407, Construct a tennis court in th, Correspondence4L0141 R wA'IOM
0101LR• 4 Memo
*LIMY . 6CR1MOr
110u0uV wt AROrt
.yLRR L.:AMRLN
ARNOLD IIMON
• T Pais/dewCMRO. ZINC.
C M t A01.t1
RO.D O. walla
rim A. rtNIT[R
TNOMAS A IRj11t10. JR
4L1M t. RLNNCT•T
ItCVCN L. OCRI[r
NIL&AM ITRAyIt
ROUX. M. 0O00111I1D
OremONT s. DRCWR,
MITQpr.t;l C. AIIOr
13TMr L. Mt C.0
ICRw r O. aria
TK aTtMr.GCn
RQCnt�h[ RROwhe
O NALO ITt*N
M CMACL JLNA:N$
WILLUM I. RVDt..
DAVID • COMCN
TtItM R. •RACE•
OLJINN M. MARROW
CARD• w ..NCN
COLLrAN J. WALIn .R
JOAN A. 1LLCNCR
JLIIRt, A. 4A$44
rA Rt rIA JONII MOV•Rit
cocoon. M stump'.
Icor AC.161
DAN:LL / 'MUM
TNQMA1 M. JIMIO
M'CMLLL •CAI YON[R:I
ROItRT 3. $OIYn
1101caT C. CCCCQN
ItWM A Into/Co
SATIN wCAVCR
►AMILA A A�StII
MILL .ItRRt CA►ONNt
IINA M. Dt OCNNARO
RLvtd O CNNII
ROIiN D. MARRIt
PUT w CODAN
LAvACNCt I. *CACI
RATmCRAt L.suCRLAMD
Davie P. val•• t
Cr em.m M WALntR
C.I3tI MOOIN
inlet. R CAA
OCIORAM R. MARNAh
scan R. IMINTAN,
R+CHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
ATT0RyEvs AT LAW
♦ •RO/I$I OMA. CDR•ORA•'ON
November 15, 1989
rl� . SaA.A Y aola,wyRst
City Manager
City of Rolling Hills
2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Re,: Munie pn1 nehila R�latin?
Courts in Rear Yards
RICMARD R•CMAROs
u1U•4NI
Tr.•R4v.t.0..w DOOR
JS] sown. MQP $TR(LT
Los ♦MOLLLI. CAiIIORVIA.007I•I40.
Is Si •n-s+6.
CA•♦I.t AObaCf$
RICr1WAn
TLLICosuiAs
.IstM ►..QQR 1iI3I pt•-001s
•OTr• P.6O0 WSJ 11I7•I140.
wAi4CaS DIRMCT DIAL Nvmst
to Location .:•.i Tva.AaiA.
Dear Terry:
This letter is drafted to set forth and explain the
applicable aeotiona of then Rolling Hille Municipal Code relating
to the construction of tennis courts in rear yards.
The minimum requirements for the construction of a
tennis court are set forth in subsection E of Section 17.16.012
nP 4-ha fln11 4rr7 ui 11 s bt.r..l..ire►1 4.+cde. Ceetlesi 11. 1C. 017 mr•o aLret.
nnnAitinnnl 1,a0 TOrflit tat denotruo+ a tannin court and
subsection E of that section requires the proposed court to
comply with faWritetnts nnr%44 i i n► m . 171.+nAit Men No. 2 >L ayui1: oo that
the court not be located in the front yard. Condition No. 3
requires that the court shall not be located within 50 feet of
any road or street easement line.
In addition to these minimum requirements, the location
or a tennis court is also governea by several general sections in
Title 17 of the Municipal Code. Every lot or parcel in the RA-S
Zone shall have a rear yard of not less than 50 feet (Section
17.16.080). "Rear Yard" is defined as the yard extending across
the full width of the lot between the side lot lines and measured
between the rear lot line and the nearest line of the main
building (Section 17.08.280). The term "Yard" is defined as an
open space on a lot unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground
upward, except as otherwise provided in this title (Section
17.08.260). "Unoccupied and Unobstructed" is defined as the
absence of any man made features including but not limited to
..:c
•
c:.
Mr. Terry Belanger
November 15, 1989
Page 2
swimming pools and other structures and also includes the absence
of walls and/or fences whether man made or not (Section
17.08.260). A "Structure" is defined as anything constructed or
erected, the use of which requires a permanent location on the
ground (Section 17.08.230). Based upon these provisions, every
parcel in the RA-S Zone must have a fifty foot rear yard setback
wherein structures are not permitted. A tennis court clearly
falls within the definition of a "Structure" and therefore may
not be constructed in the fifty foot rear yard setback.
The Municipal Code provides two exceptions to the
requirement that the fifty foot rear yard setback be maintained
unoccupied and unobstructed by structures. The first exception
allows for boundary fences, driveways and parking areas to be
constructed in a "required yard" as long as they meet certain
other conditions (Section 17.28.022). The second exception
allows for "Accessory Buildings" to be built in the required rear
yard setback as long as they conform to other requirements of the
Code (Section 17.16.080). An "Accessory Building" is defined as
a subordinate building on the same lot or building site, the use
of which is incidental to that of the main building, and which is
used exclusively by the occupants of the main building (Section
17.08.020). "Building" is defined as meaning a structure as
having a roof supported by columns or walls (Section 17.08.060).
