. Noise
of how its contents relate to state planning requirements. The most popular
y 8. Scenic Highways combinations pair open space with conservation, seismic safety with safety,
9. Safety
A
- - 7• )-B The General Plan 3
and scenic highway with open space. A number of cities have adopted Envi-
ronmental Resource Management Elements,Integrating the open space,con-
'��;" servation, seismic safety and scenic highway elements. Certainly, other
{ combinations are also possible,Including ultimate consolidation—the adoption
a of a single document incorporating all the elements.Further,all elements have .
equal legal status;in Sierra Club v.,Kern Co. [(1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 6981,the
court voided the"precedence clause,"giving one element priority over another.
In 1982 the Legislature required cities to bring their general plan,specific
plan,and zoning and building regulations into consistency with adopted airport
land use plans,or else to make specific findings.[ChpL 1041 '82 Sts(AB2920)
a adding Government Code§65302.3,amending and adding various sections to
Public Utilities Code starting with PU 21670 et seq.]
An Incomplete Plan
a Since the mid-1970's every city has been required to have a general plan
with all of the nine mandatory elements, unless it has received an extension
from the Office of Planning and Research. However, an extension does not
validate or immunize a city's prior approval of land use permits from the re-
quirement of conformity to a valid general plan[Resource Defense Fund v.Co.
. of Santa Cruz(1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 800, 803].
What happens if a city does not have a completed and updated general
plan?The Attorney General commented on this in an opinion:
". . . Consequently, it is our opinion that a county or general law city
must have had a general plan in effect at the latest by January 1,1974,
with the elements which were then and are now required,in order that
± the local legislative body in adopting a zoning ordinance may comply
with the consistency requirement. Obviously, as the section itself
states, such consistency with a general plan cannot be found unless
'The city or county has officially adopted such a plan: (§65860) [58
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.21,24(1975)].
Suppose the city lacks a noise, seismic safety,or housing element,or an
element does not meet state law requirements,or its general plan is internally .
inconsistent. If the city finds that a proposed rezoning is consistent with those
;i elements of the general plan that it has, such an action would be void,none-
theless. [See 58 Ops. Cal.Atty.Gen. 21, 26-27(1975)].Also, in Sierra Club v. -
Kern County[(1981) 26 Cal.App.3d 698,704],the court stated in part:"Since
,} the general plan was internally inconsistent, the zoning ordinance ... could
:l not be consistent with such plan(G.C.§65860)and was invalid when passed."
In Resource Defense Fund, supra, the court stated, "Since consistency
:? with the general plan is required, absence of a valid general plan or relevant
elements thereof, preclude any enactment of zoning ordinances and the like."
In City of Carmel v. Monterey County [(1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 9641, the
court upheld the-trial court's decision that a use permit was necessarily void
because the general plan was inadequate. This case would appear to
supersede the ruling in Hawkins v. County of Marin [(1976) 54 Cal.App.3d
586],where the court held that the issuance of a conditional use permit did not
have to be consistent with the general plan.
As to subdivision approval, it is quite clear from case law that 9 one of the
elements is missing, or if an element is inadequate, there cannot be a legal .
consistency finding with the general plan. In Save El Toro Assn.v.Days,et al,
[(1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 64],the court stated that the city's laws did not contain .
- ordinances sufficient to constitute a comprehensive and long-range open
� space plan,as required by§65563.The city failed to formulate inventory maps
I to be used in conducting an inventory of the open space resources available.
Since the city had not adopted a valid open space plan, it could not approve
any subdivisions.
4 l-B The General Plan 1
In Friends of"B" Street, supra, the appellate court stated that the city of
Hayward could not proceed with a public works project because it was missing
its noise element and therefore the project could not conform to an officially
adopted general plan.
In summary, all zoning by general law cities, all subdivision approval, and
9 other land use approvals must be consistent with the entire general plan con-
taining all of the nine elements, unless an element is found not necessary
pursuant to Government Code§65302.1.Otherwise the city's action is subject
to legal attack. In addition, because of the Hayward case, all public works
projects must be consistent with the entire general plan,or it will be subject to
legal attack.
Consistency
By law, consistency exists between zoning and general plan when a city
hps officially adopted such a plan and the various land uses authorized by
ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies,general land uses and
program specified in such a plan. The Attorney General, in 58 Ops.
