HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/13/2019 Item 2, Cross
Goodwin, Heather
From:Brett Cross <brettcross@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday,
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Item #2 Atoll Development
Dear Planning Commission Members,
I would strongly suggest that you consider the Specific Plan process for development of this area. If the City actually
follows the guidelines; especially the public participation guidelines there is substantial opportunity to ensue the project
meets the desires of the neighborhood and the community as a whole. Oh, and honestly this City has not followed the
primary reason for using the Specific Plan process which is, "The specific plan process must provide opportunities for the
general public, as well as residents located within planning areas, to assist in the planning of their particular communities.
Public involvement helps define the community’s vision of future growth and development."
Here is the link to the State's guideline for Specific Plans.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/specific_plans.pdf
Sincerely,
Brett Cross
1217 Mariners Cove
San Luis Obispo, CA
1
Governor Gray Davis
The Planner's Guide to
Specific Plans
`GOOF PLAcl-
rM
NK/H
Z N
. (P
FOF CAIY
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-0613
Steven A. Nissen, Director
Terry Roberts, Manager, State Clearinghouse
January 2001 Edition
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Contents
Introduction 3
Part I.
The Specific Plan 4
Part II.
Guidelines for Preparing Specific Plans 7
Part III.
CEQA and Specific Plans 23
Part IV.
Adoption, Amendment, Repeal, and Administration 25
Part V.
Relationship to Other Planning Measures 29
Part VI.
Implementation Measures 33
Part VII.
Plan Summaries 37
Appendix A.
Court Cases 40
Appendix B.
Selected Statutes 43
Appendix C.
Local Specific Plan Guidelines 45
Bibliography 46
z
Introduction
his guideline was originally produced in 1998
as a replacement for an earlier publication
entitled Specific Plans in the Golden State,
written by the Office ofPlanning and Research in 1989.
Since the original publication, specific plans have
evolved in use and creative application. However,
specific plans continue to function as versatile tools for
implementing general plans without substantial legal
challenge to the nature of their use. They systemati-
cally implement the general plan for all or part of the
area under its scope in any of three ways: 1) by acting
as statements of planning policy that refine the general
plan policies applicable to a defined area, 2) by directly
regulating land use, or 3) by bringing together detailed
policies and regulations into a focused development
scheme.
The use of specific plans, in many cases, has gone
beyond the original legislative intent and combined
detailed development plans with environmental poli-
cies, programs and goals to create defined areas which
are functional, livable, and affordable and which offer
the sense ofplace commonly envisioned in the creation
of the general plan. Although specific plans are being
used for projects ranging from "new towns" to manu-
facturing and warehousing developments, there re-
main many basic uncertainties about what a specific
plan is, how it functions, its relationship to the imple-
mentation of the general plan, and the extent of its
powers.
The purpose of this document is to clarify these
uncertainties and provide new and innovative examples
of specific plans and their use. It examines the pertinent
statutes (Government Code §65450 et seq.), suggests
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
guidelines for the preparation and implementation of a
plan, and provides examples and references to unique
or innovative plans prepared throughout the state.
While researching this guide, the Office of Plan-
ning and Research reviewed the preparation and adop-
tion of specific plans and the related environmental
documents. In addition, we examined those specific
plans which have received APA Comprehensive Plan-
ning Awards and others which are commonly viewed
as exceptional. We have reviewed California court
cases concerning specific plans and detailed the most
relevant cases on the subject.
The Planner's Guide To Specific Plans is written
primarily as a guide to counties and general law cities;
however, charter cities will find the information con-
tained herein to be relevant in their use of specific plans
as well. Although charter cities are exempt from the
specific plan statutes contained in Government Code
§65450-65457, once a charter city adopts a specific
plan, the city must make findings of consistency be-
tween the specific plan and any proposed tentative
subdivision map before the subdivision can be ap-
proved.
The information contained in this document is
meant to provide direction and references to planning
practitioners for the development of specific plans.
Interested individuals and other participants involved
in local land use planning may also find it useful. The
suggestions for style, format and techniques are meant
to be advisory only and should not be construed as
being mandatory. All references are to the Government
Code unless otherwise noted.
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Part One:
The Specific Plan
The Specific Plan
A specific plan is a tool for the systematic imple-
mentation ofthe general plan. It effectively establishes
a link between implementing policies of the general
plan and the individual development proposals in a
defined area. A specific plan may be as general as
setting forth broad policy concepts, or as detailed as
providing direction to every facet of development from
the type, location and intensity ofuses to the design and
capacity of infrastructure; from the resources used to
finance public improvements to the design guidelines
of a subdivision.
A specific plan may encompass an area as large or
larger than the 2,800 acres affected by the Ahmanson
Ranch Specific Plan in Ventura County, or as small as
a single acre. A specific plan may be developed in
response to a single policy issue, or to address each
applicable policy of the general plan. It may also
diverge from the issues contained in the general plan
into other subjects viewed by the community as being
of relevance.
To an extent, the range of issues that is contained
in a specific plan is left to the discretion ofthe decision-
making body. However, all specific plans, whether
prepared by a general law city or county, must comply
with Sections 65450 - 65457 ofthe Government Code.
These provisions require that a specific plan be consis-
tent with the adopted general plan of the jurisdiction
within which it is located. In addition, specific plans
must be consistent with any Airport Land Use Plan
pursuant to Public Utilities Code §21676. In turn, all
subsequent subdivision and development, all public
works projects and zoning regulations must be consis-
tent with the specific plan.
The initiation of the specific plan process may be
motivated by any number of factors including develop-
ment issues or the efforts of private property owners,
elected officials, citizen groups, or the local planning
agency. As with a general plan, the authority for
adoption of the specific plan is vested with the local
legislative body pursuant to §65453(a). However, un-
like the general plan, which is required to be adopted by
resolution (§65356), two options are available for the
adoption of a specific plan: 1) adoption by resolution,
which is designed to be policy driven, or 2) adoption by
ordinance, which is regulatory by design.
The adoption of a specific plan is a legislative act
similar to adoption of a general plan or zoning ordi-
nance. Therefore, specific plans may be subjected to
voter initiative and referenda (Yost v. Thomas (1984)
36 Cal.3d 561 andDeVita v. County of Napa, (1995) 9
Cal. 41h 763). (For further discussion see Part 4.)
Specific Plan Attributes &
Disadvantages
A thorough specific plan can enable planners to
effectively implement selected long term general plan
objectives in a short time frame. The enabling statutes
are flexible, allowing public agencies to create stan-
dards for the development of a wide range of projects
or solutions to any type of land use issues. The plan
may present the land use and design regulations which
guide the development of a city center, such as the City
of Brea's Towne Plaza Specific Plan, or incorporate
land use and zoning regulations, infrastructure plans,
and development approval processes for the develop-
ment ofresidential, office, commercial and open space
uses, such as the City of Folsom's Parkway Specific
Plan and Design Guidelines. The plan may be orga-
nized into a concise set of development policies and
include land use regulations, a capitol improvement
program, or financing program within a single docu-
ment.
A specific plan may be used to implement the
policies of an optional economic development element
of a general plan. Policies ofthe general plan which are
specific to financing infrastructure improvements and
extensions, or cost recovery programs may be imple-
mented by matching land uses with supporting public
facilities. This is done to assist development engineer-
ing departments and developers avoid ineffective or
undersized streets, sewers, water lines, and other nec-
essary improvements. In addition, it may directly im-
pose exactions in association with the general plan's
capitol improvement policies.
The specific plan process must provide opportuni-
ties for the general public, as well as residents located
within planning areas, to assist in the planning of their
particular communities. Public involvement helps de-
fine the community's vision of future growth and
development.
Future development proposals may benefit from
the foundation created by the specific plan. For ex-
ample, a Program EIR adopted to fulfill the plan's
CEQA obligation may streamline the processing of
subsequent discretionary projects by obviating the
need for additional environmental documentation.
The specific plan represents a good tool for devel-
oping a community "sense of place." A creative and
innovative specific plan may bridge the gap between
monotonous urban development and a livable neigh-
borhood.
The specific plan also has disadvantages. These
include the time, cost, and obligation of staff resources
to prepare and implement the plan. To be effective, the
plan requires the collection and analysis of significant
amounts of detailed data. Since most planning agen-
cies do not have the staff to commit to the preparation
process, most plans include the involvement and cost
of outside consultants. Similarly, the incorporation of
the plan into the day to day planning processes may
require the commitment of additional staff time, par-
ticularly when the plan establishes regulations which
are only applicable to the area affected by the plan.
Further, specific plans prepared for a single project
maybecome obsolete ifthe project is not implemented.
The result could include the need for extensive revision
or repeal.
The adoption of a specific plan does not vest
development by statute, but its entitlements may be
defined by development agreements and vesting tenta-
tive maps. Specific plans themselves are dynamic
documents and maybe subject to change. There are no
assurances to residents and project proponents that the
plan will not be subject to fixture revisions.
Statutory Requirements
Section 65451 of the Government Code mandates
that a specific plan be structured as follows:
(a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram
or diagrams which specify all of the following in
detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent ofthe uses of
land, including open space, within the area cov-
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
ered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and
intensity of major components of public and pri-
vate transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid
waste disposal, energy, and other essential facili-
ties proposed to be located within the area covered
by the plan and needed to support the land uses
described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will
proceed, and standards for the conservation, devel-
opment, and utilization ofnatural resources, where
applicable.
(4) A program of implementation measures including
regulations, programs, public works projects, and
financing measures necessary to carry out para-
graphs (1), (2), and (3).
(b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the
relationship ofthe specific plan to the general plan.
(The entire specific plan statute is included in
Appendix B of this report for reference.)
The statutes apply to all counties and general law
cities. They do not apply to charter cities unless incor-
porated by local charter or code. However, charter
cities are required to comply with the Subdivision Map
Act's findings requirements pertaining to a
subdivision's consistency with an adopted specific
plan pursuant to §65455.
Legal Adequacy
A specific plan must meet the minimum require-
ments of the statute listed above in order to be legally
adequate. Numerous specific plans reviewed by OPR
commonly lack one or more of the following:
• Maps, diagrams or descriptions to adequately de-
scribe the distribution, location, extent, and size of
the major infrastructure components needed to
serve the project. Energy and solid waste facilities
are commonly overlooked.
• A thorough discussion ofthe implementation mea-
sures necessary to carry out §65451 (a)(1-4).
• A discussion of the methods to be used for infra-
structure financing and a program for implementa-
tion.
• A detailed statement of the relationship of the
specific plan to the general plan, including consis-
tency between both plans and a comparison of
goals, objectives, and policies.
• A discussion of how the plan implements the
policies of the general plan.
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Area And Community Plans
Practicing planners in California have used a vari-
ety of euphemisms to describe specific plans. The
creative use and combination of planning terms to
describe various planning tools has blurred the distinc-
tion between specific plans, community plans, and area
plans to the extent that the terms are often misused. The
following discussion highlights the differences among
such plans.
A community plan is defined in Public Resources
Code §21083.3 as a part of the General Plan which (1)
applies to a defined geographic portion ofthe total area
included in the general plan, (2) includes or references
each of the mandatory elements specified in §65302 of
the Government Code, and (3) contains specific devel-
opment policies adopted for the area, and identifies
measures to implement those policies, so that the
policies which will apply to each parcel can be deter-
mined.
Area plans are not specifically mentioned in stat-
ute; however, they are authorized under §65301(b),
which allows individual sections of the general plan to
be devoted to a particular subject or geographic area. In
addition, they are also allowed as optional elements or
subjects under §65303.
Area and community plans address a particular
region or community within the overall planning area
of the general plan. An area or community plan is
adopted as a general plan amendment. It refines the
policies of the general plan as they apply to smaller
geographic areas, and is implemented by local ordi-
nances such as those regulating land use and subdivi-
sion. Area or community plans also provide forums for
resolving local conflicts among competing interests.
An area or community plan must be consistent with the
general plan of which it is a part.
Specific plans differ from area and community
plans in the following ways:
• A specific plan is not a component of a general
plan. It is a separately adopted general plan imple-
mentation document.
• Specific plans are described by statute (§65450 et
seq.). There are no statutes that specify the con-
tents of area plans.
• The purpose of a specific plan is the "systematic
implementation" (§65450) of the general plan.
Neither community plans nor area plans have an
emphasis on implementation. They are used to
refine the policies of the general plan relating to a
defined geographic area.
• Although a specific plan must be "prepared,
adopted, and amended in the same manner as
general plans" (§65453), it may be adopted by
resolution or ordinance and may be amended as
often as necessary. Community and area plans may
only be adopted or amended by resolution, and the
number of amendments is subject to the limits set
out in §65358 for general plan amendments.
Specific plans are required under §65451(a)(2) to
identify proposed major components of infrastructure
neededto supportplanned land uses. Community plans
and area plans may, but are not required to, contain
similar analyses.
Part Two:
Guidelines for Preparing
Specific Plans
he purpose ofthis part is twofold: (1) to outline
a strategic approach to the preparation, adop-
tion, and implementation of specific plans;
and (2) to provide a framework and explanation of the
statutory requirements for specific plans. In addition,
this part provides a brief discussion of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the role it
plays in the specific planning process.
I. Decision To Prepare A Specific Plan
Government Code §65450 provides that the local
planning agency, planning commission and/or legisla-
tive body has the authority to initiate the preparation of
a specific plan. Private parties may also initiate a plan
as provided for by local agencies. An example of the
initiation by a private party would be an application for
a tentative subdivision map which, under a local sub-
division ordinance or general plan policy, requires the
concurrent preparation of a specific plan.
