California Land Use and PlanningEssay Preview: California Land Use and PlanningReport this essayCalifornias Land Use Planning ConceptCalifornia 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.
The Planning for San Diego Commission (RFP) [6] states, “The City Council of San Diego must formulate a plan for its City Development Park district, a common plan for the preservation and use of public land and historic cultural assets in the park. An RFP is an assessment that, based on factors including the size, location, economic impact, population density, accessibility, safety impacts, accessibility (e.g., density in a particular building or lot, use of public roads or bus) and noise pollution, design, operations, resources, population impact and environmental impacts, the overall planning plan and all public-private partnerships. A RFP is required to meet or exceed a target number of the planned changes in the park area (i.e., 1,000 square feet, 20,000 square feet of open space and an existing park site). As a public-private partnership, the planning is subject to the same public-private agreement as an RFP.
At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for example, policy makers, planning officials and campus staff were encouraged at least once to use the RFP “to assist in the process of establishing a Plan For San Diego.” For residents, the RFP provides guidance about what “design, operations, resources, size, location, economic impact, population density, accessibility, safety impact, accessibility (e.g., noise pollution), design, operations, resources, and demographic information that helps the City Council and other governing departments make decisions for the park area.” In addition to facilitating community input and coordination, it is a critical tool of environmental assessments and control to protect and protect the environment in the park. As one study put it, at the 2012 DPP, “The use of environmental analysis and control and other environmental assessments of community-level planning in San Diego has increased the number of cities participating in planning, education, and community development efforts for the park area, resulting in a significant increase in funding for the park and contributing to continued conservation of the park’s biodiversity, ecologically relevant resources and public health.” By providing state-of-the-art technology that assesses the state of a community planning process, and identifying and meeting a level of accountability for local planning decisions made on an individual basis across all communities, the RFP will protect communities from the ever-growing burden of environmental complaints and noise pollution.
One of the most important aspects of planning and creating sustainable communities is that they are accountable citizens. Many in urban areas are unaware of the fact that there are no city plans for the parks and that they are not involved in regulating their citizens’ activities, as determined by their citizens’ right to their property. So local planners, through the use of RFPs that allow the creation and implementation of new parks and to encourage the purchase of property in urban areas, will benefit from the city’s ongoing ability to provide citizens with information about their property rights and their responsibilities as owners.
In 2012 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a plan to eliminate 10 percent of the water in Lake Oroville from the Sacramento River as part of its efforts to help protect and preserve lake habitats. It included a detailed plan to create three “solutions for Lake Oroville to address land use problems, including the management and implementation of a plan to establish a plan for the area” in collaboration with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. On April 9, 2014, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife announced that “The Secretary of the California Fish and Game, the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, the State of California’s Environmental Protection Agency, and the California Bureau of Mines are working collaboratively to enhance the conservation of the endangered Lake Oroville and improve the current planning process for the State, the
Historical PerspectiveIn 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 Californias Early History, 2004). This devastation showed the world that the States bountiful natural resources and mysterious frontier did not make it immune from Mother Natures 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 PlannersThe 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:
Planning CommissionsЖusually 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.
Elected OfficialsЖcity council members, board of supervisors and elected mayors are ultimately responsible for land use decisions.State and Federal AgenciesЖfrequently 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.
ActivistsЖusually consist of environmental groups or special interest groups who respond to specific projects; their muscle is flexed through the state or federal court systems.
HomeownersЖthe “politics of proximity,” particularly property values, have united homeowners through associations, over land use disputes; usually over affordable housing, where to “stick” it.
DevelopersЖland 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
s, which currently are “distressed” by the state-imposed cost. But even more ominously from the perspective of the community, by a state-sponsored decision the question is still “what would happen to a neighborhood of roughly 14,000 people where all of the other community centers exist?” and what can be done to make “economic development a community success story” or “how do you put together social safety nets for your people who also live in those communities?”
An Economic Recovery, Recovery by State (Grossman, 1989).
Although our focus here is clearly to focus on economic recovery, the same can be said about recovery by state. For this purpose, we will deal with states that do not pursue economic recovery.
For a comprehensive state policy analysis and a discussion of this “economy miracle” see E. R. L. Varela et al. “Economic Recovery in California: an in-depth analysis of both California policies, economic development (as the state develops), the role of the private sector, and various other factors” (New York Times, August 30, 1989, p. F19). For further details see the E. L. Varela, J. W. Davis, S. M. Vetter et al. Labor Market Effects in the 1970s and 1980s (New York: University of California Press).
The economic recovery of the United States is generally considered to be the result of a combination of state, federal factors. Although the most important factor for the development of economy or social welfare is the public’s willingness to have economic and social welfare services provided, some of the most important factors are also relatively low (including poverty and low health-care costs). But economic recovery by state is different. In the absence of an explicit economic recovery by the government, or at least a minimal economic recovery by any state, one is generally free to think about economic recovery and the way to overcome its challenges. The problem is much more complex than to say, “We will rebuild this city (i.e., build it in order to attract foreign trade).” Or one might say “Can we build a car in America again? How can we move our economy to a new generation of Americans? Do we have new technology? Or is this just a case of low energy prices?”
One way to consider the economic downturn of the 1970s and 1980s is “how can we make real change to make sure this thing is good, well maintained, and sustainable again?” Or, “We should stop subsidizing the industries that are producing the worst things in society, and instead look at the alternatives and see how we can actually provide more services and services rather than simply providing free services and services because of high inflation. In other words, we can save money.”
While this theory might seem like a great deal, it turns out to be a problem because there is simply no evidence that the recovery in the recent past has been completely balanced. In fact, the most recent financial data released show that for every dollar in government money spent on infrastructure (including roads and bridges) the growth rate drops