2013-2014

Annual Planning Survey

Results

Governors Office of Planning and Research

Annual Planning Survey Results 2013 - 2014 Edition

This publication may reference complex and specific laws and regulations. Any such reference is provided merely for the convenience of the reader. Always refer to the actual text of applicable laws and regulations, and consult with an attorney when applying them. As with all Governors Office of Planning and Research publications, you may print all or part of this book. You need not secure permission; just copy it accurately and give credit to the Governors Office of Planning and Research. For further information on this or other OPR documents, please visit www.opr.ca.gov or contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613.

State of California Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor Governors Office of Planning and Research Ken Alex, Director 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 (916) 322-2318 www.opr.ca.gov Document prepared by Laura Carr and Louise Bedsworth

i | P a g e

Message from the Director

The Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is pleased to announce the release of the 2013 Annual Planning Survey Results. OPRs Annual Planning Survey is distributed to all cities and counties in the State and provides the latest information on local planning activities, the status of city and county General Plans, and an important local perspective on issues of statewide concern. This edition features a summary presentation of the results of the 2013 Annual Planning Survey. OPR conducts The Annual Planning Survey each year to gain perspective on policies and planning and the local level and to evaluate trends over time. Responses to the survey aid OPR and state agencies in the development of tools and guidance for local government. The survey highlights areas of progress, challenges to implementation of specific policies, and the helps to identify areas of local leadership. This year, in addition to positing the full results of the survey, we are providing an overview of climate policies at the local level, including transportation, land use, and climate action planning. These local policies and programs are a critical piece in the States efforts to address climate change. We appreciate the time and effort of all the cities and counties in completing the Annual Planning Survey. We hope that the Survey is useful, and welcome comments and suggestions on how it can be most effective and informative. Sincerely, Ken Alex

ii | P a g e

Table of Contents Introduction to the Survey ............................................................................................................................ 1

Survey Respondents ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Spotlight on Priority Issues ........................................................................................................................... 4

Climate Change ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Transportation .......................................................................................................................................... 9

Infill Development ................................................................................................................................... 13

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................... 17

Recommended Reading .......................................................................................................................... 19

Appendices: ................................................................................................................................................. 20

Survey Responses........................................................................................................................................ 20

Appendix A: ................................................................................................................................................. 21

About the Jurisdictions ............................................................................................................................... 21

Table A1: About the Jurisdictions ........................................................................................................... 22

Appendix B: ................................................................................................................................................. 28

Status of Local General Plans ...................................................................................................................... 28

Table B1: General Plan Status by City ..................................................................................................... 29

Table B2: General Plan Status by County ................................................................................................ 35

Table B3: General Plan Elements Currently Undergoing an Update ...................................................... 37

Table B4: Expected Completion of General Plan Update ....................................................................... 44

Table B5: Expected Completion of Housing Element Update ................................................................ 50

Index B1: Optional Elements and Year Adopted..................................................................................... 56

Appendix C: ................................................................................................................................................. 65

Land Use Planning ....................................................................................................................................... 65

Table C1: Does your General Plan address GHG emission reduction? ................................................... 66

Table C2: Does your General Plan address adaptation to climate change? ........................................... 72

Table C3: Does your General Plan address health? ................................................................................ 78

Table C4: Does your General Plan address infill development? ............................................................. 83

Table C5: Does your General Plan address renewable energy? ............................................................. 89

Table C6: Does your General Plan address economic development? .................................................... 94

iii | P a g e

Table C7: Does your General Plan address air quality? ........................................................................ 100

Table C8: Does your General Plan address military land use compatibility? ....................................... 106

Table C9: Does your General Plan address equity (e.g. access to transit, parks, etc.)? ....................... 111

Table C10: Does your General Plan include policies that explicitly promote health equity? ............... 116

Table C11: Does your General Plan include policies to support lifecycle housing or aging-in-place? . 122

Table C12: Does your General Plan include policies that help to mitigate the urban heat island? ..... 128

Table C13: Does your General Plan include policies for zoning that ensures grocery stores and/or fruit and vegetable vendors are accessible across your jurisdiction? .......................................................... 134

Table C14: Does your General Plan include policies for zoning that facilitates opportunities for local food production including urban or front/backyard farming and community gardens? ..................... 140

Table C15: Does your General Plan include policies to promote active living? .................................... 146

Table C16: Does your jurisdiction address public safety by considering crime prevention strategies in the planning and development process? .............................................................................................. 152

Table C17: Does your jurisdiction address public safety by encouraging developers to incorporate crime prevention into project design?.................................................................................................. 158

Table C18: Does your jurisdiction address public safety by working with law enforcement to review development proposals for design strategies that can help prevent crime through increased surveillance and access control?........................................................................................................... 164

Table C19: Does your jurisdiction have any Specific Plans that are located within a half mile of an existing or planned major transit stop? ................................................................................................ 170

Table C20: For which topics does your jurisdiction track progress toward your General Plans goals using metrics or indicators (e.g. vehicle miles traveled or housing density)? ...................................... 178

Table C21: Does your jurisdiction have school siting and development policies that encourage neighborhood schools? ......................................................................................................................... 186

Table C22: Does your jurisdiction have school siting and development policies that support schools in areas with safe pedestrian or bicycle access? ...................................................................................... 192

Table C23: Does your jurisdiction have school siting and development policies that support schools in infill or priority development areas? .................................................................................................... 198

Table C24: Does your jurisdiction have school siting and development policies that support rehabilitation of existing school facilities? ............................................................................................ 204

Table C25: Does your jurisdiction have school siting and development policies that support the joint use of school facilities? ......................................................................................................................... 210

Table C26: Does your jurisdiction have school siting and development policies that align with goals for complete streets? ................................................................................................................................. 216

Table C27: Additional comments on school siting and development policies ..................................... 222

iv | P a g e

Table C28: Has your agency implemented Form-Based Zoning Codes to promote infill development? .............................................................................................................................................................. 223

Table C29: Has your agency implemented density bonuses to promote infill development? ............. 229

Table C30: Has your agency implemented reduced parking requirements to promote infill development? ....................................................................................................................................... 235

Table C31: Has your agency implemented expedited permit processing to promote infill development? ....................................................................................................................................... 241

Table C32: Has your agency implemented improvements of infrastructure and/or utilities in infill areas to promote infill development? ............................................................................................................ 247

Table C33: Has your agency implemented financial incentives for development costs, particularly for infrastructure, to promote infill development? ................................................................................... 253

Table C34: Has your agency implemented financial incentives for pre-development costs (fee reductions, waivers, deferrals) to promote infill development? .......................................................... 259

Table C35: Does your agency coordinate CEQA analysis and review (tiering, etc.) to promote infill development? ....................................................................................................................................... 265

Table C36: Has your agency developed partnerships with school districts to promote infill development? ....................................................................................................................................... 271

Table C37: Additional comments on tools to promote infill development .......................................... 277

Table C38: Has your jurisdiction relied on the new streamlining procedures in 15183.3 of the CEQA Guidelines (effective February 2013) to approve any infill projects? .................................................. 278

Appendix D: ............................................................................................................................................... 285

Land Use Planning Military .................................................................................................................... 285

Table D1: Are any portions of your jurisdiction within 1,000 feet of a military installation, within special use airspace, or beneath a low-level flight path, as described in Government Code 65944? 286

Table D2: Do you use the California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst (CMLUCA)? .................. 292

Table D3: Do you require that development applications identify if a proposed project is within 1,000 feet of a military installation, within special use airspace, or beneath a low-level flight path, as described in Government Code 65944? ............................................................................................. 294

Table D4: Has your department ever sent an SB 1462 letter to the Military Point of Contacts list maintained by OPR? .............................................................................................................................. 296

Table D5: Does your jurisdiction consider the impact of new growth and development on military readiness activities and operations when preparing or updating its General Plan, as described in Government Code 65944? .................................................................................................................. 297

Table D6: Will your jurisdiction consider the impact of new growth and development on military readiness activities and operations in your next General Plan update? When will your next substantial General Plan update take place? .......................................................................................................... 299

v | P a g e

Appendix E: ............................................................................................................................................... 301

Open Space and Resource Conservation .................................................................................................. 301

Table E1: Has your jurisdiction adopted park and open space standards that include acreage standards? ............................................................................................................................................. 302

Table E2: Has your jurisdiction adopted park and open space standards that include proximity to residential areas? .................................................................................................................................. 308

Table E3: Has your jurisdiction adopted park and open space standards that include standards for new development? ....................................................................................................................................... 314

Table E4: Has your jurisdiction adopted park and open space standards that include a goal for park or open space area per resident? ............................................................................................................. 320

Table E5: Has your jurisdiction adopted park and open space standards that include tree canopy or tree planting standards? ....................................................................................................................... 326

Table E6: Has your jurisdiction adopted park and open space standards that include guidelines for development of pocket parks? ............................................................................................................. 332

Table E7: Has your jurisdiction adopted park and open space standards that include guidelines for development of community gardens? .................................................................................................. 338

Table E8: Additional comments on park and open space standards .................................................... 344

Table E9: Has your jurisdiction used open space to achieve goals for protection from sea level rise?345