II. Planning Process
The following model is a modified version of the
strategic planning process described in the General
Plan Guidelines, and adapted to the intricacies of
specific plans. This model is conceptual and may be
used as a reference to guide the selection or develop-
ment of a process which meets the needs of the respec-
tive jurisdiction. Other comprehensive planning mod-
els are available which may achieve similar results.
A. The Work Program
The preparation of a work program should be the
first consideration after making the decision to prepare
a specific plan. The program should set forth the
responsibilities the departments, consultants, and/or
individuals will take in each phase of the process. In
addition, it should provide direction in the scope of the
work to be performed, the funding mechanisms, con-
sultants, public participation, and deadlines.
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Early Direction:
The work program should incorporate early policy
direction from the legislative decision making body,
defining the general direction for the specific plan and
its objectives and policies. This direction may take the
form of precise guidelines for what the specific plan
should accomplish, or a general vision of the planning
area.
This early direction may change as a result of
public input, committee recommendations, or new
information obtained during the collection or analysis
of data. Regardless, the early policy direction will
provide staff, consultants, and the public a basis for
beginning the process of preparing a specific plan.
Consultant or Staff Preparation:
The legislative decision making body has the dis-
cretion to decide who may prepare a specific plan.
Specific plans may be prepared by agency staff, by a
private consulting firm under a contract to assist staff,
or solely by a consultant performing the role of staff. In
other situations, specific plans may be a requirement of
a project and prepared by a project proponent or by a
consultant under contract to the project proponent.
Private parties may also be responsible for preparing or
contracting for the preparation of a specific plan as part
of a project application. Whenever a consultant is
preparing the plan, the work program should require an
administrative draft, so that agency staff can review
progress of the plan. The agency must budget for
sufficient staff resources to ensure that the administra-
tive draft is reviewed for consistency with the general
plan and other regulations of the city or county.
Adoption Deadlines:
Deadlines should be incorporated into the work
program to ensure the timely completion ofthe specific
plan. The deadlines should be reasonable to ensure that
the quality of the product is consistent with the expec-
tations of the decision makers. The time lines are
typically a product of either the political constraints of
a local legislative body, or the development proposals
which will follow after the adoption of the specific
plan.
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
The Permit Streamlining Act is not applicable to
the adoption of a specific plan. Therefore, prudence
should prevail in the adoption of deadlines which are
functional and realistic.
Public Participation:
The participation of those working or residing
within a specific plan area or more broad participation
of the local citizens can play an important role in the
preparation of a specific plan. Section 65453 states that
"A specific plan shall be prepared, adopted and amended
in the same manner as a general plan..." as such,
opportunities for the involvement of citizens, public
agencies, public utilities, civic education, and other
community groups must be provided pursuant to
§65351. For example, the City of San Jose utilizes the
assistance of a community-based task force composed
of property owners, business owners, residents, other
agencies, school districts, and other stakeholders when
preparing specific plans. The city credits this involve-
ment for the general support apparent during public
hearings on and implementation of its specific plans.
B. Current Context
The planning area, as it currently exists, is a func-
tion ofpast decisions andpolicies. Similarly, the devel-
opment of a specific plan which serves as the basis for
decision making in the future is a function of the
existing social, political, economic, and physical envi-
ronments. The community's values and views of the
existing planning area will strongly influence the di-
rection and focus of the specific plan.
Planning Area Issues:
Each planning area possesses characteristic issues
which should be addressed by the specific plan. The
issues may include those relevant to historic preserva-
tion, environmental quality, residential development,
economic development, architectural regulation, com-
mercial/industrial parks, and urban infill. These issues
will form the basis for the detailed policies and imple-
mentation measures of the specific plan.
Existing Land Use:
The existing uses of land within the planning area
must be analyzed to determine the influence they will
have and the role they will play under the specific plan.
Existing agricultural, industrial, or floodplain open
space uses may substantially affect the type of uses
planned for adjacent properties. The continuation of
existing uses may dramatically affect the planned uses
set forth by the specific plan. Land uses surrounding
the planning area should also be analyzed and connec-
tions/transitions/buffers between uses designed to en-
sure compatibility with those allowed by the specific
plan.
Environmental Conditions:
An evaluation of the planning area's natural envi-
ronment, including wildlife habitat, natural hazards,
and resources, help provide direction to the type and
intensity of development which is planned to occur.
This analysis should also include an evaluation of the
existing flood plain, seismic, slope and other con-
straints which will determine the intensity of develop-
ment and feasibility of implementing plans.
Infrastructure Constraints:
The type and intensity of future development pro-
posed by a specific plan is limited by the capacity of
existing infrastructure or the ability to provide new
public facilities. The analysis should identify available
opportunities for development, as well as potential
constraints resulting from the effect new development
may have on schools, roads, sewage systems, water
supplies, energy consumption and other public ser-
vices and facilities. Existing utilities, easements, and
encumbrances of property may also restrict land use.
Existing Commitments and Policy Constraints:
Past approvals of development entitlements and
other quasi-judicial and legislative decisions may have
produced limitations to the scope of the specific plan.
The adoption of agricultural preserves, biological con-
servation easements, vesting tentative maps, and de-
velopment agreements may limit the type and extent of
uses allowed, or restrictions to development under the
specific plan. For example, the land use and minimum
parcel size for a specific plan prepared for an area
subject to agricultural preserve contracts will be lim-
ited by the minimum allowable parcel size and uses
established by local ordinance consistent with the
provisions of the Land Conservation Act (Williamson
Act) of 1965.
C. Long Term Direction
As a tool for the systematic implementation of the
general plan, specific plans should provide the mecha-
nism through which the long term direction of the
general plan is implemented. This direction should be
balanced against the objectives, policies, zoning ordi-
nance, subdivision ordinance, and otherprograms which
will be implemented through the specific plan.
Issues, Opportunities, and Assumptions:
The issues that have been identified and perhaps
were the impetus for preparation of the specific plan
should be systematically addressed through objec-
tives, policies, and programs. The policies developed
to address the issues must be considered relative to the
direction provided by the general plan and the early
guidance provided by the legislative decision-making
body. Problems may often be resolved through cre-
ative application of financing, design features, or at-
tributes of the planning area.
Development and/or conservation opportunities
should be identified and utilized in the specific plan.
For example, land owned by the local agency within
the planning area may be suitable as a future public
facility site, or land with significant habitat value may
be suitable for a mitigation banking program. Analyses
regarding infrastructure financing, ground water avail-
ability, and market demand may also help decision
makers assess the viability of the plan in the future.
The preparation of a specific plan requires deci-
sion -makers, planners, and the public to form certain
assumptions concerning the future of the planning
area. For example, assumptions might be made for a
specific plan area traversed by riparian corridors that
open space, and perpetual conservation and mainte-
nance easements will need to be included for viability
of the plan.
Formulating Objectives, policies, and
implementation measures:
Objectives provide direction to the physical devel-
opment of the planning area. As such, they help define
the range and types of data necessary for preparing the
plan. Consequently, cities and counties should develop
their initial objectives early in the preparation process.
Objectives tend to be general and lack the focus which
is required to foster a functional specific plan, but can
always be supplemented with more specific policies.
A comprehensive set of policies should be devel-
oped which define and implement the objectives. Poli-
cies should be written with consideration of their
implementation and the project specific implications.
The functionality of the policies will often determine
the success of the specific plan.
The implementation measures should be func-
tional and realistic by design. A specific plan which is
well written and focused can be self -implementing.
However, the submittal and approval of individual
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
development proposals will normally result in imple-
mentation. Including zoning ordinances and design
criteria in the specific plan will shape the planning area
over time as individual development projects are de-
signed for consistency with the plan.
D. Steps for Consideration
The following is a general list of considerations
and information for inclusion in specific plans. It
includes statutory requirements for coordination and
review.
Data Collection and Analysis:
The information used in the early stages of specific
plan preparation must be current and kept up-to-date
throughout the planning process. The previously iden-
tified issues, opportunities, assumptions, and initial
objectives will establish a direction for studies and help
to define the range of information necessary to com-
plete the plan. Background information and technical
analyses should be included in the specific plan appen-
dices for future reference and use in future projects.
The amount of data collected and analyzed should be
sufficient to address any pertinent questions regarding
the plan and the plan area. This information should be
comprehensive enough to satisfy the needs of both the
specific plan and its CEQA document.
Information Sources:
A direct relationship exists between the quality of
the information used to prepare a specific plan and its
effectiveness. Case study examples of other jurisdic-
tions' specific plans may provide angles for approach-
ing area issues. The Office of Planning and Research's
Book of Lists (updated annually) can help to locate
recently adopted examples. In addition, the yearly
awards presented by the California Chapter of the
American Planning Association, recognize up-to-date
examples of "good" plans. A number of text book
references are available through the American Plan-
ning Association's BookService which covers com-
prehensive planning. Several publications track and
analyze planning -related litigation including Daniel J.
Curtin, Jr.'s California Land -Use and Planning Law.
The State planning laws regulating planning, zoning,
and development are another subject for research.
Each year, the Legislature enacts laws affecting local
government planning activities. The Office of Plan-
ning and Research annually compiles these statutes
under the title of Planning, Zoning and Development
Laws.
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Public Agency Information:
Other governmental agencies may adopt subse-
quent projects which will affect the specific plan.
These agencies may have information readily avail-
able which will address issues or requirements of the
plan. Agencies should be contacted at the local, re-
gional, state, and federal levels. One issue which tran-
scends each of these levels is the supply of water. For
example, the local public works department may have
information regarding infrastructure; at the regional
level, the Local Agency Formation Commission may
have information regarding the extension of services or
forming service areas; at the state level, the regional
water quality control board provides information re-
garding levels of water quality; and at the federal level,
the Bureau of Reclamation has information regarding
the water projects and supply in the state.
Inter -Governmental Coordination:
Section 65103(e)(f) requires local governments to
coordinate the preparation of local plans (specific
plans) with the plans and programs of other public
agencies. Intergovernmental coordination involves
more than an exchange of information and plans;
rather, it fosters cooperative efforts to address issues
and promotes planning on a comprehensive basis. The
planning process enables various agencies to resolve
conflict through collaborative efforts. In addition,
CEQA requires that the agency preparing the specific
plan consult with responsible and trustee agencies
regarding the project implications and the environ-
ment.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
CEQA requires local governments to prepare envi-
ronmental documents prior to approving "projects."
An initial study is prepared for a specific plan or
amendment to analyze the potential for significant
impacts to the environment. In such cases, where a
significant effect may occur, an environmental impact
report (EIR) must be prepared. The contents of a
specific plan and its EIR overlap extensively. The data,
analyses, and studies for one, will likely be necessary
for the other. For this reason, both documents should be
prepared concurrently and may utilize much of the
same information. Individual development projects
which follow the specific plan may be well served by
a detailed analysis in the EIR. Further discussion ofthis
topic is contained in Part 3 of this document.
10
Revising Objectives:
Refinements to the draft objectives should take
place throughout the planning process. The data, analy-
ses, and input from advisory committees may change
individual aspects of the plan. For example, the identi-
fication of a threatened or endangered species within a
portion of the plan area may alter the type and intensity
of proposed uses allowed by the plan.
Policies, Implementation Measures, and
Alternative Plans:
For any set of objectives there will be a number of
possible courses of action to pursue. Policies, imple-
mentation measures, and programs should be devel-
oped for each ofthe alternative planning scenarios. The
relationship of each objective and alternative course of
action should be considered in light ofthe general plan,
zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, capital im-
provement program, and other programs that will be
implemented. Consistency with the general plan should
be carefully analyzed and the plan amended as neces-
sary. The policies, programs and implementation mea-
sures provide for the creative application ofthe specific
plan to the planning area. Each should be carefully
reviewed for clarity, effectiveness, and functional ap-
plication. The alternative plans enable the decision
makers, stakeholders, and other participants to choose
from a variety of scenarios, solutions, and programs
which will shape the planning area. Although the
alternatives may only differ in their treatment of a
particular issue, each must be realistic to ensure that the
alternative is viable. In addition, the alternatives may
be used to satisfy the EIR's requirements for a discus-
sion of project alternatives.
Selecting The Preferred Plan:
After the plan alternatives have been thoroughly
reviewed, decision makers should be able to select the
preferred course of action from either one or a synthe-
sis of several alternative plans. When the decision is
made to combine two or more parts of separate alterna-
tives, the objectives, policies, and implementation
measures may need refinement to ensure that the plan
effectively and consistently accomplishes its purpose.
Adopting The Plan:
As previously noted, a specific plan maybe adopted
by either resolution or ordinance. Whether adopting a
new specific plan or amending an existing one, the
planning commission and board or council must hold
at least one public hearing each to consider the pro-
posal prior to making the final decision (§65453 and
65353). At least 10 days prior to
each ofthese hearings, public notice
of the time and place of the hearing
must be given in the manner pre-
scribed by state law (§65090 et.
seq.). As a project which would
affect the "permitted uses or inten-
sity of uses of real property," ex-
panded notice to property owners
must also be given pursuant to
§65091. The EIR or other environ-
mental documentation must be cer-
tified by the legislative body prior
to the adoption of the specific plan
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§ 15092.
