Abstract
In 1992 the City Planning Law in Japan was amended so that local governments should adopt master plan, but it has never defined clearly what master plan should be and how it should be adopted, amended and managed. From the point of constitutionalism, the City Planning Law should have explained the meaning of master plan exactly. To improve this situation, we muster look carefully into the state statutes in the U. S because they define these issues in detail. This paper focuses on California, as a model example of such states. First we shall examine the historical changes of master plan meanings in the state statues. Secondly we look closely into how many local governments adopted master plans in the past, what difficulties they faced during their preparation, and how the state statues have been amended to ease these difficulties.