As a result of this second exception, barns and stables for the
exclusive use of keeping permitted domestic animals may be
located not less than 25 feet from any property line (Section
17.16.011(c)).
There are no other exceptions contained in the
Municipal Code to permit other structures, such as a main
building, a guest house or tennis court, to be located in the
fifty foot rear yard setback. In the absenceof such
exceptions, a proposed tennis court would have to comply with the
general requirements of the Code requiring the fifty foot rear
yard setback to remain unoccupied or unobstructed (Section
li.io.uou) in aaaition to the fourteen specitla •Minimum
Conditions" (Section 17.16.012, Subsection E). If the specific
requirements relating to tennis courts had been in conflict with
the general requirements by, for example, specifically allowing a
tennis court to be constructed in the fifty foot required rear
yard setback, then such specific provision may have governed so
as to allow the encroachment. However, there is no conflict
between the general provisions and specific provisions and
LheLetruLa buLh ?Luvlasivaaa a?Ply Lu LeasLLit.L L1aes luuaLivaa ut
tennis courts.
89111S 16$\00011.sh
•
Mr. Terry Belanger
November 15, 1989
Page 3
The same restrictions apply to the construction of
"Structures" in the side yard setback. In the RA-S-1 Zone the
side yard setback shall be not less than 20 feet. In the event
there are easements on the perimeter of the parcel 10 feet in
width, the side yard setback shall be 10 feet from the interior
boundary line of the easement, and in no event less than 20 feet
from the property line (Section 17.16.070(B)).
Based upon the foregoing, an applicant proposing to
construct a tennis court within the 50 foot rear yard setback
(Section 17.16.080), the 20 foot side yard setback in the RA-S-1
Zone (Section 17.16.070(B)) or the 35 foot side yard setback in
the RA-S-2.Zone (Section 17.16.070(A)), would have to first
obtain a variance from the sections referred to above along with
a variance to Section 17.20.022 (required yards shall be
unobstructed) prior to or concurrent with the consideration of a
conditional use permit for the proposed tennis court.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
,e/
Kevin G. Ennis
Assistant City Attorney
KGE:eh
cc: Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
891115 168\00011.0
• •
.i.
17.08.020 Accessory building. "Accessory building"
means a subordinate building on the same lot or building
site, the use of which is incidental to that of the main
building, and which is used exclusively by the occupants
of the main building. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S1.04,
1960) .
17.08.030 Accessory use. "Accessory use" means a use
customarily incidental and accessory to the principal use
of a lot or building located upon the same lot or building
site. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §1.05, 1960).
17.08.040 Alley. "Alley" means.a public thoroughfare
having a width of not less than twenty feet nor more than
thirty feet which affords only a secondary means of access
to abutting property. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §1.06,
1960).
17.08.050 Amendment. "Amendment" means a change in
the wording, context or substance of this title, or change
in the zone boundaries upon the zoning map, which map is a
part of this title, when adopted by ordinance passed by the
City Council in the manner prescribed by law. (Ord. 188
(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S1.07, 1960).
17.08.055 Boundary fence. "Boundary fence" means a
wooden fence constructed of four -inch by four -inch vertical
posts protruding fifty-four inches above ground and spaced
not more than ten feet measured from center to center and
attached thereto two-inch by six-inch boards running hori-
zontally, starting three inches from the top and spaced
fifteen inches from center to center, located along or within
five feet inside of any perimeter easement or in the absence
of such easement, within five feet inside of the property
line. Wire fencing may be attached to the inner side of a
boundary fence. (Ord. 188(part), 1981).
17.08.060 Building. "Building" means a structure
having a roof supported by columns or walls. (Ord. 188(part),
1981: Ord. 33 S1.08, 1960).
17.08.070 Building height. "Building height" means
the vertical distance measured from the lowest part of the
building to the top of the roof of the highest part of the
building (excepting towers and spires). (Ord. 188(part),
1981: Ord. 33 §1.09, 1960).
17.08.080 Building, main. "Main building" means a
building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot
on which it is located. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33
S1.10, 1960).
194 (Rolling Hills 8/83)
*
•
17.01170--17.08.230
17.08.170 Lot lines. "Lot lines" are defined as:
A. "Front lot line" means the lot line dividing a lot
from the roadway easement. On a corner lot the Planning
Commission shall determine which street frontage shall be
established as the front lot line.
B. "Rear lot line" means the lot line opposite the
front lot line.
C. "Side lot line" means any lot line other than a front
lot line or a rear lot line. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord.
176 S1, 1980; Ord. 33 S1.19, 1960).
17.08.180 Nonconforming building. "Nonconforming
building" means a building, or portion thereof, which was
lawfully erected or altered and maintained, but which,
because of the application of this title to it, no longer
conforms to the use, height, or area regulations of the zone
on which it is located. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33
S1.20, 1960).
17.08.190 Nonconforming use.. "Nonconforming use" means
any use of land or property that was lawfully established and
in compliance with all applicable ordinances and laws at the
time this title or any amendment thereto became effective,
but which, due to the application of this title or any
amendment thereto, no longer complies with all of the appli-
cable regulations and standards of the zone in which it is
located. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 51.21, 1960).