Table E10: Has your jurisdiction used open space to achieve goals for urban heat island mitigation? .............................................................................................................................................................. 351

Table E11: Has your jurisdiction used open space to achieve goals for groundwater recharge? ........ 357

Table E12: Has your jurisdiction used open space to achieve goals for flood protection? .................. 363

Table E13: Has your jurisdiction used open space to achieve goals for storm water collection? ........ 369

Table E14: Additional comments on use of open space to achieve goals ............................................ 375

Table E15: Has your jurisdiction adopted programs and/or policies to improve water use efficiency? If yes, what form do these programs and/or policies take? .................................................................... 376

Appendix F: ............................................................................................................................................... 385

Climate Change Reducing Emissions ...................................................................................................... 385

and Building Resilience ............................................................................................................................. 385

Table F1: Which of your General Plan elements contain language on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? ............................................................................................................................................. 386

Table F2: Which of your General Plan elements contain language on preparing for impacts of climate change? ................................................................................................................................................. 390

vi | P a g e

Table F3: Which of your General Plan elements do not contain any language related to climate change? ................................................................................................................................................. 393

Table F4: Has your jurisdiction adopted, or is it in the process of adopting, policies and/or programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? ........................................................................................... 397

Table F5: If your jurisdiction has adopted, or is in the process of adopting, policies and/or programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, what form do these programs and/or policies take? ........ 403

Table F6: Do your jurisdictions policies and/or programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions address community or municipal emissions? ....................................................................................... 409

Appendix G: ............................................................................................................................................... 422

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency ................................................................................................. 422

Appendix H: ............................................................................................................................................... 477

Transportation .......................................................................................................................................... 477

Table H3: Has your jurisdiction streamlined permitting and inspection processes for plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) charging infrastructure installations? ............................................................................. 490

Table H4: Has your jurisdiction participated in, or conducted, training and education programs for local officials on plug-in electric vehicles (PEV)? .................................................................................. 496

Table H5: Has your jurisdiction conducted outreach to local residents and businesses on your plug-in electric vehicle (PEV)-related activities and policies? ........................................................................... 501

Table H6: Additional comments on steps your jurisdiction has taken to become plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) ready ............................................................................................................................................ 507

Table H7: Has your jurisdiction modified the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways? (Government Code 65303(b)(2)(A) ..................................................................................................... 508

Table H8: Has your jurisdiction adopted a Bicycle Master Plan? ......................................................... 513

Table H9: Has your jurisdiction adopted a Pedestrian Master Plan? ................................................... 518

Table H10: Has your jurisdiction adopted a combined Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan?.................... 523

Table H11: Has your jurisdiction adopted a Complete Streets Plan? ................................................... 528

Table H12: Does your jurisdiction use Level of Service (LOS) standards in CEQA analysis or in your General Plan? ........................................................................................................................................ 533

Table H13: Do you have an alternative methodology to measure traffic impacts? ............................. 539

Appendix I: ................................................................................................................................................ 541

Joint Planning Efforts ................................................................................................................................ 541

Table I1: Does your jurisdiction undertake joint planning efforts in the context of infrastructure planning? ............................................................................................................................................... 542

vii | P a g e

Table I2: Does your jurisdiction undertake joint planning efforts in the context of watershed planning? .............................................................................................................................................................. 548

Table I3: Does your jurisdiction undertake joint planning efforts in the context of habitat restoration? .............................................................................................................................................................. 554

Table I4: Does your jurisdiction undertake joint planning efforts in the context of Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) planning? ............................................................................................... 560

Table I5: Does your jurisdiction undertake joint planning efforts in the context of transportation planning? ............................................................................................................................................... 566

Table I6: Does your jurisdiction undertake joint planning efforts in the context of land use planning? .............................................................................................................................................................. 572

Table I7: Does your jurisdiction undertake joint planning efforts in the context of greenhouse gas emission reduction? .............................................................................................................................. 578

Table I8: Does your jurisdiction undertake joint planning efforts in the context of climate adaptation planning? ............................................................................................................................................... 584

Table I9: Have you worked with your regional transportation planning agency in the development of a sustainable community strategy for your region? ................................................................................ 590

Table I10: Have you updated or are you planning to update your General Plan to be consistent with a regional SCS? ......................................................................................................................................... 596

Table I11: Have you updated or are you planning to update your General Plan to be consistent with a regional Blueprint Strategy? ................................................................................................................. 602

Appendix J: ................................................................................................................................................ 607

2013 Annual Planning Survey ................................................................................................................... 607

1 | P a g e

Introduction to the Survey

Each year the Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR) distributes a survey to the planning department of every city and county in the state. The survey asks for basic information on the status of each jurisdictions planning efforts, such as the year of the most recent comprehensive update to required and optional General Plan elements. The survey also explores in greater depth the policies and programs that jurisdictions are implementing, including the issues prioritized and tracked, incentives developed and taken advantage of, planning tools deployed, resources and documents generated, and more. The survey was distributed electronically in summer of 2013 and could be completed online or in hard copy format. Survey responses were accepted by OPR through early 2014. The responses from the survey are used to help inform the work of OPR and other state agencies as they develop guidance and tools for local governments. The results are made available each year on OPRs website in pdf and Excel document format.

2 | P a g e

Survey Respondents

In 2013, a total of 267 of the 540 cities and counties (49.4%) in California completed the Annual Planning Survey. This includes 43 of the 58 counties (74%) and 225 of the 482 cities (46.7%). The results were provided by each individual jurisdiction and represent the jurisdictions current, adopted policies and/or programs. Please contact the individual jurisdictions for more detailed information. Please note that the City and County of San Francisco is counted only once in the total of 267, but is included in both the county and city figures and in both the city and county lists below. Cities Agoura Hills American Canyon Anaheim Antioch Arcadia Artesia Auburn Avenal Azusa Bakersfield Baldwin Park Banning Bell Belmont Benicia Beverly Hills Biggs Bishop Brawley Brentwood Burbank Calexico California City Calistoga Carlsbad Carpinteria Cathedral City Ceres Cerritos Chino Chowchilla City of Commerce City of Industry Claremont Coachella Colma

Colton Concord Corning Corona Coronado Costa Mesa Cotati Culver City Cupertino Dana Point Danville Delano Dinuba Dixon Duarte East Palo Alto El Cerrito El Monte Elk Grove Emeryville Escalon Escondido Exeter Fairfield Ferndale Folsom Fontana Fort Bragg Fountain Valley Fowler Fremont Fullerton Garden Grove Glendora Gonzales Hawaiian Gardens Hayward

Healdsburg Hercules Hermosa Beach Holtville Hughson Huntington Beach Imperial Beach Indian Wells Indio Ione Jackson Jurupa Valley La Habra heights La Mesa La Palma La Verne Lafayette Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods Lake Forest Lancaster Lawndale Lindsay Livermore Livingston Lomita Lompoc Long Beach Loomis Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Angeles Los Banos Los Gatos Lynwood Mammoth Lakes

Manhattan Beach Manteca Marina Mendota Menlo Park Merced Mill Valley Millbrae Milpitas Mission Viejo Modesto Monrovia Montclair Moorpark Moraga Mountain View Murrieta National City Needles Nevada City Newark Newport Beach Norwalk Novato Oakley Ojai Ontario Orinda Orland Oxnard Palm Springs Palmdale Paso Robles Petaluma Piedmont Pittsburg Pleasanton

3 | P a g e

Pomona Port Hueneme Porterville Rancho Cordova Rancho Mirage Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Santa Margarita Redding Redwood City Rialto Ridgecrest Rio Dell Riverside Rosemead Ross San Bruno San Carlos San Diego San Francisco San Gabriel San Leandro San Luis Obispo San Marino San Pablo San Rafael Santa Ana Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Santa Maria Santa Paula Santa Rosa Santee Sausalito Seaside Sebastopol Shasta Lake Simi Valley Solana Beach Solvang Sonora South Lake Tahoe South Pasadena

Stanton Suisun City Taft Tehama Temecula Temple City Thousand Oaks Tiburon Torrance Truckee Tulare Turlock Ukiah Union City Vacaville Vernon Victorville Vista Walnut Walnut Creek Watsonville Weed West Covina West Hollywood West Sacramento Westlake Village Wheatland Whittier Wildomar Williams Woodlake Yorba Linda Yountville Yreka Yucaipa Yucca Valley

Counties Alameda Amador Butte Calaveras Colusa Contra Costa Del Norte El Dorado Fresno Humboldt Imperial Inyo Kern Lake Lassen Los Angeles Marin Mariposa Merced Monterey Napa Nevada Orange Placer Plumas Sacramento San Benito San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Yuba

