Laserfiche WebLink
448 <br /> <br />Response: The most r.ecent comp.rehensive revision of the <br />plan was adopted by City Councilm 1982. State law <br />recommends that the elements be updated every five years or <br />as deemed appropriate by the local jurisdiction. The law <br />requires that the Housing Element be updated every five years. <br />This element was last revised !n 1989 in compliance with State <br />law to address preserved housing. In addition, four elements <br />of the general plan are under revision -- Circulation, <br />Education, Land Use, and Open Space and Recreation -- to <br />reflect current community needs and city policies. A new Air <br />Quality Management Element is beingdeveloped as required <br />by the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan, and City Council <br />adopted the State required Integrated Waste Management <br />Plan on June 1, 1992. <br /> <br />"Inter- ~n~l Intra-El~ment Consistency_" <br /> <br />Objection: The remaining 1982 General Plan Elements have <br />not-been updated, to reflect the contents of the Housing <br />Element, Educanon Element, Growth Management Element, <br />and Land Use Map amendments which were adopted <br />subsequent to the 1982 General Plan adoption. <br /> <br />Respon~.: Amendments to the generalplan are based upon <br />an analys~s of the impact of the proposedchange on all <br />elements of the plan. Therefore, an amended element <br />.establi.shes no new p. rogram or policy direction that is <br />inconsistent with erdsting General Plan elements. As amended <br />every five years, each housing element supersedes the previous <br />and reflects current City programs and policy for housmg that <br />are consistent with either the 1982 GeneralPlan or a more <br />recently amended element. New elements, such as Growth <br />Management and Education, may establish new policies <br />related to City action in these areas: but in no case are new <br />elements inconsistent with the existtn/~ general plan. It is noted <br />that in the District's objections, the D~strict failed to state an <br />example of the purported inconsistency. <br /> <br />"Adequacy_ of the Implementation and Administration of the <br />General Plan" <br /> <br />~: The District states that the City has no.t complied <br /> rnment Code Section 65400 by conducting an annual <br />review of the General Plan. Further, the City has been <br />ineffective in coordination and cooperation with the District. <br /> <br />Response: <br /> <br />1. Annual Review <br /> <br />The City Attorney advises that, as a charter city, Santa <br />Ana is not subject to the State requirement for annual <br />review of the general plan. <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />ill I <br /> <br /> <br />