17.08.200 Planning Commission. "Planning Commission"
means the Planning Commission of the City of Rolling Hills.
(Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 51.22, 1960).
17.08.210 Story. "Story" means that portion of a
building included between the surface of any floor and the
ceiling above it. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S1.23,
1960).
17.08.220 Street. "Street" means a public or private
thoroughfare which affords primary means of access to abutting
property. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S1.24, 1960).
17.08.230 Structure, wall, fence. "Structure" shall
mean anything constructed or erected, the use of which
requires permanent location on the ground. Structures shall
also include fences, retaining wall, latticework and garden
walls. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. U-36 52, 1978: Ord. 33
S1.25, 1960).
196 (Rolling Hills 8/83)
L
•
t
4
1 / . UO . L4U-'-1 / . U0 . L7U
• i
17.08.240 Use. "Use" means the purpose for which land
or a building is arranged, designed, or intended, or for which
either Oisdor3mayyboccuppiijd or maintained. (Ord. 188(part),
1981: S1.26,
17.08.250 Variance. "Variance" means a variance from
the terms of this title as will not be contrary to its inten-
tion or to the public interest, safety, health, and welfare,
where due to exceptional or extraordinary conditions or
characteristics of such property or its location or surround-
ings, a literal enforcement of this title would result in
practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. (Ord. 188
(part) , 1981: Ord. 33 S1.27, 1960) .
17.08.260 Yard. "Yard" means an open space on a lot,
unoccupied and unobstructed from the ground upward, except
as otherwise provided in this title. "Unoccupied and un-
obstructed" means, as used in this title, the absence or any
manmade reatures, including, but not limited to, swimming
pools and other structures. "Unoccupied and unobstructed"
also includes the absence of walls and/or fences, whether
manmade or not. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord: 33 S1.28, 1960).
17.08.270 Yard, front. "Front yard" means a yard
extending across the full width of the lot between the side
lot lines and measured between the front roadway easement
line and either the nearest line of the main building or the
nearest line of any enclosed or covered porch attached thereto.
(Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S1.29, 1960).
17.08.280 Yard, rear. "Rear yard" means a yard •
extending across the full width of the lot between the side
lot lines and measured between the rear lot line and the
nearest rear line of the main building or the nearest line
of any enclosed or covered porch. Where a rear yard abuts
a street, it shall meet front yard requirements of this
title. Where an easement traverses the rear portion of any
lot and the owner of the servient tenement does not have
the right to use the surface for buildings, then the rear
lot line shall be considered to be the rear line of that
portion of the lot to which the easement does not apply.
(Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §1.30, 1960).
17.08.290 Yard, side. "Side yard" means a yard ex-
tending from the front yard to the rear yard between the
side easement line where an easement exists and the nearest
line of the main building or of any accessory building
attached thereto. Where there is no existing easement along
the side of the lot then the side yard shall be measured
from the side lot line. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33
§1.31, 1960).
197 (Rolling Hills 8/83)
•
.17.16.011
c. The property is sold, rented or leased; or
d. The Commission or the City Council finds that
t+le primary residence is no longer endangered by a landslide.
'lord. 216 Si, 1987; Ord. U-38 SS2, 3, 1979; Ord. 188 (part)
1981: ord. 187 Si, 1981; Ord. 182 Si, 1980; Ord. 170 SS1,
2, 1979; Ord. 150 SS1, 2, 1977; Ord. 146 Si, 1976; Ord.
12 Si, 1972; Ord. 52 Si, 1963; Ord. 33 53.01, 1960).
17.16.011 Accessory uses and structures. The follow-
ing uses and structures are permitted in zone RA-S as
accessory to a legally established single-family dwelling:
A. Swimming pools, including outdoor spas, baths or
jet pools;
B. Lath house, greenhouse or hobby shops not used
commercially;
C. Barns and stables for the exclusive use of keeping
permitted domestic animals and not used commerciAlly, pro-
vided that any such structure for the keeping of horses,
cows, goats or other farm pets is located not less than
thirty-five feet from any residence and not less than twenty-
five feet from any property line;
D. The outdoor storage of not more than three recrea-
tional vehicles, boats and trailers or horse trailers, pro-
vided such storage and/or parking is not located within fifty
feet of any roadway easement;
E. Satellite antennae (circular antennae or other in-
strument designed or used for the reception of television or
radio communications relayed from earth -orbiting satellite
or other transmitting media), and structure, if the follow-
ing standards are met:
1. The satellite antennae or solar panels shall
not be located in any required front yard or setback area,
and shall be hidden or screened from view from surrounding
properties and any roadway easement. Colors of the instal-
lation shall blend with adjacent environment and vegetation
to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission,
2. All satellite antennae installations shall be
ground -mounted and not affixed to a residential or permitted
accessory structure,
3. Not more than one satellite antenna may be in-
stalled on any legal building pad,
4. A residential structure, as defined in Section
17.08.130 of this title, must exist on the property,
5. All wiring and cables emanating from a satellite
antenna or plumbing devices from solarpanels shall be in-
stalled in compliance with applicable installation require-
ments,
6. A building, plumbing and/or electrical permit,
as applicable, shall be obtained prior to installation,
7. The installation shall not exceed a total over-
all height of fifteen feet from finished grade at total ex-
tension;
202 (Rolling Hills 11/87)
•
17.16.0410-17.16.120
17.16.070 Side yards. A. Every lot or parcel in the
RA-S-2 zone snail have side yards of not less than thirty-five
feet. In the event the perimeter easements of the parcel are
twenty-five feet.in width or greater, the side yard setback
shall be ten feet from the interior boundary line of the ease-
ment, and in no event less than thirty-five feet from the
property line.