4 | P a g e

Spotlight on Priority Issues Introduction The Governors Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has conducted the Annual Planning Survey for many years, tracking a variety of issues of importance to the State and local jurisdictions. Survey questions are designed to solicit information on the status of city- and county-level planning efforts on these selected topics. This years discussion of Survey results heavily emphasizes climate change. Three other key issues for the statetransportation, infill development, and renewable energy/energy efficiencyare presented in this context as ways of supporting local climate action. Climate change is the greatest environmental challenge of our time, an overarching issue that touches countless aspects of all our lives. Scientific consensus indicates that the changes underway are dramatically altering the planet, resulting in climate disruption, mass extinctions, and transformation of ecosystems. These planetary changes can be seen and felt close to home: there are tangible impacts on California communities infrastructure, natural resources, agriculture, and quality of life. Even larger impacts are projected for the future.1 California is a state with great geographic and climatic diversity. Disruption to current climate conditions will affect each region in different ways and with varying severity. Current and projected disturbances include increased temperatures, sea level rise, reduced winter snowpack, altered precipitation patterns, and more frequent storm events. In turn, these changes have far-ranging impacts, among them altered agricultural productivity, increased wildfire risk, heightened uncertainty of water supply, threatened public health and public safety, altered ecosystem function, and economic discontinuity.2 Individual jurisdictions will need to develop a tailored, relevant, compelling, and effective approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change in their communities. Local governments are valuable stewards with the power and the responsibility to tackle climate change in their planning efforts. They can reduce their communitys greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for unavoidable impacts of climate change, many of which are already underway and that are expected to increase in the future. It is manifest from OPRs extended tracking of climate change planning that local governments are highly active on this issue that is critically impacting their citizens. The following pages thematically explore the 2013 Survey results on climate change, transportation, infill development, and renewable energy/energy efficiency. Please explore Appendices A through I for detailed results in tabular format, and see Appendix J for the 2013 Survey questions.

1 California @ 50 Million: Californias Climate Future. The Governors Environmental Goals and Policy Report (Discussion Draft). Governors Office of Planning and Research. (September 2013) http://opr.ca.gov/docs/EGPR_ReviewDraft.pdf 2 California Adaptation Planning Guide: Planning for Adaptive Communities. Natural Resources Agency. (July 2012) http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/01APG_Planning_for_Adaptive_Communities.pdf

http://opr.ca.gov/docs/EGPR_ReviewDraft.pdfhttp://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/01APG_Planning_for_Adaptive_Communities.pdf

5 | P a g e

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: A Two-Pronged Approach Successfully addressing climate change will require creative planning and proactive implementation of policies and programs. This action on climate change can be grouped into two broad and interrelated approaches: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation entails reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to minimize climate disruption. Californias AB 32 Scoping Plan provides a comprehensive overview of the broad suite of state policies and programs to reduce GHG emissions. Prepared by the California Air Resources Board in 2008 and updated in 2013, the Scoping Plan is the guiding document for the states emission reduction goals.3 Adaptation involves increasing our preparedness and resilience to safeguard California from a changing climate.4 The Natural Resources Agency has developed a four-part Adaptation Planning Guide to support regional and local communities in proactively addressing the unavoidable consequences of climate change.5 Together, mitigation and adaptation are essential to ensuring successful action on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that [t]here is high confidence that neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can avoid all climate change impacts; however, they can complement each other and together can significantly reduce the risks of climate change.6 Local Climate Change Planning The results of the 2013 Survey illustrate that cities and counties are practicing both mitigation and adaptation to address climate change at the local level; however, the results point to mitigation as the more prevalent planning strategy at this time.

3 First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. California Air Resources Board. (May 2014) www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf 4 California @ 50 Million: Californias Climate Future. The Governors Environmental Goals and Policy Report (Discussion Draft). Governors Office of Planning and Research. (September 2013) http://opr.ca.gov/docs/EGPR_ReviewDraft.pdf 5 California Adaptation Planning Guide: Planning for Adaptive Communities. Natural Resources Agency. (July 2012) http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/01APG_Planning_for_Adaptive_Communities.pdf 6 Synthesis Report 4, Summary for Policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, quoted in California @ 50 Million: Californias Climate Future. The Governors Environmental Goals and Policy Report (Discussion Draft). Governors Office of Planning and Research. (September 2013) http://opr.ca.gov/docs/EGPR_ReviewDraft.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdfhttp://opr.ca.gov/docs/EGPR_ReviewDraft.pdfhttp://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/01APG_Planning_for_Adaptive_Communities.pdfhttp://opr.ca.gov/docs/EGPR_ReviewDraft.pdf

6 | P a g e

Over half the responding jurisdictions (154, or 57.7%) indicate they have either adopted or are in the process of adopting policies and programs to reduce GHG emissions. (See Appendix F, Table F4, and Appendix J, Question 33.) Many jurisdictions have included mitigation policies and programs in multiple planning documents. (Figure 1, see also Appendix F, Table F5, and Appendix J, Question 34.)

Meanwhile, a smaller number of jurisdictions, just under half (130, or 48.7%), indicate that they are taking steps to prepare for the impacts of climate change, integrating adaptation into planning documents. (Figure 2, see also Appendix F, Table F7, and Appendix J, Question 37.)

110 98

62

43 33

16

Climate ActionPlan

General PlanPolicies

General PlanImplementation

Measures

GHG EmissionReduction Plan

SustainabilityPlan

Ordinance

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 1. Location of GHG Emission Reduction (Mitigation) Measures

85

62

45 45

11 8

Climate ActionPlan

General PlanPolicies

Local HazardMitigation Plan

Part of RegularPlanning Efforts

Local CoastalPlan

Stand-AloneAdaptation Plan

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 2. Location of Adaptation Measures

7 | P a g e

OPR is particularly interested in how locals have incorporated climate change mitigation and adaptation policies and programs into their General Plans. Again, survey results indicate that GHG emission reduction receives more attention from local planning agencies than does adaptation. This trend holds true in both required and special General Plan elements. (Figure 3, see also Appendix C, Tables C1 and C2, and Appendix J, Question 10.)

The trend is also noticeable at the level of individual General Plan elements. For five of the six required elements, mitigation is discussed substantially more than adaptation. However, adaptation is more commonly considered in Safety elements than mitigation (Figure 4, see also Appendix F, Tables F1 and F2, and Appendix J, Question 32).

86

56

31 21

GHG Emission Reduction Adaptation

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 3. Mitigation and Adaptation in General Plan Elements

In Required Element In Special Element

47

28

49

26

9

57

14 13 11 11 16

19

Land Use Housing Circulation Open Space Safety Conservation

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 4. General Plan Elements Discussing Climate Change

Reducing GHG Emissions (Mitigation) Preparing for Impacts (Adaptation)

8 | P a g e

Municipal and community emissions are addressed almost equally (Figure 5, see also Appendix F, Table F6, and Appendix J, Question 35).

Community Municipal

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 5. GHG Emissions by Source Addressed in Policy

138

135

9 | P a g e

Transportation Alternative Modes, Alternatives Analyses, Alternative Vehicles The transportation sector accounts for the largest volume of GHG emissions in California. A little over 37% of the states total emissions come from transportation (Figure 6). Reducing GHG emissions from this sector is a critical component of avoiding the worst effects of climate change, and local governments have several important functions in reducing transportation sector GHG emissions.

Source: California Air Resources Board7

Local governments are in a position to exert direct control over the land use decisions that shape the transportation system. Practicing an integrated approach to transportation and land use planning can provide a solid foundation for GHG emissions reduction and strengthen local resilience to climate impacts. Multimodal networks that are accessible to all users will be essential to securing California communities future in a changing climate. Furthermore, local governments are responsible for evaluating potential impacts on the transportation system from development or other planning efforts. The metric used to perform this evaluation can be selected for its potential to promote reduction of GHG emissions and otherwise align with modern state planning priorities. Finally, governments can put policies and programs in place to lessen the impact of driving, through incentives to integrate alternative vehicle.

7 California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory, 2000-2012. California Air Resources Board. (2014) http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00-12_report.pdf

Transportation 37%

Industrial 22%

Electricity Generation (in-

state) 11%

Electricity Generation (imports)

10%

Agriculture 8%

Residential 7%

Commercial 5%

Figure 6. California 2012 GHG Emissions by Economic Sector

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00-12_report.pdf

10 | P a g e

Multimodal Transportation The fundamental purpose of a transportation network is to move people and goods to their destinations. This can be accomplished by many modes of travel. Historically transportation planning has prioritized the throughput of automobiles, while characterizing alternatives such as transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians as obstructions to mobility. The California Complete Streets Act put in place the requirement for cities and counties to modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways whenever they next substantively revised their circulation element(Government Code 65302(b)(2)(A)). Designing a transportation network that integrates alternative modes not only expands user access to complete streets but also generates many co-benefits such as cleaner air, greater equity, community development, and improved public health. Planning an Accessible Transportation Network The 2013 Annual Planning Survey posed several questions to jurisdictions about their existing or emerging policy framework to provide incentives for and accommodate alternative modes of transportation. To date, under half of responding jurisdictions (118, or 44.2%) indicate they have modified their circulation element in compliance with the California Complete Streets Act (Appendix H, Table H7, and Appendix J, Question 42). Many jurisdictions, however, have adopted, are developing, or are considering various planning documents in line with Complete Streets philosophy (Figure 7, see also Appendix H, Tables H8 -11, and Appendix J, Question 43).

