155, Construct a tennis court, CorrespondenceJuly 2, 1976
Department of County Engineer
24320 South Narbonne Avenue
Lomita, California 90717
Attention: Mr. Ivan M. Bullum
District Engineer
Dear Mr. Bullnm:
Enclosed is a.copy.ofprdinanceNo. 137 adopted by hhe Rolling Hills
City Council On February 9, 1976.
This letter, is tO request that .any plans submitted by Dr. and Mrs.
Gordon' Bernstein, Lot 5-SF, 1 Ringbit Road West, Rolling Hills show
that planned, improvements on the property will. not, exceed 257 of the
netlot area as defined' in Paragraph (A) of the ordinance. Further,
the plans' should indicate location of 200 square feet for construction
of a stable with vehiCle. access thereto, as required by Section 3.04,
Lot CoVerage,-Orinance'No 137. In order to assure accuracy you are
requested to verify all.dimensions.shown on the plan by physical
inspection of .the premises and from such inspection verify, the fact
thatalI.iMprOvements.on the property, including the .improvement to
be constructed, do not exceed 25% of the net area of the lot.
In the event the plans submitted to you by ,Dr. and:Mrs Bernstein do
not adequately show all improvements now. on property or to be
constructed on the property as requested by-them,.no:permit should be
issued until such tfte as the plans are so drawn as toenable you to
make:the:nedessarY computations to establish thatthe requirements of
Section1.04'6f Ordinance No..137 have been complied with..
Your attention to this matter is requested.
Very truly yours,
June C. Cunningham
Deputy City Clerk
C1i ol Rolling �Pe,
Dr. and Mrs. Gordon Bernstein
1 Ringbit Road West
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Dear Dr. and Mrs. Bernstein:
•
INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957
NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274
(213) 377-1521
July 1, 1976
This is to advise you that at a regular meeting on
Monday, June 28, 1976 the City Council voted to sustain
the decision of the Planning Commission on May 18, 1976
to deny your application for a conditional use permit
for construction of a tennis court on Lot 5-SF, 1 Ringbit
Road West which would result in development of the pro-
perty in excess of 25% ofthe total area.
The vote of the Council was as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers Crocker, Heinsheimer, Swanson
Mayor Rose
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Pernell
Very truly yours,
June C. Cunningham
Deputy City Clerk
¶1EULi E
224/0 Hawthorne Boulevard , Torrance , California 90505
Salle 4 (2/3) 378- 9395
June 29, 1976
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90278
Attn: Teena Clifton
Re: Dr. Gordon Berstein, Tennis Court
Honorable Council:
Enclosed you will find eight copies of our traverse calculations with.
the net area of Lot 5 (exclusive of Roadway and 10' easement on the
Northerly and Westerly sides).
We have calculated the area and find it to be 46,292.898 sq. ft.
The percent of net lot coverage with the tennis court is 24.95%. The
tabulation is as follows:
House 4700 sq. ft.
Pool 480 sq. ft.
Court 6168 sq. ft.
Stable Provision 200 sq. ft.
Total 11,548 sq. ft.
Percent Lot Coverage = 11548 = 24.95%
46,292.898
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
a .
ROGER A MEURER, R.C.E. 20200
President
RAM:cip
Encls.
B ',TRAVERSE SHEETI
A b C
._.9_ = b_ .
sin A sin 8 sin
CRSE, BEARING
NO.
1 N85-20-40W
2 S12-30-00W
3 S41-30-10E
4 N48-29-50E
5 S55-49-45E
6 N34-10-15E
7 N55-49-45W
8 S85-20-40E
9 N4-39-30E
N E + +
SE - + SW - - NW + -
LATITUDE DEPARTURE
DISTANCE
DIST. x COS. BEARING DIST. x SIN. BEARING
96.29
361.14
90.54
15.00
15.00
44.34
270.00
270.00
245.49
T(TAL NET AREA = 46,292.898 Sq. Ft.
COORDINATES
N'LY Ei LY
10,000 10,000
10,007.81E 9904.028
9655.236
9587.428
9597.368
9588.943
9625.629
9777.278
9755.363
10,000.042
9825.863
9885.860
9897.094
9909.504
9934.408
9711.019
9980.128
10,000.065
June 4, 1976
Dear Mr. McCabe,
Enclosed are various papers regarding the construction of my proposed tennis
court. Unfortunately the court would mean "coverage" of 26.46% of my property
as apposed to the limit of 25% imposed by ordinance #137 was recently passed
in February 1976.
My application to the Planning Commission for a conditional use permit was
denied on May 18, 1976. The denial was based largely on neighborhood opposition,
led by Dr. Labelle who lives on Flying Mane, so far away from the area that
he could not conceivably be affected. The only valid complaint was by
John Link who has already moved and who's house is waiting to be sold. At any
rate, the Planning CommissionwOaced great importance on the neighborhood
opposition. If allowed to introduce new evidence I can now produce a favorable
petition signed by a similar number of neighbors, some of whom are quite close
physically. The application was also denied because the plans are submitted
did not designate an area where a stable could be placed legally, eventho 200
sq. feet were allotted for a stable as required by the ordinance. Roer! Meurer
can correct this on the next set of plans, again if we can produce new evidence.
I wish you to assist me in appearling to the City Council and/or by re -applying
for a new variance. I think our chances will be better if I can intnoduce new
plans and a new petition and perhaps some other new arguments. Can this be
done through an appeal to the City Council or must we get a "de nova" hearing
or apply for a new variance in order to introduce these points. Teena Clifton
is to advise me today concerning these points. She is not clear on them and is
to consult the City Attorney. There is also some confusion as to the deadline
for appeal to the City Council. Is it 20 days after the hearing of May 18, •
which would be this coming Monday, or is it 20 days after the committee formally
reports it's findings, which just occurred a few days ago. If the deadline is
Monday, I will either have to submit a very hasty and probably inadequate
letter of appeal or go the route of re -starting with the Planning Commission.