B. Every lot or parcel in the RA-S-1 zone shall have
side yards of not less than twenty feet. In the event the
perimeter easements of the parcel are ten feet in width,
the side yard setback shall be ten feet from the interior
boundary line of the easement, and in no event less than
twenty feet from the property line. (Ord. 204 Si, 1983; Ord.
188(part), 1981: Ord. 183, 1980: Ord. 33 S3.07, 1960).
17.16.080 Rear yard. Every lot or parcel in the RA-S
zone shall have a rear yard of not less than fifty feet.
Accessory buildings may be constructed within the rear yard
provided they conform to other requirements of this title.
(Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S3.08, 1960).
17.16.090 Lot width. Every lot or parcel shall have a
width which conforms to Article IV of Ordinance No. 161,
(subdivision ordinance). (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 52
§2, 1963: Ord. 33 §3.09, 1960).
17.16.100 Lot area exceptions. Any lot or parcel
of record on the effective date of the ordinance codified
in this title which has less than the area required by
Section 17.16.020 shall be deemed to have the required area.
(Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 53.10, 1960).
17.16.110 Existing structures. Any structure legally
existing in the effective date of the ordinance codified
in this title shall be deemed conforming for the purposes
of Sections 17.16.030 through 17.16.090. (Ord. 188(part),
1981: Ord. 33 S3.11, 1960).
. AL..-
17.16.115 Driveways, limited access. Each residential
structure, as described in Section 17.08.130 of this title,
is required to be developed with one driveway as access
to a maintained roadway. Additional vehicular access ways
to roadways are prohibited, except as provided in Section
17.16.012 K of this chapter. (Ord. 211 S2, 1986).
17.16.120 Additional development standards. Premises in
RA-S zone shall be subject to all of the following additional
development standards:
A. Every single-family dwelling and mobilehome provided
for in this title shall be not less than twenty feet in width
and shall have a floor area of not less than one thousand
three hundred square feet exclusive of any appurtenant struc-
tures. .�
0o
1
204-1 (Rolling Hills 11/86)
•
0.28.022--17.28.060
17.28.022 Structures permitted in yards. A. Required
yards shall be maintained unoccupied and unobstructed from
the ground up of any structure except as follows:
1. Boundary fences are permitted in any front,
side or rear yard.
2. Driveways leading to a garage or other parking
area are permitted in any yard provided the driveway and
parking area do not exceed twenty percent of the area of the
yard in which they are located.
3. Parking areas, uncovered, are permitted in any
front or side yard; provided, that they do not exceed ten
percent of the area of the yard in which they are located
and; provided further, they are not located closer than
thirty feet from any roadway easement.
B. Nothing in this section permits a driveway or other
paved way in excess of fifteen feet in width except where
approved by the Commission as a part of the development plan.
(Ord. 188(part)„ 1981) .
17.28.030. Fence height. Boundary fences shall not be
located in any easement where their erection is prohibited.
(Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 S5.03, 1960).
17.28.040 Lot area reduction prohibited. No lot area
shall be so reduced or diminished that the lot area, average
width, yards or other open spaces shall be smaller than
prescribed by this title. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33
S5.04, 1960) .
17.28.050 Nonconforming use limits other uses. While
a nonconforming use exists on any lot, no new use may be
established thereon even though such other use would be a
conforming use. A nonconforming use is a lawful use existing
on the effective date of the zoning restriction and continuing
since that time in nonconformance with the zoning restriction.
(Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord. 33 §5.05, 1960).
17.28.060 Nonconforming use of conforming building.
The nonconforming use of a conforming building existing on
the effective date on the ordinance codified in this title
may be continued; provided that such nonconforming use shall
not be expanded or extended into any other portion of the
building, nor shall any structural alterations except those
required by law be made, and if such nonconforming use is dis-
continued, any future use of such building shall conform to
the provisions of this title. (Ord. 188(part), 1981: Ord.
33 0.06, 1960) .
208 (Rolling Hills 3/83)
•
November 14, 1989
City of Rolling Hills
Members of the Planning Commission
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
Re: Zoning Case No. 407
Applicant: Yu -Ping Liu
Dear Members:
EX42aviti)
NOV 14 1989
CITY OF ROLI JNG HIL.LS
By
Having had an opportunity to review Mr. Liu's October
16, 1989 letter to the Commission, as well as having had the
benefit of reflecting on the comments of both Mr. and Mrs. Liu as
well as those of some of the Planning Commission members, we
felt a few brief remarks were in order.
Reslectina Mr. Liu's letter, he makes four points that
we would like to address, in order.
First, he says he meets the City's requirements, asks
for no variance, views himself as being charged as a villain, and
the variances on both sides of the property at 37 Crest Road West
constitute overdevelopment.
