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
map
2
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...