Implementation:
Section 65451(a)(4) requires
that a specific plan contain a pro-
gram of implementation measures
including regulations, programs,
public works projects, and financ-
ing measures. A plan adopted by
resolution will primarily be imple-
mented through the enactment of
separately adopted ordinances and
programs. A plan adopted by ordi-
nance will be implemented by regu-
lations and measures contained in
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Figure 1
Specific Plan Process Diagram
the plan itself. Capital improvement
projects, public facility financing, u
application of regulations to devel-
opment projects, and habitat conservation and restora-
tion projects may act to implement the plan. (Further
discussion of this topic is contained in Section 6.)
The Work Program
Funding, Policy Direction, Deadlines,
Contracts, and Responsibilities
Current Context
Identify existing land use, environmental
conditions, public facilities/infrastructure,
and planning area issues
Long Term Direction
Identify Opportunities and formulate
objectives, policies, and implementation
measures
(Consider Alternatives)
Steps
Selection
Adoption
Implementation
Maintenance
m
c
.Q
E
0
U
Q
CY
W
U
it
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
MODEL SPECIFIC PLAN OUTLINE
While state law specifies the mandatory specific plan contents pursuant to §65451, it leaves the format to the
discretion of the local legislative body. Many of the specific plans reviewed as part of this report utilized an
approach to organization similar to that of the individual elements of a general plan, covering information relating
to land use, housing, circulation, open space, and so on. The following model outline is intended as a guide to the
organization of a specific plan which is effective, efficient, and statutorily complete.
I. Introductory Plan Information
A. Title Page
1. Name of the plan
2. Name of local agency (Project proponent and/or
public agency)
3. Date of adoption
B. Credits, acknowledgments and participants
C. Table of Contents
D. List of Tables
E. List of diagrams and maps
F. Copy of Adopting Resolution and/or Ordinance
II. Summary
A. Purpose statement and range of issues
B. Location
C. Acreage
D. Summary of preparation process
III. Introduction
A. Detailed specific plan purposes
B. Development and conservation issues addressed
in the plan
C. Project location, including influencing jurisdic-
tions
1. Written description
2. Regional location map (See Figure 2)
3. Vicinity map (See Figure 3)
4. Site Location Map (See Figure 4)
D. Planning area information and environmental
description
E. Statement of whether the document is policy or
regulatory by application (If the plan is both policy
and regulatory by design, explain the relationship
between the policies and regulations.)
F. Statement of how the plans policies and/or regu-
lations accomplish the objectives of the plan.
G. Relationship of the specific plan to the general
plan.
H. Relationship of the specific plan to neighboring
plans and those of other jurisdictions, regional agen-
cies, and the state.
1. A list of projects required by law to be consistent
with the specific plan (e.g. rezonings, tentative sub-
division maps and public works projects).
12
IV. Land Use Planning and Regulatory Provisions
A. The land use plan - a statement of development
policies (opportunities, issues, and analysis of data)
pertaining to the planned type, intensity, and location
of land uses consisting of
1. Objectives
2. Policies
3. Programs
4. Plan proposals
a. Diagram and written description of planned
land uses (See Figures 4 and 5).
b. Characteristics of each land use designation
(e.g. single family residential, neighborhood
commercial, open space for conservation).
1) Development Standards
2) Standards for conservation, development,
and utilization of natural resources.
B. Land Use Regulations
1. Statement of purpose or intent
2. Applicability
a. Statement of applicability ofthe regulations to
the planning area and designations on the spe-
cific plan land use plan diagram.
b. Effective date of the regulations
3. Statement of relationship between the specific
plan regulations and the zoning, subdivision, and
other local ordinances.
4. Development standards.
C. Design Standards
1. Building design, massing & height
2. Parking ratios/standards, location & orientation
3. Garage door size & type
4. Entrances, access, & on-site circulation
V. The Infrastructure Plan
A. Transportation: Development policies pertaining
to the planned distribution, location, extent and in-
tensity of public and private transportation consist-
ing of:
1. Objectives
2. Policies
3. Discussion of the relationship between the ob-
jectives, policies and how they are implemented
through the individual plan proposals.
4. Plan proposals
a. Diagram(s) and written description of pro-
posed transportation components, including im-
provements that support the planned land uses.
(See Figure 6 and 7)
b. Development standards for the primary com-
ponents ofpublic and private infrastructure (street
cross-sections and material requirements).
B. Public Service Infrastructure (water, sewer, and
storm drainage): Development policies pertaining to
the planned distribution, location, extent, and inten-
sity of water, sewer, and storm drainage consisting
of:
1. Objectives
2. Policies
3. Discussion of the relationship between the ob-
jectives, policies and how they are implemented
through the individual plan proposals.
4. Plan proposals
a. Diagram(s) and written description of pro-
posed water, sewer, and drainage systems, in-
cluding the improvements which support the
planned land uses. (See Figures 8 and 9)
b. Development standards for the primary com-
ponents of public infrastructure (See Figure 9).
C. Solid Waste Disposal: Development policies per-
taining to the planned distribution, location, extent,
and intensity of solid waste disposal facilities and
services consisting of:
1. Objectives
2. Policies
3. Plan Proposals
a. Description of the type and location of pro-
posed solid waste disposal facilities and serving
necessary to support the planned land uses.
a. Description of the proposed facilities and
services to be provided (e.g., transformation
station and recycling).
D. Energy: Development policies pertaining to the
planned distribution, location, extent, and intensity
of energy facilities and services consisting of:
1. Objectives
2. Policies
3. Plan proposals
a. Description of the type and location of pro-
posed energy facilities, transmission lines, and
easements necessary to support the planned land
uses.
b. Description of the proposed facilities and
services to be provided (e.g., distribution of
natural gas and the regulation of pressure).
E. Other essential facilities necessary to support the
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
proposed land uses (e.g., schools, fire stations, street
lighting and landscaping).
VI. Program of Implementation Measures
A. Description of the regulations and ordinances
which will implement the specific plan.
B. Capital improvement program
1. Estimated cost of capital projects identified in
the specific plan's infrastructure plan.
2. The measures by which each capital project will
be financed.
3. Identification of parties responsible completing
each proposed improvement.
C. Financing measures necessary for implementa-
tion of each of the specific plan's proposals other
than capital improvements.
1. List and description of projects needing financ-
ing.
2. Cost estimates
3. The measures by which each specific plan pro-
posal will be financed.
4. Identification of parties responsible for com-
pleting each proposal.
D. Phasing plan forthe specific plan proposal includ-
ing capital improvements (See Figure 10)
E. Subsequent development entitlements
F. Other Programs
VII. Relationship of the Specific Plan's Environ-
mental Document to Subsequent Discretionary
Projects
A. Projects that will be exempt from additional
environmental documentation based on the plan's
EIR.
B. Projects that will require additional environmen-
tal documentation.
VIII. Specific Plan Administration
A. Specific plan cost recovery fees authorized by
§65456
B. Specific plan amendment procedures
1. State requirements
2. Local requirements
IX. Specific Plan Enforcement
X. Appendicies
A. Precise description ofthe specific plan areabound-
ary.
B. Summaries of key specific plan background data
and information.
C. Glossary of specific plan terms
13
The Planner's Guide 1u Specific flans
��»t](JC67;jWOiOW�:
Figure 2
Regional Location Map
Source: The Ahmanson Ranch Specific Plan,
Ventura County
14
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Placer Co.
Sacramento Co.
� Folsom Lake
C
Oak Avenue Pk n d3
0
lOSCALE
Old
r A •�
�i t4
�t :
E ❑ia
dy y
Q a
Line
OR [�
Greenback ill. `8■�o w Rd• � uSSall 0 b
■ d �y�:�f' Ranch O,
Dave lopment
Ate. 'pile sr. Project Site
fl ti 6 Lexington Hills ,
m E Development
r -6dr, Clarksville fid '
u
fi
a
f �f
Qa
Highway 50
a�
a�
m
9a
Figure 3
Vicinity Map
Source: The Parkway Specific Plan and Design
Guidelines, City of Folsom
15
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Ahmanson Ranch
Public Open Spoce
Dedication Area
Ventura County
Las Angeles County
LAS RD MRGENES
(THOUSAND
OAKS
BLVD.
16
Bell Canyon Community
AHMANSON RANCH
BLVD,
VICTORY
BLVD.
City of
Hidden Hilt
LAND USE PIAN
Town HaJI/Lbrary/Fiire Station/Sheriff Station
L7 Maintenance Faakty/Recycling Center/Edleon Substation
:7 Water Reclamation Facity
0 Water Storage Facility
® Community Park
® Neighborhood Park
® Village Crew
® Elementary Schod
K$
® Combined School
KS and 5-b
® Wildbfe Corridor Undercrosaing
AHMANMN
A A N C H
—*I--
SPOCI nc racer+
0
Yllary Cantor
IM Ryipp,lnl. Lodp.,
".0 Gueileuµ Rglil C(.»*lun�ly Fp�yity.
Neighborhood Center
sFIA
C-- -. R"ip tiaL
PwIk c"m gtr rxaiun
Single Family/Attached
5-10 oU/Acn
®
Same Family Traditional
a -s Duller.
®
Single Family Estate
015-7 DU/l
I
Planning Unit Nizrber
—'
= tl.• ..rr. to Ph"M ■rw
uc-1
004 Calrsee
®
Cw"* on Space
16
Bell Canyon Community
AHMANSON RANCH
BLVD,
VICTORY
BLVD.
City of
Hidden Hilt
LAND USE PIAN
Town HaJI/Lbrary/Fiire Station/Sheriff Station
L7 Maintenance Faakty/Recycling Center/Edleon Substation
:7 Water Reclamation Facity
0 Water Storage Facility
® Community Park
® Neighborhood Park
® Village Crew
® Elementary Schod
K$
® Combined School
KS and 5-b
® Wildbfe Corridor Undercrosaing
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
wl�
11-11-101
r
V
110 L
4
Lo�
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pj
r
�DEI
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . .
L f
'7-
,C
7�
mill Nfliliwwwil E
NINO MAJOR ARTERIAL
(Aboln Road)
111111411111 MAJOR COLLECTORz
(MmIlo Avenue. Quimby Road
ywba Bulla A—. Ruby A"rrra.
cwta
-7L
mm RA
DiAL COLLECTOR
NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTOR
6 2" SIM low
Figure 6
Circulation Plan Map
Source.- Evergreen Specific Plan, City of San Jose
18
j�'
4
IV
r1w
rmlyth"6hn
C 1;07 To EmArldho L
LAS VIRGENES
ROAD
-THE--
AHMANSON
R A N C H
0-
SPBCMC PLAN
Sewer Line
Flow Direction
Force Main
Pump Slabon
ExWbrg Gravity Sewer
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
..........
40M CQUEMN
4�
-- — ---- ----
MCTORY
Fiore, eel
........ BLVD-
. .........B mow,.
THOUSAND AHmANSON RANCH
OAKS BLVD,
BLVD-
BACKBONE SANITARY SEWER PLAN
21
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
�7 1
J10
W"4-
QO
X. . . . . . .
x it
16,
.........
0-7
0
//0
z
Cd
A
Figure 10
O
Phasing Plan Map U
Source: Highland Reserve North Specific Plan,
City of Roseville
22
Part Three:
CEQA and Specific Plans
doption of a specific plan is a project subject
to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). As such, the specific plan normally
requires the preparation and consideration of an envi-
ronmental impact report (EIR) disclosing the potential
significant environmental effects of the plan, plan
alternatives, and the means by which possible environ-
mental damage may be reduced or avoided. Revisions
to an existing specific plan may also require CEQA
analysis through a subsequent, supplemental, or tiered
EIR, or a negative declaration. The information in the
EIR provides decision makers with the insight neces-
sary to guide policy development, thereby ensuring the
plan's policies will address and provide the means by
which to avoid potential impacts to the environment.
This section discusses the relationship between the
specific plan and its EIR. The EIR process and require-
ments are discussed in detail in the State CEQA Guide-
lines.
Plan/EIR Analysis:
To the extent feasible, the process of preparing the
specific plan and the environmental analysis should
proceed concurrently because both documents require
many ofthe same studies and resulting information. As
the name implies, a specific plan EIR should contain
analyses specific enough to reflect the level of detail in
the plan (CEQA Guidelines § 15146). However, as
shown in the decision of Stanislaus Natural Heritage
Project, Sierra Club v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48
Cal.App.41h 182, analysis of significant effects may not
be deferred to later developments under the specific
plan, nor to later tiered EIRs. The Stanislaus court
found that a specific plan EIR failed to discuss the
impact of providing a long-term water supply for the
project, and thus the county could not make an in-
formed decision regarding the environmental conse-
quences of the project. The court concluded that the
county could not defer the analysis of crucial impacts
to later environmental documents that would be pre-
pared as the specific plan was implemented.
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
CEQA Alternatives:
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines include
provisions for streamlined approaches to environmen-
tal review commonly referred to as "tiering" (CEQA
Guidelines §15152). Tiering is commonly used to
simplify the environmental review required forprojects
which follow specific plans and general plans. The
result is a limited review of those project -specific
effects which either were not examined or not fully
examined in the specific plan EIR.
Program EIR:
A program EIR may be prepared for a series of
related actions that are characterized as one large
project or program (CEQA Guidelines § 15168). Ac-
tivities which relate to and follow the specific plan
must be examined in light of the program EIR to
determine if additional limited environmental analysis
is warranted. Later activities which have been ad-
equately analyzed under the program EIR will not
require additional environmental documentation. If an
activity may result in additional effects, or new mitiga-
tion measures are needed, a subsequent or supplemen-
tal EIR, or negative declaration must be prepared
(CEQA Guidelines § 15162 and 15163).