In terms of meeting the City's requirements, we
disagree. It appears the Lius have, in shoe horn fashion,
contrived a way to squeeze a 7000 square foot recreational
facility into one of the smallest lots in the City and still
manage to be one percentage point under the maximum allowable
development. The Lius have, however, as all residents must, come
to the City seeking a conditional use permit. A conditional use
permit is also a City requirement. To grant such a permit, the
City must conclude as a matter of law and of fairness that the
proposed installation (1) will not be detrimental to contiguous
properties, (2) will not create a nuisance to contiguous
properties, (3) will be in conformity with the City's master
plan, and (4) will promote the general welfare. For the many
reasons enunciated in strong written and/or oral opposition by
each and every property owner contiguous to the Liu property,
how can it be fairly concluded that the requirements for a
conditional use permit have been met? If there are Commission
Members who feel that these tests have been met, we feel that
there should be a pre -vote disclosure of such an intention with
an explanation as to why the installation will not be detrimental
or a nuisance to contiguous property, will be in conformity with
the City's master plan, and will promote the general welfare.
City of Rolling Hills
Planning Commission
November 11, 1989
In terms of not asking for a variance, as indicated,
there is more to meeting City requirements than simply not asking
for a variance, just as there is more to "planning" than
suggesting to outraged neighbors and fellow -residents, as was
remarked by one Commission member, that people who do not like
noise can chose monastic existences as alternative life styles.
Most respectfully and as has been repeatedly pointed out in
letters and oral testimony, there is far more at stake here than
concerns over noise -- even though interference with the quiet
enjoyment of one's property is a very legitimate concern.
In terms of being a villain, the record is quite to the
contrary. No one views the Lius as villains. Indeed, the
difficult part of the decision that best fosters the community
interest in the Lius' proposal is telling a nice family "no" to
something they would like to do. But again, the Planning
Commission must serve that purpose or it serves no purpose at
all. Were it simply a matter of abstract measurement, then using
Mr. Liu's logic, there is no reason that either the Krauthamer
family or my family should be prevented from installing similar
tennis court edifices on our respective property. Both of those
properties can meet the math requirements and approval of the Liu
proposal would be a signal to us, for example, that the
precedent is set for our request to be allowed a similar
installation even should our neighbors vehemently object.
In terms of the Lius' claim that our property is
overdeveloped, this strikes me as no more than an inexcusably
irresponsible attempt to divert attention from the proposed
construction to another property. While we view that attempt as
attempt to shift the focus to a non -issue, in terms of "as
built" construction, we have developed but 12 percent of our
buildable lot size, not the 19 percent that the Lius' propose
developing their property. The rationale of why 12 percent
actual development of our property represents overdevelopment,
and the proposed 19 percent the Lius propose developing their
property represents a proper measure of development escapes us.
Moreover -- and we feel importantly -- the Liu "development"
involves the destruction of an adequate barn facility and its
replacement with a totally inadequate horse setup. Putting
horses in a 493 square foot facility (about one third the present
horse accommodations) will create sanitation problems, excessive
fly problems, etc. Were the City's own regulations in that
regard not so substandard, the Lius proposed development would
exceed the 20 percent limit they are now crowding.
Second, the Lius contend that noise is always present,
that the sunken court will reduce the noise level, and that the
City of Rolling Hills
Planning Commission
November 11, 1989
existing landscaping and proposed landscaping is such that the
court will be camouflaged protecting their privacy and the
privacy of their neighbors. The noise issue has been addressed
at length. We will say nothing more than to ask the members of
the Planning Commission how they would feel if they were living
in the Krauthamer home with bedrooms located just 75-feet from
the long side of an amphitheater style tennis court. How do they
feel the quiet enjoyment of their property would be compromised?
What would be the impact on the value of their newly acquired
property?
As for the mature and proposed landscaping, the Lius
have been critics both inside and outside the Planning Commission
about how their valued privacy has been compromised by having to
look at our garden. While weview this as another non -issue, we
will remind both the Planning Commission and the Lius that (as
their zoning case plans show, they asked the City and their
neighbors for a variance to construct, among other amenities, a
driveway in their front yard that was to be situated 16 feet away
from the east boundary and there bordered by established and
proposed landscaping. Our established garden was located just
east of the bridle trail that separated the properties and was of
no concern to anyone. We voiced no objection to the installation
as was promised by the Lius. Their request seemed reasonable.
Our privacy was protected, and had they constructed the amenities
as they said they would, their privacy was protected. Such was
not the case. The established landscaping -- about 70 feet of
mature trees and bushes separating the properties -- was removed.
The driveway was constructed six feet further east than proposed.
The driveway now abuts the bridle trail with absolutely no way to
plant the promised landscaping. And the result of all this is
that the Lius now look at our garden instead of the lovely,
existing landscaping and we now look at their driveway and must
do so permanently. We must also now listen to the Lius'
complaints about a view they created because they failed to
adhere to their own plans.
Third, the Lius say the drain issue is a non issue and
are appalled that a subservient property owner might have the
audacity to request from those responsible for the installation
some sort of assurances -- in the form of an indemnity -- that
the "problem" does not exist. Mr. Liu says that engineers should
be making that decision and that his engineer says there is "no
problem". If all that is so, is it so absurd to ask the engineer
and/or the individuals proposing this sunken facility that, given
their assurances, they "put their money where their promises
are"?
