Van De Kamp, 030784 CAAGO, AGO 83-804

Docket Nº:AGO 83-804
Case Date:March 07, 1984
JOHN K. VAN DE KAMP Attorney General
RODNEY O. LILYQUIST Deputy Attorney General
AGO 83-804
No. 83-804
California Attorney General Opinion
Office of the Attorney General State of California
March 7, 1984
         THE HONORABLE ROBERT PRESLEY, MEMBER, CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE, has requested an opinion on the following question:          Is a parcel specific map required for the land use element of a general plan adopted by a city or county?          CONCLUSION          A parcel specific map is not required for the land use element of a general plan adopted by a city or county.          ANALYSIS          Section 65302 of the Government Code[1] states:
"The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements: "(a) A land use element which designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private land. The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall also identify areas covered by the plan which are subject to flooding and shall be reviewed annually with respect to such areas. " ........................ "
         The question presented for analysis is whether a parcel specific map2 is necessary to meet the requirements of section 65302, subdivision (a). We conclude that it is not; rather, a diagram of general locations illustrating the policies of the plan is sufficient.          Each city and county in California is required to prepare a general plan to "serve as a pattern and guide for the orderly physical growth and development and the preservation and conservation of open space land of the county or city and as a basis for the efficient expenditure of its funds relating to the subjects of the general plan." (§ 65401, subd. (a); see generally Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110, 120; City of Los Angeles v. State of California (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 526, 533; Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 875, 880-881; Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 997; City of Santa Ana v. City of Garden Grove (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 521, 532; Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 723, 732; Cal Zoning Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1969), § 2.23, p. 31, hereafter cited "C.E.B."; Diener, Defining and Implementing Local Plan--Land Use Consistency in California (1978) 7 Ecology L.Q. 753, 754-756, hereafter cited "Diener"; Comment, Selby Realty Co. v. City of Buenaventura: How General is the General Plan? (1974) 26 Hastings L.J. 614, 616, hereafter cited "Selby"; Comment, "Zoning Shall be Consistent With the General Plan"—A Help or a Hindrance to Planning (1973) 10 San Diego L.Rev. 901, 902, hereafter cited "Zoning"; Perry, The Local "General Plan" in California (1971) 9 San Diego L.Rev. 1, 1-2, 7, hereafter cited "Perry.")          A general plan has nine mandatory elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open-space, seismic safety, noise, scenic highways, and safety. (§ 65302; see Twain Harte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Tuolumne (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 664, 671; City of Los Angeles v. State of California, supra, 138 Cal.App.3d 526, 530; Camp v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 334, 348; Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 998.)          Various governmental decisions, such as the enactment of zoning ordinances, approval of subdivision maps, and issuance of building permits, must be consistent with the provisions of the applicable general plan. (See §§ 65567, 65860, 66473.5, 66474; City of Los Angeles v. State of California, supra, 138...

To continue reading