Master EIR:
A Master EIR functions similarly to a program EIR
for a multi -phased project such as a specific plan. A
Master EIR forms the basis for analyzing the effects of
subsequent projects (CEQA Guidelines §15175, et.
seq.). Later projects which are consistent with the
specific plan and which fall "within the scope" of the
plan's Master EIR require no further negative declara-
tion or EIR. A master EIR may be re -certified for a
subsequent project which is related to and substantially
consistent with the specific plan (CEQA Guidelines
§15178). Other projects which differ materially or
result in potential impacts not previously analyzed,
may be covered by a "focused EIR" that details the new
project -specific impacts while incorporating the previ-
ous analysis of cumulative and growth inducing im-
pacts by reference (CEQA Guidelines § 15179.5).
23
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Tiering:
When tiering is used, the later FIRS or negative
declarations must refer to the prior EIR and state where
a copy of the prior EIR may be examined. The later EIR
or negative declaration should state that the lead agency
is using the tiering concept and that the EIR or negative
declaration is being tiered from the earlier specific plan
EIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15152(e)).
Exemption of Subsequent Projects:
Section 65457 provides that once the EIR has been
certified and the specific plan adopted, any residential
development project, including any subdivision or
zone change, that is undertaken to implement and is
consistent with the specific plan is exempt from addi-
tional CEQA review. This exemption does not apply if
after the adoption ofthe specific plan, any of the events
which would trigger preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR occur, including substantial changes
in the prof ect or circumstances under which the proj ect
is being undertaken requiring major revisions in the
project, or new information becomes available which
was not known at the time the EIR was certified.
However, if a supplemental EIR is prepared covering
the changes, new circumstances, or new information
and is certified, the exemption will apply to the projects
which then follow the specific plan.
Another exemption is described under Public Re-
sources Code §21080.7. In urbanized areas, no addi-
24
tional EIR or negative declaration is required for "any
project involving the construction of housing or neigh-
borhood commercial facilities" when: (1) the project is
consistent with a specific plan that has a certified EIR
and that has been adopted not more than five years prior
to making the required findings under this section; (2)
the EIR is sufficiently detailed to identify the project's
significant effects and corresponding mitigation mea-
sures; (3) the lead agency has determined the type of
environmental document needed in accordance with
Public Resources Code §21080.1 and has given notice
of such fact in accordance with subdivision (b) or (c) of
§21092 of that code; (4) the lead agency makes one or
more of the findings required by Public Resources
Code §21081 and §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines;
and, (5) the lead agency files a notice of decision with
the county clerk for posting.
These examples of tiering and exemptions under-
score the advantages of preparing an EIR which ana-
lyzes the specific plan in enough detail to streamline
the environmental review of subsequent projects. This
is particularly important when a specific plan covers an
extensive area or is the prelude to several development
projects. Local agencies should include policies in the
specific plan for the application of tiering and particu-
larly exemptions of subsequent projects.
Part Four
Adoption, Amendment,
Repeal, and Administration
Procedure for Adopting and Amending
a Specific Plan
The process of preparing, adopting, and amending
a specific plan is generally the same as that for a general
plan (§65350-§65358). In addition, the specific plan
statutes allow for exceptions and additional procedures
(§65453, §65454, and §65456).
Upon completion of the draft specific plan, the
planning department staff will prepare reports to the
planning commission and the legislative body. The
reports will describe the contents of the plan, provide
a recommendation for approval or denial, related find-
ings (for the purposes ofthe CEQA and/or general plan
consistency), and possibly a resolution for adoption.
The report will normally include an analysis of the
project's effect on the environment pursuant to the
CEQA. If it has not occurred previously, staff will
include recommendations for the certification of the
environmental document. Any proposed amendments
to the general plan or the zoning ordinance related to
adoption and implementation ofthe specific plan should
be presented at the same time.
Hearing and Notice:
The planning commission must hold at least one
public hearing pursuant to §65353 prior to forwarding
its recommendations to the legislative body. Pursuant
to §65354, a recommendation for approval requires the
affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total
membership of the commission.
The public hearing enables the public to present
testimony regarding the plan and further involves
interested individuals in the process. Section 65090
provides that public hearing notice must be provided at
least 10 days preceding the hearing. This is accom-
plished by placing notice in a local newspaper of
general circulation. Alternatively, if there is no such
newspaper, the notice must be posted in at least three
public places within the jurisdiction ofthe local agency.
If the adoption or amendment of a specific plan
would affect the permitted uses or intensity of uses of
real property, 10 day prior notice of the hearing must
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
also be mailed or delivered directly to each of the
following: (1) the owner(s) of the property or the
owner's duly authorized agent, and to the project
applicant; (2) each local agency expected to provide
water, sewage, streets, roads, schools, or other essen-
tial facilities or services to the project, whose ability to
provide those facilities and services may be signifi-
cantly affected; and (3) all owners of real property as
shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within
300 feet ofthe boundaries ofthe real property that is the
subject of the hearing (§65091). However, where the
notice to nearby property owners would affect more
than 1,000 persons, a 1/8 page newspaper advertise-
ment may substitute for that part of the notice.
In addition, the commission must provide advance
notice to anyone who requests it in writing (§65092 or
65945). The commission may provide additional no-
tice in any other manner it deems necessary or desir-
able.
Special notice pursuant to §65096 is required when-
ever a person applies for a specific plan amendment or
any entitlement for use which would permit all or any
part of a cemetery to be used for other than cemetery
purposes.
Anyone may appeal the commission's decision to
the legislative body under the procedures set forth
under §65354.5. As with any legislative act, the legis-
lative body, not the planning commission, has final
say. In most cases, an appeal of the commission's
decision may not be necessary because the legislative
body must hold a public hearing on the matter anyway.
A legislative body must hold at least one public
hearing prior to adopting or amending a specific plan
(§65355). A public hearing notice must be published
in a local newspaper of general circulation at least 10
days prior to the hearing (§65090) or if a local newspa-
per is not available then notice shall be posted in at least
three public places pursuant to this section. The legis-
lative body must also notify anyone who makes a
written request for notice pursuant to § 65092 or 65945.
The notice, as with the planning commission, may also
need to meet the requirements under §65096.
Once the hearing(s) have been completed, the
25
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
legislative body will take action to approve, condition-
ally approve, or deny the specific plan. Any conditions
of approval should be made an integral part of the
specific plan prior to its adoption. If necessary, final
approval should be delayed so that the conditions can
be added. Ifthe plan is to be approved with a substantial
modification not previously considered by the com-
mission, the plan must be referred back to the commis-
sion for their reconsideration and recommendation
(§65356).
Adoption Options:
Unlike the general plan, which must be adopted by
resolution (§65356), two options are available for the
adoption of a specific plan: Adoption by resolution or
adoption by ordinance. An ordinance is a local statute,
enforceable by law. According to Black's Law Dictio-
nary, the term "resolution" "...is usually employed to
denote the adoption of a motion, the subject matter of
which would not properly constitute a statute.... Such
is not law but merely a form in which a legislative body
expresses an opinion.
The choice between the two is dependent upon the
role which the plan is intended to fill. When adoption
is by resolution, the specific plan becomes a policy
document similar to the general plan. It takes the form
of a more specific set of policies which may give
direction to the mix of land uses or goals of a particular
development. When adoption is by ordinance, the
specific plan effectively becomes a set of zoning regu-
lations that provide specific direction to the type and
intensity of uses permitted or defines other types of
design criteria including architectural standards. How-
ever, it is important to note that as in City of Sausalito
v. County ofMarin, (1970)12 Ca1.App.3d 550,565, the
adoption of plans which effectively rezone property
mustbe completedby ordinance consistentwith §65850.
The enactment of a specific plan is a legislative act
subject to adoption or repeal by voter initiative even
when enacted by resolution (Yost v. Thomas (19 84) 36
Cal. 3d 561, Midway Orchards v. County of Butte
(1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 765, De Vita v. County of
Napa, (1995) 9 Cal. 41763).
Cities and counties have not only been subject to
specific plan referenda (Chandis Securities v. City of
Dana Point (1997) 52 Cal. 41'' 475), but have also
sponsored voter initiatives to adopt specific plans for a
variety of reasons. One common reason is to increase
public involvement though voter approval. In other
circumstances, adoption by voter initiative has been
used due to controversy or political expediency. In
effect, the electorate makes legislative decisions in
26
place ofthe city council or county board of supervisors.
The initiative and referendum may only be used to
enact, change, or repeal a legislative act. An initiative
may not be used to direct a plan to be prepared
(Marblehead v. City of San Clemente (1991) 226 Cal.
App. 1504). (See also: Growth Control by the Ballot
Box: California's Experience, (1991) 24 Loyola of Los
Angeles Law Review)
Legal Challenge:
Actions filed to attack, set aside, void, or annul the
decision of a city or county to adopt or amend a specific
plan must be brought within 90 days of the agency's
decision (§65009). Judicial review of a specific plan,
including its conformance with the general plan, is
based on whether the action by the legislative body was
arbitrary, capricious, lacking evidentiary support, and/
or whether it failed to proceed with public notice,
hearings, and other procedural requirements of law.
For a more comprehensive discussion, see Curtin's
California Land Use and Planning Law.
Fees
Pursuant to §65456, the legislative body may im-
pose a charge on persons seeking approvals required to
be consistent with an adopted specific plan or may
require a deposit equal to the estimated cost of prepar-
ing a specific plan for adoption, amendment, or repeal.
Costs may be recovered in any of several ways. An
applicant seeking to initiate a project -related specific
plan may be required to deposit the estimated cost of
the entire specific plan process at the front end of the
application process and then reimburse the agency for
the final cost as a function of real cost accounting.
Alternatively, a city or county may absorb the cost of
the process and then recoup the cost through pro -rated
developer fees or permit fees for prof ects required to be
consistent with the adopted specific plan.
Cities and counties often utilize a combination of
developer direct financing, developer fees, facility
districts, and other financing mechanisms to recoup the
cost of the specific plan preparation and implement the
requirements of the plan.
Public and Governmental Agency
Participation
The specific plan is an accumulation of informa-
tion collected, organized, and transformed into a set of
detailed policies, objectives, programs and standards
used to guide future development. The information
collected as part of public and agency involvement
ensures that concerns, preferences, priorities, and needs
are discussed and considered in the decision making
process. Section 653 51 requires that the planning agency
provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens,
public agencies, public utility companies, and civic,
education, and other community groups through hear-
ings and any other means deemed appropriate.
Section 65352 further requires that the plan be
referred to abutting cities or counties, special districts,
school districts, local agency formation commissions,
councils of government, public water systems supply-
ing 3,000 or more customers, and specified air quality
management districts. A city or county may accom-
plish this through public hearings or any other appro-
priate means including, but not limited to, community
workshops, a website, written or telephone correspon-
dence, and surveys. Each ofthese agencies has up to 45
days to comment on the proposed plan.
A good example ofpublic and agency involvement
is the San Luis Obispo's Railroad District Plan, which
received the 1999 APA Award of Excellence. It was
found to be a "fine example of the type of district plan
that is useful, involves the public and is a good commu-
nication tool". It comprehensively addresses land use,
transportation and circulation, aesthetics, open space
and historic preservation, and implementation in the
railroad corridor of the town.
In addition to the statute requiring the referral of
plans and notification to specified local agencies and
the public of its public hearings, notification pursuant
to CEQA is required for the plan's environmental
document. For further discussion of public notice and
responsible and trustee agency review, refer to the
State CEQA Guidelines and CEQA Deskbookby Ronald
E. Bass, Albert I. Herson, and Kenneth M. Bogdan.
Additionally, §65919 et. seq. requires the proposal
to adopt or amend all or part of a specific plan to be
referred to affected cities and counties for comments
and recommendations.
Timing of A ndments
Unlike the mandatory elements of the general plan
which, pursuant to §65358(b), may not be amended
more frequently than four times during each calendar
year, the specific plan may be amended as often as
necessary by the local legislative body pursuant to
§65453(a). However, no specific plan maybe amended
unless the proposed amendment is consistent with the
general plan (§65454).
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Conditions of Approval
OPR does not recommend attaching conditions to
the approval of the specific plan, especially when the
plan would rezone or otherwise affect the permitted
uses or intensity of the use of land. Separating condi-
tions from the plan may complicate administration and
implementation by creating policies or regulations that
will directly affect the plan, but that are not included in
it. Internal inconsistencies between the plan and condi-
tions may result. The plan should be revised as needed
prior to final adoption to incorporate regulations and
conditions directly into the plan.
Specific Plan Repeal
A specific plan is repealed in the same manner that
it is amended pursuant to §65453(b). Similar to the
adoption, the planning commission and legislative
body must each hold at least one public hearing prior to
taking action. Alternatively, a specific plan may be
repealed by voter initiative.
Plan Administration
The administration of specific plans require spe-
cial care. Often, the design standards and zoning adopted
under the plan will differ from that of the zoning
ordinance covering the other portions of the commu-
nity. Agencies which adopt several specific plans, each
with its own format and unique development specifica-
tions, may encounter increased permit processing times
and errors due to varying plans, formats, and provi-
sions.