127

36

61 56

24 18 14

38

16

32 32 31

Bicycle Master Plan Pedestrian Master Plan Combined Bike/PedMaster Plan

Complete Streets Plan

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 7. Planning Documents

Adopted Under Development Under Consideration

11 | P a g e

Transportation Impact Analysis Most jurisdictions around California currently use level of service (LOS) standards to measure potential transportation impacts of development projects and long range plans. LOS standards can be found in General Plans and Congestion Management Plans; LOS is also commonly used in traffic impact studies prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While LOS has been the most prevalent metric for many years, recently it has been criticized for working against state planning priorities such as the development of a multimodal transportation network as laid out in the Complete Streets Act. LOS also conflicts with other State priorities, including emissions reduction; infill development; protection of environmental and agricultural resources; optimization of roadways, including for automobiles; and fiscal responsibility. Recent legislation (SB 743, Steinberg, 2013) required OPR to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to LOS that is more in line with modern state planning priorities to evaluate these transportation impacts. The alternative criteria must promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses (Public Resources Code 21099(b)(1)). Once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include the alternative criteria, delay to automobiles will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Pervasive Reliance on LOS To quantify current use of LOS in transportation impact analysis, the 2013 survey asked jurisdictions to report if they use LOS standards in either their General Plan or in their CEQA analysis. The answer was resoundingly in the affirmative (Figure 8, see also Appendix H, Table H12, and Appendix J, Question 44.) Some jurisdictions, however, indicate that, although it is not a requirement at this time, they are already using an alternative methodology. The alternatives reported are varied, including vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle hours traveled (VHT), trip generation, multimodal level of service (MLOS), accessibility, capacity utilization, and intersection capacity utilization (ICU).

208 224

41

LOS in General Plan LOS in CEQA AlternativeMethodology

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 8. Transportation Impact Analysis

http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_ceqaguidelines.php

12 | P a g e

Plug-In Electric Vehicles Zero-emission vehiclesincluding plug-in electric vehicles, or PEVswill be critical to efforts to reduce transportation-sector GHG emissions. In March 2012, Governor Jerry Brown issued an Executive Order directing state government to help accelerate the market for zero-emission vehicles in California. The Executive Order supports the states goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2020, and also sets a target of 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on California roadways by 2025. A local-level policy and program framework is needed to help facilitate the successful integration of PEVs into the California transportation system. Getting PEV-Ready The 2013 Survey asked jurisdictions to provide details about the steps they have taken to ready their communities for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) (Figure 9, see also Appendix H, Tables H1-6, and Appendix J, Question 41.) In all, over a quarter of reporting jurisdictions have taken some action to modernize their policy framework and infrastructure to prepare for integration of PEVs.

71

54 48 47

29

AdoptedPolicies/Programsto Encourage PEVUse in Municipal

Fleet

ParticipatedIn/ConductedTraining and

EducationPrograms for Local

Officials

Updated Zoningand ParkingPolicies to

Accommodate PEVCharging

Infrastructure inPublic Facilities

StreamlinedPermitting and

InspectionProcesses for

ChargingInfrastructureInstallations

ConductedOutreach to Local

Residents andBusinesses onPEV-Related

Activities andPolicies

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 9. PEV-Readiness

13 | P a g e

Infill Development

The term infill development refers to building on unused and underutilized lands within existing development patterns, typically but not exclusively in urban areas. An infill project might occupy a disused parking lot, an old commercial property, or a former industrial site. Infill development is the first of the States Planning Priorities (Government Code 65041.1), and is a key strategy for efficient growth. Infill is a valuable tool in a planners toolkit and opportunities for infill can be found in urban metropolises, small cities, and rural communities alike.

Infill development is associated with a range of environmental, public health, community, and economic benefits. Building within the footprint of existing development creates compact, walkable, bikeable neighborhoods and downtowns. It reduces driving distances, which in turn can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve regional air quality. Infill also reduces development pressure on outlying areas, preserving open space and preventing the conversion of agricultural land. Mixed-use developments designed around mass transit, walking, and bicycling have been shown to reduce a range of adverse health outcomes, including lung and heart disease, obesity, and other chronic health conditions8. Redevelopment of under-used or abandoned sites has the potential to revitalize communities, making neighborhoods livelier and more vibrant, fostering social connection and engendering a sense of place. By locating new developments near population centers and amenities, communities can take advantage of existing water, sewer, and transportation systems, avoiding the cost of installing expensive new infrastructure. Finally, infill housing has been shown to raise property values and increase the communitys tax base, while infill commercial properties are attractive to developers who are eager to participate in burgeoning downtown markets.

8 Land Use, Climate Change & Public Health Issue Brief. American Lung Association in California. (2010) http://www.lung.org/associations/states/california/assets/pdfs/sb-375_issue-brief_final.pdf

14 | P a g e

Promoting Infill Development Infill development is a subject that appears to have gained traction at a local level across the state. A full 70% of jurisdictions (187) indicate that they address infill development in their General Plan, either in a required or special element (See Appendix C, Table C4, and Appendix J, Question 10). Jurisdictions report using a variety of tools to promote infill development, including density bonuses, reduced parking requirements, and coordination of environmental review (Figure 10, see also Appendix C, Tables C28-37, and Appendix J, Question 18).

151 145

115 105

85 69

57 40 33

24 26 24 25 15 18

30

Density Bonuses

Reduced ParkingRequirem

ents

Coordination of CEQA

Analysis and Review

Expedited Permit

Processing

InfrastructureIm

provements

Partnerships with School

Districts

Financial Incentives forPre-Developm

ent Costs

Financial Incentives forDevelopm

ent Costs

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 10. Tools to Promote Infill Development

Implemented Under Consideration

15 | P a g e

CEQA Streamlining for Infill In order to promote and facilitate infill development, the California legislature passed Senate Bill 226 (SB 226), a piece of environmental quality legislation authored by State Senator Joe Simitian and approved by Governor Jerry Brown in 2011. SB 226 allows for streamlining of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process for eligible infill projects, limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of infill development have been addressed in a planning level decision or by uniformly applicable development policies. Limited Use of SB 226 CEQA Streamlining Currently, only a handful of jurisdictions indicate they have taken advantage of these new streamlining procedures to approve infill projects (Figure 11, see also Appendix C, Table C38, and Appendix J, Questions 19 and 20.) Many jurisdictions not using these provisions indicate that they have not received applications for infill development, or that infill development is not an applicable development type for their community.

31 13%

205 82%

13 5%

Figure 11. Use of CEQA Streamlining Under SB 226

Yes No Don't Know

16 | P a g e

Transit Oriented Development SB 743 (Steinberg, 2013), discussed above, also creates an additional CEQA exemption for certain projects that are consistent with a Specific Plan. The proposed project must be located within a transit priority areathat is, within a half mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. A major transit stop is a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute hours. Potential for Use of SB 743 CEQA Exemption Over a third of responding jurisdictions indicate that they have Specific Plans located within a half mile of an existing or planned major transit stop (Figure 12, see also Appendix C, Table C19, and Appendix J, Questions 13 and 14). These jurisdictions are potential candidates for taking advantage of CEQA exemption for their infill projects under SB 743.

98 39%

146 57%

10 4%

Figure 12. Proximity of Specific Plans to Transit Stops

Yes No Don't Know

17 | P a g e

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Generation of electricity is a large source of GHG emissions in the California economy (Figure 6). One of the easiest and most cost-effective ways to reduce these emissions is energy efficiency.9 Energy efficiencywhereby a service is provided with less energy inputcan even be thought of as an energy source. In California, energy efficiency is the energy source of first priority for meeting new energy demand, followed by clean, renewable energy from sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric facilities. 10 Reducing Energy Use in Existing Buildings Nearly 70% of reporting jurisdictions indicate they have policies or programs in place to reduce energy use in existing municipal buildings. Close to half of jurisdictions indicate they have similar adopted policies or programs for residential and commercial/industrial facilities (Figure 13, see also Appendix G, Tables G1-G3, and Appendix J, Question 38).

9 Energy Efficiency. U.S. Department of Energy. www.energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-efficiency 10 California @ 50 Million: Californias Climate Future. The Governors Environmental Goals and Policy Report (Discussion Draft). Governors Office of Planning and Research. (September 2013) http://opr.ca.gov/docs/EGPR_ReviewDraft.pdf

182

129 127

Municipal Residential Commercial/Industrial

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 13. Adopted Policies/Programs to Reduce Energy Use in Existing Buildings

http://www.energy.gov/science-innovation/energy-efficiencyhttp://opr.ca.gov/docs/EGPR_ReviewDraft.pdf

18 | P a g e

Permitting Solar and Wind Energy Systems On the renewable energy front, jurisdictions have taken action by developing permitting ordinances to facilitate implementation of small-scale renewable energy or distributed energy systems. The Survey collected data on both solar and wind ordinances; jurisdictions indicate that existing ordinances are predominantly relating to solar energy systems (Figure 14, see also Appendix G, Tables G6 and G7, and Appendix J, Question 39).

