9/20/1976r, rij C),
MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
(TYDOY11ROLL'ING. HILLS, '"CALIFORNIA
September 20, 1976
A special meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor
Rose at 7030 P.M. Monday, September 20, 1976 at La Cresta School, 38 Crest
Road West, Rolling Hills, California.
ROLL CALL
J. i'_ PRESENT
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Swanson
Mayor Rose
None
Teena Clifton
William Kinley
.Tune Cunningham
51 Residents of the
PUBLIC HEARING, ORDINANCE NO. 112
City Manager
City Attorney
Secretary
City of Rolling Hills
Mayor Rose opened the meeting of a public hearing to consider
Ordinance No. 112, An Ordinance of the City of Rolling Hills, California
Amending Ordinance No. 33 Entitled "An Ordinance of the City of Rolling
Hills, California Providing for Zoning in Said City."
Letters from Kenneth Watts, 1 Wrangler Road; Robert Volk, 13 East-
field Drive; and Robert Oo Gose and Elaine Gose, 3 Johns Canyon Road,
and petitions signed by twenty five residents, urging that Ordinance
No. 112 be retained were received for the file.
In a general discussion of the ordinance, Mr. Omer Tingle, owner
of property at 13 Bowie Road asked what simpddtQ.other than.;- cost of
application for a hearing before the Planning Commission the require-
meats of the ordinance would have on residents:. Councilman Pernell
said there could be a delay of up to one month because of the legal
requirement of notice of hearing in the newspaper.
Mr. Tom Wachtell, 35 Crest Road East, asked whether the ordinance
had ever been enforced since its adoption in November 1972° Councilman
Crocker explained that when the ordinance was adopted it was inadver-
tently interpreted as applying to non-commercial recreational uses,
excluding residential. Because of increasing controversy caused by
construction of tennis courts, all files and records were researched,
and it was discovered that the ordinance which required a conditional
use permit for swimming pools, tennis courts,uridirig'.r3ngs.;.and'.other
non-commercial recreational uses had been adopted and was in effect.
Councilman Heinsheimer explained that a public hearing before the
Planning Commission was scheduled for Tuesday, September 21 for the
purpose of conforming and correcting all such -construction approved
since November 1972 without a conditional use permit as required by
the ordinance, and that all applications received between the date
the ordinance was brought to the attention of the Council and the
present time had been subjected to the conditional use permit procedure.
Mr. Robert Foulk, 9 Williamsburg Lane, asked whether a decision
would be made at the hearing about possible amendment of the ordinance.
The Mayor said that residents would be given an opportunity to speak
in favor of the ordinance, in opposition, and residents who did not
wish to state a preference would be permitted to comment if they wished
to do so, but no vote would be taken at the meeting.
Mrs. Carole Hoffman, 73 Portuguese Bend Road, asked why an addi-
tional step in the procedure required for building or improving Rolling
September -20, 1976
Hills properties should be considered, Mr. Harry Gelles, 87 Crest
Road East, asked the Council to comment on what factors generated
acting on the ordinance rather than rescinding it since it had not
been enforced. Mayor Rose explained that the Council had detercr�ined
that the matter should be the subject of a public hearing, since tennis
courts have become more controversial, and when threatened with litiga-
tion by a resident who had experienced opposition to a proposed tennis
court, the City's files were thoroughly searched in connection with an
attempt to establish a policy, and when the -ordinance was brought to
the Council, they decided that a public hearing on the matter was more
equitable than simply rescinding or enforcing the ordinance.
Mayor Rose asked residents who wished to speak in favor of keeping
the ordinance in effect to speak on the matter. Mrs. Rose Rihaczek, 10
Flying Mane Road, asked that the ordinance be retained so residents
would have an opportunity to comment if they wished to do so on proposed
OC.recreational improvements on private properties, especially tennis courts.
Mrs. Suzanne Small, 3 Flying Mane Lane, said she is in favor of keeping
a rural atmosphere, and she did not consider tennis courts rural. Mr.
Russell Chase, 2 Ringbit Road East, said he was in favor of the princi-
ple of the ordinance, as it would give neighbors an opportunity to
speak on a proposed recreational facility before it was an accomplished
fact. Mr. Ken Watts, 4 Wrangler Road, said that unless a tennis court,
swimming pool or riding ring was planned for a side yard or front yard
location which require a variance of the zoning ordinance, the facility
could be built without the residents who might be most affected being
consulted.
Mr,. E. L. Pearson, 1 .Johns Canyon Road, said he was Mayor of
Rolling Hills when the ordinance was adopted, and he said the intent
of theCouncil when the action was taken was that it be applied to
community recreational facilities, Mr. Pearson said he had discussed
the matter with other residents who were also members of the Council
at that time, and they,had concurred with the interpretation. Mr.
