HomeMy WebLinkAboutR07-Economic Development Agency
o
o
o
o
o
DBVBLOPMBBT DBPAIlTMBBT
OF TlIB CITY OF SAIl BBRlUIlDIBO
IlBOUBST FOil COIMISSIOB/C01JlIICIL ACTIOB
From:
KBlmBTH J. HENDERSON
Executive Director
Subject: IlOWB'lOWB UIlBAB PLAB
Date:
November 25, 1991
SvnoDsis of Previous CnMMissionlCouncil/CnMMfttee Action(s):
On October 18, 1991, the Community Development Commission received a
presentation regarding a development concept by Rancon Development for
its downtown project. The need for a specific plan to guide downtown
development was discussed.
(SYNOPSIS COBTIBDBD OB BBXT PAGE...)
Ileco..~ded Motion(s):
(Mavor an" CftIIIMnft Cnun~il ')
(
MOTIOB A
THAT A DOWNTOWN PLANNING TASK FORCE BE ESTABLISHED AND BE
COMPOSED OF MAYOIl HOLCOMB, COUNCILWOMAN ESTRADA,
COUNCILMAN IlEILLY, AND FIVE CITIZENS TO BE APPOINTED BY
THE MAYOR.
(MOTIOn COBTIBDBD TO BBXT PAGE ...)
~~RSOB
Executive Director
Administrator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Person(s):
Ken Henderson/John Hoeaer
Phone:
5081
Project Area(s): Central City (CC)/Central City North (CCN) Ward:
One (1)
Supporting Data Attached:
Staff ReDort
FUNDING IlEQUIREMENTS:
Amount: $ 60.000
Tax Increment
Source:
Budget Authority:
Reauested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission/Council Botes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJH:JBH:lag:2204J
COMMISSIOlf MEETING AGENDA
Meeting Date: 12/02/1991
Agenda It_ IIuIIIber: -2-
o
o
o
REQUEST FOR COIKISSg/COUllCIL ACTIOlf Continued... 0
Downtown Urban Plan
lfoveaber 25, 1991
Page lfmDber -2-
SvnoDsis of Previous ComBissionlCouncil/Comaittee Action(s) Continued:
On October 21, 1991, the Commission Referred the matter of creating a
specific plan for downtown development to the Redevelopment Committee
for review and recommendation.
On October 24, 1991, the Committee asked that staff analyize prior
downtown plans, evaluate a California Environments Quality Act "CEQA"
specific plan and a more flexible planning approach, prior to returning
to the committee with a more detailed analysis.
(
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJH:JBH:lag:2204J
COIKISSIOlf MDTIlfG AGENDA
Meeting Date: 12/02/1991
f
Agenda Item lfumber:
REQUEST FOR COIMISSIOR/COmrCIL ACTIOR Continued...
Downtown Urban P1l1lV"'"'\ 0
Rovember 25, 1991 '-I
Page lfumber -3-
o Recollllllended Motion(s} Continued:
(Communitv Deve10nMPnt Commission)
MOTIOR B THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BE AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE A
CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 PLUS EXPENSES WITH PROJECT
FOR PUBLIC SPACES, INC. TO DRAFT AN URBAN PLAN FOR DOWNTOWN
UNDER THE DIRECTIOR OF THE DOWNTOWN PLANNING TASK FORCE.
(C..-mftv Deve10nMPnt Commisssion)
MOIIOR C THAT A BUDGET OF $60,000 BE ADOPTED FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES, INTERNS, AND EXPENSES FOR THE DOWNTOWN URBAN PLAN.
,
o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o
KJH:JBH:1ag:2204J
COIMISSIOR MEETING AGEllDA
Meeting Date: 12/02/1991
Agenda Item lfumber: .1
o
o
o
o
o
DBVBLOPMBBT DBPARTMBBT
OF TJIB CITY OF SD BBUARDIJIO
STAFF REPORT
Downtown Urban Plan
Downtown San Bernardino is now at a turning point where it can begin to
build a truly urban environment for its central business district.
With its historic basis as a governmental center, the downtown area is
now attracting the interest of major developers who are concerned with
the relationships between the structures they propose and the public
spaces in which they are placed. To carry out the policies of the
City'S General Plan, an Urban Plan needs to be created.
