California Land Use and Planning

California's Land Use Planning Concept

California acknowledges the need for an officially adopted planning strategy among its cities and counties. In doing so, the State has required each city and county to prepare a plan to meet its future goals and expectations. The concept of a master or "general plan" acts as the blueprint in identifying the important community issues and creates the pathway to the future. Added with the mix of, what is considered and recognized as paramount to successful land use management, the remaining four major planning issues: Zoning Ordinances, Redevelopment, the Subdivision Map Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the "general plan" is to ensure that decisions involving the future growth of the State are made at the local planning level. The subsequent information of this paper provides a perspective on these major land-use planning issues and their relevant impact.

Although the state is seldom involved in local land use, the foundation for local planning is California law. Each of the 534 incorporated cities and counties in California are required to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan to identify its physical development (Nissen, 2001). As a means of bringing cities and counties into state compliance, the plans become the official policy for the design and location of housing, business, industry, transportation, parks, noise pollution, environmental hazards and conservation. The cities and counties are empowered by the State to create and identify a local legislative body with enforcement powers. Each city and county retains the responsibility for the planning decisions made within its jurisdiction. Through the use of zoning, subdivision and other ordinances/laws/codes to regulate land use, the local jurisdiction is relegated the task of ensuring that polices in the general plan are carried out.

Historical Perspective

In the middle of the nineteenth century, California was recognized as the untold promise land on the Pacific Coast: gold, easy mineral wealth, exotic places and exciting events. By 1900, the United States truly extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific. On April 18, 1906, an earthquake shook the city of San Francisco for two long minutes, engulfing the city in three days of fire. The quake left 500 dead and destroyed more than 28,000 buildings, more than a third of the homes, offices and stores in the city (Reading California's Early History, 2004). This devastation showed the world that the State's bountiful natural resources and mysterious frontier did not make it immune from Mother Nature's capacity to destroy.

The destruction of San Francisco put California in the forefront of American community planning, particularly, in the area of redevelopment; it was a wake-up call for California to face a new century with a new sense of reality and maturity not experienced before. In 1927, California became the first state to require local governments to form planning commissions to identify a format as a guide to city growth and development. By 1937, California was the only state to require all its cities and counties to adopt master plans for growth to ensure public welfare (Freeman, Fulton and Shigley, 2004).

Today, urban development and redevelopment in California are influenced by a number of factors; characteristics of a community that attract people to a city or community, i.e., larger homes, more land, proximity to cultural and entertainment events, etc. Providing the kinds of neighborhoods and housing opportunities people want is critical for developing, redeveloping and revitalizing cities. Businesses are also attracted to cities because of roads, utilities, work force, cultural activities, diverse housing opportunities, access to mass transit, etc.

On the other hand, many cities suffer from poorly functioning school systems, high tax rates, deteriorating housing, political unrest, concerns about crime, public safety and blight. Those sensitive to these factors and who have the financial ability relocate because it is easier than fighting city hall. Today, there are a number of choices to relocate to a friendlier community and help build a new status. These choices exist because of efforts made on the part of the planners.

Influential Planners

The current thrust of planning is to create livable communities with an emphasis on quality-of-life foundations, as well as economic and socioeconomic infrastructures. It is important to recognize the various groups and people who influence the planning process and implementation:

Ð'* Planning CommissionsÐ'--usually private citizens appointed by the governing body, advise the elected officials on planning policy, such as the general plan, and typically have limitations on the amount of influence they may yield.

Ð'* Elected OfficialsÐ'--city council members, board of supervisors and elected mayors are ultimately responsible for land use decisions.

Ð'* State and Federal AgenciesÐ'--frequently have separate permit processes for environmental issues, such as the California Costal Commission, or the federal government, which owns 50% of the land in California.

Ð'* ActivistsÐ'--usually consist of environmental groups or special interest groups who respond to specific projects; their muscle is flexed through the state or federal court systems.

Ð'* HomeownersÐ'--the "politics of proximity," particularly property values, have united homeowners through associations, over land use disputes; usually over affordable housing, where to "stick" it.

Ð'* DevelopersÐ'--land owners and private enterprise make a good number of the key decisions that shape a community; their actions are often determined by the economics of the marketplace (Dye & MacManus, 2003).

Sometimes the players are not so readily visible or obvious. Last September, the Bush Administration awarded $24.6 million to help rural communities stimulate economic development and create jobs, and affordable housing in 32 states and Puerto Rico (Sullivan, 2003). These communities will use the funding as seed money, as this funding will generate more money from public and private sources to pay the start-up costs for activities undertaken by the various communities (California will receive approximately $2,150,000). The California Supreme Court is still undecided about the makeup of the California Costal Commission, which has issued more that 100,000 development, permits in its 30-year history (Egelko, 2003, p.A28). The appellate ruling threatens to shift costal planning to local