0291RESOLUTION NO. 291
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROLLING HILLS, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING PROPOSITION
.20.ON THE NOVEMBER 1972'BALLOT, KNOWN AS THE
"CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION ACT"
1 11 WHEREAS, Proposition 20, entitled the "California -Coastal
Zone Conservation Act" has qualified as an initiative measure for
the November 1972 general election; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 20 would, if enacted,.create a state
commission and six large subsidiary regional commissions for the
purpose of drafting state and.regional master plans for the pur-
pose not only of establishing state planning control over ocean
and shoreline conservation matters, but also to establish state
planning control over ocean and shoreline conservation matters,
but also to establish state planning control over the broad
subjects of land use, transportation, recreation, public services,
public utilities, population density, oil and mineral production;
and
WHEREAS, the "coastal zone" within which these state -
created plans would apply, as defined by the Act, encompasses
not only.the ocean and beach and beachfront property, but in
addition would -extend inland to the crest of the coastal mountains
for most of the State and would extend five miles inland in Los
Angelles, Orange and San Diego Counties; and
WHEREAS, the regional commissions would be composed half
by political appointees chosen by the Governor, the Senate Rules
Committee and the Speaker of the Assembly and half by regional
commission members from each of the six regional commissions; and
WHEREAS, the State Commission would be composed half by
political appointees chosen by the Governor, the Senate Rules
Committee.and the -Speaker of the Assembly and.half by regional
commission members from each of the six regional commissions; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 20 would for four years impose a
regional commission permit system on all citizens living within
or owning property,within approximately three-fifths of°a mile
of the ocean, a strip called the "permit area", and permits would
be exceedingly difficult to obtain under the procedures provided
by Proposition 20, resulting in a virtual four-year moratorium
on private and public improvements in the permit area;.and
WHEREAS, purported exemptions -from the regional commission
permit requirements are so qualified -by the language of -the propo-
sition that they are larely illusory,; and
WHEREAS, administration of this permit system will require
the:appointment of huge regional bureaucracies to cope, with the
great volume -of permit applications which under this Act°would be
generated by the normal economic and social activities of the
highly developed urban and industrial areas that lie within -,.-the
permit area; and
WHEREAS, neither the huge new regional staff, nor the
regional commission it serves, would have the kind of knowledge
and expertise regarding local conditions and problems that a
planning and permit body should,have; and
WHEREAS; planning and permit agencies which already exist
in the framework of elective local government are fully capable
of coordinating their activities according to any state-wide
criteria or any state-wide master plan that may be developed, and
stand ready to participate in the creation and administration of
a system that would intelligently -establish state-wide
criteria and•priorities as a guide to -local planning and
permit administration; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rolling Hills has supported
past proposed legislation that would have -created an -effect-
ive state and local partnership for the establishment of plan-
ning and permit criteria and priorities in the coastal zone,
and supports legislation this year which the Legislature still
may pass; -and -
WHEREAS, Proposition -20 is•drafted in a manner that
will necessarily promote extensive litigation to test its
many ambiguities; and
WHEREAS, -the effect -of Proposition 20 would be -to make
the planning and permit processes less accessible to the people
it would affect and to insulate the decision makers from the
electorate; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 20 would place a large portion of
the City of Rolling --Hills under the immediate land use control
of appointive state and regional commissions not familiar with
the needs�of the citizens of Rolling Hills; and.
WHEREAS, Proposition 20 would substantially curtail
appropriate and necessary public development and redevelopment;
and
WHEREAS, Proposition 20 would, in many instances, bar
both large and small property owners from making appropriate
use of their property, but would do so without compensation
for their loss;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rolling
Hills resolves as follows:
Section 1. That the members of the City Council of
the City of -Rolling Hills oppose the enactment of Proposition
20 on the November 1972 -ballot, the so-called."California
Coastal Zone.Conservation_Act".
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Rolling
Hills urge -s that the citizens and elected representatives of the
City of Rolling Hills oppose said Proposition 20 and that the
City Manager and City Attorney act -to make known the views of
the City regarding Proposition 20 in such manner as will from
time to time be appropriate.
Section 3. That -the City Manager be and is hereby
authorized and directed to.furnish-.a copy of.this Resolution
to each of the newspapers serving this City and to forward
certified copies of this Resolution to the League of California
Cities and the California Supervisor's Association.
1972.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 10th day of October,
Mayor of the City of Rolling Hills
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
U-
�' City Attorney
V
V
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, being
Resolution No. 291 was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Rolling Hills, California at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 10th day of October, 1972
by the following vote of the Council:
AYES: Councilmen Battaglia, Bear, Heinsheimer, Hesse
Mayor Pearson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
1