80

27

13 12

41

29

Solar Permitting Ordinance Wind Permitting Ordinance

No.

of R

espo

nden

ts

Figure 14. Ordinances to Facilitate Development of Small-Scale Renewable Energy or Distributed Energy Systems

Adopted In Development Under Consideration

19 | P a g e

Recommended Reading Climate Change

Overview: Climate Change in California California @ 50 Million: Californias Climate Future. The Governors Environmental Goals and Policy Report, Discussion Draft. (Governors Office of Planning and Research, September 2013) www.opr.ca.gov/docs/EGPR_ReviewDraft.pdf

Mitigation First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (California Air Resources Board, May 2014) www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf

Adaptation Adaptation Planning Guides (Natural Resources Agency, July 2012) www.resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/adaptation_policy_guide/

Transportation Multimodal Transportation Complete Streets Program (California Department of Transportation) www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_streets.html

Transportation Impact Analysis Developing Alternatives to Level of Service (Governors Office of Planning and Research) www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.php

Plug-In Electric Vehicles Zero-Emission Vehicles in California: Community Readiness Guidebook. Toward 1.5 Million Zero-Emission Vehicles on California Roadways by 2025 (Governors Office of Planning and Research, 2013) www.opr.ca.gov/docs/ZEV_Guidebook.pdf

Infill Development CEQA Streamlining Under SB 226 CEQA Streamlining for Infill Projects (Governors Office of Planning and Research) www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb226.php

Transit Oriented Development Under SB 743 Changes to CEQA for Transit Oriented Development (Governors Office of Planning and Research) www.opr.ca.gov/s_transitorienteddevelopmentsb743.php

Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy California Renewable Energy Overview and Programs (California Energy Commission) www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html

Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency Programs (California Energy Commission) www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/

http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/EGPR_ReviewDraft.pdfhttp://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdfhttp://www.resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/adaptation_policy_guide/http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_streets.htmlhttp://www.opr.ca.gov/s_sb743.phphttp://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/ZEV_Guidebook.pdfhttp://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdfhttp://www.opr.ca.gov/s_transitorienteddevelopmentsb743.phphttp://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.htmlhttp://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/

20 | P a g e

Appendices: Survey Responses

21 | P a g e

Appendix A: About the Jurisdictions

22 | P a g e

Table A1: About the Jurisdictions JURISDICTION COUNTY COUNTY SEAT SQUARE MILES NUMBER OF

PLANNERS

Agoura Hills Los Angeles Los Angeles 7.86 5 Alameda County Alameda Oakland 821 19 Amador County Amador Jackson 605 1 director, 1 planner American Canyon Napa Napa 6.1 1 Anaheim Orange Santa Ana 50 18 Antioch Contra Costa Martinez 37 1 Arcadia Los Angeles Los Angeles 11.1 6 Artesia Los Angeles Los Angeles 1.6 2.5 Auburn Placer Auburn 7.5 3 Avenal Kings Hanford 19 1 Azusa Los Angeles Los Angeles 8.9 2 Bakersfield Kern Bakersfield 150 16 Baldwin Park Los Angeles Los Angeles 6.8 1 Banning Riverside Riverside 23.2 1 Bell Los Angeles Charter 2.2 1 Belmont San Mateo Redwood City 4.7 3 Benicia Solano Fairfield 14 2 Beverly Hills Los Angeles Los Angeles 5.7 10 Biggs Butte Oroville 0.6 1 part-time / contract Bishop Inyo Independence 1.9 Unknown Brawley Imperial El Centro 7.55 1 Brentwood Contra Costa Martinez 15 4 Burbank Los Angeles Los Angeles 17.38 15 Butte County Butte Oroville 1670 8 Calaveras County Calaveras San Andreas 1080 5 Calexico Imperial El Centro 8.4 1 California City Kern Bakersfield 203.4 1 Calistoga Napa Napa 2.63 2 Carlsbad San Diego San Diego 40 18 Carpinteria Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 9.3 Unknown Cathedral City Riverside Riverside 22.5 1 Ceres Stanislaus Modesto 8.5 2 Cerritos Los Angeles Los Angeles 8.9 9 Chino San Bernardino San Bernardino 31 6 Chowchilla Madera Madera 30 1 City of Commerce Los Angeles Los Angeles 6.6 2 City of Industry Los Angeles Los Angeles 13 2 Claremont Los Angeles Los Angeles 14.14 5 Coachella Riverside Riverside 28.98 2 Colma San Mateo Redwood City 2 2 Colton San Bernardino San Bernardino 16.1 3 Colusa County Colusa Colusa 1153 1 Concord Contra Costa Martinez 31.13 5.5 Contra Costa County Contra Costa Martinez 732 33 Corning Tehama Red Bluff 2.65 Unknown Corona Riverside Riverside 38.42 4 Coronado San Diego San Diego 13.5 4 Costa Mesa Orange Santa Ana 15.7 6

23 | P a g e

JURISDICTION COUNTY COUNTY SEAT SQUARE MILES NUMBER OF PLANNERS

Cotati Sonoma Santa Rosa 2 2 Culver City Los Angeles Los Angeles 5 8 Cupertino Santa Clara San Jose 11.26 7.5 Dana Point Orange Santa Ana 29.5 Unknown Danville Contra Costa Martinez 18.1 3.5 Del Norte County Del Norte Crescent City 1008 1 Delano Kern Bakersfield 13.37 3 Dinuba Tulare Visalia 6.5 1 Dixon Solano Fairfield 7.1 Unknown Duarte Los Angeles Los Angeles 6.69 3 East Palo Alto San Mateo Redwood City 2.5 3 El Cerrito Contra Costa Martinez 3.7 4 El Dorado County El Dorado Placerville 1805 10 El Monte Los Angeles Los Angeles 9.6 1.5 Elk Grove Sacramento Sacramento 42.15 6 Emeryville Alameda Oakland 1.2 3 Escalon San Joaquin Stockton 2.35 1 part-time Escondido San Diego San Diego 37.36 9 Exeter Tulare Visalia 2.5 1 Fairfield Solano Fairfield 38 4 Ferndale Humboldt Eureka 3567.99 1 Folsom Sacramento Sacramento 27.5 4 Fontana San Bernardino San Bernardino 50 12 Fort Bragg Mendocino Ukiah 7 2 Fountain Valley Orange Santa Ana 9 2.5 Fowler Fresno Fresno 2 1 Fremont Alameda Oakland 90 12 Fresno County Fresno Fresno 6000 19 Fullerton Orange Santa Ana 22.3 5 Garden Grove Orange Santa Ana 18 4 Glendora Los Angeles Los Angeles 19.558 3 Gonzales Monterey Salinas 1.9 1 Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles Los Angeles 0.9 1 Hayward Alameda Oakland 64 7 Healdsburg Sonoma Santa Rosa 4.5 Unknown Hercules Contra Costa Martinez 6 1 Hermosa Beach Los Angeles Los Angeles 1.4 Unknown Holtville Imperial El Centro 1.1 1 Hughson Stanislaus Modesto 2.8 1 Humboldt County Humboldt Eureka 3600 15 Huntington Beach Orange Santa Ana 27 11 Imperial Beach San Diego San Diego 4.5 2 Imperial County Imperial El Centro 4597 6 Indian Wells Riverside Riverside 14.5 2 Indio Riverside Riverside 33.03 2.5 Inyo County Inyo Independence 10140 5 Ione Amador Jackson 4 1 Jackson Amador Jackson 3.8 1 Jurupa Valley Riverside Riverside 43.5 6

24 | P a g e

JURISDICTION COUNTY COUNTY SEAT SQUARE MILES NUMBER OF PLANNERS

Kern County Kern Bakersfield 8161 33 La Habra Heights Los Angeles Los Angeles 6.9 1 La Mesa San Diego San Diego 9.2 5 La Palma Orange Santa Ana 948 Unknown La Verne Los Angeles Los Angeles 9.02 5 Lafayette Contra Costa Martinez 15 6 Laguna Hills Orange Santa Ana 6.695 4 Laguna Niguel Orange 5th District 18 8 Laguna Woods Orange Santa Ana 4 1 Lake County Lake Lakeport 1341 7 Lake Forest Orange Santa Ana 16 7 Lancaster Los Angeles Los Angeles 94 6 Lassen County Lassen Susanville 4720 3 Lawndale Los Angeles Los Angeles 1.9 3 Lindsay Tulare Visalia 2.61 2 Livermore Alameda Oakland 27 9 Livingston Merced Merced 2 1 Lomita Los Angeles Los Angeles 2 2.5 Lompoc Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 11.67 Unknown Long Beach Los Angeles Los Angeles 52 17 Loomis Placer Auburn 7.5 1 Los Altos Santa Clara San Jose 7 4 Los Altos Hills Santa Clara San Jose 9 3 Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles 465 150 Los Angeles County Los Angeles Los Angeles 4083 125 Los Banos Merced Merced 10.3 1 Los Gatos Santa Clara San Jose 14 7 Lynwood Los Angeles Los Angeles 4.7 2 Mammoth Lakes Mono Bridgeport 4 2 Manhattan Beach Los Angeles Los Angeles 3.85 6 Manteca San Joaquin Stockton 20.62 4 Marin County Marin San Rafael 520 19 Marina Monterey Salinas 10 2.15 Mariposa County Mariposa Mariposa 1458 7 Mendota Fresno Fresno 3.25 1 Menlo Park San Mateo Redwood City 18 5 Merced Merced Merced 23.17 5 Merced County Merced Merced 1980 5 Mill Valley Marin San Rafael 4.8 4 Millbrae San Mateo Redwood City 3.2 1 Milpitas Santa Clara San Jose 15 5 Mission Viejo Orange Santa Ana 17 4 Modesto Stanislaus Modesto 37 9 Monrovia Los Angeles Los Angeles 13.6 3 Montclair San Bernardino San Bernardino 5.54 2 Monterey County Monterey Salinas 3300 21 Moorpark Ventura Ventura 12.47 4 Moraga Contra Costa Martinez 9.44 Unknown Mountain View Santa Clara San Jose 12.4 12