City of Rolling Hills
Planning Commission
November 11, 1989
Fourth, the Lius point to their fundamental rights to
do with their property what they want. We simply observe that
the fundamental right of any citizen to swing a fist, stops at
the end of another citizen's nose. The proposed tennis court
represents such an offense to not only the objecting adjacent
landowners, but to the City's interest in protecting and
preserving a rural atmosphere. Consequently, we do not regard
the decision in this instance to be a particularly difficult one.
We feel that the decision should be a firm but gentle "no" to an
individual who is hardly prevented from pursuing his "hour a
week" tennis game at any one of many tennis courts in this City
or adjacent communities. The City has its own courts just
minutes away from the Liu residence which responsibly advances
the interests of those who wish to pursue that hobby within City
boundaries, short of disrupting the peace and quiet of those who
adjoin him and/or bulldozing one of the City's smallest_lots to
erect a structure roughly twice the size of the largest homes the
City now permits.
Sincerely,
/62re
Roder E. Hawkins
(„me-X4-/-e
Christa M. Hawkins
37 Crest Road West
Rolling Hills, California
WA(NE G. ANASTASI
43 W. CREST ROAD
ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274
377-2706
September 18, 1989
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, Ca 90274
Honorable Commissioners:
a
SEP 1 9 1989
CITY Of ROLLING 1-1111.8
BY-Trg
1 would like to take this opportunity to firmly express my
opposition in regards to the proposed tennis court at the Lu
residence at #39 West Crest Road.
The following are a few of my concerns:
a) the noise and privacy impact of a tennis court within a
close proximity of the easterly wing of my residence
b) the drainage of approximately 7200 sq. ft. of paved area
which could significantly impact surrounding properties
c). demolition of the existing barn may dictate a less
desireable location for a future barn in regards to odors,
access, etc..
d) in a rural setting that this unique community provides, is
realistic to demolish a barn to construct something as
incompatible as a hardsurfaced tennis court with chainlink
fences,:concrete, and block walls?
• Please consider. the above impacts before making a final decision
on this mattelr.
Respectfully,,
Wayne 8.. inastasi
•
September 17, 1989
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California
Re: Applicant:
Property:
Request:
90274
g nil
SEP 181989
CRY OF ROLLING HILLS
Yu -Ping Liu
2.0 acres gross; Lot 240B-2-MS
Conditional Use Permit for a
Tennis Court
Dear Planning Commission Members:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the input you
requested to assist in evaluating the referenced proposal. Our
family resides at 37 Crest Road West, which is adjacent to 39
Crest Road West. Our family is unalterably opposed to the
construction of a tennis court at 39 Crest Road West for many
reasons. We feel that any such installation (1) will be
detrimental to our property and those other properties contiguous
to 39 Crest Road West; (2) will create a nuisance to our family
and contiguous properties; (3) will not be in conformity with the
City's master plan; and (4) will not promote the general welfare.
Without a doubt, construction of the proposed tennis
court will interfere with our family's ability to the peaceful
enjoyment of our property. Tennis courts are constructed to be
used and that use generates noise -- not only the sounds of balls
striking rackets and the courts, but the talking and/or shouting
of players -- to the disturbance of those within earshot. Our
bedrooms are all located on the part of our home nearest the
proposed site. Crest Road is about an equal distance from our
bedrooms as is the proposed tennis court. When individuals walk
and/or jog along Crest, the morning banter is easily heard in our
bedrooms. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the
sounds generated by the proposed tennis court would be any less
disturbing and would in fact be of far longer duration. Our
family has no interest in being sandwiched in between the noise
generated from Crest and the noise that will be generated from a
tennis court situated next door. Indeed, the noise pollution
that would be generated by such a. tennis court would be
significantly heightened by Mr. Liu's previously expressed
intention to contemporaneously install a basketball court on the
tennis court in what would become, in reality, a dual purpose
recreational facility.
Moreover, the proposed court presents a visual eyesore
which we would certainly like to avoid and is not in keeping with
the rural atmosphere of Rolling Hills. The proposed site would
• •
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
September 17, 1989
Page 2
be unavoidably apparant to our family in our back yard and would
be even more noticeable to some of the neighboring residences.
Even more significantly, the proposal involves radical
grading, coupled with enormous surfaces of cement that will act
as both a catch basin for rain and runoff water, thus creating
potential land slippage hazards and water runoff hazards to
adjoining properties. In Rolling Hills, the geology is fragile.
We view the Liu proposal as outrageously cavalier when it comes
to tampering with the geology in the manner described in his
proposal. We seriously doubt that anyone who may endorse the Liu
proposal would be willing to indemnify the adjoining landowners
against damage caused by slippage to their homes and/or
properties subsequent to any allowed installation of the proposed
tennis court due to the grading and/or dramatically increased
water runoff that the court would generate. Even putting aside
the noise pollution which, in and of itself is a compelling
reason to reject the proposal, is anyone, e.g., the Liu's, or his
engineers, or the insurance carriers of either, or the City for
that matter, committing to such an indemnity?
