404, Construct a tennis court, Correspondence•
£'i4i0 /o/'/tni L>GL6 INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
November 22, 1989
Mr. Michael Gray
4125 Miraleste Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90274
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
FAX: (213) 377-7288
RE: Zoning Case No. 404: Request for Conditional Use
Permits for Tennis Court and Pool House; Request for
Site Plan Review for Tennis Court and Pool House
Dear Mr. Gray:
This letter is to serve as official notice that your request for
a Conditional Use Permit for a Tennis Court was denied by the Planning
Commission at their meeting on November 14, 1989, pursuant to the
findings cited in the attached resolution. Also at that meeting, the
Planning Commission voted to approve your request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a Pool House, and to approve the site plan for the pool
house. A copy of the resolution stating the findings and conditions
of the Planning Commission is enclosed. Furthermore, a formal report
of the Commission's action is contained in the minutes of the meeting,
and will be available after approval by the Commission.
Please be advised that, pursuant to Section 17.32.140 of the
Rolling Hills Municipal Code, you may appeal the decision of the
Planning Commission, in accordance with Section 17.32.150. The fee
for filing an appeal is $3,500.00.
The Planning Commission's action will be reported to the City
Council at their meeting on Monday, December 11, 1989, at 7:30 p.m.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr.
Ray Hamada, Principal Planner, at 377-1521.
Very truly,
Betty Volkert
Deputy City Clerk
Michael L. Gray
#2 Morgan Lane
Rolling Hills, California 90274
November 17, 1989
Members of the Rolling Hills City Council
#2 Portuguese Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Dear Council Members:
ygETTP) L '
E`K;;
NOV 2 2 1989
CITY OF ROLLING HILLS
By____ ...... .......... :._........
.My recent experience with the Rolling Hills Planning
Committee has left me quite bewildered as to the Conditional Use
Permit process and how it relates to the posted Rolling Hills
Ordinances and City Master Plan.
In August of this year 1 submitted a Conditional Use Permit
Request for a tennis court on my property located at #2 Morgan
Lane, Rolling Hills. The proposed tennis court site is located on
a nearly flat 2.55 acre lot, on a cul-de-sac street, at the
extreme westerly part of the city and out of public view. After
studying all of the various aspects of the "Title 17" ordinances
as well as the City Master Plan, it became obvious to me that the
committee's approval would be a formality because my project fell
well within all established criteria for tennis court
construction.
My work schedule prohibited my initial appearance before the
committee, however, 1 testified before the final vote was called.
After public input and without any discussion, a vote was taken
with a 5 to 0 outcome against my plan. Because of statements made
by one of the committee members after the meeting, it became
apparent that only residents with five or more acres of flat
terrain that is out of public and private view could qualify +or
the privilege of developing their own land in a manner consistent
with the City's Master Plan. Additionally, she indicated that a
viewing of my property by the members was accomplished at a time
that was different than the one posted at the prior public
meeting. Consequently, because of the Brown Act prohibition of
other than public assembly +or the proposes of decision making, 1
convinced the City Manager to void the vote and allow me to again
plead my case before the Planning Committee. The City Manager
-01-
indicated, however, that it would be a waste of time to pursue
this matter because "no" tennis courts would be approved in the
Morgan Lane area because of the committee membership's
dissatisfaction with how the area was being developed.
I did not heed Mr. Bellinger's advice, however, and proceeded
with a second notification and diligently prepared a presentation
using all of the applicable City ordinances as well as a through
review of the intent and the literal wording of the Master Plan.
I presented, what I thought to be, an adequate summary of the
decision making process that the committee should go through and
as I proceeded with my analysis, I showed how my project exceeded
every aspect of the published code. The ordinance specifically
states that the 'Conditional Use Permit "shall" be granted if all
aspects of the ordinance are met and that approving such a use
will not endanger the public welfare. After four published
meetings, there was no public dissent concerning the approval of
my project. Accordingly, because the proposed land use was well
within the established, acceptable residential uses, the permit
should have been granted.
Additionally, in an effort to create what 1 considered a
model compromise agreement, I further agreed to the following
conditions during our far-ranging discussions:
1. Allow the committee to choose the exact location of
the tennis court from three various locations.
Provide fencing only at the ends of the court to
minimize the vertical visability.
3. Agree not to erect any fencing "until" the landscape
materials mature enough to hide the vertical fence
materials with the advice and consent of the Planning
Commission.
4. Agree to purchase a bond insuring compliance with
all aspects of this agreement.
These conditions were discussed at length with the Chairman
at one point specifically asking the City Attorney in attendance
if every aspect of this potential agreement would protect the
City. His answer was an unqualified "yes".
I was pleased with the active participation of every member
of the committee and I was confident in the final vote as were 25
residents in attendance. To our surprise, however, the committee
-02-
• f
again voted against my request by a vote of 3 to 2 against.
Immediately after the vote, a member read a previously prepared
statement as to the "findings" which had nothing to do with any
aspect of any Rolling Hills code or the Master Plan in relation to
the granting of a Conditional Use Permit.
As an appeal of this unfortunate and unjust decision costs
$3500.00, a quite unreasonable sum to only improve my property in
a manner throughly consistent with the bylaws of this city, 1 will
decline the opportunity.
I respectfully request, however, the opportunity to review my
petition with the council before a -final decision is rendered.
Thank you +or your time and review of the foregoing facts of my
experience with our city's Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
tW(/
Michael L. Gray