25 | P a g e

JURISDICTION COUNTY COUNTY SEAT SQUARE MILES NUMBER OF PLANNERS

Murrieta Riverside Riverside 33.61 5 Napa County Napa Napa 750 13 National City San Diego San Diego 9.2 3 Needles San Bernardino San Bernardino 30.5 1 Nevada City Nevada Nevada City 2 1 Nevada County Nevada Nevada City 978 6 Newark Alameda Oakland 14 3 Newport Beach Orange Santa Ana 51.5 12 Norwalk Los Angeles Los Angeles 9.35 3 Novato Marin San Rafael 27 7 Oakley Contra Costa Martinez 17 2 Ojai Ventura Ventura 4 1 Ontario San Bernardino San Bernardino 50 11 Orange County Orange Santa Ana 948 20 Orinda Contra Costa Martinez 12.7 4 Orland Glenn Willows 2.9 contract = 8-10 hours

/ week Oxnard Ventura Ventura 26 8 Palm Springs Riverside Riverside 94 5 Palmdale Los Angeles Los Angeles 104 4 Paso Robles San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 20 3 Petaluma Sonoma Santa Rosa 14.5 6 (1 Staff, 5 FTE

Contract) Piedmont Alameda Oakland 1.6 4 Pittsburg Contra Costa Martinez 19 4 Placer County Placer Auburn 1,503 22 Pleasanton Alameda Hayward 25 8 Plumas County Plumas Quincy 2613 2 Pomona Los Angeles Los Angeles 22 6 Port Hueneme Ventura Ventura 4.5 0 Porterville Tulare Visalia 17.7 3 Rancho Cordova Sacramento Sacramento 33.6 4 Rancho Mirage Riverside Riverside 27 4 Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles Los Angeles 13.4 9 Rancho Santa Margarita

Orange Santa Ana 12.99 4

Redding Shasta Redding 60 6 Redwood City San Mateo Redwood City 32 6 Rialto San Bernardino San Bernardino 22 3 Ridgecrest Kern Bakersfield 21.42 Unknown Rio Dell Humboldt Eureka 2 1 Riverside Riverside Riverside 81 15 Rosemead Los Angeles Los Angeles 5.2 2.75 Ross Marin San Rafael 1.556 1 Sacramento County Sacramento Sacramento 964 33 San Benito County San Benito Hollister 1391 2 San Bruno San Mateo Redwood City 6 2 San Carlos San Mateo Redwood City 5.5 4 San Diego San Diego San Diego 342.5 72 (includes Planning

26 | P a g e

JURISDICTION COUNTY COUNTY SEAT SQUARE MILES NUMBER OF PLANNERS

& Development Services depts.)

San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco 47 135 San Gabriel Los Angeles Los Angeles 3.9 3 San Joaquin County San Joaquin Stockton 1425 9 San Leandro Alameda Hayward 15 4.5 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 13 10 San Luis Obispo County

San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 3316 40.25

San Marino Los Angeles Los Angeles 3.8 3 San Mateo County San Mateo Redwood City 450 15 San Pablo Contra Costa Martinez 2 3 San Rafael Marin San Rafael 22 5 Santa Ana Orange Santa Ana 27.2 10 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 43 31 Santa Barbara County

Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 2774 47

Santa Clara County Santa Clara San Jose 945 14 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 12 13 Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 440 12 Santa Maria Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 23.5 6-7 Santa Paula Ventura Ventura 4.71 3 Santa Rosa Sonoma Santa Rosa 41.67 8 Santee San Diego San Diego 16 3 Sausalito Marin San Rafael 2.25 3 Seaside Monterey Salinas 9.24 1 Sebastopol Sonoma Santa Rosa 1.8 1.6 Shasta County Shasta Redding 3775 5 Shasta Lake Shasta Redding 10.86 2 Sierra County Sierra Downieville 959 1 Simi Valley Ventura Ventura 42 12 Siskiyou County Siskiyou Yreka 6347 3 Solana Beach San Diego San Diego 3.4 4 Solvang Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 2.4 2 Sonora Tuolumne Sonora 3 1 part-time South Lake Tahoe El Dorado Placerville 16.6 2 South Pasadena Los Angeles Los Angeles 3.4 3.5 Stanton Orange Santa Ana 3.1 2 Suisun City Solano Fairfield 4.1 2 Sutter County Sutter Yuba City 609 3 Taft Kern Bakersfield 15 1 Tehama Tehama Red Bluff 0.9 1 part-time Tehama County Tehama Red Bluff 2950 3 Temecula Riverside Riverside 35 9 Temple City Los Angeles Los Angeles 4 4 Thousand Oaks Ventura Ventura 55 14 Tiburon Marin San Rafael 4.5 land; 16 including

SF bay 3

Torrance Los Angeles Los Angeles 21 13

27 | P a g e

JURISDICTION COUNTY COUNTY SEAT SQUARE MILES NUMBER OF PLANNERS

Trinity County Trinity Weaverville 3208 1 Truckee Nevada Nevada City 34.7 6 Tulare Tulare Visalia 20 2 Tulare County Tulare Visalia 4839 15 Tuolumne County Tuolumne Sonora 2278 4 Turlock Stanislaus Modesto 17 4 Ukiah Mendocino Ukiah 4.6 3 Union City Alameda Oakland 19.5 2 Vacaville Solano Fairfield 27 6 Vernon Los Angeles Los Angeles 5.2 2 Victorville San Bernardino San Bernardino 75 6 Vista San Diego San Diego 18 5 Walnut Los Angeles Los Angeles 9 4 Walnut Creek Contra Costa Martinez 25 10 Watsonville Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 6 2 Weed Siskiyou Yreka 3 0 West Covina Los Angeles Los Angeles 16 4 West Hollywood Los Angeles Los Angeles 1.9 18 West Sacramento Yolo Woodland 22.2 4 Westlake Village Los Angeles Los Angeles 5.4 2 Wheatland Yuba Marysville 1.64 2 Whittier Los Angeles Los Angeles 12.4 5 Wildomar Riverside Riverside 23.69 3 Williams Colusa Colusa 5.44 1 Woodlake Tulare Visalia 3 1 Yorba Linda Orange Santa Ana 17.5 4 Yountville Napa Napa 1.5 2 Yreka Siskiyou Siskiyou 10 0 Yuba County Yuba Marysville 632 2 Yucaipa San Bernardino San Bernardino 27.89 2 Yucca Valley San Bernardino San Bernardino 39 1

28 | P a g e

Appendix B: Status of Local General Plans

29 | P a g e

Table B1: General Plan Status by City JURISDICTION

LAN

D U

SE

CIRC

ULA

TIO

N

CON

SERV

ATIO

N

HOU

SIN

G

NO

ISE

OPE

N S

PACE

SAFE

TY

AIR

QU

ALIT

Y (S

AN JO

AQU

IN

VALL

EY O

NLY

)

Agoura Hills 2010 2010 2010 2013 2010 2010 2010 American Canyon 1994 2013 1994 2011 1994 1994 1994 Anaheim 2004 2004 2004 2014 2004 2004 2004 Antioch 2003 2003 2003 2010 2003 2003 2003 2003 Arcadia 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Artesia 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Auburn 1993 1993 1993 2013 1993 1993 1993 Avenal 2005 2005 2005 2010 2005 2005 2005 2005 Azusa 2004 2004 2004 2013 2004 2004 2004 Bakersfield 2007 2002 2002 2008 2002 2002 2007 Baldwin Park 2002 2002 2002 2013 2002 2002 2002 Banning 2006 2013 2006 2013 2006 2006 2006 Bell 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 1996 Belmont 1982 1982 1982 2010 1996 1982 1982 Benicia 1999 1999 1999 2013 1999 1999 1999 Beverly Hills 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 Biggs 1997 1997 1997 2008 1997 1997 1997 Bishop 1993 2012 1993 2009 1993 1993 1993 Brawley 2008 2008 2008 2013 2008 2008 2008 Brentwood 2001 2001 1993 2012 1993 1993 1993 1993 Burbank 2013 2013 2013 2008 2013 2013 2013 Calexico 2007 2007 2007 2008 2007 2007 2007 2007 California City 2009 2009 2009 2004 2009 2009 2009 Calistoga 2012 2012 2003 2011 2003 2003 2003 Carlsbad 2005 2004 2005 2009 1994 2005 1994 Carpinteria 2003 2003 2003 2009 2003 2003 2003 Cathedral City 2002 2002 2002 2009 2002 2002 2002 Ceres 1997 1997 1997 2012 1997 1997 1997 Cerritos 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 Chino 2010 2010 2010 2013 2010 2010 2010 Chowchilla 2011 2011 2011 2012 2011 2011 2011 City of Commerce 2009 2009 2009 2013 2009 2009 2009 City of Industry 1978 1978 1978 2007 1978 1978 1978 Claremont 2006 2006 2006 2009 2006 2006 2006 Coachella 1997 1997 1997 2009 1997 1997 1997 Colma 1999 1999 1999 2012 1999 1999 1999 Colton 2013 2013 1987 2013 1987 1987 1987 Concord 2007 2007 2007 2010 2007 2007 2007 Corning 1994 1994 1994 2009 1994 1994 1994 Corona 2004 2005 2004 2013 2004 2004 2004 Coronado 2003 1995 1994 2013 1999 1996 2005 Costa Mesa 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Cotati 1998 1998 1998 2012 1998 1998 1998 Culver City 1996 1996 1973 2013 1996 1996 1974