Cal.Atty.Gen 21 (1975),stated:
. . .As a general approach we endorse the statement in the'General
7 Plan Guidelines'that'The zoning ordinance should be considered con-
sistent with the general plan when the allowable uses and standards
contained in the text of the zoning ordinance tend to further the policies
in the general plan and do not inhibit or obstruct the attainment of those
articulated policies:General Plan Guidelines,September 1973,Coun-
cil on Intergovernmental Relations, page.11 11-13."*
Charter cities,except for Los Angeles,appear to be exempt from the con-
sistency mandate because of Government Code§65803,which provides that `
the zoning chapter,§§65800-65912,shall not apply to charter cities. However,
this exemption is only for zoning and not for consistency in subdivision map
approval, for public works construction, or for other land use approval. (For a
good discussion on consistency see "The Consistency Doctrine: Continuing
Controversy,"Chapter 6,page 77,Zoning and Planning Law Handbook,Storm
1982, Clark Boardman Co., Ltd.)
In 1982 the Legislature added comprehensive and specific provisions(Gov-
ernment Code§65750 et seq.),for challenging the adequacy of a general plan.
The action must be brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) 1085
-traditional mandamus. If the plan is judicially determined to be inadequate,the
law specifies which actions of the city are affected: rezonings, subdivision
approval, and the like. It also specifies time limits to be imposed to prepare an
adequate plan.The law also details other relief the court can grant during the
life of the suit. A detailed reading of those sections and Government Code
§65009, are needed if a lawsuit is brought on this issue.
Procedure For Adoption
The adoption of a general plan or any amendments must follow the provi-
sions of Government Code§65350, et seq.The adoption is by resolution and
if a city has a planning commission, at least one public hearing must be con-
ducted by the planning commission and then one public hearing by-the city
council.Approval by the planning commission must be done by the affirmative
votes of not less than a majority of its total voting members.
• State law restricts amendments to any one of the mandatory elements of
the general plan to four per year. However, the restriction does. not apply to
amendments for affordable housing projects.This requirement prevents con-
tinual general plan amendments every time an.inconsistency between a pro-
posed zoning action and the general plan surfaces. This limitation tends to
J
l�-B The General Plan 5
further focus attention upon basic land use questions rather than the all too
frequent narrow inquiry, "How good is this particular project?"
Further, before adopting a general plan or any amendment,the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be addressed. CEQA guidelines are
applied to a general plan when it is adopted or amended in order to bring it into
conformance with state environmental codes(see Section III of this handbook
for specific CEQA applications).
The Housing Element
One of the most detailed and sometimes controversial elements is the
housing element and its various requirements (Government Code §65580 et
seq).This 1980 legislation described in detail what must be considered by each
city in adopting the housing element of its general plan.
An assessment must be undertaken of the housing needs of all economic
segments of the community and a program must be formulated to meet those
needs. Housing need is determined by calculating the community's fair share
of the regional housing needs.That share is initially determined by the appro-
priate council of governments (COG), or by the Department of Housing and
Community Development in those areas where a COG does not exist If'a W Mt Goes Into A Housing
community disagrees with the COG's determination, it may include its own Element?
determination in its housing element,with all data justifying its conclusion.
In addition to the assessment of housing need and the development of a ■ An assessment of community
housing program, a housing element must include an analysis of existing housing needs.
household characteristics, an inventory of land suitable for residential devel- ■ A program to meet those needs.
opment, an analysis of governmental constraints on the development of hous- ■ An analysis of the community's
ing,an analysis of nongovernmental constraints on the development of housing, household characteristics.
�-� and an analysis of special housing needs such as those of the elderly or ■ An invento
handicapped. ry of land suitable for
residential development.
The housing program is developed by identifying adequate sites for a va- ■ An analysis of governmental
riety of types of housing for all income levels, by addressing governmental constraints on the development
constraints to the development of housing, by conserving and improving the of housing.
condition of existing affordable housing stock and by promoting housing op- ■ An analysis of non-governmental
portunities for all persons in the community. constraints.
The following provisions of the 1980 legislation on housing elements should ■ An analysis of special housing
be noted: needs,such as those of the elderly
■ The Department of Housing and Community Development's Housing Ele- or handicapped.
ment Guidelines are declared to be advisory.