Several options exist to simplify plan administra-
tion. The first is educating planning staff about the
intricacies of the plan through plan summaries, com-
parisons, and matrices. Existing zoning maps and other
references should be changed to reflect the area cov-
ered by the plan and any changes in zoning or permit
requirements. If necessary, the local zoning ordinance
should be amended immediately to establish confor-
mity with the plan. In jurisdictions where the adoption
of several specific plans are being considered, the
agency may consider adopting written specific plan
guidelines. Guidelines for the preparation of specific
plans establish format and content requirements which
will enable staff to familiarize themselves and more
effectively implement the plan. The guidelines may
also provide project proponents with an explanation of
the required plan elements and how it is utilized by the
27
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
particular agency. (See appendix C for an example of
specific plan guidelines)
Another option is to utilize computer software
programs to aid in administration. The advent of "on-
line" technology and "automated" project and permit
review has provided planners with increasingly so-
phisticated tools which can be used to implement
specific plans. For example, an on-line general plan
28
enables planners to review projects for consistency
with the general plan by entering the important charac-
teristics of land development projects into a software
program. The program compares the project features
with the plan, identifies applicable goals and policies
by topical area, and prepares a report. Similar technol-
ogy is available to assist in the implementation of the
specific plan.
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Part Five
A Specific Plan's Relationship
to Other Planning Measures
Consistency With The General Plan
A specific plan may not be adopted or amended
unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent
with the general plan pursuant to §65454. Section
65359 requires that any specific plan of a city or county
that is applicable to the same areas or matters affected
by a general plan amendment shall be reviewed and
amended as necessary to make the specific plan consis-
tent with the general plan. Consistency is commonly
demonstrated through the statement of the relationship
of the specific plan to the general plan as required by
§65451(b) or through a discussion of the individual
policies and programs and how each consistently imple-
ments the general plan.
Zoning, subdivision, and public works projects
must be consistent with the general plan and specific
plan pursuant to §65455. (See also §66473.5, 65860,
and 65401.) The California Attorney General has opined
that, "the term `consistent with' means `agreement
with.' The courts have held that the phrase `consistent
with' means `agreement with; harmonious with.' The
term `conformity' means in harmony therewith or
agreeable to" (see 58 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 21, 23
(1975)).
As used in the General Plan Guidelines and based
on the language contained in the statutes and various
legal interpretations by the courts, a general rule for
consistency determinations can be stated as follows:
An action, program, or project is consistent
with the general plan if, considering all its
aspects, it will further the objectives and
policies of the general plan and not obstruct
their attainment.
A finding of a project's consistency with a general
plan or specific plan would be reversed only if, based
on the evidence before the council, a reasonable person
could not have reached the same conclusion. (No Oil,
Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles (1987) 196 Cal.App. 3 d 223,
citing McMillian v. American General Finance Corp.
(1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 175, 186)
Specific plans may differ in their implementation
of the general plan depending upon whether they are
adopted by resolution or by ordinance. A specific plan
adopted by resolution will propose implementation
measures, whereas a specific plan adopted by ordi-
nance imposes regulations. If the specific plan is regu-
latory by design, the plan's regulations must promote
the general plan's statement of development policies.
In particular, the regulations must be enactments re-
sulting from and complying with the directives of the
general plan's policies, plan proposals, or action pro-
grams.
Diagram Consistency:
Section 65451(a) requires that a specific plan in-
clude a diagram or diagrams which specify the distri-
bution, location, and extent of the uses of land, includ-
ing open space, within the area covered by the plan.
The diagram(s) must be consistent with the general
plan. In Las Virgenes Homeowners Association v. Los
Angeles County (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 310, the court
held that the general plan is only required to contain a
diagram of the general locations illustrating the poli-
cies of the plan. General plan policies can establish that
parcel -specific designations are to be reflected in a
specific plan. Therefore, the boundaries of a specific
plan's land use designations need not precisely match
the generalized boundaries delineated on a general
plan diagram provided that it reflects a reasonable
approximation of a general plan's land use designa-
tions. The land use distributions and locations con-
tained in the specific plan should be consistent with
those ofthe general plan. For example, if a general plan
designates an area for residential and neighborhood
commercial uses, the specific plan for the same area
should not have provisions for industrial uses. This
would be inconsistent with the general plan. Because a
specific plan is intended to systematically implement
the general plan, its diagram does not supersede that of
the general plan. Rather, it details and fosters the
general plan's development policies.
Specific plans which include multiple develop-
ment phases and development over a longer time frame
29
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
may not initially be consistent with the general plan
diagram if provided for in the text of the general plan.
For example, the first phases of a project may include
existing agricultural land uses not shown under the
diagram. However, later phases of the same project
may include residential development on the same land,
accurately portraying the allowable uses under the
general plan diagram.
Consistency With Airport Land Use Plans:
In each county with a public use airport, an airport
land use commission prepares a comprehensive airport
land use plan (ALUP) addressing all such airports and
their environs within the county. Section 65302.3
requires that the general plan, and any applicable
specific plan be consistent with the ALUP. Further,
§65302.3(b) requires that the general plan and specific
plan be amended within 180 days to be consistent with
any amendment to an ALUP. However, the consis-
tency requirement maybe overridden by the legislative
body when findings are adopted pursuant to Public
Utility Code §21676 (See California Aviation Council
v. City of Ceres, (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4th 1384).
Amendments to a specific plan or general plan
affecting the airport planning area must be reviewed by
the airport land use commission and a determination
made as to the consistency with the ALUP. If the
commission finds that the amendment is inconsistent
and the local legislative body does not concur, the city
council or board of supervisors may, by a two-thirds
vote, overrule the commission's determination pursu-
ant to Public Utility Code §21676.
Consistency With The California Coastal Act:
The California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code
§30000 et seq.) exists to "protect, maintain, and where
feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the
coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial
resources" (Public Resources Code §30001.5). The
coastal zone extends from the Califomia/Oregon bor-
der to the California/Mexico border, seaward to the end
ofthe jurisdictional waters ofthe United States, includ-
ing all offshore islands, and inland generally 1,000
yards (Public Resources Code §30103). The Coastal
Act is applicable to all those portions of cities, coun-
ties, and charter cities that are within the coastal zone,
excluding the area of jurisdiction of the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (70
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 220 (1987)).
Local agencies with jurisdiction over land within
the coastal zone must prepare a local coastal program
(LCP) to implement the Coastal Act. However, an
30
agency may request, in writing, that the California
Coastal Commission prepare all or part of an LCP
(Public Resources Code §30500(a)). An LCP is "por-
tions of a local government's general plan, or local
coastal element which are sufficiently detailed to indi-
cate the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses..."
(Public Resources Code §30108.5). The Coastal Com-
mission has permitting authority over development
within the coastal zone including certification of the
LCP, oversight for local planning efforts, and perma-
nent jurisdiction over development on coastal zone
tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust land (Pub-
lic Resources Code §30500).
Just as a specific plan may be used to implement a
general plan, it may also be used to implement an LCP.
A specific plan may be used to enact the land use
regulations covering the entire coastal zone within a
city or county, or focus the policies of the LCP on only
a portion of zone. Specific plans that amend an LCP
must be reviewed and certified by the commission (70
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 220 (1987)).
Consistency With SMARA:
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
(SMARA) ensures that adverse environmental effects
are prevented or minimized, mined land reclaimed,
mineral production and conservation encouraged, and
hazards to the public health and safety eliminated
(Public Resources Code §2712). The Act requires
cities and counties to adopt ordinances in accordance
with state policy for the review and approval of recla-
mation plans and for the issuance ofpermits to conduct
surface mining operations.
SMARA requires local agencies to prepare or
amend a specific plan to "plan for future land uses in the
vicinity of, and access routes serving..." a surface
mining operation when requested by the mining opera-
tor or other interested person (Public Resources Code
§2764). This does not apply if the local general plan
contains mineral management policies consistent with
SMARA which apply to the surface mining area.
When adopting or amending a specific plan, the
local legislative body must make findings as to whether
the future land uses and access routes will be compat-
ible with the mining operation. If the land uses and
access routes are not compatible with the continuation
of surface mining, the local agency must also state why
incompatible uses are proposed, in light ofthe regional
importance of the operation (Public Resources Code
§2764(b)).
Other Measures That Must Be
Consistent With Specific Plans
The specific plan statute under §65455 states that
"No public works project may be approved, no tenta-
tive map or parcel map for which a tentative map was
not required may be approved, and no zoning ordi-
nance may be adopted or amended within an area
covered by a specific plan unless it is consistent with
the adopted specific plan." Section 65451 requires that
a specific plan set forth detailed development criteria,
standards, and implementation programs. Thus, there
is little or no opportunity for programs and other
measures, which implement the specific plan, to vary
from its requirements. In addition to §65455, there are
a number of other statutes that address the issue of
consistency between specific plans and implementing
measures.
Annexations, Detachments, and Incorporation:
Section 56841(g) requires Local Agency Forma-
tion Commissions (LAFCO) to consider, among other
issues, the consistency of proposals for annexation,
detachment, or incorporation with applicable specific
plans prior to approval.
Capital Improvement Programs:
Five-year capital improvement programs prepared
by special districts, school districts, or other agencies
created by j oint powers agreements, must be referred to
the planning agency of each affected city and county
within which the district or agency operates, for review
as to its consistency with any applicable specific plan.
Section 65403(c) requires that the capital improve-
ment program or any part of the program not be carried
out if the planning agency finds that it is not consistent
with any applicable specific plan. However, the find-
ing may be overruled by the district or agency propos-
ing to carry out the capital improvement program.
Condominium Conversions:
The requirements of the Subdivision Map Act for
consistency with general plans and specific plans un-
der §66473.5, §66474, and §66474.61 do not apply to
condominium projects or stock cooperatives that sub-
divide airspace in existing structures unless a specific
plan contains definite objectives and policies, specifi-
cally directed to the conversion of existing buildings
pursuant to §66427.2. Consistency may also be re-
quired where new structures or additions to existing
structures occur.
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Development Agreements:
A specific plan facilitates the administration of a
development agreement through the separation ofpoli-
cies and regulations which are specific to the site from
those of the jurisdiction as awhole. As such, §65867.5
requires that a development agreement be approved
only if the provisions of the agreement are consistent
with any applicable specific plan.
Housing Projects:
Housing projects are defined by Health and Safety
Code §34212 as being housing or community -related
activities involving governmental funding or assis-
tance. These projects are subject to applicable plan-
ning, zoning, sanitary, building laws, ordinances, and
regulations. Any housing authority planning a housing
project must take into consideration the relationship of
the project to any larger plan or long-range program
(specific plan) for the development of the area in which
it is located consistent with Health and Safety Code
§34326.
Land Projects:
Section 66474.5 restricts local agencies from ap-
proving a final subdivision map for any land project
unless: (a) the local agency has adopted a specific plan
covering the area included within the project; and (b)
the agency finds that the land project, together with the
provisions for design and improvements, is consistent
with the specific plan. Land projects are defined by
§ 11000.5 of the Business and Professions Code.
Park Land (Quimby Act):
Local agencies may, by ordinance, require the
payment of fees or dedication of land for park or
recreational purposes as a condition of the approval of
a tentative or parcel map. Prior to imposing this re-
quirement, the local legislative body must adopt a
general plan or specific plan with policies and stan-
dards for parks and recreational facilities. The required
fee or dedication must be consistent with these policies
and standards pursuant to §66477(d).
Public Utilities:
Public Utilities Code § 12808.5 requires public
utility districts to refer proposals to locate or construct
lines and accessory structures for the transmission and
distribution ofelectricity to each affected city or county
for their approval. The local legislative body must hold
one public hearing and, within 60 days, adopt a resolu-
tion, including findings of consistency with any rel-
evant specific plans, for approval or denial of the
31
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
proposal. However, the utility district may, by a four-
fifths vote, render the local agency's decision inappli-
cable.
Public Works Projects:
Local public works projects may not be approved
unless they are consistent with any applicable specific
plan pursuant §65455.
Subdivisions:
Section 66473.5 requires that the local legislative
body only approve a tentative map, or a parcel map for
which a tentative map was not required, if it finds that
the subdivision, together with the provisions for its
design and improvement, is consistent with any spe-
cific plan which has been adopted covering the area of
the proposal.
Inconsistency between aproposed subdivision and
an adopted specific plan is grounds for denial (§66474).
This may include inconsistent design or improvement
of the proposed subdivision.
Section 66474.61 requires thatthe advisory agency,
appeal board, or city council of a city with a population
exceeding 2.8 million (Los Angeles) deny approval of
a tentative map or parcel map if it finds that the
proposed map or the proposed subdivision's design or
improvement is inconsistent with applicable general
and specific plans.
Specific plans often contain conceptual subdivi-
sion maps which are used to present the ideal pattern of
development for the plan area. Subsequent tentative
maps must comply with the standards for design,
improvements, land use, and density; however, they
are not and should not be required to strictly comply
with the conceptual designs, unless so stated in the
plan.
32
Subdivision Land Reservations:
A local agency may, by ordinance, require the
reservation of real property in a subdivision for parks
and recreational facilities, fire stations, libraries or
other public uses. Section 66479 requires that reserva-
tions be based upon an adopted specific plan or an
adopted general plan containing policies and standards
for those uses. The reservations must be consistent
with these policies and standards.
Zoning:
Section 65455 requires that the adoption or amend-
ment of a zoning ordinance be consistent with any
applicable specific plan covering the same area.
A planning commission, in its written recommen-
dation to a city council or board of supervisors regard-
ing the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance,
must describe the relationship between the proposed
zoning ordinance or zoning amendment with the appli-
cable general and specific plan pursuant to §65855.