EXECUTIVE SlMIARY
If this agenda item is approved, a Downtown Planning Task Force will be
created which, using the services of a consultant, will prepare an
urban plan of the downtown area for presentation to the Mayor and
Common Council. The expected timeframe to create the plan is 120
days. This short time frame is possible because the plan will be a
"policy" urban plan rather than a "regulatory" Specific Plan.
e
* It is proposed that the plan be created under the direction of a
Task Force composed of the Mayor, two (2) councilmembers, and five
(5) citizens appointed by the Mayor.
* The proposed budget for the plan is $60,000 which includes
consulting fees, interns for data collection, and expenses.
* The proposed consultant is Project for Public Spaces, Inc., a
national non-profit organization with extensive experience.
* The Urban Plan is expected to be either a policy type of specific
plan or a community plan.
To facilitate review, a table of attributes for alternative planning
approaches is attached that summarizes the material discussed in the
staff report and will assist in weighing the pros and cons of
individual types of plans.
BAcrl;Romm
San Bernardino is approaching a fundamental change in the nature of
its real estate character. It has been, and largely remains, blessed
----------------------------------------------------------------
KJH:JBH:lag:2204J
CO!!IIISSIOB MElTIBG AGBKDA
MeetiDa Date: 12/02/1991
Agenda Its Jfumber: 2-
o
o
DBVELOPMDT DBPAR:L1'II51'f.r STAFF REPORT
Downtown UrblUl PllUl
November 20. 1991
Page lIuIIber 2
o
with lUl abundant supply of inexpensive land. In the next long-term
development cycle, however, the downtown core will have an opportunity
to start its development as a truly urban center where land becomes a
scarce commodity. While the Carousel Mall will remain as an example of
a suburban style mall for a long period of time, major new developments
will be oriented to the urban nature of a downtown composed of
intensive mixed uses placed adjacent to each other.
Large suburban commercial spaces are characterized by their automotive
orientation and are typically a parking lot in which an anchor such as
an office building or a major retailer is placed. Uses are separated
by delineated zones, physical barriers and other buffers. Urban
downtown centers are characterized by taller buildings that contain
large populations together with higher density, clustered commercial
and recreational facilities. They create intense relationships between
diverse land uses which must be unified and linked through public
spaces and amenities that relate to pedestrian oriented activities.
o
Today, we can foresee high capacity theater and entertainment uses
becoming economically feasible in the downto~area. Similarly, it is
now becoming feasible to start new medium rise office buildings
together with street level urban retail uses. Eventually, we will have
a strong residential base in intimate contact with these office and
retail uses. All of these uses must interact in the limited space of
the downtown core which requires that they be planned in such a way as
to harmonize and to draw upon each other and upon appropriate public
amenities. This planning is both constrained and assisted by existing
buildings which provide a built environment or background against which
the new development will take place.
The City's General Plan provides goals for the development of downtown
into an urban setting. The Development Code recognizes some special
needs for downtown in the treatment of parking, setbacks, and building
height bonuses. Neither, however, provides a mechanism or program for
reaching (or even measuring) the goals of the General Plan. An urban
plan is needed to provide policy which will be responsive to changing
demands yet capable of identifying the steps that will lead to a
quality urban character for a new downtown core.
THE tJ1!RAN PLAR
o
By creating an urban plan that is flexible and responsive to our
changing needs, we will have a ~'po1icy" type of plan rather than a
"regulatory" Specific Plan. The-policies and programs within the plan
will serve to guide the development and use of the central business
district. The plan will provide a framework for resolving conflicts
among competing interests and help to facilitate the interaction
between government, business and development.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJH:JBH:lag:2204J
COIft[SSION IIBIlTIltG AGBlIDA
MeetiDc Date: 12/02/1991
Agenda It_ lIuIIber: -J.-
o
o
o
o
DBVBLOPMBIr DBP............. ST.U'I' JIBPORr
Downtown Urban Plan
Wovember 20, 1991
Page lfullber 3
o
Because the downtown is the symbolic and functional center of the
greater San Bernardino area, an urban plan will enhance the image of
the entire City. The plan will also identify and characterize
development opportunities. It will, therefore, be an excellent
marketing tool for attracting new development and businesses to the
City.
While the plan will not rigidly identify specific uses such as "a bank
on this comer" or "a hotel at that intersection", it will callout
particular needs for public amenities and infrastructure, both for the
downtown as a whole and for identified development situations. The
plan can identify the focal points for particular facilities, either
pUblic or private, and can plan for subdistricts smaller than those of
the General Plan. The plan will advance the design of the City,
providing a balance between aesthetics, function and economic forces.