■ All comments made by the Department in its review of local housing elements
are declared to be advisory. The.Housing
■ The burden of proving that a city's determination of its fair share is reasonable What What Does Not Do
does not rest with the city.
■ The legislation states that a city may not be able to provide sufficient housing ■ It does NOT force cities to follow
to meet the identified need due to fiscal,environmental or other public health, the guidelines set out by the State
safety,and welfare objectives.Identification of need does not require fulfilling Department of Housing and
that need if other factors interfere with this effort. Inability to meet identified Community Development.
housing need does not render the housing element or the implementing ■ It does NOT remove a city's
zoning unlawful. authority to determine its fair share
The law further provides that a city shall not be required to expand local of regional housing needs.
revenues for the construction of housing,housing subsidies,or land acquisition; ■ It does NOT require a city to meet
nor to disapprove any residential development which is consistent with the its housing needs if other factors
general plan. interfere.
In 1982 the Legislature added another limitation on a city's power to dis- IN It does NOT force cities to raise
approve or conditionally approve a housing development project at a lower money to build housing.
density than applied for. It required that written findings be made based on ■ It does NOT require a city to
specific conditions concerning specific, adverse impacts and the lack of fea- disapprove any residential develop-
° sible mitigation methods(Government Code§65589.5). Even-though this lim- ment that is consistent with the
itation added to the housing element article, its application is quite broad. general plan.
q
:± 6 Il—B The General Plan
Basically, if a housing project complies with applicable general plan, zoning
and development policies at the time the application is determined to be com-
plete, the city cannot later disapprove or approve it at a lower density until
written findings on the existence of specific conditions are determined.
(See further discussion of housing in Section W.F.)
Specific Plans
The specific plan is an effective but often unused tool for the implemen-
tation of general plan policies and priorities.Because their preparation requires
sophisticated staff or consultant resources,many cities are reluctant to prepare
these plans. Hence,they often request that a project applicant prepare or fund
the preparation of a specific plan which would encompass their project. Be-
: cause of their relative specificity and ultimate assurances, they may be pre-
ferred by applicants for large scale development. Specific plans are designed
to define environmentally sensitive areas within the city/county and set the
parameters of development allowed in those areas.A specific plan evaluates
the features of the area (e.g., water, plant, animal resources, etc.) to enable
planners and developers to mitigate any measurable environmental impacts
before development is permitted.They do,however,require a.significant"front
end"investment in planning, architectural and engineering fees without assur-
ances that a specific proposal will be approved.Some cities provide for general
.. "concept review"which,if approved,may provide some basis for a developer's
initial investment.
The authority for specific plans is contained in Government Code§65450
et seq. However, they are not applicable to charter cities unless adopted by
charter or ordinance (Government Code §65700). The plan shall include all
detailed regulations,conditions,program,and proposed legislation which shall --
be necessary or convenient for the systematic implementation of the general
plan.
The procedure for adoption of specific plans is basically the same as for
general plans. The city council may determine and establish administrative .
rules and procedures for the application and enforcement of specific plans and
regulations,and may assign or delegate such administrative functions,powers,
and duties to the planning or other agency as may be necessary or desirable.
Subdivisions and development agreements must be consistent with spe-
cific plans (Government Code §§66473.5 and 65867.5).
To assist and encourage cities and developers to use specific plans, the
Legislature, in 1979, adopted Government Code§65453.
"The Legislature hereby declares its intent to encourage counties and
cities to undertake the work and responsibility for development of spe-
cific plans. At the time a specific plan is presented to the legislative
body for adoption, the city or county shall also prepare and present a
complete cost breakdown . . . The legislative body, after adopting a
specific plan,may impose a special fee upon persons seeking govern-
mental approvals which are required to be in conformity with the spe-
cific plan. The amount of the fees shall be established so that, in the
aggregate they defray, but as estimated do not exceed, the cost of
development and adoption of the specific plan. As nearly as may be
estimated, the fee charged shall be a prorated amount in accordance
with the applicant's relative benefit derived from the specific plan. It is
the intent of the Legislature in providing for such fees to charge those
builders,developers,and others who benefit from development of spe-
cific plans for the costs thereof which result in savings to them by
reducing the cost of documenting environmental consequences and
advocating changed land uses which may be authorized pursuant to
' the specific plan."
i
.-
,t