Putting parochial concerns aside, the proposed tennis
court will unquestionably constitute a nuisance to other families
in the area, as well as our family. In terms of noise pollution
Mr. Liu proposes to construct an amphitheater type facility which
will unreasonably interfere with the quiet enjoyment of every
property owner within earshot of the proposed court. While Mr.
Liu lobbies his neighbors for non -opposition to his facility, he
ignores the well being of those very neighbors from whom he
solicits support. In our view, it is unconscionable to subject
families, such as the newest neighbors, Dr. and Mrs. Richard
Krauthamer, to what may prove to be the brunt of such
inconsideration. While Mr. Liu's rationale is that he only plans
to use the tennis court himself and only one time per week, there
can be no guarantees that his enthusiasm for the sport won't
mount over time, or that he will not make is court available for
play by others, or that he will not some day sell his property to
someone that will have the court in constant play.
The proposed tennis court does not comport with what
is, at least, our understanding of the master plan, i.e., to
foster a rural atmosphere and to resist the overdevelopment of
parcels within the City. The subject property is a 2.0 acres
gross parcel. Though not depicted on the schematic which
accompanies the Liu proposal, the property is burdened by an
easement for a road located on the west side. Parenthetically,
the road easement is shown on the property recently bought by the
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
September 17, 1989
Page 3
Krauthamers. Not depiciting the easement which burdens 39 Crest
Road West, creates the misimpression of significantly more room
than actually exists. If the tennis court were allowed, the
property would be developed virtually wall to wall, boasting a
large residence, a large circular driveway, fountains,
waterfalls, bridges, patios, pool and barn. In short, the
property is already highly developed and, in our view, further
development would be inconsistent with the master plan to foster
open spaces and discourage such intensive development of our
properties. If this tennis court is allowed on a parcel of this
size, configuration and development, it is hard to imagine any
other parcel within the City where a tennis court could be
disallowed for being inappropriate.
In terms of general community welfare, for all the
reasons mentioned above and what we view to be a dangerous
precedent in terms of allowable development, we feel that the
interests of this community would be compromised by the proposed
development. This is not to say that, in principal, we are
opposed to the construction of tennis courts. For certain
properties of larger dimension where courts can be situated
without interfering with the peace and quiet of adjoining
residents, tennis courts could reasonably be installed. 39 Crest
Road West is not such a parcel.
We strongly urge that the conditional use permit for
the propsed tennis court in Zoning Case No. 407 be refused.
Sincerely,
hrista M. 'H'awkins
•
• •
Planning Commission
City of Rolling Hills
No. 2 Portuguese Bend Road
Rolling Hills, California 90274
September
SEP 1'8 1989
Re: Applicant: Yu -Ping Liu
Property: 2.0 acres gross; Lot 240B-2-MSTN OF R 'LUNG 1-1[L1$
Request: Conditional Use Permit for
Tennis Court a6y
Dear Planning Commission Members:
When our family moved to Rolling Hills and 41 Crest
Road West in particular, we were looking for our dream home.
We placed ourselves under great financi:1 burden in order to
obtain what most people want who move to Rolling Hills. That
is a rural atmosphere with quiet private serenity and a place
to raise our family. We now find our privacy and the use and
enjoyment of our property threatened by a family with an obsession:
to place a tennis court on a property with an outstanding horse
facility by dismantling his barn and riding ring. This property
does not command a tennis court and will decrease their greenspace
to the minimum and create an auditory, visual, and geologic
nuisance to the adjoining neighbors.
0n their last attempt to obtain their tennis court,
at which time the entire city council rejected their proposal,
they tied up our overburdened court system. They even had their
attorney subpoena us to appear in civil court as a witness with
two days notice.This was legal harassment! We were never called.
to testify.
While our objection to this court is much more then
just noise level and lack of privacy, obviously this is a major
factor. They can claim, and their hired consultants can claim
that their court will be soundproofed so as not to be a nuisance.
However, common sense dictates that 75 feet to our closest
bedroom windows is a similar distance from baseline to baseline
on a tennis court. If the persons at the baseline can hear the
opposing players, then we will also. This court will parallel
our property line and subject us to intrusive noise from one end
of our house to the other, as well as from our frontyard and
backyard areas. Dr. Liu has stated to us that he would use the
court once a week. If he wasnat well aware that his court would
be a nuisance, why would he need to make any concessions? Can
any objective person say that four or more voices on a court,
shouting scores and encouragement, in addition to the incessant
bouncing of tennis balls or even basket -balls, would not constitute,
(2)
noise pollution at a mere 75 feet? We think not! This does not
come close to normal neighboring noises such as distant voices and
pool noise. Any reasonable person who lives in Rolling Hills and
views the proposed site from our adjoining property should agree.
Probably, the majority of people who blindly signed Dr. Liu's
previous petition, without observing the site would agree. Finally,
you the planning commission members, must ask yourselves the
question: Would I want to live in such close proximity to this court?
This court will force our family to move from our dream home.
Our next point of objection to this court is one of
geological concern and water drainage. What will an excavation of
this size, this close to our property do to the fragile geological
stability that exists in Rolling Hills? What if the drainage system
fails in a heavy storm? It is a fact that an adjacent tennis court
had its drainage clogged by leaves and overflowed onto a neighboring
property. It is a fact that tennis courts in Rolling Hills have
moved and reduced local property values. It is a fact that any
engineering company is not free from making errors in water drainage
in this community. If that is not so, let them indemnify us against
water damage and land movement after this uphill court is built.