The approach for developing the plan will involve assembling base data
on such things as pedestrian counts, vehicle analysis, surveys of
employees, pedestrians, and retailers, as well(as a detailed inventory
of the area (to the extent that Main Street and others have this
information available the process will be shortened and less
expensive). With the base data in place, there will be a process of
developing potential objectives and plan components. This will be done
with staff and with community groups such as the Convention Visitors
Bureau and Main Street Boards of Directors. The proposals will be
reviewed by the Downtown Planning Task Force described below and, under
the guidance of the Task Force, an overall plan summary will be created
that identifies particular needs for detailed design and provides the
framework for the final planning effort. At this time, the Task Force
would make a decision on the planning boundaries to be used for the
remainder of the planning process. This will take about 60 days to
complete and represents Phase I.
The development of the completed plan in Phase II will be affected by
the decisions in Phase I. The expectation is that it will include a
program of uses, general urban design guidelines, and the public
actions, incentives, and other considerations necessary for successful
implementation of the plan. When the Task Force is satisfied with the
product, it will be brought to the Mayor and Common Council for
consideration. Depending upon the availability of information and
ability to achieve clear agreement on direction, the plan can be
completed in 120 days.
------------------------------------------------------------~-------------------
KJH:JBH:lag:2204J
COIMISSIOW MBBTIWG AGDDA
Meeting Date: 12/02/1991
Agenda Itea lfumber: +-
o
o
o
o
DEVELOPMDr DBPAa:uumr STAFF REPORT
Downtown Urb_ Pl_
November 20, 1991
Page Bulllber 4
o
ALTBlllIATIVB PU1IIIT1IC APPROACllES
The principal alternativea to the proposed urb_ pl_ are either a
"regulatory" type of specific plan (which would be more restrictive and
controlling) or an area plan (which would become an additional element
in the City'S General Plan). A section of a report from the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research is attached which provides more
detailed information. The section is entitled Part One: The SDecific
flIn, but it also provides comparative information on area plans and
community plans.
As proposed here, the urban plan will be between the outside cases.
The proposal contains insufficient time and budget resources (within
the $60,000 and 120 day time frame parameters) to develop a "regulatory"
type of specific plan, and there is no advantage to simply developing
additional goals for a new chapter in the General Plan. Instead, an
effective plan will need the development policies and implementation
measures that can be contained in a community plan or, perhaps, a
"policy" type of specific plan. (
The attached information is helpful because it outlines the nature of a
specific plan which can actually be quite general. Briefly, the
statutory requirements are that it provide specific detail on the
nature of the land uses, on the nature of the infrastructure needed to
support the land uses, on the standards under which development will
proceed, _d on a program of implementation measures including public
works projects and finanCing.
These requirements c_ be met with a plan that is based upon policy
rather than regulation, a plan that does not require preparation of an
environmental impact report, and a plan that can be prepared in a
relatively short time frame and adopted by resolution rather than by
ordinUlce. The need here is for a plan that provides a flexible link
between the General Plan and particular development proposals.
The exact nature of the urban plan will be determined by the Task
Force, particularly as a result of the decisions made at the end of the
Phase I workshop. In any case, the effort would be to produce:
* A plan that can be adopted by resolution rather than by ordinance;
* A policy plan rather than a regulatory plan;
* A plan which does not trigger preparation of an impact report;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJH:JBH:lag:2204J
comaSSION IIBBTII'G AGEBDA
Meeting Date: 12/02/1991
Agenda ltall Bulllber: +
o
o
o
o
DEVELOl'MIlRr DBPAK:umnr STAn' REPORT
Downtown Urban Plan
November 20, 1991
Page Nullber 5
o
* A plan which correlates land uses with supporting infrastructure
and determines which infrastructure needs need to be met and when;
* A plan with a program of implementation measures; and
* A plan with standards against which development proposals can be
measured.
This will provide the most efficient means of establishing a plan which
provides management programs to reach the goals contained in the
General Plan and to create an effective and functional downtown.
mE CONSULTANT
The proposed consultant is Project for Public Spaces, Inc. (PPS) of New
York. In their work for Rancon, PPS has already conducted meetings
locally discussing and l!X8IIIining the problems of downtown. Recent
l!X8IIIples of its work in community planning and in retrofitting public
spaces includes: Master Plan, Springfield, MAl Belmont Shore, Long
Beach, CA; Block 57, Salt Lake City, UT; Rockefeller Center, New York,
NY; and Solar Oasis, Phoenix, AZ.