Pearson said thatsobt`aining a.building permit under existing restric-
tions is -a diffi`cult' procedure-; and he suggested that the Council
amend Section 3 of the ordinance too "Non-commercial community
recreational uses", so the ordinance would no longer be applied to
residential recreational uses. If the Council wished to have a con-
ditional use permit requirement for residential recreational facilities,
Mr. Pearson said a new ordinance should be prepared, public hearings
held on the matter, guidelines adopted, to avoid mis-interpreting the
meaning of the ordinance. Mr. Wachtell said he'is unegtiivocally"in"
favor of amending"the ordinance because of ever more extensive14evels
of government. The ability to control development is already avail-
able, Mr. Wachtell said, and if the rules are not stringent enough,
they should be tightened to eliminate arbitrary judgments after con-
siderable expense on the part of the applicant. Mr. Alan Krause,
8 Caballeros Road, said the ordinance was carefully written, and he
suggested that application of the ordinance should be amended. Mr.
Paul Grubs, 1 Hackamore Road, said he would favor removal of the
ordinance. Mrs. Lulu Epstein, 5 E1 Concho, said there are ample
guidelines available, and if requirements established by other regu-
lations were enforced, if variances were not granted and set -backs
required as established, the need for the ordinance would diminish.
She said she would favor repealing the ordinance.
The Manager displayed a map of the City marked by red dots to
indicate existing tennis courts, and Mrs. Clifton explained that at
present there are 23 tennis courts and four paddle tennis courts in
existence or in process of being constructed. In addition, 26
properties were marked with green dots to indicate that tennis courts
are being planned or considered, or residents have expressed some
interest in building a tennis court on those properties.
-2-
September 20, 1976
Mrs. Mary Chase said she did not wish to state that she was in
favor of or opposed to the ordinance, but generally felt that a small
city such as Rolling Hills must have rules. Dr. Richard Hoffman said
he agreed, and stated that discretionary power is dangerous as it
grants unnatural power to one neighbor to be used over another neigh-
bor. Dr. Hoffman said comments have circulated in the community about
proposed restriction of tennis courts south of Crest Road. Mr. Gelles
said the ordinance should be repealed and the size of a property used
as a guide on whether a conditional use permit is required, since a
tennis court on a two acre parcel would bot be as great a problem as a
tennis court on a smaller parcel. Dr. David Bray, 9 Quailridge Road
South, said the matter has become an emotional issue, and he urged
that the integrity of Rolling Hills be maintained by removing arbi-
trary powers from the Council, so the people would know where they
stand.
Councilman Crocker said he does not consider a paved tennis
court with a ten foot high fence in the middle of the Flying Triangle
consistent with the character of the area. Dr. Bray said the question
is not whether a tennis court should be built, but how construction of
tennis courts can be stopped. Mr. Wachtell suggested that residents
be asked to vote on whether tennis court construction should be per-
mitted or prohibited. Councilman Heinsheimer said the ordinance should
not be used to confirm a policy, and he said he would not go along
with an ordinance which could be used to mask a policy by either the
Planning Commission or City Council.
Councilman Crocker asked the City Attorney to define the scope of
authority of the City Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Kinley
said the Planning Commission is a fact finding body which reports to
the Council; the City Council can set policies which are esthetic in
nature, as long as such powers are reasonable and non-discriminatory.
Councilman Crocker said that in the last election candidates who
stated a firm policy on subdivisions and land use and development were
elected, and he considers the results of the election an indication of
the wishes of the residents. Further, Councilman Crocker said any
ordinance now on the books can be rescinded or amended by three votes
of the Council.
Mr. Dan Burke, 70 Saddleback Road, said that in spite of statements
that tennis courts are not consistent with the rural atmosphere of
Rolling Hills, brochures on Rolling Hills printed in the 1930's and
displayed in the Administration Building show people with tennis
rackets.
Councilman Heinsheimer said that on ,July 27, 1976 the Planning
Commission suggested to the Council that a moratorium be placed on
construction of tennis courts effective August 15, and that riding
rings and swimming pools be removed from the ordinance, which would
have established a policy rather than provide a case by case review.
Councilwoman Swanson said the proposed moratorium was for a period
of six months to enable the Planning Commission to develop guidelines
for implementing Ordinance No. 112.
In summary, Mr. Alan Krause urged the Council to consider the
presentation of the former Mayor who explained that the intent of the
Council on which he served in adopting the ordinance was to apply it
to community tennis courts only. Mr. Krause asked that private resi-
dential tennis courts be removed from the requirements of the ordi-
nance, thereby applying the ordinance in the spirit of the law rather
than the letter of the law.
Councilman Heinsheimer said he considers the wording of the
-3-
L
September 20, 1976
ordinance very clear, and it was his opinion that the ordinance should
be applied as it is written. Mr. Robert Foul% said the element of human
judgment or opinion should be removed, since opinions change and human
judgment cannot be made law.
The Mayor closed the Public Hearing at 9:30 P.M. and advised that
the Council would take the matter under submission.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9.30 P.M. to meet at the next regular
meeting date on Monday, September 27, 1976 at 7030 P.M.
r
APPROVED:
Mayor
10
City Clerk` '
195