30 | P a g e

JURISDICTION

LAN

D U

SE

CIRC

ULA

TIO

N

CON

SERV

ATIO

N

HOU

SIN

G

NO

ISE

OPE

N S

PACE

SAFE

TY

AIR

QU

ALIT

Y (S

AN JO

AQU

IN

VALL

EY O

NLY

)

Cupertino 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 Dana Point 1991 1991 1991 2013 1991 1991 1991 Danville 2013 2013 2013 2009 2013 2013 2013 Delano 2005 2005 2005 2012 2005 2005 2005 Dinuba 2008 2008 2008 2009 2008 2008 2008 2008 Dixon 1993 1993 1993 2009 1993 1993 1993 Duarte 2007 2007 2007 2012 2007 2007 2007 East Palo Alto 1999 1999 1999 2010 1999 1999 1999 El Cerrito 1999 1999 1999 2004 1999 1999 1999 El Monte 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 Elk Grove 2003 2003 2003 2009 2003 2003 2003 2003 Emeryville 2009 2009 2009 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 Escalon 2005 2005 2005 2010 2005 2005 2005 2005 Escondido 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Exeter 2003 2003 1991 2009 1975 1991 1975 2011 Fairfield 2002 2012 2013 2009 2002 2013 2002 2002 Ferndale 1986 1967 1986 2012 1978 1986 1978 Folsom 1988 1988 1988 2013 1988 1988 1988 Fontana 2003 2003 2003 2010 2003 2003 2003 Fort Bragg 2013 2013 2013 2009 2013 2013 2013 2013 Fountain Valley 1995 2008 1995 2009 1995 1995 1995 1995 Fowler 2004 2004 1976 2003 1976 1976 1976 2009 Fremont 2011 2011 2011 2009 2011 2011 2011 Fullerton 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Garden Grove 2008 2008 2008 2013 2008 2008 2008 2008 Glendora 2006 2006 2006 2013 2006 2006 2006 Gonzales 2011 2011 2011 2009 2011 2011 2011 Hawaiian Gardens 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Hayward 2002 2002 2002 2010 2002 2002 2002 2002 Healdsburg 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Hercules 1998 1998 1998 2013 1998 1998 1998 Hermosa Beach 1991 1991 1979 2013 1979 1979 1979 Holtville 2003 2003 2003 2008 2003 2003 2003 Hughson 2005 2005 2010 2009 2005 2010 2005 2010 Huntington Beach 1996 2013 1996 2013 1996 1996 1996 1996 Imperial Beach 1994 1994 1994 2013 1994 1994 1994 Indian Wells 2007 2008 2009 2013 1996 2009 1996 Indio 1993 2008 1993 2009 1993 1993 1993 Ione 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Jackson 2008 2008 1987 2012 1987 1987 1981 Jurupa Valley 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 La Habra Heights 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 La Mesa 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 La Palma 1999 1999 1999 2010 1999 1999 1999 La Verne 1998 1998 1998 2013 1998 1998 1998

31 | P a g e

JURISDICTION

LAN

D U

SE

CIRC

ULA

TIO

N

CON

SERV

ATIO

N

HOU

SIN

G

NO

ISE

OPE

N S

PACE

SAFE

TY

AIR

QU

ALIT

Y (S

AN JO

AQU

IN

VALL

EY O

NLY

)

Lafayette 2002 2002 2002 2011 2002 2002 2002 Laguna Hills 2009 2009 2009 2013 2009 2009 2009 Laguna Niguel 1992 1992 1992 2013 1992 1992 1992 Laguna Woods 2003 2003 2003 2009 2003 2003 2003 Lake Forest 2010 2010 2008 2013 2000 2008 2000 Lancaster 2009 2009 2009 2013 2009 2009 2009 Lawndale 1992 1992 1992 2010 1992 1992 1992 Lindsay 1989 1989 1989 2009 1989 1989 1989 Livermore 2009 2009 2003 2010 2003 2003 2003 Livingston 1999 1999 1999 2010 1999 1999 1999 Lomita 1989 1989 1989 2013 1989 1989 1989 Lompoc 2013 2013 1997 2010 1997 1997 1997 Long Beach 1989 2013 1973 2009 1975 2002 1975 Loomis 2001 2001 2001 2014 2001 2001 2001 2001 Los Altos 2002 2002 2002 2009 2002 2002 2002 Los Altos Hills 2008 1999 2007 2004 2007 2007 2007 Los Angeles 1993 1999 2001 2013 1999 1973 1996 1992 Los Banos 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Los Gatos 2010 2010 2010 2012 2010 2010 2010 Lynwood 2006 2003 2003 2013 2005 2005 2003 Mammoth Lakes 2007 2007 2007 2009 1997 2007 2007 Manhattan Beach 2003 2003 2003 2013 2003 2003 2003 Manteca 2003 2011 2003 2010 2003 2003 2003 2013 Marina 2000 2000 2000 2010 2000 2000 2000 2000 Mendota 2009 2009 2009 2004 2009 2009 2009 Menlo Park 1994 1994 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Merced 2012 2012 2012 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 Mill Valley 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Millbrae 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 1988 Milpitas 1994 2010 1994 2010 1994 1994 1994 Mission Viejo 2013 2013 2013 2013 2009 2013 2009 Modesto 1995 1995 1995 2011 1995 1995 1995 2008 Monrovia 2008 2008 1966 2003 2002 1966 2002 Montclair 2000 2000 2000 2011 2000 2000 2000 Moorpark 1992 1992 1986 2013 1998 1986 2001 Moraga 2002 2002 2002 2010 2002 2002 2002 Mountain View 2012 2012 2012 2011 2012 2012 2012 Murrieta 2011 2011 2011 2013 2011 2011 2011 2011 National City 2012 2012 2012 2013 2012 2012 2012 Needles 1986 1986 1986 2005 1986 1986 1986 1986 Nevada City 1986 1986 1986 2009 1986 1986 1986 Nevada County 1995 2010 1995 2010 1995 1995 2008 Newark 1992 1992 1992 2010 1992 1992 1992 Newport Beach 2006 2006 2006 2013 2006 2006 2006 Norwalk 1996 1996 1996 2001 1996 1996 1996

32 | P a g e

JURISDICTION

LAN

D U

SE

CIRC

ULA

TIO

N

CON

SERV

ATIO

N

HOU

SIN

G

NO

ISE

OPE

N S

PACE

SAFE

TY

AIR

QU

ALIT

Y (S

AN JO

AQU

IN

VALL

EY O

NLY

)

Novato 1996 1996 1996 2013 1996 1996 1996 Oakley 2002 2002 2002 2009 2002 2002 2002 Ojai 1997 1997 1987 2012 1991 1987 1991 Ontario 2010 2010 2010 2013 2010 2010 2010 Orinda 1987 1987 1987 2004 1987 1987 1987 Orland 2012 2012 2012 2011 2012 2012 2012 Oxnard 2011 2011 2011 2012 2011 2011 2011 Palm Springs 2007 2007 2007 2010 2007 2007 2007 Palmdale 1993 1993 2004 2012 1993 1993 1993 Paso Robles 2003 2011 2003 2011 2003 2003 2003 Petaluma 2008 2008 2008 2009 2008 2008 2008 Piedmont 2009 2009 2009 2011 2009 2009 2009 Pittsburg 2001 2001 2001 2009 2001 2001 2001 Pleasanton 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Pomona 1976 1976 1976 2012 1976 1976 1976 Port Hueneme 1998 1998 1998 2013 1998 1998 1998 Porterville 2008 2008 2008 2009 2008 2008 2008 2008 Rancho Cordova 2006 2006 2006 2013 2006 2006 2006 2006 Rancho Mirage 2005 2005 2005 2010 2005 2005 2005 Rancho Palos Verdes