Project for Public Spaces is a national non-profit organization with
extensive consulting experience in the development of low cost, locally
based growth proarama. They follow a distinctively participatory
process in collecting data and defining issues as well as in concept
development. A vital component of the process is, therefore,
establishing a hiah-level advisory aroup for the planning effort.
mE IlOWlr.fOWlI l'UIIIITBG TAliI' FORCE
The proposal is to estabUsh a "blue ribbon" committee to auide the
development of the urban plan. It will be composed of the Mayor and
two councilmembers as well as five citizens to be appointed by the
Mayor. The two (2) councilmembers will be Councilwoman Esther Estrada,
First Ward, whose ward includes the downtown area and Councilman Jack
Reilly, Second Ward, who has extensive planning experience. The Task
Force will oversee the development of the plan and make recommendations
to the Mayor and Common Council. Staff for the Task Force will be
provided by Kenneth Henderson for the Development Department, Al
Boughey for the Planning Department, Roger Hardgrave for Public Works,
and Ann Harris for Main Street.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJH:JBH:lag:2204J
ClMIISSIOII IllErIlIG AGDDA
Meeting Date: 12/02/1991
Agenda Item llumJer: -1--
o
o
o
o
o
DEVELOPIIIBr DBP.un.....u STAn' REPORT
Downtown Urban Plan
November 20, 1991
Page IIuIIber 6
TIIB BUDGBT
To create the plan will require an estimated $60,000, including
consulting fees, interns doing survey work, and expenses. This amount
may need to be changed depending upon the decisions made at the end of
Phase I, but it is expected to be sufficient for the plan as currently
envisioned.
RBC~A.TION
This proposal has been jointly developed by staff of the Development
Department and the Planning and Building Services Department. On
November 21, 1991, this matter was discussed by the Redevelopment
Committee.
The Committee and staff recommends adoption of the form motion.
,
~OB' Executive Director
Develo~t Deparl:lleD.t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJH:JBH:lag:2204J
COIlUSSIOB MEBTIlIG AGENDA
Meeting Date: 12/02/1991
AgeDda Itell llullber: +
--"
ATTRIBUTES OF VARIOU~ANNING APPROACHES 0
DECISION REGULATORY POLICY COMMUNITY AREA
FACTOR SPECIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PLAN
0 PLAN PLAN
------- ------- ------- ------- -------
COST/TIME Most cost Moderate Moderate Least cost
and time cost/time cost/time and time
FORMAT Separate Separate Component(s) Portion of or
plan plan within the optional element
General Plan in General Plan
ADOPTED BY Ordinance Ordinance or Resolution Resolution
Resolution
AMENDMENTS As necessary As necessary L imited/yr Limited/yr
REQUIRED Prescribed Prescribed Minimal No statutes
CONTENTS by statutes by statutes requirements
c
FOCUS Regulation Policies Policies Goals
0 INFRA- Required Required Optional Optional
STRUCTURE element element element element
PLAN
EIR Most Possibly Possibly Least
REQUIRED? likely needed needed likely
COMPLEXITY Greatest Moderate Moderate Least
DVLPR VESTED None None None None
RIGHTS
FINANCING Required Required Optional Optional
PLAN
COMPREHEN- Yes Probably Possibly Not likely
SIVE?
0 GENERAL PLAN Required Required ReqUired Required
CONSISTENCY
1--
o
o
Part One:
The Specific Plan
1.1 WHAT IS A SPECIFIC PLAN?
o
As ilS name implies. a specirlc plan is a delaiJcd plan ror the
development or a specirlc ana. II implemenlS the local
general plan by creatina a brid&e between pneraJ plan
policies and individlllll development pnlpOSIlIs. IdeaJJy, a
specifIC plan direclS all Cac:ets or rUlW'll development: rrom
the distribution or land uses 10 the location and lizinc or
suppon.inc inrlllStnlCtunl, rllllll methods or flllllllClnl public
improvemenlS III standards or developmenL
SpecifIC plans are adaptable. They lIIlIY cover a very large
area. such as the 18,000 IICIa aCf'ected by San Bernardino
County's Chino Hills Specific Plan, or a smaU sile or less
than an acre. They may address a single-use like Rancho
CIIClIIIlOIIC.'s Caryn PIanncd Communilyorsevcral uses as
in the Moreno Valley Ranch SpecifIC Plan. They may
Iddress only those issues COIIlIined in the pneral plan or
they may branch 0lJ1 inlO other subjeclS or local relevance.
