CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

450 3 . Local General Plan Restrictions , A . B . 1864 provides , among other matters ( a) that a city or county general plan may not be "amended " more than twice in any calendar year , (b ) that no zoning or pre -zoning hearing could be held within two weeks of the time that a general plan has been adopted or "amended " , ( c ) that each time a revision or "amendment " to a general plan or element thereof causes a zoning inconsistency , the zoning ordinance must be amended within 90 days of such action, ( d ) that the term "amendment " as defined in the bill , includes the adoption of a general plan or any change or revision thereof , ( e ) that no zoning or pre - zoning could be held by a planning com- mission within two weeks of the time that a general plan or element thereof has been adopted or "amended " in any manner , and ( f) a new cause of action is created for any resident or property owner to enforce compliance with the " consistency " requirement of item ( c ) above . Further , the bill omits pro- visions for local government costs , contrary to the provisions of S . B . 90 ( 1972 Legislative session) . The bill ignores the important distinction between planning and zoning functions of a local entity . Planning, by its very definition , is a flexible function looking to the future , of which the local general plan is a vital part . A . B . 1864 would tend to " freeze " the planning function and tie it up with the restrictions imposed upon zoning matters . Further , the bill could cause a city to violate other provisions of law already in existence . For example , a city adopting even a minor change of its general plan on March 15 , 1974 , could not thereafter con- sider adoption of the seismic safety , noise , scenic highway or safety elements until September 15 , 1974 , and would thus be forced to violate the time requirements related to the adoption of those elements . Further , the cause of action created by the bill for residents and taxpayers relating to inconsistencies between the general plan and zoning ordinance could tend to encourage litigation in the formulative stages of community planning deci - sions , and thereby impose individual and self- serving aspects upon the decision makers ' legislative function , Committee recommends strong opposition to A . B . 1864 . 4 . Sworn Testimony - Public Meetings . A . B . 2259 would add a new section to the Ralph M . Brown Act to provide that all testimony at a meeting of any local agency on the subject of land use or zoning must be given under oath or affirmation , and that false testimony given in such hearings would be punishable as perjury . Committee felt the bill would tend to over-formalize such public hearings and create a trial court atmosphere . Committee was of the opinion that procedures and rules for conducting public hearings are best left to the local public entities concerned , and recommends opposition to A .B . 2259 . 6/25/73 Reg . Mtg .