Summary:
Inconsistencies in implementation or conflict with
existing policies, programs, and ordinances must be
identified and corrected as early as possible. Adjust-
ments to existing planning and regulatory programs
should be made before or concurrently with the adop-
tion phase of the specific plan process. After adoption,
any identification of inconsistency must be followed
by the amendment of either existing plans and regula-
tions or the specific plan itself. Failure to correct
inconsistencies can result in the inability to enforce
specific plan regulations and policies (see Anderson v.
City of La Mesa (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 657).
Part Six
Specific Plan
Implementation Measures
Implementation
Whether regulatory or policy oriented, all specific
plans must contain a "program of implementation
measures including regulations, programs, public works
projects, and financing measures pursuant to
§6545 l (a)(4). Common strategies are to include a form
of an overlay -zone or other zoning -like regulation as
part of the implementation program. Implementation
of public infrastructure and facilities policy is also
commonly accomplished through the inclusion of a
capital improvements program.
The specific plan must include or identify a financ-
ing program. Various financing mechanisms are avail-
able to fund the programs of a specific plan including
special assessment districts, the Mello -Roos Commu-
nity Facilities Act, and general obligation bonds. Tax -
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
increment financing, city and county general fund
money, exactions, and other means are discussed fur-
ther in Table 2.
OPR's A Planner's Guide To Financing Public
Improvements, contains a detailed discussion of fi-
nancing measures, most of which are applicable to
specific plans. Other resources include OPR's General
Plan Guidelines and William Abbot's Public Needs
and Private Dollars, Solano Press.
Other specific plan implementation programs may
include affordable housing projects (implementing the
policies of the general plan housing element), eco-
nomic development, redevelopment programs, project
phasing, transportation system management, habitat
conservation plans, and local air pollution control
measures.
Table 2
Examples of Financing Measures
Proposition 218:
Proposition 218 added Articles XIII C and D to
the California Constitution controlling how general
taxes are levied and requiring certain previously
levied general taxes to be ratified by voters. It
reduces all taxes to either general taxes or special
taxes. It defines a general tax as "any tax imposed
for general governmental purposes" and a special
tax as "any tax imposed for specific purposes,
including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which
is placed into a general fund." General and special
taxes can be reduced or repealed through the initia-
tive process. Benefit assessments and "property
related fees and charges" cannot be imposed with-
out prior voter approval. Fees, charges, and assess-
ments can be reduced or repealed through the initia-
tive process.
A city, county, or special district (including a
school district) contemplating a special tax levy
must hold a noticed public hearing and adopt an
ordinance or resolution prior to placing the tax on
the ballot. The ordinance or resolution must specify
the purpose of the tax, the rate at which it will be
imposed, the method of collection, and the date of
the election to approve the tax levy. Approval by a
2/3 vote of the city, county, or district electorate is
necessary for adoption. For additional information
concerning the implications of Proposition 218 to
local government financing, see OPR'sA Planner's
Guide To Financing Public Improvements.
Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982:
The Mello -Roos Act enables cities, counties,
special districts, and school districts to establish
community facilities districts and to levy special
taxes to fund a wide variety of facilities and ser-
vices required by a specific plan. A Mello -Roos tax
can be applied to the planning and design work
directly related to the improvements being financed
continued
33
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Table 2 continued
and may also fund services on a pay-as-you-go
basis including: police and fire protection, ambu-
lances, flood protection recreational programs,
parks, and schools. A Mello -Roos district must be
established pursuant to the requirements of §53321.
As with all special taxes, Mello -Roos taxes are
subject to reduction or repeal by initiative.
A Mello -Roos tax is not a special assessment,
so there is no requirement that the tax be appor-
tioned on the basis of property benefit. The tax can
be structured so that it varies depending upon the
zoning or development intensity of the property
being assessed. Apportionment cannot, however,
be done on an ad valorem basis. Some of the
projects that have been funded through Mello -Roos
include public works projects in "planned commu-
nities" for Orange County, Riverside County and
San Diego as well as public park improvements and
school facilities throughout California. See §53311
et seq. for detailed information regarding the estab-
lishment of Mello -Roos districts.
General Obligation Bonds:
In 1986, California voters approved Proposi-
tion 46, restoring the ability of local governments
and school districts to issue general obligation
(G.O.) bonds. General obligation bonds require
approval by 2/3 of the jurisdiction's voters and are
used to finance the acquisition and construction of
public capital facilities and real estate (see §29900
et seq., 43600 et seq., and Education Code § 15100
et seq.). G.O. bonds are repaid through an increase
in the ad valorem property tax being levied by the
issuing jurisdiction.
General Obligation bonds may be used to fund
such things as schools, libraries, jails, fire protec-
tion and capital improvements. According to the
California Debt and Investment Advisory Commis-
sion, 27 G.O. bond measures were placed on local
ballots in the November 1996 election. Fourteen
passed, thirteen failed, and nine received more than
60 percent approval. Some of these bonds included
K-12 school facilities and seismic -safety retrofit-
ting of public buildings.
Public Enterprise Revenue Bonds:
Local governments have the ability to issue
34
bonds to finance facilities for revenue producing
public enterprises. The enterprises developed under
these funds are financed by user charges that, in
turn, are applied to bond debt service payments.
Revenue bonds do not require approval by 2/3 vote
since they are neither payable from taxes, nor from
the general fund.
The Revenue Bond Act of 1941 (§54300 et
seq.) is the most commonly used bond act. Under
this act, bonds may be issued for revenue producing
facilities such as airports, harbors, hospitals, park-
ing, and garbage collection. Bonds under this act are
adopted by resolution of the legislative body and
subject to approval by a simple majority of the
voters voting on the bond measure. One example of
a public enterprise revenue bond is the Cambria
Community Services District's 1989 bond financ-
ing of a wastewater treatment plant.
Tax -Increment Financing:
Local governments may activate redevelop-
ment agencies to improve blighted areas. Specific
plans are also often used to improve the blighted
areas which may at the same time be subject to a
redevelopment plan. As an area is redeveloped, it
may generate new property tax revenue. This rev-
enue is known as the tax increment. A redevelop-
ment agency engages in tax -increment financing
when it funds its activities with bonds, notes, etc.,
secured by the increment. With certain exceptions,
the agency must allocate 20 percent of the tax
increment to funding low and moderate -income
housing. (See § 16 of Article XVI of the California
Constitution and §33000 et seq. of the Health and
Safety Code)
Impact Fees and Exactions:
Dedications of land and impact fees are exac-
tions which lessen the impacts of new development
resulting from increased population or demand on
services. Local governments derive their authority
to impose exactions from the "police power" granted
to them by the State Constitution and/or specific
state enabling statutes such as the Subdivision Map
Act.
A legally defensible exaction must (a) "ad-
vance a legitimate state interest" (such as protection
continued
Table 2 continued
of the public health, safety, and welfare) and (b)
mitigate the adverse impacts to that interest that
would otherwise result from the project (as held in
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)
107 S.Ct.3141). Additionally, in Dolan v. City of
Tigard (1994) 114S.Ct.2309, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that, in addition to the standard for
essential nexus established underNollan, there must
be a "rough proportionality" between the proposed
exactions and the impacts that the project are in-
tended to allay. The California Supreme Court
further defined the principals of legal exactions
under Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996)12
Cal.App.4r' 854. The Legislature has since amended
the Mitigation Fee Act (§66000, et seq.) to require
the local agency imposing the fee to identify the
purpose of the fee and the use to which it will be put.
The local agency must also specify the nexus be-
tween the development project and the improve-
ment being financed (§66001). It must further es-
tablish that the amount of funds being collected will
not exceed that needed to pay for the improvement
(§66005).
Special Assessment Districts:
Special assessment districts are defined geo-
graphical areas which local governments levy as-
sessments to pay for public projects such as streets,
sewers, storm drains, landscaping and streetlighting.
Special assessments pay for projects that are of
specific and direct benefit to particular properties.
For example, in order to finance the construction of
street facilities which provide sole access to an
industrial park, a local government may create an
assessment district to cover the cost as it relates to
the amount of benefit received by each property
being assessed. Proposition 218 established com-
mon procedures for forming special assessment
districts under Section 4, Article XIII D of the
California Constitution. Most assessment districts
may use their proceeds to secure bonds.
The following are some of the many special
assessment and related acts:
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
• Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and High-
ways Code §5000 et seq.)
• Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Streets
and Highways Code § 10000 et seq.)
• Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and
Highways Code §8500 et seq.)
• Park and Playground Act of 1909 (Government
Code §38000 et seq.)
• Tree Planting Act of 1931 (Streets and High-
ways code §22000 et seq.)
• Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Streets
and Highways Code §22500 et seq.)
• Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (Government
Code §54703 et seq.)
• Integrated Financing District Act (Government
Code §53175 et seq.)
• Street Lighting Act of 1919 (Streets and High-
ways Code § 18000 et seq.)
• Municipal Lighting Maintenance District Act
of 1927 (Street and Highways Code § 18600 et
seq.)
• Street Lighting Act of 1931 (Street s and High-
ways Code § 18300 et seq.)
• Parking District Law of 1943 (Streets and High-
ways Code §31500 et seq.)
• Parking District Law of 1951 (Streets and High-
ways Code §35100 et seq.)
• Parking and Business Improvement Area Law
of 1989 (Street and Highways Code §36500 et
seq.)
• Property and Business Improvement District
Law of 1994 (Streets and Highways Code
§36600 et seq.)
• Pedestrian Mall Law of 1960 (Street and High-
ways Code § 11000 et seq.)
• Permanent Road Divisions Law (Streets and
Highways Code § 1160 et seq.)
• Community Rehabilitation District Law of 1985
(Government Code §53370 et seq.)
• Geologic Hazard Abatement District (Public
Resources Code §26500 et seq.)
• Open Space Maintenance Act (Government
Code §50575 et seq.)
• Fire Suppression Assessment (Government
Code §50078 et seq.)
35
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Specific Plans And Development
Projects
Local agencies may require that a specific plan be
adopted for an area as a prerequisite to a development
project as part of the requirements of an overlay zone,
other ordinances, or for consistency with the policies of
the general plan.
Development Agreements:
A development agreement is a tool for establishing
a vested right to proceed with development in conform-
ance with the policies, rules, and regulations in effect
at the time of approval (§65864). Development agree-
ments provide a developer with assurances for a speci-
fied length of time that his/her project may proceed as
originally approved, and not be affected by future
changes in land use regulations. The authority of local
governments to enter into development agreements
was tested and upheld by the courts in Santa Margarita
Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo County
Board of Supervisors, 84 Cal.App. 4th 221 (2000). In
many cases and in exchange for this assurance, the
landowner/developer may agree to a larger dedication
of land or in -lieu fee for public use as a condition of the
agreement.
A specific plan facilitates the administration of a
development agreement by separating the develop-
ment policies and regulations applied to a project site
from those of the jurisdiction as a whole. This enables
a local agency to revise its jurisdiction -wide plans and
ordinances without affecting the policies and regula-
tions "frozen" by an agreement. A specific plan adopted
36
in correlation with a development agreement would
only be amended when corresponding changes are
made to the agreement. (See Midway Orchards v.
County of Butte, 220 Cal. App. 3d 765 (1990); and 76
Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 227 (1994))
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps:
Section 66498.1(b) provides that when a vesting
tentative subdivision map is approved, a vested right
shall be conveyed to proceed with development in
substantial compliance with the ordinances, policies,
and standards in effect at the time the application for
the tentative map is complete. Once approved, a land-
owner/developer may proceed with a project unim-
peded by subsequent changes to the applicable devel-
opment regulations. A specific plan adopted prior to
the approval of a vesting tentative map may provide
local agencies and the landowner/developer a single
reference in determining the rights to be vested.
Redevelopment:
Specific plans represent relatively precise devel-
opment criteria, guidelines, and diagrams which may
provide additional direction to agencies and the public
in establishing uses and infrastructure improvements
that are planned within a redevelopment area. Such
plans also set forth in detail the planning and imple-
mentation programs that, in the opinion of the local
agency, will lead to a successful redevelopment project.
In addition, the precision of specific plans is useful in
estimating the costs of public improvements to be
funded by tax -increment financing and other fiscal
programs.
Part Seven
Specific Plan Summaries
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Following are summaries of some good specific plans, including those recognized by the California Chapter
of the American Planning Association with "Comprehensive Planning Awards of Excellence" over the past few
years. The plans included are representative of a broad range ofplan types and subject matter included in numerous
other plans from around the state.
City of San Jose
Evergreen Specific Plan
Adopted July 2, 1991
The Evergreen Specific Plan was prepared for the
City of San Jose by Dahlin Group, Inc., in response to
a general plan amendment in 1989 designating 865
acres as the "Evergreen Planned Residential Commu-
nity." The amendment included the requirement that a
specific plan be adopted prior to approval of develop-
ment. The specific plan relies on some unusual tech-
niques for creating an innovative new community with
edges that blend seamlessly into adjacent subdivisions
and interior features that are distinctive both function-
ally and visually. Traffic rotaries and radial streets for
example, provide direct routes to all of the plan's
facilities and amenities for neighborhoods both inside
and outside the plan area. The plan includes provisions
for ongoing vineyard and wine -making facilities at
Mirassou Vineyards, a circular commercial "village,"
parks and additional park acreage, two elementary
schools, funding for a new high school, fire station,
corridor trails, pocket parks, and extensive internal
trail systems. Supporting documents include revisions
to existing development policy, financing plan, and the
zoning ordinance.