The local city COlJncil or bolInI or SUperviSOlS is rree 10
choose the Subjecl or a specific plan. All specific plans.
however. must meet the requimncnlS SCI rorth in Govern.
ment Code section 6S45 I (noUl: all code references In lIlis
paper are 10 the Calirornla Oovcmmenl Code unless oIhcr.
wisc specified).
Specific plans may be adopted either by resolution or ordi.
lWICe (section 65453(a)). Thlsallows citieund counties 10
choose whelhcr lIleir specifIC plans will be policy-oric:nted
(adopted by resolution). regulatory (adopted by ordinance),
or bolll. In plannins. land use reculations. such as zoning
codes. are lIdopled by ordinance. An ordilWlCe is a local
SllltUle, enforceable by law. By conlrllSl, p!anninl policies
such as Ihe pncraJ plan lIrelldoptcd by resolution. Accord.
ins 10 Blad,'s LawDicriDNIT1.1he lCrm .resolution. ....is
usually employed III denote Ihe adoption or a motion. the
subject mailer or which would not properly constillile I
UIUle.... Such is not law bul merely a rorm in which a
legislative body expressca an opinion.. Orlhe98 post. 1984 . .
plans reviewed by OPR ror lIlis repon. about hair weill
ellllCted by resolution.
A local government's lIdoption or a specific pl:J/I is II Icgis.
11Itive lIet-as is the lIdoption or . generlll pili!! or zoninc
ordinance. Consequently, specifIC plans lire subjecllo voter
refercnd:t:tnd initi:ttives (Yosl Y. Thomas (198~) 36 C:tI.3d
561).
o
o
SpoclIlc PIa.. .. Ihe ColcI.. 5.0..
.
PROS AND CONS
On lhe positive side,aspecilic plan can bel "one-slOp shop"
where I particular area's development policies. land use
reculalions, caplllll improvemenlS prosnun. and fmancinl
meas_ lire aU contained in one tidy package. The lIdop-
tion or a specifIC plan can reduce rhe number of en:tClmCnlS
(e.C., zone chanCes) necess:ary 10 lhe deVelopmenl entitle.
ment process.
A specifIC plan willi I projCa phasins progr:un can synchro.
nize development willi. Ceneral plan's implementllion
schedule. Tbererore. unlike other pnerlll plan implemenl:l.
tion measures, I specifIC plan can be boIh IonS.:tnd shon.
lerm in its outlook.
A specific plan is also I COSl savcr. By prccisclycorrclaling
land uses with s6pp0rtinc inrrastructure, a specific plan
helps deveJopen and IocaJ governmenlS avoid inemcienl
over or undersizlnl of streets. sewcn, WllUlr lines, and the
like.
The specifie plan process provides an opportUnity ror public
involvemenl in community or neighborhood planning. The
resullinC plan may represcnt I consensus or compromise
_I residelIts. developers. and lIIe city or COlJnty regard.
ing the rutunl or Ihe planninc area.
A specifIC plan is I flexible means or implementing the
IeneraI pia A specifIC plan may contain speci:tl stand:trds
ror I panicu\ar area. For instance, the plan may impos.:
regulations IOprolCCl particular n:tturlll rC:tlUreS (Los G:tIOS'
Hillside SpecifIC Plan). impose design cuiclelines spceili.
c:tIly llIi.Iored ror a ,ite (Chino', E:tst Chino SpecifIC PI:u.i.
identiry neclSSllly exactions or dedications (Berkeley's
WalCrCronl Specific Plan) or eSlllblish lhe responsibilities of
lhe publie and private sectors (Banning'sSun Lakes Village
SpecifIC Plan).
In addition. a specifIC plan may directly impose euctions
and pa)'lllenl schedules (adopted by ordinance) in conjunc-
tion willi ilS capillll improvement policies. The policies
conllllnecl in lhe pllln may CSl:tblish Ihe required "nuus.
between Ihe development eXllClions beinC imposed :tnd the
developmenl.induced impacts being ",itig:ucd by lIIose
euctions. Eslllblishment of a direct connection belween
impacts and ell:tCtions is imporlllnt 10 ensure lhe le;:31
dcCensibilily or rhe ex:tctions.