Where will the water drainage from this man made reservoir
go? As an aside, when we moved into our home last year and had to
drain our pool, we went to the expense of obtaining additional
hose, and with the pre -approval of the Yamaguchi family below us,
ran the hose tip right into their storm drain, so as not to expose
their property to water damage. Coincidentally, Dr. Liu, a few
weeks later drained his pool. We returned home late one night to find
a torrential stream of water mixed with mud extending down our
driveway, as well as Dr. Yamaguchi's driveway, and into Mr. Anastasi's
driveway and barn. We actually thought a water pipe had broken and
called the water company. They came that night and informed us that
Dr. Liu was draining his pool into the easement. We wonder what
his tennis court runoff would do to our access driveways and properties?
Water seeps below cracks and is insidious. Would we be constantly
repairing our private access roads? Who would pay for this? Is the
storm drain at the bottom of our properties adequate to handle this
additional. runoff? What geologic effect will this have .on the
neighbors below us? Is the emotional and financial insecurity of this
potential worth it to our family and our neighbors, to satisfy
one family's hobby? We think not!
Our family is not anti -tennis. One of our adjoining
neighbors at 35 Crest Road West, has a tennis court. It is appropriate
for the size of his property, and we can neither see it nor hear it.
(3)
To approve the Liu's court, would open a floodgate, which would
negate the intent of the conditional use permit, tennis court
restrictions, and site plan review. W'e.perceive this intent
to perpetuate the unique character and beauty of Rolling Hills
that attracted original and present homeowners to this area,
by maintaining privacy and preserving the community as intended
when it was founded in 1936. When all the adjoining homeowner's
voices are raised in unison in 1989, and saying do not allow
this tennis court, it is a red flag. Please rule accordingly.
Sincerely,
Richard Krauthamer
166W'bh041/(-c—
Kathleen Krauthamer
October 16, 1989
Dear Planning Commission Members:
My appeal for your consideration are as the following: 1>
The tennis court is designed to satisfy the city's very stringent
setback, total acreage percentage requirement. There is [jq.
variance requested. I am shocked to read that my neighbors `
complained about the improvement in the front yard as
overdevelopment even though it is approved by this Commission and
� the City. A law -binding citizen who follows all the rules and
regulations,set up by the city is now being charged as a villain.
I resent that. I view it -as my right to apply to build a tennis
'
court following the City's regulations and I sincerely believe
that my neighbor's variance on both sides of the lot is `
over -development. 2) There is going to be noise for any
activity in the backyard, whether it be my son'ssoccer drills,
badminton games, sWimming, or the horseback riding. The lot has
trees covering more than eighty-five percent of the proposed
tennis court area. Furthermore, the sunken courtdesign has
proven to cut down the noise level substantially, which we
demonstrated to the Hawkins at the Delpit's sunken court. We
intend to have the necessary landscaping to shield the court from
bothering my neighbors as much as possible, as weli as protect
both our privacy and theirs. 3) Regarding the drainage issue,
we have been draining our pool annually for three.years and we
have notheard any complaints. I am sorry to hear that Dr.
` Krauthauer had a problem and had not informed us until the
��i I �
���
|ilX1'"^=
1
:0U`� T , ri^OOO
��«�,~���
9
be intimidated
'
letter he sent to the Commission. The proposed site has
minimum grading required. I amappalled to read that Mr.
Hawkins said, "Is anyone, for example, the Lius, or their
engineers, or the insurance carriers, or the city for that
matter, committing to such an indemnity ?" No one can say
that any structure will not have adr inage problem with one
hundred percent certainty, including the Hawkins' recently
constructed house, or Mr. Anastasi's construction, or Dr.
Krauthauer.s future remodeling. If there is any potential
geological or drainage problem, this evaluation should be
`
made by professi 'nal engineers , not by lawyer's*or doctor's
claims without any proof. For example, last week, the court
Approved the proposed flight of the Space Shuttle,Atlantis
after three injunctions to protest the potential disaster of the
nuclear reactor on board. The court did not require one hundred
percent proof that the Shuttle would not explode as it is
'
impossible to make such a claim, but approved the flight because
of the minute possibility of such a disaster. We willidesign air --
court drainage system just like, or better than the courts build
recently at Mr. Delpit and Mr. La Caze's residences.
'
and I hope the Commission can see through the
I hate
to
�
smoke and put reason into consideration. 4) I came to this
+� b I admire the freedom and rights given to us as
country because a e
long as we obey the laws and regulations. I submitted a
petition of more than one hundred signatures not to show any
unfriendliness to my adjacent neighbors nor to demote the
'
general welfare. I just tried to prove that a lot of people
^'v~
share my dream and that Americans have fundamental rights to
live their own lifestyleswithin the law and not have it
dictated to them by their surrounding neighbors.
In summary, I am a law abiding citizen applyi`g to build a
tennis court for my family and personal use. I have met all of
the requirements and regulations concerning noise and landscaping,
and sincerely hope that the Commission is not being intimidated
and that they apply reason in considering my application.
3
Thank
you,
4
Yu Ping"Liu