Ventura County
Ahmanson Ranch Specific Plan
Adopted December 1992
The Ahmanson Ranch Specific Plan was produced
by the Ahmanson Land Company for the County of
Ventura as part of a development proposal for residen-
tial, commercial, and community facility uses. The
planning area encompasses approximately 5,433 acres
of which 2,633 acres are to be dedicated as permanent
public open space. The remainder of the planning area
comprises clustered development on approximately
1,900 acres with an additional 900 acres of community
open space. The proposed community would consist of
mixed -density and income housing units in a pedes-
trian friendly setting totaling approximately 3,050 units.
The dedicated open space would be combined with
surrounding open space areas to form approximately
11,000 acres of important wildlife habitat, corridors,
and ecosystems, in an effort to balance the preservation
of natural resources with the development of new
communities. The plan includes comprehensive de-
sign guidelines, development standards, and imple-
mentation measures to create a livable community
based upon compact and pedestrian oriented design.
City of San Jose
Midtown Specific Plan
Adopted December 8, 1992
The Midtown Specific Plan was prepared by a
consultant team including ROMA Design Group, with
oversight from the Midtown Specific Plan Task Force,
for the purpose of providing a vision for an area that is
undergoing considerable transition and change. This
vision includes: creating a pattern of development that
reinforces transit; providing diversity in housing op-
portunities to establishe viable and livable neighbor-
hoods; preserving viable industrial and commercial -
service; creating an extensive system ofpedestrian and
open space; balancing circulation needs with consider-
ation of livability; and complementing and extending
adjacent residential and commercial areas surrounding
midtown. The specific plan will guide the evolution of
this 210 -acre mixed industrial and commercial area
into a new mixed-use community including high -
37
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
density commercial and residential uses oriented to-
ward transit, while maintaining some industrial and
service commercial uses. This plan provides for close
to 3,000 new housing units, 920,000 square feet ofnew
office development, 305,000 square feet of additional
industrial/commercial uses, and 335,000 square feet of
retail, restaurant, and entertainment -oriented uses. It
also incorporates an extensive system of pedestrian
ways and open spaces that promotes Midtown as a
livable and walkable community, street patterns that
prevent excessive residential street traffic in the future,
and comprehensive urban design guidelines for creat-
ing a compatible relationship with surrounding areas
and neighborhoods.
City of West Sacramento
West Sacramento Triangle
A Specific Plan for The Development of Downtown
West Sacramento
Adopted June 30, 1993
The West Sacramento Triangle Specific Plan was
prepared for the City of West Sacramento by the
Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership for the purpose of
providing "aplanned, waterfront oriented urban core...
complementing established residential and commer-
cial districts within the City with a balanced mix of
uses." Its focus is to provide guidance for the develop-
ment of approximately 188 acres while creating a
sense -of -place, promoting economic development, and
furthering the use of the area for living, working, and
tourist -oriented development. The plan includes provi-
sions for five separate development area components,
each with its own identifying characteristics yet uni-
fied through redevelopment and development guide-
lines with an emphasis on establishing a sense -of -place
based upon the waterfront.
Separately, the City adopted the Southport Frame-
work Plan in May 1995 as part of its comprehensive
planning efforts. Although this is an "area plan" and
does not meet the criteria of a specific plan, its purpose
is to establish connections between the individual
specific plans within its boundaries to accomplish an
overall comprehensive planning framework. It demon-
strates the ability to provide integration between spe-
cific plans and their respective planning areas and
regulations.
38
City of Santa Monica
Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan
Adopted November 23, 1993
The Santa Monica Civic Center Specific Plan was
prepared for the City by ROMA Design Group. Adop-
tion of the plan was called for by the general plan in
response to the need to comprehensively plan for
public and private ownership in the area with a central
theme of urban design. The planning area includes
approximately 45 acres, 26 in public ownership and
15.8 under the ownership of one corporation. The site
is within close proximity to the beach and Santa Monica
Pier, the Santa Monica Freeway, and adjacent to the
city's recently revitalized downtown. The urban de-
signtheme is intendedto guide development ofthe area
"that is, essentially a meeting place that brings together
a broad range of activities within an attractive and
inclusive environment." The plan includes a mix of
uses including city offices, county justice courts, audi-
torium, cultural, open space, residential, live/work,
professional office, and retail. Development policies
are included which "Redefine Main Street" to establish
it as a focal point, "Extending the Palisades Land-
scape," bringing the characteristic landscape of the
area into the Civic Center, and "Meeting the City
Grid," making the area accessible and friendly by
incorporating visual corridors, mixed-use streets, and
pedestrian and bicycle ways into the area.
City of Folsom
The Parkway Specific Plan and Design
Guidelines
Adopted December 1993
The Parkway Specific Plan and Design Guidelines
were prepared for the City of Folsom by the Parker
Development Company, The Spink Corporation, and
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. The planning area
encompasses 612 acres with provisions for 360 acres of
mixed density residential, 6.4 acres of office use, 11.8
acres of commercial use, and 242.4 acres of open
space, parkway corridor, riparian mitigation, and other
variations of open space uses. The plan incorporates
zoning and development standards which supersede
prior designations, a financing plan for the provision of
necessary public facilities, and a separate financing
plan for a special assessment district. The plan has also
incorporated a detailed set of design guidelines for
landscaping, architecture, lighting and signage. Sepa-
rately, the plan includes as an appendix, the "Parkway
and Resource Mitigation Plan." This section estab-
lishes a plan for a natural corridor which bisects the
planning area providing for the preservation of impor-
tant habitat, passive recreation, and flood protection. It
also forms a resource mitigation program for impacts
to natural resources resulting from development, and
provides for the preservation of open space and the
quality of life in the city.
Mariposa County
Mariposa Town Planning Area Specific Plan
Adopted January 14, 1992
Amended February 7, 1997
The Mariposa Town Planning Area Specific Plan
was prepared by county staff at the direction of the
Board of Supervisors. The plan encompasses the unin-
corporated town ofMariposa, including approximately
1,900 acres, with a population of 1,565. The area serves
as the westerly gateway to Yosemite National Park
with more than one million tourists passing through
each year. The plan provides for the preservation of the
historic Mother Load design and atmosphere of the
town while also allowing for commercial and residen-
tial growth. Guidelines for design review, historic
preservation, and other development standards have
been incorporated into the plan. As the center for
county government, services, and commerce, the plan
policies focus on the viability of Mariposa as a com-
mercial area while maintaining its historic Gold Rush
characteristics.
City of Roseville
Highland Reserve North Specific Plan
Adopted June 1997
The Highland Reserve North Specific Plan was
prepared for the City of Roseville by Williams and
Paddon, MacKay and Somps, and Wade Associates.
The plan area comprises 615 acres in the northeast
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
portion of the city adjacent to Highway 65. It estab-
lishes a framework for the development ofthe planning
area including a village square, traditional residential
neighborhoods, pedestrian pathway system, preserva-
tion and utilization of watershed open space corridors,
and emphasis on the design of public spaces. Plan
implementation includes a development agreement
which sets forth public infrastructure and financing,
Quimby Act park land dedication requirements, and
land use and infrastructure requirements. Comprehen-
sive community and landscaping design guidelines
have been defined for the purpose of establishing a
framework for development and coordinated land-
scaping leading to the vision underlying the plan.
City of San Luis Obispo
Railroad District Plan
Adopted June 16, 1998
The Railroad District Plan grew out of citizens'
suggestions that a plan be prepared to address several
important issues, including traffic circulation, open
space and historic preservation, safe pedestrian and
bicycle connections, aesthetics, public safety and the
need for additional automobile parking. The City Coun-
cil directed staff to prepare a plan that would address
these issues and ensure that the various public im-
provements planned or underway in the District would
be properly coordinated.
The Railroad District influences San Luis Obispo's
economy, transportation, and urban character. Recog-
nizing the importance of the District, the General Plan
identifies the Santa Barbara Street corridor—the main
transportation "artery" which links the District with
Downtown and State Highway 101—as a "special
design area" and calls for a plan to guide renovation
and improvement of buildings, streetscape, landscap-
ing and public use areas. This plan is intended to guide
development in the District and to implement General
Plan policy for that portion of the special design area
encompassed by the District.
39
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Appendix A
Specific Plan Court Cases
TABLE OF CASES
• Yost v. Thomas
• Chandis Securities v. City of Dana Point
• Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project, Sierra Club
v. County of Stanislaus
• Mitchell v. County of Orange
• Anderson v. City of La Mesa
• People v. County of Kern
This section identifies major specific plan -related
litigation. The following brief summaries highlight the
pertinent principles, but are by no means comprehen-
sive discussions of each case. Our intent is simply to
bring these cases to your attention. Readers should
refer to the full text of the cases for in-depth informa-
tion. For advice regarding the applicability of a case to
specific situations, particularly those cases involving
"takings," consult your legal counsel.
CASES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
YOST V. THOMAS (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561
The Park Plaza Corporation filed several applica-
tions, including a specific plan, to authorize construc-
tion of a 360 -room hotel and conference center under
the City of Santa Barbara's certified Local Coastal
Program (LCP). After the council had approved the
project, a local citizens' group attempted to file a
referendum petition to reverse the council's action.
The petition was rejected by city clerk Thomas. The
City argued that its approval was ministerial under the
Coastal Act and not subj ect to referendum. The citizens
group sued and the trial court found for the City,
holding that City's actions were administrative under
the Act and that the powers of initiative and referen-
dum apply only to legislative actions by a local govern-
ing body.
The Supreme Court reversed. The Court cited the
established principle that referendum applies only to
legislative acts. Since adopting or amending a general
plan and rezoning are legislative acts, the Court rea-
soned that specific plans are likewise legislative. The
Court also concluded that in enacting the Coastal Act
the Legislature had not intended to eliminate local
legislative authority. While the Coastal Commission
may disapprove an LCP which is inconsistent with
state policy or too weak to effectively implement it, the
Commission may not specify the precise content of the
LCP. Furthermore, local governments may choose the
means of implementing the Coastal Act and may be
more restrictive of particular development than state
policies require.
CASES OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
CHANDIS SECURITIES CO. V. CITY OF
DANA POINT (1997) 52 Cal.App. 411 475
The council approved Chandis' general plan amend-
ment and specific plan for a hotel and 370 -unit residen-
tial development on the Headlands. Petitions were
filed forcing a voter referendum on the project and, as
a result of voters' denial, the council's action was
reversed.
40
The court held that although the city council acted
reasonably to approve the project, the electorate is
empowered to reverse that action, particularly since
reversal did not conflict with the general plan and
maintained the status quo. The court held that the
restriction on denying a "development project" under
Government Code Section 65589.5 does not apply to
legislative projects.
STANISLAUS NATURAL HERITAGE
PROJECT, SIERRA CLUB V. COUNTY OF
STANISLAUS (1996) 48 Cal.App. 411 182
In 1993 the County of Stanislaus certified an EIR
for a proposed specific plan for a 29,500 -acre resort
community including 5,000 residences. Suit was
brought contending, among other things, that the EIR
was inadequate due to its failure to adequately discuss
the environmental effects of supplying water to the
project. The analysis of water covered the supply
through the first 5 years of the project, but deferred
further analysis of the supply of water to future phases
of development. The county and other respondents
contended that "there is no analysis of the potential
impacts of the eventual long-term supply" relying
upon the tiering provisions of CEQA. Tiering allows
for a more specific EIR incorporating by reference the
discussion in prior environmental documents allowing
for concentration on the environmental effects not
analyzed as significant effects in the prior report.
The trial court denied the petition ruling in favor of
the county and other respondents. The Court ofAppeal
reversed the decision because the approval of the
project did not follow the fundamental purpose of
CEQA being to inform the public and decision makers
of the environmental consequences of a project. An
EIR must address the impact of supplying water in that
the County must "attempt in good faith to fulfill its
obligation under CEQA to provide sufficient meaning-
ful information regarding the types of activity and
environmental effects that are reasonably foreseeable
(Laurel Heights I supra, 47 Cal.ed at p. 399.)."
MITCHELL V. COUNTY OF ORANGE (1985)
165 Cal.App.3d 1185
During a public hearing on the North Tustin
Specific Plan, a property owner requested that their
land be re -designated for professional office uses. The
Board of Supervisors adopted the North Tustin Plan,
but in doing so designated the contested property for
residential rather than office uses. The Board also
found the plan to be compatible with the general plan.
The owner petitioned for a writ of mandate claiming,
among other things, that the specific plan was inconsis-
tent with the general plan.
The trial court denied the petition and the owner
appealed contending that the court should have used
the substantial evidence test when reviewing a specific
plan's conformance with a general plan.
The court of appeal affirmed the trial court's deci-
sion, referencing Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561,
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
571, noting that the adoption of a specific plan is a
legislative act. Therefore, "Judicial review of `[a]ctions
taken by an administrative agency in its legislative
capacity ... is limited to an examination of the proceed-
ings before the agency to determine whether its action
has been arbitrary or capricious, or entirely lacking in
evidentiary support, or whether it has failed to follow
the procedure and give the notices required by law.'
[citations]"
This "arbitrary and capricious" test also applies to
challenges to a specific plan's conformance to a gen-
eral plan. Consequently, the court determined that the
consistency determination rests with Orange County's
board of supervisors and would not be set aside unless
the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously or without an
evidentiary basis.