1"
$pftinc Pb... .. .... Colli... Sta..
o
. . FUlwe developmenl an benefit rrom lhc JI'OWldwork laid
. by IlIJCCirtC plan. For example, lhc pnlII':IIlI EIR adopted
() for I .pecirac plan may SU'C:lmlinc lhc processing of sub!c.
.. . quem discretionary projects by obvi3ting lhc need for addi.
liona1 environmelWll docwnenl:llion.
On lhc negative side, specirlc plan preparation is DOl casy-
lhc advanlages 10 be gained rrom I specifIC plan may be
oUlweighed by lhc complex ill' or its prepar:llion. II requires
collecting and analyzing dclailcd dala. This mal' ncccssiuce
eXlCnsive slafr time or Ibe assislllnce or outside consUllanlS,
thereby clellting additional COSlS. Similarly, administering
che plan may require extra slaC( time, especially if lhc plan
conlains regulations no! used elsewhere in lhc jurisdiction.
Specific plans adopted ror I sinllle, proposed project mal'
become superfluous ir che project rails lhrough. As I result.
eXlcnslve revision or repeal or Ibe plan may eventually be
necessary. Similarly, a plan chalis inOexible may be subject
to rrequent revisiOll as markets or conditions change.
Furlhcnnore, adoPlion oil plan docs noc _ development
righlS. Devclopers are DOl assured ofbcing able 10 develop
in Ibe IIIlIIIncr originally approved by lhc plan, nor are
residents assurcd Ibat che plan will DOl be amended or
repeaJed in lhe rUlure. Development aar=mencs and vesting
ICnlative .ubdivision maps exist ror chat purpose.
'QTATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Scction 6S4S1 mandalCs chal IlIJCCirtC plan conlain:
(a)...a teXI and diallr.lm or diallr.lfRS which specify all or
lhe rollowing in delail:
(I) The disuibution, location, and eXlent or lhe uses or
land. including open SJl3CC. wilbin Ibe area covered
by lhe plan.
(2) The proposed disuibution,Ioc:llion. and exlent and
intcnsily or major components or public and priVale
Ir.Insponalion. sewage, Wiler. dIlIinage. solid waSle
disposal, enerl)', and other essential racilities pro.
posed 10 be localed wilbin lhc area covered by lhe
plan and needed 10 support lhe land use. described
in lIIe plan.
(3) Slandard. and crilCrIa by which development will
Proceed, and standards ror the conservation, clevel...
opmenc. and utilizalion or nalural resuurces. where
applicable.
(4) A program or implcmenlation measures including
regulations, programs, publie works projeclS. and
financing measures nccessary 10 arry OUI para.
graphs (I), (2). and (3).
O (b)...a stllement or che relationship or the specific plan
willi Ibe general plan.
Thc specific pl:ll\ SlalUle is reprodu:ed in ilS enlirely in
Appendix C of lIIis report. These statuICS apply 10 all
10
o
counties and general law cities. They do lKIlapply 10 chartcr
cities unless illCOlpOr.llCd by local clwtcr or code (a1IhouCh
char1ereitics mUst comply willi lhe Subdh'ision Map Act's
findings requircmcnlS pcrIaininllO a subdivision's consis.
lCnCy with a specirlc plan).
COMMON SHORTCOMINCS
OPR round chat a number o( lhe plans we reviewed in
preparing this paper did no! address all the subjcclS COlI.
laincd in Ibe statUle. Commonly. the plans lacked one or
more or the (ollowing:
. Maps, diagramsor descriptions orthe location. eXlenl. size,
and distribution or lhe major inrrasll'UCture componcnts
nceded lO serve lhe project. Energy and solid ""3Sll:
racilities were those most often missed.
. A delailed discussion or the.measures chat implcmentlhc
specifIC plan. .
. A discussion or lhc methOds 10 be used in financinllhe
WrastrUCture improvements identified in che plan and a
program ror enacting such flllllllCing methods.
. A discusslOll or lhe relationship or lhc spccirlc plan 10 the
general plan Including, but not limited 10, cencral plall
desipl3lions applicable 10 Ibe spccirtc plan 3nl4. a com.
parison or goals. objectives. and policies or the Ilcru:ral
plan 10 those or lhe specific plan, and a discussion or how
lhe spccirtc plan implcmenlS the gen=1 plan.