Some additional points of interest are that (1) Forrest Riegel, Chairman of the
Planning Commission, stated for the record at the hearing that a court without
a fence is acceptable. This absured statement was made in replay to my noting
that ordinace #137 includes tennis courst under the 25% pnovision and includes
asphalt and concrete surfaces under a 50% provision. What is the difference?
"The fence is offensive; said Mr. Riegel and a court without a fence is O.K."
(2) The planning Commission defends the recently passed ordinance saying it
was worked on for many years.and that'll; 25% limit was chosen after considerable
controversy and compromise to reach that figure. It is certainly not absolute.
Eventho they may have worked on it for several years, this was not common kii,+w
knowlege and it is still a new law.
I am not, desirous of spending a great fortune, suing the City etc, etc, but I
do wish to have you represent 'me in the appeal process, to better present
the case, and provide a little more pressure towards a favorable consideration.
taordon A. Bernstein, M.D.
Home Phone: 377-2163 Office Phone: 531-3110 Ext. 236
May 11,976
Gordon A. Bernstein,M.D.
#1 Ringbit Road West
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
The Planning Commission
c/o City of Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Application for variance of Article 3, Ordinance #33,
Section 3.04
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Your favorable consideration for a variance of section.3.04'
is respectfully requested and isfelt justified on the following
basis;
A) Section 3.04 specifies that certain property improvements,
including tennis courts, shall not cover more than 25%
of the net lot area, etc. With construction of my tennis
court, the developed area will total 26%, an excess of 1%.
B) While I understand and am in sympathy with the general
intent of the ordinance, the numerical limit of 25% is.
still an arbitrary figure. It is most difficult to understand
why 26%, rather than 25%, is. in any way objectionable or is
a meaningful violation of the ordinance or of its intended
purpose.
C) Accordingly, granting of this variance is not materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the vicinity.
D) This ordinance was recently passed and approved on February 9, 197E
This is approximately 21 months after I purchased my property
with the full intention and expectation that I would be able
to construct a tennis court. A variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
which is possessed by other property in the same area, whose
owner's were able to begin construction at an earlier date.
Because of its "newness" this ordinance should be applied
quite judiciously.
Thank you for your favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
Gordon A. Bernstein,M.D.
• i
May 18, 1976
To: Planning Commission of the
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portugese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, Cal. 90274
Re: Request for issuance of a conditional use permit under
Article 111, Section 3.04, Lot Coverage Ordinance # 137
for a tennis court to Dr. & Mrs. Gordon Bernstein, Lot
5 SF, 1 Ringbit Road West, in the city of Rolling Hills,
County of Los Angeles, State of California.
We, the undersigned, are opposed to the construction
and use of a tennis court at the above residence for
the following reasons.
1. Said property does not meet the requirements of
Ordinance No. 137 of the City of Rolling Hills, Article
111, Section 3.04, Lot Coverage.
2. Said Property is so located that a tennis court
would greatly detract from the beauty and quiet of the
rural atmosphere which is so very important to the
residents.
3. The proposed' tennis court would also create a
noise problem in addition to an increase in traffic.
/� ,/i✓7 r,o ) (//�Yti4i .-
, - :\,,..., Le t( CA17-d--,—k` ago > i 1.
J
ADDRESS
,479
3 ,. A , </- Rd J4-' ,
I 2 / ,119-LAW/j2-6--(CI
71,4-77z ,//U/,_;()
•
May 1, 116
Gordon A. Bernstein,M.D.
#1 Ringbit Road West
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
The Planning Commission
c/o City of Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills, CA 90274
Re: Application for variance of Article 3, Ordinance #33,
Section 3.04
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Your favorable consideration for a variance of section.3.04
is respectfully requested and is felt justified on the following
basis;
A) Section 3.04 specifies that certain property improvements,
including tennis courts, shall not cover more than 25%
of the net lot area, etc. With construction of my tennis
court, the developed area will total 26%, an excess of 1%.
B) While I understand and am in sympathy with the general
intent of the ordinance, the numerical limit of 25% is
still an arbitrary figure. It is most difficult to understand
why 26%, rather than 25%, is in any way objectionable or is
a meaningful violation of the ordinance or of its intended
purpose.
C) Accordingly, granting of this variance is not materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the vicinity.
D) This ordinance was recently passed and approved on February 9, 1976.
This is approximately 21 months after I purchased my property
with the full intention and expectation that I would be able
to construct a tennis court. A variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right
which is possessed by other property in the. same area, whose
owner's were able to begin construction atan earlier date.
Because of its "newness" this ordinance should be applied
quite judiciously.
Thank you for your favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
/f
Gordon A. Bernstein,M.D.
DR. IRDON BERNSTEIN 5-SF
1 Ringbit Road West
Tennis Court Plan
Ord /3 7
Semi o n. 3. Q 4
erg l,ais
f 2 * 46 7L 4rE
Tr, to re) ✓e
s
`•', 78 a
�s
Figures by Roger Meurer, Engineer
3/15/76
PovDAt4 6G 4 •
� s 60a
1--t4--,/ 1 R) 3 S 8'
z6%
39 �a
c ^ e c r per r•�--,
hULI. .'JEILLS
nr:-771.TP, .F /577 e
EY