103, Construct a residential planne, Correspondence17 Caballeros Road '.
Rolling Hills, Calif.
October 25, 1971
Rolling Hills City Council
Rolling Hills, California
Dear Mayor and City Councilmen: -
A recent article in the Breeze mentioned that
a public hearing would be held on October 29 relative to the
rezoning of the Shultz property. Since ye will not be able to
attend this meeting, we are writing this letter to let you know
that we are still 100% opposed, as were over 90% of the residents
at the La'Cresta Planning Commission meeting, to any change in
zoning that will allow more than one dwelling unit per acre. We
can see no reason why this property cannot be divided profitably
into one acre parcels with ent%rance from Crest Road.
If this Shultz zoning is allowed, it will be
the beginning of the end of our rural atmosphere. Under these
conditions we can see no reason to continuo to pay ever'
increasing property taxes on our land and this letter will
serve as a request:to also allow us to divide our property.
Sincerely,
Theodore Dy eu
e-4
Dorothy . Dyk eta
s
September 21, 1971
City of Rolling Hills Planning Commission
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
RE: Notice of Proposed Zone Change to Gordon W. Schultz dated 9-13-71
Public Hearing on 9-21-71 at La Cresta School
We hand you herewith this letter that as residents at 62 Eastfield
Drive, Rolling Hills, California, we wish to state that we are
opposed to the above captioned proposed zone change.
Very truly yours,
Pearl H. Willburn
Helen J. Plat ha
Mrs. John Farrow
12 Blackwater Canyon
Rolling Hills, California 90274
September 18, 1971
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 9027h
Gentlemen:
Because we will be away on vacation Tuesday,
September 21, 1971, and will be unable to attend
the Public Hearing on the proposed change of zone
on the Schultz property at 10 Johns Canyon Road,
we are taking this means of expressing our ob-
jection.
We feel the type of development proposed would be
only a first step toward. destroying the uncrowded
rural atmosphere which is one of the most important
features of the City of Rolling Hills. Can anyone
suggest,that Mr. Schultz is the only person who
will be given the right to acquire and develop
large parcels of property in this manner? We feel
it would be a mistake to set such a precedent in
even one instance.
We believe most people who own property in Rolling
Hills are strongly opposed to increasing the den-
sity of population anywhere on the Peninsula, and
to permit such a development in Rolling Hills is
unthinkable.
Yours sincerely,
1 Spur Lane
Rolling Hills
California 90274
September 16, 1971
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California
Gentlemen:
Because we are unable to attend the Public Hearing of the
Planning Commission on September 21, we are taking this means
of expressing firm opposition to proposed rezoning of the
Gordon Shultz property as outlined in your notice of Proposed
Zoning Change dated September 13, 1971.
In the past we have not expressed opposition to proposed
exceptions and to deviations from building codes in our neigh-
borhood on the basis that it is a personts inherent right to do
pretty much as he pleases with his own property.
However, the present proposal appears to seriously com-
promise and violate the basin concept of Rolling Hills as a
rural community in which,for us at least, the principal charm
and advantage is tho spaceous and uncluttered environment re-
sulting directly from the very restrictions which the present
proposal would thoroughly abrogate.,
If a precedent of increased housing density is established
the trend will accelerate, and it will be only a matter of time
until this community becomes another Rolling Hills Estates, or
even, eventually, a Manhattan Beach. In our opinion, the grant-
ing of this zoning change would be selling out those who have
paid high premiums to establish and maintain homes here expres-
sly because of the rural atmosphere resulting from the estab-
lished zoning restrictions.
To us, the proposed zoning change has the earmarks'.of
a commercial venture to which weare unalterably opposed.
Very truly yours,
Amt•sQ.)%str.344_,
Murray Ceebe, jr.
14
Marion H. Beebe