1.2 AREA AND COMMUNITY
PLANS
California planning practice has blurred the distinction be.
tween specirtc plans. community plans, and Man:a" plans lO
such an extent chat these tenns are orlen usccI inlC1Chan,ca-
bly. The rollowing discussion will c1ariry lhc dirferences
among these kinds or plans.
Community plans are dcfUlCd in seCtiOll 21083.3 o( lhe
Public: Resources Code as being I pan of the gencral pl:ll\
which: (I) applies 10 a geographic portion or lIIe city or
county; (2) either includes or references allche m3ndamry
clements of agcneral plan; and, (3) conlains specific devcl-
opmenl policies and measures to implemcnltho!C policies.
A general plan made up or component community plans is
authorized by section 6SJO I (b) of the Government Code.
Area plans are 1101 specirtcaUy mentioned by Calirornb
SlatUles. They are, however, implicilly. authorized under
section 6S301(b), which allows individual sections or Ibe
general plan 10 be devolCd lO I parcicular subject or leG-
graphic area. They are also aUowed as optional elemcnlS or
subjects undenection 65303. In c1lhercase, area "I.1IIS focus
on local or neighborhood concerns in gre3lerdclaillll~n d~s
the general plan. Like a community plan. an area plan is a
r'
o
-
o
5pod1lc PI... I. ... Cold... 5....
o
componenl of and must be inremaJly consistenl willi Ihc
general plaa.
How do specific plans differ from community plans and area
plans?
o Unlike an area plan or community plan. a specirlc plan is
IIOl a component or a general plan. II is a scparalCly
adoplcd general plan implcmenlalion docwnenL
o SpecirlC plans IIl'C prescribed by SlIlUle (secLion 654'0 el
scq.). There arc no SlalUlCS WI! speciry !he CGnlenlS or
area plans.
o The pmposc or a spccirlC plan is "syslemaLic implcmenLll-
Lion- (sccLion~SO)or!he pncraJ plan. Ncilhcrcommu.
nilY plans nor area plans have !his emphaslson implemen-
LlIlion-lhey arc concerned willi poIicy.1IOl1hc nulS and
bolts or pulLing plaMing goals and policies inlO errCCL
. A1lhough a specirlC plan mllSl be "~parcd, adopled. and
amended in Ihc same manner u &cncraI plans- (secLion
6""3). il may be amended U orlCn U necessary. The
number or yearly communi!)' and area plan amendments
is SUbjccllO Ihc limits sel OUI in section 6'3S8.
o SpecirlC plans must identiCy p.~ major componcnlS
or inrraslruc:twe needed 10 suppon planned land uses.
Communily plans and area plans may, butlll'C IIOl required
lO do lhis.
o A speeirlc plan may be adoplCd or amended by ordinance
or by resolution. Community and arca plans may be
adoplCd or amended only by resolution.
'0
1.3 STATUTORY CHANGES
o
Prior lO January 1. 198' a speeuac plan was expcclCd lO
address "e:lCh elcmelll or!he leneral plan- u weD u cmLain
spccirlc inrOl'llllllion rel~g III land use and conservation
patterns and reSulalions. AS 2038 (Slals. 1984, Cb. 1009)
deleted !hose requiremenrs, IClICllIlizcd !he required con.
lenlS of !he spccirlC plan, and standardized !he adminiSUll.
Lion and adoption or spccirlC plans. In addition. AS 2038
emphasized !he plannins and financinl or inhslruc:cure to
sUPpclC11hc land uses projcclCd by the plan. The provision
requirinl specific plans IOdiscuss Ihc IlICILions and I:lllent or
proposed _ts and roads was repealed (ronner section
654S1 (b)).
AS 2038 n:LlIined Ihc roUowinS imponant specific plan
reatures:
o A specific plan isadopled rorlhc purpose oCsYSlCmaLicaJly
implementing a SCllClllI plan.
o SpecirlC plans may cover all or a porLion or the JC08r.Ip/lic
area addressed by a seneral plan.
o Specirac plans may address issues ncx discussed in Ihc
leneraI plan.
o Each spccirlC plan and all amendmcnlS IhcrcIO must be
consistent wi!h !he adoplCd general plan.
o All %OIling. SUbdivisions, and public works approved
wi!hin a spccirlC plan area mllSl be consistent wilh 1h3t
plan.
<<
~