This case indicates that the "arbitrary and capri-
cious" test, rather than the "substantial evidence" test,
is the appropriate standard of judicial review for a
specific plan adoption. The courts apply the "arbitrary
and capricious" test to determine whether there is a
rational basis for a legislative act. The burden of
proving unreasonableness falls on the person who
challenges the local legislature's action. The burden is
heavy since, in general, the courts presume that legis-
lative actions are valid. The courts apply the substantial
evidence test to adjudicative acts to determine whether
they are supported by findings based on substantial
evidence. Consequently, from a city's or county's
viewpoint, the latter test is more rigorous.
ANDERSON V. CITY OF LA MESA (1981) 118
Cal.App.3d 657
The city of La Mesa's standard zoning ordinances
required single-family dwellings to be set back at least
five feet from the side lot lines while an applicable
specific plan ordinance required ten foot setbacks. A
property owner applied to the city for a building permit
to construct a new house. The proposed placement was
to be about seven feet from a side property line—in
compliance with zoning, but not the specific plan. The
city issued the permit and the home was built. The city
inspected the house six times during construction;
however, upon completion, the city refused to issue the
occupancy permit unless the owner removed that por-
tion of the house within the ten foot setback required by
the specific plan. Further, the city declined to grant a
variance allowing a side yard setback encroachment.
The owner filed a petition for writ of mandate.
The superior court determined that the owner had
acquired a vested right to the existing building location
41
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
because she had relied in good faith on the building
permit. In addition, the court found no grounds for
denial of the variance, but that remodeling would cost
$6,000. The courtalso found that the city had abused its
discretion and ordered the variance and occupancy
permit to be issued. The court of appeal affirmed the
judgment.
This case illustrates one of the problems that may
arise if a city or county fails to keep its zoning ordi-
nance consistent with its specific plan.
PEOPLE V. COUNTY OF KERN (1974) 39
Cal.App.3d 830
In May of 1972, Kern County approved tentative
subdivision maps to create 356 lots on 275 acres in
Cuddy Valley near Los Padres National Forest. The
map approvals required the developer to obtain the
county's approval of a specific plan and zone change.
The county's adoption ofthe specific plan "...expressly
provided that `amendments to the zoning ordinance
applicable to the area shall conform to this specific
plan' in accordance with the tentative maps on file."
The developer submitted a zone change application
and prepared a draft EIR. The zone change involved
reclassifying the site from light agricultural to estate
zones. The county circulated the draft EIR to interested
public agencies and private groups. The county re-
ceived numerous comments pertaining to the draft
EIR, some of which raised serious environmental is-
sues. The county approved the final EIR without re-
sponding to comments on the draft. The county also
approved the rezoning and thereafter issued a grading
permit.
42
In November of 1973, the California Attorney
General filed an action against Kern County and the
developer to prevent the issuance of building permits
and other entitlements for construction and to require
the preparation of an adequate EIR. The trial court
denied a preliminary injunction and the Attorney Gen-
eral appealed seeking a writ of mandamus to compel
the trial court to issue the preliminary injunction. Kern
County contended that the developer had acquired a
vested right to develop by virtue of the approval of the
tentative maps and adoption ofthe specific plan. It also
claimed that the zone change was a ministerial act and
not subject to CEQA.
The Court ofAppeal issued the writ of mandamus.
It directed the trial court to issue the injunction enjoin-
ing Kern County from granting the developer's build-
ing permits and entitlements. Based on state law and
county zoning ordinance, the court determined that
Kern County retained discretion to approve or deny
zone changes. Consequently, the approval ofthe tenta-
tive map and specific plan were not the only approvals
subject to discretionary action. The approvals did not
commit the county to amend the zoning ordinance and
as a discretionary project, the rezoning was subject to
CEQA in which the final EIR was inadequate due to the
lack of response to comments in the Final EIR.
This case indicates that a local government's
approval of a specific plan neither provides a vested
right to develop nor an automatic zone change entitle-
ment. A government retains its discretion in deciding
rezoning application submitted to carry our specific
plans.
Appendix B
Selected Statutes
SPECIFIC PLAN STATUTES
(Excerpted From The California Government Code)
TITLE 7. Planning and Land Use
DIVISION 1. Planning and Zoning
CHAPTER 3. Local Planning
Article 8. Specific Plans
Section 65450. Preparation of specific plans
After the legislative body has adopted a general plan, the
planning agency may, or if so directed by the legislative
body, shall, prepare specific plans for the systematic imple-
mentation of the general plan for all or part of the area
covered by the general plan.
(Repealed and added by Stats. 1984. Ch. 1009)
Section 65451. Content of specific plans
(a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or
diagrams which specify all of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of
land, including open space, within the area covered by the
plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and
intensity of major components of public and private trans-
portation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal,
energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located
within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the
land uses described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will
proceed, and standards for the conservation, development,
and utilization of natural resources, where applicable.
(4) A program of implementation measures including
regulations, programs, public works projects, and financ-
ing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3).
(Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009;
Amended by Stats. 1985, Ch. 1199)
Section 65452. Optional subjects
The specific plan may address any other subjects which
in the judgment of the planning agency are necessary or
desirable for implementation of the general plan.
(Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009)
Section 65453. Adoption/amendment procedure
(a) A specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific
plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may
be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative
body.
(b) A specific plan may be repealed in the same manner as
it is required to be amended.
(Repealed and added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009; Amended
by Stats. 1985, Ch. 1199.)
Section 65454. Consistency with the General Plan
No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the
proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general
plan.
(Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009)
Section 65455. Zoning, tentative map, parcel map, and
public works project consistency with specific plans
No public works project may be approved, no tentative
map or parcel map for which a tentative map was not
required may be approved, and no zoning ordinance may be
adopted or amended within an area covered by a specific
plan unless it is consistent with the adopted specific plan.
(Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009)
Section 65456. Fees and charges
(a) The legislative body, after adopting a specific plan,
may impose a specific plan fee upon persons seeking gov-
ernmental approvals which are required to be consistent with
the specific plan. The fees shall be established so that, in the
aggregate, they defray but as estimated do not exceed, the
cost of preparation, adoption, and administration of the
specific plan, including costs incurred pursuant to Division
13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Re-
sources Code. As nearly as can 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
persons who benefit from specific plans for the costs of
developing those specific plans 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.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 60016, a city or county may
require a person who requests adoption, amendment, or
repeal of a specific plan to deposit with the planning agency
an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the plan,
43
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
amendment, or repeal prior to its preparation by the planning
agency.
(c) Copies of the documents adopting or amending the
specific plan, including the diagrams and text, shall be made
available to local agencies and shall be made available to the
general public as follows:
(1) Within one working day following the date of adop-
tion, the clerk of the legislative body shall make the docu-
ments adopting or amending the plan, including the dia-
grams and text, available to the public for inspection.
(2) Within two working days after receipt of a request for
a copy of the documents adopting or amending the plan,
including the diagrams and text, accompanied by payment
for the reasonable cost of copying, the clerk shall furnish the
requested copy to the person making the request.
(d) A city or county may charge a fee for a copy of a
specific plan or amendments to a specific plan in an amount
that is reasonably related to the cost of providing that
document.
(Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009; Amended by Stats. 1985,
ch. 338 and Ch. 1199; Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1572)
Section 65457. CEQA Exemption
(a) Any residential development project, including any
subdivision, or any zoning change that is undertaken to
44
implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an
environmental impact report has been certified after January
1, 1980, is exempt from the requirements of Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources
Code. However, if after adoption of the specific plan, an
event as specified in Section 21166 of the Public Resources
Code occurs, the exemption provided by this subdivision
does not apply unless and until a supplemental environmen-
tal impact report for the specific plan is prepared and
certified in accordance with the provisions of Division 13
(commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources
Code. After a supplemental environmental impact report is
certified, the exemption specific in this subdivision applies
to project undertaken pursuant to the specific plan.
(b) An action or proceeding alleging that a public agency
has approved a project pursuant to a specific plan without
having previously certified a supplemental environmental
impact report for the specific plan, where required by subdi-
vision (a), shall be commenced within 30 days of the public
agency's decision to carry out or approve the project.
(c) This section does not supersede but provides an alter-
native procedure to Section 21080.7 ofthe Public Resources
code.
(Added by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1009)
Appendix C
Local Specific Plan
Guidelines
Many local jurisdictions have adopted written specific
plan guidelines. These guidelines establish the ground rules
for preparing and adopting a specific plan within a particular
jurisdiction. The guidelines are effective at keeping specific
plans consistent with the local general plan by establishing
minimum content requirements and by specifying a com-
mon format for all plans that will be adopted by a commu-
nity. They also provide developers with a written summary
of what a specific plan is and how it is used in that jurisdic-
tion.
Guidelines act to facilitate the preparation and adoption
of specific plans by standardizing the local procedure for
evaluating and considering such plans. Standardizing the
specific plan format through local guidelines also helps
planners and other staff members familiarize themselves
with new plans. This, in turn, reduces the potential for errors
to occur during the administration of the plan.
The Office of Planning and Research encourages cities
and counties which will be considering several specific
plans in the future or that regularly use specific plans to
implement their general plans to adopt their own specific
plan guidelines. The following outline provides one ex-
ample of what local guidelines might contain.
SPECIFIC PLAN GUIDELINES
Introduction: What is a Specific Plan?
a. Explains what specific plans are and how they are
used in the community
b. Discusses the relationship between specific plans
and the local general plan's objectives, policies,
and implementation measures
c. Enumerates localpolicies, regulations orprograms
that directly relate to specific plans
2. Plan Content
a. Reviews the state -mandated issues per §65451,
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Local Procedures
a. Enumerates the required submittals (i.e., legal de-
scription, maps, application form, environmental
assessment information, etc.) and submittal speci-
fications (i.e., maps sizes, etc.)
b. Enumerates locally -required studies or reports (i.e.,
economic impact study, market analysis, archeo-
logical survey, geologic report, etc.)
c. Describes the staff review procedure, including
pre -filing conference (if applicable) and the initial
staff review of the application
d. Defines the roles of the staff and the developer in
planning and the related environmental review
(i.e., who does what, how many copies of each
document must be submitted for review, when does
staff review the developer's work, etc.)
e. Reviews the CEQA/environmental review process
and local CEQA guideline requirements, if any
f. Describes the hearing/public meeting process (i.e.,
public notice requirements, roles of the planning
commission, advisory committee, and legislative
body, projected number of hearings, etc.)
g. Enumerates the criteria by which the planning
commission and legislative body will evaluate the
proposed specific plan
h. Specifies the required method of plan adoption
(i.e., by resolution, ordinance, or both)
i. Enumerates the required planning and processing
fees
4. Plan Format
a. Presents an outline of how the specific plan is to be
organized (e.g. the chapters containing policies,
regulations, and other topics)
b. Establishes standards for the design and content of
the plan's diagrams/maps
c. Establishes standards for the design and size of the
plan and diagrams (i.e., loose-leaf, bound, type -
including projected land uses, infrastructure iden-
tification, and implementation and financing pro-
grams
b. Reviews locally -required issues that must be ad- 5.
dressed in each specific plan
c. Specifies the types of criteria (e.g., policy state-
ments, regulations), standards, text and diagrams
that must be included in each specific plan
written, size specifications, etc.)
d. Provides examples of acceptable format
Application Forms (attachments to the local guidelines)
a. Specific plan application form (contents based on
local needs)
b. Environmental analysis form
c. Related application forms (i.e., rezoning, subdivi-
sion map, etc.)
d. List of fees
45
The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans
Bibliography
Bass, Ronald E., et al., CEQA Deskbook, 2nd ed., Solano
Press, Point Arena, 1999 with 2001 supplement.
Airport Land Use Planning Handbook: A Reference and
GuideforLocalAgencies, California Department ofTrans-
portation, Division of Aeronautics, Sacramento, 1994.
Curtin, Daniel J. Jr., Curtin's California Land Use and
Planning Law, 21 st ed., Solano Press, Point Arena, 2000.
Fulton, William J., Guide to California Planning, 2nd ed.,
Solano Press, Point Arena, 1999.
The California Planner's Book of Lists, Governor's Office
of Planning and Research, Sacramento, 2000.
General Plan Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning
and Research, Sacramento, 1998.
A Planners Guide to FinancingPublic Improvements, 1997,
Governor's Office ofPlanning andResearch, Sacramento,
1997.
Planning, Zoning, andDevelopmentLaws, 2000, Governor's
Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento, 2000.
Kelly, Eric D., Selecting and Retaining a Planning Consult-
ant, PAS Report 443, American Planning Association,
Chicago, IL, 1993.
Kostka, Stephen L. and Zischke, Michael H., Practice
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Con-
tinuing Education of the Bar, Berkeley, 1996.
46
Longtin, James, Longtin's California Land Use, 2nd ed. and
1997 Supplement, Local Government Publications, Ber-
keley, California, 1987.
Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Greenway Guidelines,
3rd ed., National Recreation and Park Association, Alex-
andria, VA, 1996.
Revitalizing Downtown, National Trust for Historic Preser-
vation, 1991.
Remy, Michael H., et al., Guide to the California Environ-
mental Quality Act, 10th Ed., Solano Press, Point Arena,
1999.
Internet Sites For Planning Information:
American Planning Association, APA:
http://www.planning.org
American Planning Association, California Chapter:
http://www.calapa.org
California Environmental Resources Evaluation System
(CERES), California Resources Agency:
http://ceres.ca.gov
Land Use Planning Information Network (LUPIN), Califor-
nia Resources Agency:
http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/