171, Construct a tennis court, Staff ReportsM E M O R A N D' U M
Members of'the Council
From: Donald W. Crocker.
Date: .May 3, 1977
I thought' you should be advised as. to the reason 'for my r_ emovals. of
'the moti6n 'for reconsideration regarding.the Slusher appeal.froin
the, Agenda f 'the 'May 9 meeting, which was,solely out of'courtesy.
to Mason 'and Tom, since I was' informed that neither would be .able
to' attend that, meeting. ,Mr. Slusher has 'been notified:that the
Agenda will'include a motion for reconsideration and will be advised'.
that the Agenda.of May 23 will now include the motion formerly';
scheduled for, next Monday night. ' '
As you'probably are.aware, Bill Finley has now advised.me.that
residents interested in arguing or commenting on the evidentiary'
record from the Planning Commission's decision were entitled to
appear and make presentations along with the' appellants at the,'
,hea r i ng . an. May • 25 . Prior to that meeting, I was contacted ' by'
several nembe,r.s of the Flying, Triangle, namely,, Mr; ,Watts and Mrs.
Evans, requesting information regarding the 'opportunity `of the
va"ric.us affected residents to appear before the Council. Based, on
my understanding that such appearance by any party other ,than 'the
appellant_and the appellant's counsel was prohibited,, I advised
them that no resident could make a, presentation and although a
number of residents who presented information, to the Planning ' Com-.
mission, including Mr. Melby and .Mrs. 'Watts, .were' present at the
Council hearing, 1 gave them no opportunity to make any pr.esentati.°n
and the notice dictated. by Bill Kinley and sent out with ,Agenda for
the meeting similarly advised the residents.': It is my:strongly:held.
feeling 'tha �: my failure to permit residents to make a'presentation
of the argument 'for and against car anting the .appeal . by the appellant
was a serious and gross miscarriage of justice and deprived the
residents and the community of.thei.r_ constitutional rights and that
the. decision of the Council is invalid unless an -opportunity, is now
given to such residents, both pro and con, to make an appearance,
similar to.that.per_mi.tted the.appellant,and.appellant''s counsel.
At,the close.,I would be in favor of permitting. -the appellant 15
minutes or so within which to argue or rebut the matters presented
by residents if that is acceptable to the Council. Bill. is concerned
about the legality of a motion for, reconsideration under the language
of. our Ordinance. First, 'since 'the'Council referred the matter to
the Planning Commissi.on.for_ a decision regarding. the number cf park-
ing spaces that would'be required, there is a very technical argumc:=t
that the.decision was not final action by the Council. ',But much more
importantly, I hopeali of us could agree that through mistake a.
serious procedural error has occurred which can•be easily remedied
and which i:n:my opinion should be remedied. I cannot believe. that
any court in considering the circumstances would find that the
ap.pellant'srights have been prejudiced under the:plan which.I am
proposing. ' There are two parts.to any decision by a puhlic.body.
The„first is of course the decision itself, but equally'impor.tant
is the manner in which the decision was arrived at and -in this
particular case the'residents affected were improperly'excluded
sand prevented from.their legal rights to 'appear before us through.
my lack of knowledge of such legal rights. Frankly,.I"am sick
about the whole form of the proceeding and the inequity to those
affectedrand urge -you each.to search your conscience as to whether
in fact my request for reconsideration is the.proper step., 'I sub-
mit that a unanimous decision by the Council for reconsideration
would have the minimum impact on the persons affected.
In.any event, I will not be asking you for your-comments'until the
matter comes up on the Agenda May.23 and if you wish to discuss.'
any aspect with me, I am open to such conversation but am committed
to placing the matter on the. Agenda air 'consideration.
It is my conclusion. after a great deal of thought that a court •
would not require the Council to hide behind a technicality. of the
language.in Ordinance 33 in avoiding its responsibility to correct
such a basic and serious procedural mistake.
:I.am.not particularly optimistic' that any change will:result in -the
"f_ina.ldecision of 'the Council but the opportunity. of the residents
to be properly heard would relieve my conscienceof a great.burden
that such a serious omission could, occur while I acted as your.