1975 1975 1975 2010 1975 1975 1975

Rancho Santa Margarita

2007 2007 2007 2013 2007 2007 2007

Redding 2008 2008 2009 2009 2000 2009 2009 Redwood City 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Rialto 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Ridgecrest 2009 2009 2009 2005 2009 2009 2009 Rio Dell 2008 2013 2013 2011 2001 2013 1975 Riverside 2007 2007 2007 2013 2007 2011 2010 Rosemead 2010 2010 2010 2013 2010 2010 2010 2010 Ross 2007 2007 2007 2010 2007 2007 2007 San Bruno 2009 2009 2009 2010 2009 2009 2009 San Carlos 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 San Diego 2008 2008 2008 2013 2008 2008 2008 San Francisco 1987 1995 1973 2011 1973 1988 2012 San Gabriel 2004 2004 2004 2013 2004 2004 2004 San Leandro 2002 2002 2002 2010 2002 2002 2002 San Luis Obispo 1994 1994 2006 2010 1996 2006 2000 San Marino 2003 1996 2003 2008 2003 2003 2003 San Pablo 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 San Rafael 2004 2004 2004 2011 2004 2004 2004 2004 Santa Ana 1998 1998 1982 2009 1982 1982 1982 Santa Barbara 2011 2011 2011 2012 2011 2011 2011 Santa Cruz 2012 2012 2012 2009 2012 2012 2012 Santa Maria 2011 2011 1996 2010 1997 1996 1995

33 | P a g e

JURISDICTION

LAN

D U

SE

CIRC

ULA

TIO

N

CON

SERV

ATIO

N

HOU

SIN

G

NO

ISE

OPE

N S

PACE

SAFE

TY

AIR

QU

ALIT

Y (S

AN JO

AQU

IN

VALL

EY O

NLY

)

Santa Paula 2013 2007 2013 2013 1998 2013 1998 Santa Rosa 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Santee 2013 2003 2003 2013 2003 2003 2003 Sausalito 1995 1995 1995 2012 1995 1995 1995 Seaside 2004 2004 2004 2011 2004 2004 2004 Sebastopol 1994 1994 1994 2010 1994 1994 1994 Shasta Lake 1999 1999 1999 2010 1999 1999 1999 Simi Valley 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Solana Beach 1997 1999 1988 2013 1988 1988 1988 Solvang 2008 2008 1988 2009 2013 1988 1988 Sonora 2007 2007 2007 2009 2007 2007 2007 South Lake Tahoe 2011 2011 2011 2008 2011 2011 2011 2011 South Pasadena 1998 1998 1998 2012 1998 1998 1998 Stanton 2008 2008 2008 2013 2008 2008 2008 Suisun City 1992 1994 1992 2009 1992 1992 1992 Taft 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Tehama 2004 2004 2004 2010 2004 2004 2004 Temecula 2005 2005 2005 2012 2005 2005 2005 Temple City 1987 1987 1987 2013 1987 1987 1987 Thousand Oaks 1999 1999 2013 2013 2000 2013 1996 Tiburon 2005 2005 2005 2012 2005 2005 2005 Torrance 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Truckee 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 Tulare 1993 1993 1993 2010 1988 1975 1990 Turlock 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Ukiah 1995 1995 1995 2011 1995 1995 1995 Union City 2010 2009 2002 2010 2002 2002 2002 Vacaville 1999 1999 1999 2010 1999 1999 1999 Vernon 2007 2007 2007 2013 2007 2007 2007 Victorville 2008 2008 2008 2010 2008 2008 2008 Vista 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Walnut Unknown Unknown Unknown 2014 Unknown Unknown Unknown Walnut Creek 2006 2006 2006 2009 2006 2006 2006 Watsonville 2006 2006 2006 2007 2006 2006 2006 Weed 2003 1987 1987 2011 1987 1987 1987 West Covina 1985 1985 1985 2013 1985 1985 1985 West Hollywood 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 West Sacramento 2000 2000 2000 2013 2000 2000 2000 Westlake Village 1993 1993 1993 2010 1993 1993 1993 Wheatland 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 Whittier 1993 1993 1993 2009 1993 1993 1993 Wildomar Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Williams 2012 2012 2012 2011 2012 2012 2012 Woodlake 2009 2009 2009 2007 1978 2009 1978 2011 Yorba Linda 1993 1993 1993 2013 1993 1993 1993

34 | P a g e

JURISDICTION

LAN

D U

SE

CIRC

ULA

TIO

N

CON

SERV

ATIO

N

HOU

SIN

G

NO

ISE

OPE

N S

PACE

SAFE

TY

AIR

QU

ALIT

Y (S

AN JO

AQU

IN

VALL

EY O

NLY

)

Yountville 2001 1992 1992 2009 1992 1992 1992 Yreka 2003 2003 2003 2009 1998 2003 2003 Yucaipa 2004 2004 2004 2013 2004 2004 2004 Yucca Valley 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995

35 | P a g e

Table B2: General Plan Status by County JURISDICTION

LAN

D U

SE

CIRC

ULA

TIO

N

CON

SERV

ATIO

N

HOU

SIN

G

NO

ISE

OPE

N S

PACE

SAFE

TY

AIR

QU

ALIT

Y (S

AN JO

AQU

IN

VALL

EY O

NLY

)

Alameda County 2012 2012 1976 2010 1975 1973 2013 Amador County 1991 2006 1991 2009 1988 1991 1974 Butte County 2012 2012 2012 2009 2012 2012 2012 Calaveras County 1996 1996 1996 2009 1996 1996 1996 Colusa County 2012 2012 2012 2011 2012 2012 2012 Contra Costa County 2005 2005 2005 2009 2005 2005 2005 Del Norte County 2003 2003 2003 2009 2003 2003 2003 El Dorado County 2004 2004 2004 2013 2004 2004 2004 2004 Fresno County 2000 2000 2000 2003 2000 2000 2000 2000 Humboldt County 1984 1984 1984 2009 1984 1984 1984 Imperial County 2008 2008 1993 2013 1993 1993 1993 Inyo County 2001 2001 2001 2008 2001 2001 2001 Kern County 2004 2004 2004 2008 2004 2004 2004 2004 Lake County 2008 2008 2008 2012 2008 2008 2008 Lassen County 2000 2000 2000 2009 2000 2000 2000 Los Angeles County 1980 1980 1980 2008 1975 1980 1990 Marin County 2007 2007 2007 2013 2007 2007 2007 Mariposa County 2006 2006 2006 2009 2006 2006 2006 Merced County 1990 1990 1990 2010 1990 1990 1990 1990 Monterey County 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Napa County 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 Nevada County 1995 2010 1995 2010 1995 1995 2008 Orange County 2005 2005 2005 2013 2005 2005 2010 Placer County 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Plumas County 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 Sacramento County 2011 2011 2011 2013 2011 1993 1993 San Benito County 1998 1990 1994 2013 1984 1994 1980 San Francisco 1987 1995 1973 2011 1973 1988 2012 San Joaquin County 1992 1992 1992 2010 1992 1992 1992 San Luis Obispo County

2009 1996 2010 2009 1992 2010 1999

San Mateo County 1986 1986 1986 2011 1986 1986 1986 Santa Barbara County

2010 2009 2010 2010 1997 1991 2010

Santa Clara County 1994 1994 1997 2010 1994 1994 1994 Santa Cruz County 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 1994 Shasta County 2004 2004 2004 2009 2004 2004 2004 Sierra County 1996 1996 1996 2006 1996 1996 1996 Siskiyou County 1980 1987 1973 2009 1978 1972 1975 Sutter County 2011 2011 2011 2008 2011 2011 2011 Tehama County 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Trinity County 1988 2002 1973 2012 2003 1973 2002 Tulare County 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 Tuolumne County 2006 2012 1996 2010 1996 1996 2009 1996

36 | P a g e

JURISDICTION

LAN

D U

SE

CIRC

ULA

TIO

N

CON

SERV

ATIO

N

HOU

SIN

G

NO

ISE

OPE

N S

PACE

SAFE

TY

AIR

QU

ALIT

Y (S

AN JO

AQU

IN

VALL

EY O

NLY

)

Yuba County 2011 2011 2011 2010 2011 2011 2011

37 | P a g e

Table B3: General Plan Elements Currently Undergoing an Update JURISDICTION

LAN

D U

SE

CIRC

ULA

TIO

N

CON

SERV

ATIO

N

HOU

SIN

G

NO

ISE

OPE

N S

PACE

SAFE

TY

AIR

QU

ALIT

Y (S

AN JO

AQU

IN

VALL

EY O

NLY

)

NO

NE

AT T

HIS

TIM

E

Agoura Hills X Alameda County

X X X

Amador County

X X X X X X X

American Canyon

X

Anaheim X Antioch X Arcadia X Artesia X Auburn X Avenal X Azusa X Bakersfield X X X X X X X Baldwin Park X Banning X Bell X X X X X X X X Belmont X X X Benicia X Beverly Hills X Biggs X X X X X X X Bishop X Brawley X Brentwood X X X X X X X Burbank X Butte County X X Calaveras County

X X X X X X X X

Calexico X California City X Calistoga X X Carlsbad X X X X X X X X Carpinteria X Cathedral City X Ceres X Cerritos X Chino X Chowchilla X City of Commerce

X

City of Industry

X X X X X X X

Claremont X

38 | P a g e

JURISDICTION

LAN

D U

SE

CIRC

ULA

TIO

N

CON

SERV

ATIO

N

HOU

SIN

G

NO

ISE

OPE

N S

PACE

SAFE

TY

AIR

QU

ALIT

Y (S