Chairman:
i am'requesting the Planning Commission by this letter to take no
action:in its meeting of May 17 regarding the referral. by: the Council.,
of the.Slusher matter to the Planning Commission' pending resolution
of any motion for reconsideration before the,Council on,May 23. 0.I am:
0further 'requesting that Tina make .a'copy of this letter'available to
Bill Kinley and to residents-in.the'Flying Triangle who appeared.at
,ourhearing oh the.Slusher appeal.and to Mr.. and Mrs.Slusher.'
,Very truly yours,
May 2, 1977
To: City of Rolling Hills,
Attn: City Council
Re: " Appeal Zoning Case No, 171
Howard and Nancy Slusher, . Lot-19-FT
California
Gentlemen:.
Unfortunately I was out of town on April 25, 1977 and did not attend the
appeal;,:. meeting, nor. was I at home when the Council made its field trip
to the subject property,
Mrs. Watts attended the appealmeeting and theCouncil again instructed
all residents that they would not be''allowed to speak, ' (Rolling Hills
letter March 29, 1977) ,
However,. Mr.,, Slusher` s attorney and Mrs.• Slusher were •allowed to speak .
for 'over one hour., apparently attempting to induce' the City Council to
overturn the -Planning 'Commission• decision,
I feel that these actions are undemocratic, : I know nothing"about:.l'a .
but it seems to me that when an appeal is`requested then either both
sides.must be silent or both sides should be heard.
I urge. you to reopen:the..appeal hearing in•order to allow the affected
residents to comment on the statements made by Mr. Slusher's attorney
and Mrs,. Slusher, •
. Specific comments were made by certain council members during the.
meeting that the -noise from the tennis court would not be out :of bounds
'of accepted ,noise levels. Statements of this kind are not accurate,. as
the City retained an acoustician whose opinion differs,
I would like' an answer by return mail regarding my request to reopen .
Zoning Case, No. 171. ;I''might•add that Captain Melbye, a 27 year
resident of this City, also would,like:the case reopened.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth H, Watts
#1 Wrangler Road
Rolling Hills, California
4 Wrangler. Road,-
Rolling ;Hills',, Calif . ,
April 29 h , 1977.
To . The Rolling . Hills Council,
Attention Mr. Don . Crocker.
.Dear: Rollig Hills ,Council,
The.,: hearing • :on the Hoard -Slusher Appeal is now history,
however, there is smoldering from...the ..fire that persists to :be
distastful.':
Otliers. and I, who attended ,the-hearing.feelWe had an unfair•
advantage:.. i;ie..•.t.*ere •notified' that: quote "as: :Ordinance #33 provides.
that the appeal must be decided .on the same . evidence that vra s •presene
'to : the .Planning 'Commission"unquote.., iYhy then was the. defense allowed'`
'.to .present,to .the council,by;: their attorneys, `slmost -an hour of
evidence :to she council before the .decision" Wa.s _:rendered?.
Also the Council made ''a field- trip to location on Sunday. April
24th and We the residents were; notified that no":residents"Would be
permitted :to attend. A representative :from, the defense Wa.s present.
Ls a :•resident'•I respect the decisions of the :Council,However,
I ari .fearful • that the Coucil" may have created a : president and future
.decisions may be effected by. :the . decision- in question
There . are many coming to ' the City of Rolling Hills,principally,
because „they; have no other 'plac g
s e::-Lo � o where the environment of
Rolling Hills ,prevai•1. This . n.nvironment . has been closely guarded
••by theresidents and their representive Councils 1;Te now hear it
Said as thenewer ar .:vials appear quote�,it his m _property and I
:can' :do with as :I please"unquote t ;
,The Councils •in- the pastb . have: been quite sucessful iii : pre- •
,venting.the `errosion to: take 'root. Outside ' -attorneys seemto have'
a', sizable; effect on our:'envriron.ment,
May ;I,'suggest..,we' again sadle the horse of PRIDE and protegt
the environment of . Rolling . Hills for when. tie are erroded,like our
neighboring cities:, there will-. be •no' more Rolling Hills, per -se.